Okay, you've stopped reading for understanding. Fuel-air explosions are a thing; we base automobile engines on them. I think I've stopped explaining, since you aren't listening.
You think an explosion is going to instantly heat the structural steel to weaken it that much? It's not just temperature but heat. It's takes a lot of sustained heat. The black smoke tells you the fires were burning poorly anyway.
I don't think any such thing; there was no explosion, only a fire. It took the better part of an hour for the fires in the Twin Towers to heat soak the structure at high temperature. No great difficulty in a steel structural member soaking through to a uniform temperature. (I have been told by another disputant that the steel is such a good conductor, the heat was diluted all throughout the building. So pick your story.) Maybe the jet fuel was producing soot, but the burning aluminum would have been a different story.
Damaging explosions where I said they were.
Okay, you've stopped reading for understanding. Fuel-air explosions are a thing; we base automobile engines on them. I think I've stopped explaining, since you aren't listening.
You think an explosion is going to instantly heat the structural steel to weaken it that much? It's not just temperature but heat. It's takes a lot of sustained heat. The black smoke tells you the fires were burning poorly anyway.
I don't think any such thing; there was no explosion, only a fire. It took the better part of an hour for the fires in the Twin Towers to heat soak the structure at high temperature. No great difficulty in a steel structural member soaking through to a uniform temperature. (I have been told by another disputant that the steel is such a good conductor, the heat was diluted all throughout the building. So pick your story.) Maybe the jet fuel was producing soot, but the burning aluminum would have been a different story.
I thought you were harping on fuel-air explosions.