Visible explosions in WTC7.The video you did not know exists...

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v1i18-508.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

How hot do ordinary carbon fires burn?

 

Also...

http://www.landfillfire.com/Histories/histories4.html

 

In the case you cite, there were no temperatures hot enough to cause metal to glow or melt. where is the evidence of anything that produces sufficient heat to cause what was observed at ground zero?

 

Look up the term: "Kiln".

 

so the excuse is that in a confined space, the temperatures will rise
above the normal combustion temperatures of the fuel being consumed?
is that it?

 

"Kiln"

Look it up.

 

Are you attempting to promote the argument that
a KILN is capable of increasing the temperature
of a fuel source that without said "KILN" would
be incapable of reaching the temperature?

Temperatures are what they are and steel will
not melt from prolonged exposure to lower temperatures,
only high enough temperatures to do the job.

at no point in the links to references about land fill fires,
is there mention temperatures that could melt steel.

The bottom line here is that in order to have the result that
was observed in the case of the destruction of WTC 1,2 & 7
there had to have been an additional source of energy present,
something that was not only added, but had focus so as to
guarantee the total demolition of all three buildings.

 

Argument from incredulity.

 

Wow man, is that all you have?
Can you make a specific reference
to a point of data that refutes what
I posted about Kiln(s)?

Do you get it, that is the temperatures that
were present in the WTC tower(s) & 7
were hotter than could be expected of
fires that were of the nature of the fires
in the skyscrapers, that is not force fed air,
and so burning at finite lower temperatures
than the melting point of steel. However,
there is evidence in the rubble, that iron & steel
had been melted. so how was that done?
this is NOT "argument from incredulity" this
is examine the evidence!

 

Prove this claim is true. Otherwise you are just arguing from incredulity. As stated.

What temperature could be expected?
How much hotter were the temperatures present?
Show your math.

 

So nice of you to address my question
about the characteristics of Kiln(s)

or?

 

Did you look them up? Pretty self explanatory to anyone who can read.

or?
what?
No?

 

The "looking up" does not provide any data
as to the increase in temperature to be had
using a fixed combustion temperature fuel.
the ONLY way to get elevated temperatures
in a gas fired kiln is to force feed the fire with
lots of air. What do you have as any special
INFORMATION do you have on this subject?

 

How do you suppose weapons were forged in the middle ages?

 

in a forge that was force fed air from a bellows.
what?

 

Ever seen a kiln?

 

Should I be acquainted with this bit of technology?
the bottom line here is that you are NOT going to
get the temperature elevation without a fire that
is force fed air. So how is it that the WTC fires
got a force feed of air, and in a focused & consistent
manner such to produce the result?

 

Then kindly explain the examples you were given of underground compost fires, trash pile fires melting metal and coal mine fires.

 

I thought you might be acquainted with it. Kiln's are very common. Many schools have them. They are used to bake ceramics. And yes they generate enormous heat without force feeding air.

Much like the fire's which burned under the rubble for weeks.

 

decomposition causes heat,any gardner with a compost pile knows that

 

I remember we had a kiln in art class in high school,no air feeding to it

 

Please define "enormous heat" relative to the combustion
temperature of the fuel used.

 

OK, where is it documented that the fires you mentioned had
melted iron or steel?

 

I'd ask YOU the same

 

I'm not the one asserting that a Kiln can operate
at temperatures in excess of the combustion temp
of the fuel used to heat it.