So, you say there is a fire hot enough to melt the vast majority of the structural steel in the building and it doesn't appear on 98% of the building's exterior. It melted the structual steel at the bottom of the building when only a couple of windows near the top of the entire building had smoke coming from them. It's amazing how determinedly you stick to this and refuse to acknowledge that the video you provided showed buildings 100% engulfed in flames before they collapsed. That's how hot the fires had to be to affect the strength of the structural steel.
Neither me nor the video EVER said that the fires were hot enough to melt steel. What we did say is that the fire weakens the steel to the point that it can no longer support the loads on it. We have also said that the fire weakened and stressed the steel connections causing them to fail as well.
In the video of the collapse of building 7, taken by news cameras, it shows the windows on that entire side of the building were intact. No light from flames inside the building showed through them at all. If there was a massive fire raging there wouldn't it be visible through those windows?
Depends on the fire was, doesn't it. You are assuming that the fire is in the floors that were visible to the camera. What if the fires are burning much lower in the building? The cameras wouldn't see it AND fire damage at lower levels is much more likely to result in a catastrophic failure because the loads on the steel are much higher. A failure there results in a much larger unsupported load.
I mean how would steel melt that didn't have fire actually contact with it? Or were those special windows that wouldn't transmit the enormous amount of light created by that massive of a fire inside the building? How was there enough heat from fire to melt steel and it didn't create enough gasses and heat to break 98% of the windows?
Answered rather neatly by fires burning low in the building an venting out the damage on the side of the building away from most cameras.
How were they intact until the building actually collapsed from all that supposed heat?
If the fire is low there is no heat working on the windows. You need to follow your assumption through. DO they match what you see? If not, why not? Is there another explanation that does match?
And in the video when it shows those windows breaking there is no smoke coming from them at all. No smoke ever came out of those windows even after they broke.
Again, you are making assumptions about the location of the fires that you cannot prove.
And the amount of smoke coming out of the top of building 7 could easily have been created by one or two rooms on fire. But that's not what your video asserts. Your video asserts that there was enough heat and flames to destroy the structural integrity of the building.
Depends on where the fires are. A fire burning up high doesn't pose nearly the risk as the same fire burning low in the same building.
BTW, i've never denied that a fire existed. The one video shows some smoke exiting from a couple of windows high up on the building. However, that is not evidence of a massive fire raging throughout the building that is hot enough to collapse the interal flooring structure of the building. A fire that large and that hot had to create far more smoke and breakage of windows. Even your simulation shows that the heat was close enough to the external walls that the flames had to be right next to them. Why were not all those windows blown out by the heat and gasses? Magic? How did all these gasses and that massive amount of heat only affect a couple of windows when the fire had to be right next to a hundred or more of them? All of this is completely unexplained. You haven't even begun to address it. You've danced all around it, but haven't actually addressed it.
A fire doesn't have to be massive to be hot. You can set up a forge in your garage that will easily heat steel. A fire burning in a confined area can set up a chimney effect that acts as a furnace to intensify the flames. You never denied a fire nor did you ever put any effort into understanding fires and how fire effects steel strength.
As to your comments on computer simulations. Of course a fraudulent simulation is worthless in real life. Of course it is useless to engineers in real life. Whoever said it wasn't? The point is, if you want to make something appear real that isn't you can easily do it with a computer simulation. And the only one who will know the simulation isn't real is the programmer. The engineer may very well think the results are real because they fed real data into the program interface when the results are false because of how the programmer wrote the code. And it would take a lot of code specifically written for this one simulation. That leaves it wide open to fraud.
They used commercially available software. That is not wide open to fraud. Nobody would buy a program that gives false results.
Your pop can assertion is not correct. The only way to get a pop can to crush exactly in on itself is to NOT bend any of the sides of the can. As soon as you crinkle one side of the can the top always moves towards that side of the can when you crush it. I've done it hundreds of times.
True, you do need to dent two sides. Which, not surprisingly, matches what the video shows regarding how the wall buckled.
And, that isn't even a valid analogy for in the crushing of the can there is a force tending to hold the the top exactly where it starts from, i.e. the friction created between your foot or whatever you use to exert pressure on the top of the can, and the top of the can itself. There was no such force available to building 7. Furthermore the sides of the can do not crumble. They bend in multiple directions. They accordian and stay in one piece, even if you heat the can.
This is a clear demonstration that you have no idea how friction works. The ONLY think keeping your foot from falling to the ground is the wall of the can. When that fails, there is NOTHING holding your foot up. The can is a very good analogy for the walls of 7 because once the internal structure collapsed, nothing was left to stabilize the walls and they collapsed under their own weight.
Here's a little experiment for you to try. Take a thin pieice of sheet metal and hold it in place on the bottom so that it stands vertically. Now apply heat to the base of the sheet metal until it weakens along it's entire length. Will the sheet metal collapse straight down from the force of gravity, or will the it buckle and then fall to one side or the other? I know, it's not a perfect simulation of what happened, but it demonstrates how an unsupported external wall will fall one way or the other depending on how it buckles from heat rather than just crumbling to dust vertically in a matter of seconds.
This statement shows that you do not understand system modeling. A single sheet of steel standing vertically in no way accurately represents the walls of the building. This experiment is meaningless in trying to understand how a building constructed of individual steel member that are bolted and welded together to create a wall.
Steel just doesn't act that way. I've never seen it happen in several years of working with metals. I was a mill wright, a welder, and a fabricator, for several years and I've never seen what you assert to be possible. Steel just doesn't act that way unless you can apply enormous amounts of heat to it that are not possible with a natural gas fire or the combustion of internal building materials. It will weaken and bend long before you can apply enough heat to make it crumble. And, it takes an extemely hot fire buring for an extended period of time just to burn away the insulation that is sprayed on structural steel just in case a building catches fire.
Look up this thread a bit and look at the table that relates steel strength to temperature. A 1,200° fire is easily attained in a home and office fires and that is where steel loses half its strength. As a mill wright, you probably did not work on structural steel. You probably have not designed a steel building so you are probably not versed in how to design it, what loads are considered and what safety margin is used. Steel buildings are very different from machining steel.
Now, look at the video that shows the top of the building starting to collapse. What you will see rising from there is a light gray dust. Almost white in color. And there are only a few wisps of it there. That is not consistent with the smoke from a fire upon which has just fallen a combination of both combustible and non-combustible material.
It is consistent with dust, particularly concrete dust, that would be present as the concrete floors disintegrated. Again, there is no indication of fire on these floors but fires burning lower in the building would not immediately vent out the roof. The collapsing materials would most likely drive smoke and dust out any opening in the building shell.
Any fire to which that has happened produces immense amounts smoke, most of which is dark. Anyone who has ever watched a fire knows this to be true. You watch a building fire in which the roof has just collapsed and it sends up an immediate increase in the volume of smoke. That does not happen with building 7.
In a single story building what you say is true. Building 7 is not a single story. We have a rather large number of stories that are dropping down and creating their own wind forcing smoke and dust out of the way therefore not allowing it to rise through the roof.
You might even look around at the following link as all these architects and forensic engineers disagree with NIST on 9/11 too.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
I've looked over their documents and I was not impressed. They are guilty of the same thing you are: they have a preconceived notion and are looking at the evidence only to confirm their pet theory. You never EVER go into an investigation assuming you know what happened. You always start with the evidence and see where it leads.
