|
Will, I'm enjoying this thread so far, and I hope that we can keep the discussion limited to accepted facts and observed results of the attack. But that's me, and obviously host and Ustwo disagree with me, which is fine.
Other than to blow sunshine up your ass, my point is to ask what you think of my previous post of a plausible explanation for the higher temperature that would occur. It seems pretty clear to me that the fire could have easily burned hotter than the 210 C ingition point of the jet fuel given I can set a house on fire using the same mix of jet fuel and achieve 1100 F ON AVERAGE. Since steel loses riditity at the same 1100 degrees, we'd clearly need a higher temperature than produced in an average house fire to reach the critical point in 47 minutes, but I don't see where that's an unacheiveable task given that there were fire resistant materials known to be burning at the time. Given the collapse of the structure, all that was needed was for the focal point of the fire to be in a critical area.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|