Comment: The distinction that a fire

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I think you don't understand (see in situ)

The distinction that a fire

The distinction that a fire increases in temperature by a couple hundred degrees is exactly what adding a couple hundred degrees does; so, your distinction isn't really a distinction it is a rephrasing of my statement. I will say this another way; the furniture would increase the temperature of the fire by a couple hundred degrees. Is that clearer? If we 'add' -I know you don't like that word so bare with me- 1800 degrees -the temperature of the jet fuel alone- and -let say- 300 degrees -an average of what the office furniture would burn at- the average overall temperature of the fire inside the towers would have been around 2100 degrees. This is still over 1000 degrees less then the melting point of steal, and it would need many hours at this constant temperature for the steal to have become structurally unsound -and that is without the fire retardant material on the steal.

Sorry, you may try parsing my words, however, the overall point is that the temperature would have never gotten high enough to do what would have needed to have been done, for your hypothesis to be correct.

Also, a fire burning at a couple hundred degrees will not bring down a building, which has a steal infrastructure that has fire retardant material to protect the steal from fires.

HUGE chunks fell of as the WTCs 1 & 2 collapsed and caused SIGNIFICANT damage to building 7

While building 7 did sustain damage from the twin towers collapsing, most -if not all- of the damage was sustained on the exterior walls of that one corner; which doesn't explain why the core collapsed first, as seen in the video of the collapse.

A point that I want you to concede is that engineers considered the risk of weakened steel from fire within the building so they used insulation on the steel columns. Will you concede that point?

What the hell are you talking about? I'm the one who just told you that they used fire retarding material on the steal infrastructure, in my post which you responded to. I don't need to cede the point that they used fire retarding material, since: (1) I mentioned it first, and (2) you are the one who is suggesting that the building collapsed due to fire. You would have to figure out how a fire of just office furniture burned hot enough to severely weaken steal (approx 2500+ degrees) while the steal was wrapped in fire retarding material, which means the fire would have to be even hotter.