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.
Not me. I've only talked about a straight-out fire. People have said there were explosions, but they were mistakenly describing blow-outs from compressed floors. Fuel-air explosions are immense, but they are also tricky to contrive. But it is an interesting thought. I hadn't considered that the airplane fuel might have been expelled as an aerosol during the collision process. That could have made the fire more furious.
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.
Not me. I've only talked about a straight-out fire. People have said there were explosions, but they were mistakenly describing blow-outs from compressed floors. Fuel-air explosions are immense, but they are also tricky to contrive. But it is an interesting thought. I hadn't considered that the airplane fuel might have been expelled as an aerosol during the collision process. That could have made the fire more furious.
Not fire but SUPER FIRE!!!