Homeland Insurgency said:
Perhaps it would be wisest, then, for a perpetrator of felony arson who does not want his evil deed discovered not to use a substance which would leave behind obvious evidence of its use, particularly when it isn't necessary.
There was no obvious evidence of over a thousand victims remains at the WTC site. There were no black boxes discovered. Were these things not there also?
It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But neither is it evidence for a conspiracy.
Homeland Insurgency said:
If you refer to NIST as "the official explanation", then I believe their conclusion was that it was the combination of physical damage, loss of fireproofing, and the fire that led to the collapse.
It was expert critics of the NIST report, some from other countries, that examined the data, did additional testing, and supported the idea that because of the towers structure, they could have fallen just from the fire.
It was building content fire according to the gospel you come here to defend. This is the first time in history three times in one day. Sounds like faith.
If by "it", you mean what caused the towers to fail, I'm afraid you're in the wrong thread. This topic is hot spots in the debris pile, weeks after the collapse.
What does the "gospel I've come here to defend" have to say regarding hot spots in the debris pile weeks after the collapse?
Homeland Insurgency said:
Nope. I'm saying 2800 degrees is a plausible temperature to be found after some time in the huge rubble pile with a building content fire. This is not to be confused with conditions in a content fire with the building still erect.
What are you basing this plausibility on?
Knowledge of physics. Given a release of energy, (such as a smoldering fire) and an insulative barrier to restrict the loss of energy through conduction, convection, or radiation (such as a large debris pile), the temperature will go up until the energy loss rate is equal to the energy release rate.
Homeland Insurgency said:
No one has claimed evidence of 2800 degrees in the towers before they fell, and it is not a necessary condition for the towers failure.
2800 degrees days or weeks later in the rubble pile has an explanation that is consistent with the physics and chemistry of fire.
It would not be relevant to why the buildings fell because it didn't happen before they fell.
Consistent with what past examples?
I emphasized the part of my reply that you apparently didn't understand.
If you can give me an example of a cause that happens occurs
after the effect, I'll be very surprised.
Homeland Insurgency said:
You are pretending to know why the buildings fell.
I thought we were discussing the plausibility of 2800 degree hot spots in a debris pile. Perhaps you want a different thread?
You seem to have a disconnect here. All
anyone is saying about hot spots in the debris pile weeks after the collapse is that they're
immaterial to how the towers came down, because they happened
much later.
Assuming that we can at least agree that before they fell, the towers were on fire:
Thermite brought the towers down? There might, or might not, be hot spots in the debris pile.
Explosive CD brought the towers down? There might, or might not, be hot spots in the debris pile.
Heat weakening of structural members and subsequent global collapse? There might, or might not be hot spots in the debris pile.
Heat weakening and distortion of structural members during the fire and pulling apart during a cooling phase? There might, or might not, be hot spots in the debris pile.
Now, in the actual event, there
were hot spots measured in the debris pile.
Is there a plausible physical mechanism for this involving only things documented to have been present? Yep.
Could any reasonable amount of therm/ate/ete/ite/ote/ute still have been burning weeks later? Nope.
Would a hot spot need to have started at therm[vowels in any order]te temperatures to be at 2800 degrees weeks later? Nope.
