And how many experiments with melted aluminium in conditions similar to those at the WTC have you performed to come this conclusion with such confidence?
That doesn't sound very "open minded".It is also extremely unlikely that any melting could take place in the pulverised remains of the collapsed buildings, as they would have been oxygen deprived and lacking any ready fuel source.
First, you would have to confirm the amounts of melted metal to calculate the energy required for the phase transformation (the smaller the individual melted pieces, the more local the intense heat could be). Then, with these numbers, you would have to look at what could act as fuel in the rubble; including things like local pockets of jet fuel, furniture etc. Potentially, a mix of different materials could be a potent fuel source under the right circumstances. You'd also have run a lot experiments to check whether the ruins would definitely block all ways of getting oxygen from the surroundings.
You'd also have to rule out, as with the above, that the fires/kinetic energy of the airplane in some small areas provided enough heat to melt steel.
(fun fact: at least some steel can burn)
Again, which experiments have you run?The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.
Unless you believe that they were brought down by demolition, it's not strange that they didn't look like demolitions.
Bookmarks