Melting steel beams from a fire (assuming it would be possible) would never allow a building to collapse into it's own footprint. It would instead compromise a section of the structure and if collapse occurred it certainly would not be uniform.
Watch architect Richard Gage's presentation on 9/11 which is illuminating in many ways, including information about the detection of nano-thermite in the rubble.
You don't understand how a structure responds to catastrophic structural failure. It's not necessary to assume melted steel beams. The mass of the building is supported by an array of columns. They have some failure limit load against which is applied a safety factor. Here comes the airplane smash, which probably compromises at least a few beams. And then along comes a chimney fire as the jet fuel is burned in what amounts to a furnace with an upcoming draft and a chimney outlet. The columns get hotter...and weaker. Their strength goes down and down, to 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and at some point the entire array of columns is precariously AT the limit load. What happens next? The weakest column fails in compressive shear (producing the 45-degree cuts). Then what happens? The loads are redistributed among the remaining columns. How fast does this take? The speed of sound in iron is about 4000 feet per second and hotter is faster, so if we consider a range of 100 feet, the loads are redistributed in 25 milliseconds (or less). Then what? Since the total load hasn't changed and the previous configuration failed, the configuration with the failed column will also fail, and the next weakest column will fail. Loads are again redistributed in 25 milliseconds (or less). It may not take a radius of 100 feet for the next column to fail. If there are a total of 100 columns, the entire lot will fail within 2.5 seconds (or less). Then what happens? In 2.5 seconds, the mass of the overburden will not have tilted significantly (inertial confinement, high angular inertia), but it will now fall at the acceleration of gravity for about 15-20 feet (whatever the distance between floors would be) and will build up a level of momentum that will greatly increase the loading on the columns of the next floor down. And the process repeats. Each collapsed floor adds to the mass. All the way down.
As for "nano-thermite," I don't give that any credibility at all, ever since I first heard it, years ago. If you go back to the fire environment, with flame temperatures near 3,800 F, the aluminum fuselage of the 767 is bound to melt (at a temperature of 1,220 F). (I've seen photos of the wreckage of aircraft that burned after impact. Conspicuous outpours of once-molten aluminum.) Liquid aluminum, like liquid water, will evaporate below its boiling point (non-zero vapor pressure). Aluminum vapor is an excellent fuel (it is the major constituent of solid rocket propellant used in space launch vehicles) and it produces aluminum oxide ash: "Evidence of 'nano-thermite'." This combustion occurs in the neighborhood of 6,000-7,000 F. Molten iron? No surprise. The thermite process is only the combustion of aluminum for the purpose of melting iron. So, the allegation that thermite was involved comes from someone with no idea of the combustion environment. (One of my background specialties is jet and rocket engine combustion chemistry.)
By the way, I have NOT read any official reports on the Twin Towers collapse. This is intentional, because I don't want to give anyone the satisfaction of accusing me of repeating "the narrative." I actually do not know what "the narrative" is, but I would be gratified if it backed me up.
With regard to the Twin Towers, they effectively assume the non-existence of many tons of aluminum in the form of the airplane fuselage and wings, subject to melting, evaporation, leading to combustion or condensation. Nano-scale spheres of aluminum would be expected to condense from aluminum vapor. And iron is known to oxidize at environmental temperatures, let alone combustion temperatures (e.g., as the fuel in "orange" sparkler fireworks). It's all the same chemistry.
Melting steel beams from a fire (assuming it would be possible) would never allow a building to collapse into it's own footprint. It would instead compromise a section of the structure and if collapse occurred it certainly would not be uniform.
Watch architect Richard Gage's presentation on 9/11 which is illuminating in many ways, including information about the detection of nano-thermite in the rubble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wml_NCZ7ROg
You don't understand how a structure responds to catastrophic structural failure. It's not necessary to assume melted steel beams. The mass of the building is supported by an array of columns. They have some failure limit load against which is applied a safety factor. Here comes the airplane smash, which probably compromises at least a few beams. And then along comes a chimney fire as the jet fuel is burned in what amounts to a furnace with an upcoming draft and a chimney outlet. The columns get hotter...and weaker. Their strength goes down and down, to 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and at some point the entire array of columns is precariously AT the limit load. What happens next? The weakest column fails in compressive shear (producing the 45-degree cuts). Then what happens? The loads are redistributed among the remaining columns. How fast does this take? The speed of sound in iron is about 4000 feet per second and hotter is faster, so if we consider a range of 100 feet, the loads are redistributed in 25 milliseconds (or less). Then what? Since the total load hasn't changed and the previous configuration failed, the configuration with the failed column will also fail, and the next weakest column will fail. Loads are again redistributed in 25 milliseconds (or less). It may not take a radius of 100 feet for the next column to fail. If there are a total of 100 columns, the entire lot will fail within 2.5 seconds (or less). Then what happens? In 2.5 seconds, the mass of the overburden will not have tilted significantly (inertial confinement, high angular inertia), but it will now fall at the acceleration of gravity for about 15-20 feet (whatever the distance between floors would be) and will build up a level of momentum that will greatly increase the loading on the columns of the next floor down. And the process repeats. Each collapsed floor adds to the mass. All the way down.
As for "nano-thermite," I don't give that any credibility at all, ever since I first heard it, years ago. If you go back to the fire environment, with flame temperatures near 3,800 F, the aluminum fuselage of the 767 is bound to melt (at a temperature of 1,220 F). (I've seen photos of the wreckage of aircraft that burned after impact. Conspicuous outpours of once-molten aluminum.) Liquid aluminum, like liquid water, will evaporate below its boiling point (non-zero vapor pressure). Aluminum vapor is an excellent fuel (it is the major constituent of solid rocket propellant used in space launch vehicles) and it produces aluminum oxide ash: "Evidence of 'nano-thermite'." This combustion occurs in the neighborhood of 6,000-7,000 F. Molten iron? No surprise. The thermite process is only the combustion of aluminum for the purpose of melting iron. So, the allegation that thermite was involved comes from someone with no idea of the combustion environment. (One of my background specialties is jet and rocket engine combustion chemistry.)
By the way, I have NOT read any official reports on the Twin Towers collapse. This is intentional, because I don't want to give anyone the satisfaction of accusing me of repeating "the narrative." I actually do not know what "the narrative" is, but I would be gratified if it backed me up.
There's plenty of evidence of nano-thermite or some other non-fuel related fuckery.
For example, watch from this point - https://youtu.be/wml_NCZ7ROg?si=dfnzCvchVjdzDpk_&t=2036
With regard to the Twin Towers, they effectively assume the non-existence of many tons of aluminum in the form of the airplane fuselage and wings, subject to melting, evaporation, leading to combustion or condensation. Nano-scale spheres of aluminum would be expected to condense from aluminum vapor. And iron is known to oxidize at environmental temperatures, let alone combustion temperatures (e.g., as the fuel in "orange" sparkler fireworks). It's all the same chemistry.