OK then. Just the facts. 9-11

[jberryhill]

12. No one has told you to STFU

But if you want to throw degrees around, I happen to have spent too many years of my life studying molten metal solutions and how they behave, on the way to earning a doctorate in engineering. So I'm not going to say "Wow, a BA in physics!"

There is no model of the failure of the WTC towers which requires or assumes that any piece of steel "melted." And if you are going to define the word "melt" in some way other than as a solid to liquid phase transition, then it would be helpful for you to identify the fact that your words don't mean what everyone else defines them as.

Common office fires burn hot enough to reduce the strength of steel to the point of failure. It is why fire proofing insulation is applied to steel ever since the 1910 Reliable Insurance building fire, which was the first, and quite surprising, collapse of a steel framed building from fire.

Your objection, that these fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel is totally irrelevant to what happened. And that is not some reflexive STFU - it is the result of the fact that you are spouting a canard which has been repeated here for the better part of a decade, and indicates that your "open minded inquiry" most apparently does not extend to developing a basic understanding of what it is you are attempting to criticize.

But, please, let's not throw around academic degrees.