Ah, I had practice and had to leave in the middle of posting earlier.
The temperature of a common candle flame has been reported to range from 1670 degrees K (2546.33 degree Fahrenheit) to 1930 K (3014.33 degree
Fahrenheit)
Candle flames are not comparable to office fires. Candles were designed to burn efficiently and work completely differently. The same goes for
magnesium firestarters, fireworks, dynamite, etc., etc., just in case you were planning to use those later.
Exactly, the steel failed long before the melting temperature was reached.
We're aware of this claim. There's no evidence enugh columns were heated to high enough temperatures. Take into account weight redistribution and
over-engineering and you have even more of a problem with this idea.
I was right, you didn’t read it or you don’t understand it, because that is a very poor summary of the collapse mechanism.
The bit about the falling slab of concrete
is their explanation as to what set off the collapses, right? And it has absolutely no evidence in
favor of it, right? Right. And yet you accuse
us of conjecture.
Both collapse sequences started when the damaged floor slabs inside the buildings began to sag, causing the exterior walls of the buildings to
bow inwards by up to 10 inches. Pulling the walls inward caused them to loose much of their structural strength, regardless of what temperature they
were at. Once these walls were pulled inward this much, global collapse was only a matter of time.
That's a handy theory for the debunkers; I'll admit that. But on top of being totally unreproduceable scientifically, no matter how hard scientists
try to reproduce it, it doesn't explain many features of the collapses either. For example, it does not explain why the towers fell straight down,
because as soon as the theoretically intact top portions of the buildings hit the collapsed region, they would be jarred and fall off the side of the
building into (very large) pieces.
Your theory holds that as soon as the top part of the building hit, theoretically still intact, it continued perfectly vertically and symmetrically,
which should not have happened (at least it would be improbable to an extreme). Also, as I said, no one has been able to reproduce this effect in any
lab tests so far. The only times we've seen this type of collapse were during the WTC collapses, and the Oklahoma City Bombing. No other instances
ever in our history have such collapses ever taken place, and they are
not reproduceable, meaning they
are not scientifically
verified.
Nor does the theory explain the rapid rates of collapse, the total and complete pulverization of all the concrete in the buildings, the lateral
ejection of debris, or the demolition squibs, and it does not compromise the fact that the fires were too weak to cause
any of this to happen
in the first place. So it's back to the drawing board for you and NIST.
The New WTC Challenge! 
The 9/11 Research Site has a challenge in regards to this. They're challenging
anyone, scientists, engineers, average Joes, to recreate
the WTC/Oklahoma City collapses, whether it's out of "straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc." No one has been able to
do it so far, and no one can apparently explain
why it will not work, no matter how hard they try, or what materials they use.
I suspect it's because
the odds of a perfectly symmetrical collapse resulting from structural damage is slim and none. And not only did it
happen at the WTC on 9/11, it happened
three times.
Here's their challenge, if anyone's up for it:
911research.wtc7.net...
There was evidence of this bowing before the collapses of both towers.
There is evidence of the towers bowing
after the collapses had started. There is no evidence of them bowing beforehand.
There was also clear evidence that interior floor slabs fell.
Post it.
[edit on 26-7-2005 by bsbray11]
~
