Shortly after the towers were built, there were concerns that the fireproofing - which amounted to mostly spray on retarder - was poorly, improperly, or not even installed.
No one cared of course, that would cost money.
And that premise is the foundation for the official narrative ... impact flaked the old fireproofing off the beams exposing them to the direct heat.
Consider a model of the floors impacted, exoskeleton on the outside. The plane full of fuel crashes into the building, beams slice through the aluminum, parts and fuel fly through the building and blow out the windows on the other side. The fuel dispersion pattern should be wider at the exit side vs entry side. The wind was also fueling the fire and forcing the majority of heat out the leeward side of the building. One would expect major temperature variations on each side of the building. The windward side steel should remain cooler, more fresh, cool air circulates around the exoskeleton on the windward side ... whereas the leeward side is exposed to all of the heat and flame emerging from the building. I would think if any steel beams were to fail first, it would be those beams blanketed in heat and flame, not the windward side that receives cool incoming air over 50% of it's surface area.
So we have a building where the steel exoskeleton supposedly fatigues from heat and collapses. For the building to fall into itself and it's own footprint, all sides of the exoskeleton would need to fail simultaneously lest the tower will naturally lean to the weakest side as it fails, and not fall into it's own footprint ... which didn't happen.
The whole thing reeks of glowies. We'll probably never know the truth about the thing. But that's not really my point, mine was:
1: Even in the 1980s, fireproofing was shown to be a suggestion in most places and was already coming off of beams, not that the beams would burn in the first place... 2: Jet-A, being Kerosene with stuff in, will burn at well over 2000°F when given some airflow, and probably did so because of all the ample polyester, pressboard, and paper present in an office.
I'm not even going to guess at the root causes of the situation. I'm just a bird, after all.
Yeah, I get it, saw those early reports in the '80s. And the reports in the '90s of how prohibitively expensive it would be to remove the asbestos based fireproofing and replace with better insulation throughout the complex. Then Larry Silverstein leases the complex for 99 years in June 2001, fully insuring it, 2 months later it goes down. Insurance pays Larry Silverstein $4.6B and cleans up the mess.
Jet-A, being Kerosene with stuff in, will burn at well over 2000°F when given some airflow, and probably did so because of all the ample polyester, pressboard, and paper present in an office
The paper, carpets, cubicles, etc in my estimation contributed ~5% of the heat generated compared to a plane full of fuel. The volume of fuel Btu's contributed an order or two of magnitude more heat than the paper and plastics.
I don't know if the steel exostructure failed or not. In my mind IF the steel fatigued from heat, it should have slowly tilted off center toward the leeward side before coming down. Wind forces were pressing against the windward side thus trying to compress the leeward side and the heat emanating from the fire mostly exits the leeward side which makes those leeward steel beams more susceptible to heat and stress, they should have failed first if any of the beams were to fail. I think we agree, a lot of things just don't add up in the official narrative.
(post is archived)