Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ObieX
I didn't say that the top floor would/did evaporate. That wouldn't make much sense. Floors 1-80? Probably crushed into a fine powder.
|
You're seeing powder being forced out of the top floors in the picture linked.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ObieX
Not really. The fire is on the inside and heat travels up. So people near the holes could be fine while the fires behind them blaze up into the floors above them. I'm sure they wouldn't have been hanging out of that hole if it was pleasant inside.
|
That's interesting, but the fire died down quickly after the explosion. Even Dilbert, my eternal 9/11 conspiracy foe, has agreed that the et fuel burned maybe 10 minutes. All the fire after that was office furniture that was required to meet fire code. What this means is that the same types of fires that have happened in every other steel reinforced building in history (none of which have ever collapsed due to fire) were what caused a collapse in a building designed to be hit by a plane and have a sever fire? That seems rather odd. In addition to that, the picture shows that the building did not give at the crash point, where one would assume the impact damage would have effected the strength of the building. It started collapsing from the top. Admittedly, this is difficult to see in the videos, but the picture linked above is from a video and when it's slowed down enough, one can see that before the point of impact gives, the top begins to collapse. This would assume that the heat at the tope of the building was harder on the building than a Boeing 747-200 crash and subsequent fire.
Again, this is counterintuitive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ObieX
I don't see how it would be very little heat when it was jet fuel burning. That alone suggests that it was rather hot. If the metal supporting the inside weakened enough it would begin to collapse inward and down, pulling the roof down since all that is connected in there. Once the one floor goes and falls onto the weakened floor below that one will go, then you have 2 stories worth of weight compacting on a 3rd weakened floor etc.. At some point soon after that the floors don't need to be weakened due to all the extreme weight.
|
The jet fuel burned for only a few minutes, at a temperature not only not hot enough to melt steel, but to even weaken it in any meaningful amount, and then all that was burning was paper, chairs, desks, carpet, etc. These all burn relatively cold. Not only that, but you're talking about heat from a small fire in only one place in the building spreading across an amazing amount of steel, and not just rising, but spreading in all directions. I would ask why you think that steel far away from and above the fire would be hotter than the steel at the fire.
I understand the idea of pancaking, or the possible domino effect of collapsing floors. I don't know if there's a reasonable explanation as to how the pancaking originated.