Interesting point...somewhat analagous to giant stars that burn through their fuel in a fraction of the time it takes smaller stars to do so, followed by a far more violent end.
Yeah. That's mostly what I was getting at.
I do need to be real careful how far I take that analysis, though. After all, I'm only making broad assessments on size, and that ignores a lot of things. The most accurate measure of fire sizes for comparison's sake, I think, would be one comparing fuel rate, total fuel burnt, total amount of work done by the fires alone (excluding gravity from the scenario, since the exercise here is simply to compare the size of the fires), etc
. But that's simply not possible here without some serious digging and work. Plus, things like fuel load would be nothing more than estimates anyway; we could envelope the reasonable high and low figures, but there would still be some wiggle room in the final answer.
That's why I'm limiting myself to area combusted. It's not ideal, but it's the easiest to determine without having to introduce ambiguity via assumptions. Since the areas combusted have so far been only fractions the size of either of the main towers fires, there's been no need to get any more specific anyway. It's a reasonable assumption that any differences in fuel load between different buildings would be minimal compared to the differences in sizes of the WTC fires and the rest of them (the only exception being Broadgate Phase 8, which wasn't finished and therefore had no office contents and only construction items available to burn).
Well, anyway... I'll work through a couple of more of the "No collapse" examples just for the intellectual exercise. But so far I think the point is made: This was a reach of an argument, nothing more than BS and bluff. Ergo didn't appear to actually
read what he linked, and even if he did, he definitely didn't understand it. But on a broader note, I'm continually disappointed that truthers feel the need to minimize - indeed,
belittle - the magnitude of the tower fires in order to push their fantasies. It's ridiculous. The very doc linked above came out and stated that the WTC events were "
... the dominant fire and collapse events of this survey". And it put them right up there with the largest fires they could find. This is supposed to support the claim that the fires weren't large?
Seriously?? So far, they've
dwarfed all the others. Yet, the doc was presented as if it
proved the point that it's actually
refuting.
That's truther logic. And that's also why I always say: Don't trust a conspiracy fantasist's word for what a piece of evidence represents.
Look at that evidence, preferrably in its original form. Nearly every time, you'll find that it's been misrepresented. This here is a perfect example of that.
Uhhh... just what sort of life experiences have you been through, Lau Joe?
