Nonsense on all counts.
To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength. Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely.
Explosives do not "melt" anything. They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel. This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material.
I've done metal fabrication for fun and profit over the years. In order to get steel into a condition where it loses a sigificant percentage of it's strength, one typically uses something like a rosebud. This mixes hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen in a very controlled manner. You then choose the ideal area and configuration to heat a carefully chosen weak point in the material. And wait. And wait. And wait. When you finally achieve the weakening needed for the job you want to do, you drop the torch in a panic and reef on the work like hell.
Excuse me but what is your point? You are simply explaining a case where energy inputs less radiative, conductive and convective heat losses results in a slow but steady buildup of thermal energy.
It's just a matter of asking, what does it take to put enough joules into a material to soften it. What amount of material burning toes that.
You need to set up the question correctly to get a meaningful answer. I may or may not choose to dig out my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and work the problem if you do. Probably not since vastly more work than I am capable of has already been done by
AE911Truth.org.My point is, of course, that the environment plays a big roll in the tenability of whether the amount of energy in the potentially combustible material was sufficient to weaken the structure enough to cause a collapse. Note that none of the official investigators would release the visualizations they supposedly generated in spite of numerous requests from the engineering community. Last I heard. Without these, it is pointless to try to model the thermal inputs to deduce the plausibility of the initiation sequence.
Even if that could be done, there are countless other show-stopper problems with the 'official conspiracy theory' that a gaggle of Muslims in cave half way around the world did it.
Okay, I understand. I don't care about their "visualizations" or scenario modeling.
There is no problem with simply looking at sources of heat and it's effects on nearby materials in an objective manner. This is the way to understand things.
First, it is necessary to debunk the idea that "jet fuel won't melt steel." By simply noting that there is no relation between melting steel and a building collapsing.
Second, it is necessary to understand that an ordinary fire certainly will generate temperatures sufficient to weaken steel such that a steel building collapses. This is done by looking at the energy content (joules released) by jet fuel burning and by office contents burning.
Actually if you are lazy, which is not stupid, it's easier to just put a piece of rebar in the charcoal while grilling some hamburgers, and then pull it out and see how easy it bends.
These are very simple things, really.
