Like wading through mud wearing treakle pants...
In one NIST report it claims:
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius
However their own reports suggest that steel from the impact zone could not have been above 250C (400C at central core). [http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechanic...isofSteel.pdf]
Why can't experts in the same company even decide on the truth?
The strength of steel at 1100C is 10% of room temperature and at 250C it is over 90% of its original strength.
They also claim in the same document (Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster) that thermite can't heat steel to 700C whereas a short jaunt over to wikipedia reveals that it can reach temperatures of 2519C in seconds.
Just who do they think they are? What is going on? Who are we supposed to trust? Why aren’t we allowed to swear in these forums? I have been struggling with this all night and I have reached the end of my tether. The whole sordid affair is beginning to tick me off. These guys are supposed to be the top 200 structural engineers in there field. They have had years to come up with a plausible story. Millions have been spent, thousands of pages produced. Why can’t they give me a straight yes or no.
I guess my question is: is it conceivable, in a month of Sundays, each falling on a blue moon; that the impact, coupled with the fire, could have brought down both towers in the way we saw?
*exhausted and slightly out of breath* cheers.