At the time of 911 I did question the temperatures generted by burning Hi-octane.
The simple facts of temperatures:
~1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.
So they steel DID NOT melt unless somehow an incredible pressure was exerted ATMOSPHERICALLY on the two tower of the WTC.
However, steel does not need to melt to weaken, yet even if the jet fuel burned at its max tempertaure, which it did not, the steel would still be 50% relative strength. enough still to support the builing, as civil engineers will tell you 33% of the steels strength yield was sufficient to support the towers.so at half strength the steel is stills trong enough not collapse.
What about distortion, steel would have distorted signnificantly across the 'lit', buring levels of the WTC towers, with a notable difference between the side the plane struck and the side the plane did not strike. I believe the steel did not buckle, support from concrete, which was still solid, and the conduction of heat through the steel would have prevented it from doing so. Also HAD it buckled it would be observeable from the outside prior to the collpase, and it would not have collapsed at free fall in a uniform vertical DEMOLITION, it would have collapsed such that the top of the tower would have leant away from the impact side. possible sparing the bottom half of the towers as well.
However, in the rubble there was found melted steel, this could NOT have been caused by the jet fuel, and suggests maybe some other side reaction, themite or a eutectic reaction.
A eutectic reaction requires some form of sulphur pollutant, at which the temperatures would have bee sufficient to form iron sulphide. The eutectic principle sates that at sufficient temperature a component of lloy will become molten reguardless of the melting point of transition metal used. So the Iron sulphide would have become molten, in so doing, it would have further corroded through the steel lattice permeating iron and sulphur futher into the steels supports, and perpetuating the process further, as to tower collapse.
However I do not know if New York has sufficient Sulphur Oxide levels in its local atmosphere for this to occur with atmospheric source, and acid rain can be ruled out as it wasnt raining. other sources insdie the building are more possible if this is the methid by which the steel was found to be molten and slagged in appearance.
Metallugical analysis has not been revealled for the molten/melted steel/metal. So no one can now this completely, whther the molten appearance was Iron sulhide slag, which would ahve been red in colour or if the molten metal was Steel itself.
The thermite reaction could have supplied the molten steel would have been required to have been artificially prepared, with Aluminium Oxide and a heat source greater than the hot jet fuel. So themrite reaction did not occur by the jet fuel heating the steel.
Also the sprinkler apparently malfunctioned.
SO YOU CANNOT PROVE WHAT YOU JUST SAID!
I do find the collapse hard to believe but there are many possiblities to investigate as to the nature of the 'melted metal', and it should be said that if that melted metal were not present I would firmly conclude that the towers hard been artificially DESTROYED!
GS
