You accuse me of lying, I take personal offence to that, you need to show me where you think I've lied.
Just to set the record straight on a minor point, you claimed to not know I was talking degrees C, and wrongly assumed I was talking degrees F, I did in fact say 1000 C, and maybe you missed it, so I'll give you a pass on that. I'll also accept that your phone autocorrected nitromethane to nitroglycerin, a funny car on nitroglycerin would be something to watch.
BTW. I can't recall when I've ever seen a scientific paper using degrees F.
I use that word alot for reasons unimportant...Plus my phone does not show long words if I use its suggested spelling to save time, just the beginning part and to be honest I hate typing on my phone. I also get impatient and never proof read anything I post up. I may proof read it later after I post, sometimes, sometimes not, I don't know, I can't explain some things I do. I also checked out the temp, there was nothing at first, I also started right away when you started talking about glowing I was speaking of Fahrenheit. It is natural, just like Celsius is for you.
Yes many papers are in Celsius here...But they are stated that, some are Fahrenheit...For you obviously, you wouldn't think anything other than Celsius.
Also...If you want to get into the lies I was speaking about...It's all in the first post on this page... It's up to you, if you are gonna try and play nice and stop that shit, fine, I will try and play nice as well.
No you can't say that for a fact without stating your reasons. You might think you have, but facts are stubborn things, they need proof.
There were many sections of where the fire reached temperatures high enough to melt aluminium and weaken steel. Reports of red molten metal flowing from the building are well known, as I've already stated, my contention is that was not molten steel but rather molten aluminium, which doesn't start to glow red until you get up into the 800C or so, molten aluminium is just silver colour.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.
I have already stated some easy facts to argue this...You don't address them...You still have never even addressed my very first question lol. You just keep posting things for other people or NIST...But since you are trying to play nice, I will as well, just don't expect detailed answers until you start using your own words.
Also, remember, I don't need to look up information, this is my wheel house, this is what I do, if I really have to, I can dig it up in an education book...The information isn't secret. This is why I prefer to discuss this with engineers or people of the sort. Whenever I would do presentations to people that have no idea about the field, the presentation is COMPLETELY different.
As for your NIST quote...
Are you really telling me there was a mag fire in that building? Have you ever seen one in person? There is no mistaking them, they are brutal..Not to mention a different spectrum of light.
Not to mention their numbers are wrong...Are you telling me they don't know the mag and zinc mixture on the aluminum of the 767? "Depending on alloy mixture lol" ?? Does this not seem suspect to you?
Without getting into the numbers, you aren't gonna IGNITE that aluminum with how much magnesium it had in it at even 800 degrees (or even double that)..This is dumb, and should appear suspect alone...
Even if magic did happen...We would have seen it clearly on the video evidence.
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?
Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?
If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.
If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?
You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.
And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.
If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.
Even if weakening the support structure by 100 percent, you still have all the filler in between, it would never equal a free fall.
Unless you have a wand..
On WTC1 and WTC2 one wall collapsed first, south wall on WTC1 and east wall on WTC2, so some of those parts that were tilted would have had little support from lower floors, those would have been free-fall or close to free fall. There are lots of videos showing the top tilted over as it collapsed.
From the NIST report 6.14.4
The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass
at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large
building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of
deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy
released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as
seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the
demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
That's the official explanation, so why do you think it happened differently?
BTW. I'll give you a pass on the ad-hominem attacks, since I think this is an important debate, and a corrosive conspiracy that should be challenged. But don't push it.
Does this really make sense to you?? This would be possible if there were only horizontal supports magically floating in the air.
Do you not feel this is just double nonsensical talk? Can you not see it? No different that using the phrase "make America great again", and pretending everything is fixed after just that phrase.
Even if you cut the building in half, let the top half drop and achieve terminal velocity, then let it hit the bottom half, you still wouldn't have a free fall situation.
I really am perplexed on how this is so hard to grasp for you...
Simply, things just don't work that way in reality.
Especially with so many numbers and specifications being off in the NIST reports, broad phrases like "vaporized" being used countless times, 1000s of eye witnesses and testimonials not being used, etc etc etc etc...Then on top of that, leaving out building 7?
Does this not seem suspect to you?
You must be forcing yourself to choke on this for some other reason right?
Poll