> What caused a 1220 degree fire to begin with? Just because heat has nowhere to escape doesn't mean an 800 degree fire from jet fuel can magically heat up to 1220 degrees to melt the plane.
In the first place, aluminum melts at 1,221°F which is only 660.3°C. The maximum flame temperature for burning jet fuel in air is about 1,000°C but the "800 degree fire" claim appears to be an estimate for the maximum that the WTC fire reached, which is 800°C -- i.e. well above the melting point of aluminum.
> Actually, once it started falling, it fell 105 feet in 2.25 seconds, which the NIST admits is "freefall acceleration". 1/2 the building fell in a freefall collapse, which means there was 0% resistance from the vertical steel columns. So far, zero journal or reports can explain the freefal collapse of building 7.
No, actually, as has been pointed out over and over and over, the 2.25 seconds of freefall came after 1.5 seconds of less than freefall, which was the time during which the NIST simulation shows 8 floors of columns buckling. Since there is no accounting for that 1.5 seconds in controlled demolition theories, "truthers" just ignore it. But there's absolutely nothing mysterious about the fact that columns that buckled to the point of breaking would provide exactly zero resistance. The "logic" that freefall implies controlled demolition is patently fallacious. What happened here was that the initial "truther" claims were met with responses that it wasn't freefall, i.e. the premise was false, so when freefall was demonstrated, "truthers" tried to claim that as validating their argument. The proper response should have been that the conclusion was invalid because it did not necessarily follow from the premise, even if the premise was true. That debating error does not validate fallacious logic.
> I am interested in what caused the extreme heat that melted the steel in the towers. The official reports of the govt have tried to cover up the facts, but some professors have attempted to explain it. None have succeeded. Will they ever?
And again and again, there is no need to explain things that didn't happen. There is absolutely no credible evidence of temperatures greater than what should be expected in such a fire.
= new reply since forum marked as read