There is much confusion about the mass-media lies thatpromote the theory that air fires get hot enough to weaken ormelt steel... enough to cause steel skyscrapers to collapsecompletely at FREE-FALL speeds (as if all the lower materialscan suddenly, and simultaneously, and symmetrically lose alltheir strength at the same time, after such long delay periods,to allow perfectly vertical collapses through the path of highestresistance).Why is it that controlled demolitionexperts NEVER USE KEROSENE ORJET FUEL AIR FIRES to completelydemolish highrise buildings?Why?FACT:EVERY TIMETHEY NEED TO USE STEEL CUTTERCHARGES (EXOTHERMIC CHEMICALREACTIONS TO CUT STEEL) PLUSDEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES TO FULLYDESTROY BUILDINGS DOWN TO THEGROUND FLOORS! (eg. Thermite/thermate)THE ONLY OTHER WAY A STEELFRAME BUILDING CAN COLLAPSE ISFROM EARTHQUAKES, AND NOSTEEL BUILDING HAS EVER FALLENCOMPLETELY TO THE GROUND INTHE HISTORY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING!
I have heard the conspiracy theory of the WTC Towers being brought down with demolition charges. I also watched your YouTube video link. All I can tell you is that the conspiracy theory is bogus. The way the towers fell was totally consistent with an impact from an airliner, thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning inside, and structural collapse starting at the center of the building at the area of impact and continuing downward to the ground. The floors below the airplane impact collapsed from the force of hundreds of tons of debris hitting them with enough velocity to cause structural failure. They continued to collapse a floor at a time like dominoes. It is all very consistent with the design of the towers. If you don't believe me, spend some time in college learning about physics, thermodynamics, and structural engineering, and then study the Tower's design. You won't find anyone who is educated as such making claims about controlled demolition of the WTC towers, because it just didn't happen that way. Sorry to disappoint you. Just remember, there's plenty of junk-science out there, but the laws of physics only work one way...all the time.
If a fuel fire is allowed to have sufficient fuel, air, and time, with no cooling of any kind, then yes, it could cause the melting of steel. That said, I seriously doubt that what was seen in the WTC incident. Demolition engineers do not use the fuels that you mention because of the time it would take for the fires to get hot enough, plus the issues of control of those fires. The problem is, people generally do not understand the technical side of such issues, and have been raised to believe what they are told. If it is on television, or in the newspapers, or in a photograph, then it is true. To this, I say absolutely not because there are ways to fake what is seen. As an example, the Pentagon, how many people realize that no aluminum frame aircraft is going to survive penetrating the first outer wall of that building, much less the other two, plus the supporting 'I' beam columns in the rest of the building that the aircraft body would have to shear through, which in all subsequent photos, those 'I' beams were untouched. While there are those of us who realize these things and say wait a minute, what about this point or that point, most people will not, and do not. Your points are valid, but the people tend to be stuck on the idea that the government always tells the truth, and that these things were the result of a terrorist attack.
Steel 'boilers' are full of water. Automobile engines are water-cooled. They don't use kerosene to burn a building down because it would cause much smoke, pollution and fire hazard. The towers fell vertically because the lower structure remained intact until pounded upon by the accumulating weight of the floors above. It lost strength from the top down, not from the base which would have cause it to fall over. This is due in part to the flexibility of the structure below. The shock wave becomes longer and less intense as it travels down the building, away from the fall line. The region close to the fall line is forced to feel the full force of the falling floors that fell not from the heat (as in the initial structural failure) but from the weight of the floors above.
It is not the vertical members that get weak when heated. It is the horizontal beams and trusses. Secondly, and this may be a caveat in your question that is besides the point, engineers vastly prefer to use copper to make boilers because it is a metal that transfers heat very quickly and does not store up heat. In some ways, insulating the trusses with glass insulation may have contributed to their weakening, but you won't hear about that in the media. You won't hear about most heat related physics anywhere because it is a well guarded and professional topic. I write a web page about thermal coats so I know a little about it. Also, the steel in a beam only needs to have the lower surface heated until the grain boundries are weak or the carbon starts to come out of solution. Once a small crack starts, it propagates. That is why the coating of beams and trusses would be expensive as it must be hard and tough and heat resistant. Paint is manufactured almost exclusively to change color of a surface, not to engineer it in any way. We need more paint and coatings quality and I am one person whose career was destroyed as capitalists make decisions that this is one area that they don't need to spend money on with people and then also not for materials. Capitalism and your question have more in common that you guess. And that's getting into the politics of the USA. But you are asking GOOD questions - keep it up and you will learn a GREAT DEAL MORE!
