In sum----think----really high temperatures----NOT FROM THE
BURNING FUELS--------that was just the starter------consider
the PLASTICS
Let me guess, you're going with NIST's explanation that "The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels", that it? It wouldn't explain the molten metal, which is possibly why both the 9/11 Commission and NIST both ignored it...
Molten metal under Trade Center rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel | Truth and Shadows
of course not----"ordinary office combustible"----EXTRAORDINARY office combustible----things that would not
START burning until their VERY HIGH flashpoint is reached.
No question ---in an ordinary fire---in which wood and --paper burns up----things like metal may just get hot but NOT MELT---
In a fire which is the result of a plane CRASHING thru a building and sustained by jet fuel---the ENERGY LEVELS are much higher than the burning of a bed mattress or a wooden table----the MUCH HIGHER ENERGY levers means MUCH HIGH HEAT-------those levels heat reach the flash points of things that DO NOT ORDINARILY BURN ----sometimes melt but DO NOT BURN-----when plastic burns that CHEMICAL REACTION is extreme exothermic (ie produces MORE HEAT). As the FLASH POINTS of various materials are reached they BURN----their burning produces PROGRESSIVELY MORE HEAT------and those heat levels do melt metals
I've never seen an article that supports this notion of yours. Could you provide one?
no----I am not obsessed with the naysayers----I saw and I know what I saw. I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves