So rayzor...Can you tell me that everything you said about the flame and heat in the building is true since you harp on that?
Though if you don't want to get into this, I understand...
I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion, start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires. You should scan the following paper.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported, and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.
At 600 C the steel is down to about half it's strength, and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.
The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition, but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires, you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.
Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires.
I want to see if you actually understand what you write or if you just think the shit you post supports your position.
You don't appear to understand that the paper I referenced is generic, that is it applies to high rise office buildings in general, in the case of the WTC, the only evidence I can use ( if I refer to NIST you'll just go bezerk again ), so the best evidence is the video evidence, which shows fires across multiple floors, heavy black smoke from across entire floors. After 30 minutes a 600 sqm fire would reach a far field temperature of 800C, so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative, and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel.
The inputs and assumptions are spelt out in detail in that paper.
WRONG!
I do understand it is a generic paper and I want to know if you understand it.
Did you miss this quote?
"The larger the enclosures and the lower the thermal inertial of the linings, the
FASTER (emphasis mine) the cooling phase is since the smoke layer spreads over larger areas and heat dissipates faster."
Or this one?
"Travelling fires, like those observed before the WTC collapsed, produce thermal environments of lower temperature that last for many hours, thus representing
LONG-COOL FIRES(emphasis mine). "
Or this one?
"When a small fire is in the vicinity of a structural element, the temperature corresponds to the near field (in the order of 1300°C). This heating would last for about
10 min to 20 min (emphasis mine)for typical office fuel loads (in the range from 20 to 40 kg/m2) independently of the fire size."
So, it seems your legitimate sources are actually CONTRADICTORY to your claims and stance.
Furthermore:
"After 30 minutes a 600 sqm fire would reach a far field temperature of 800C, so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative, and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel. so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative, and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel."
The floors of WTC 1 and 2 were not even close to 600 square meters each. More like 100:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)"... but to meet the Port Authority's requirement for 10,000,000 square feet (930,000 m2) of office space, the buildings would each have to be 110 stories tall."
My math: 930,000/110 = 8454.54 meters
2=91
Poll