No kidding, all of which was caused by office fire. Your precious NIST summary has the diagram to show you.. So, your 25% structural two-step just went right out the window. Which is why your precious NIST "summary" is entitled;
...and the structural damage initiated the fire, crippled external support beams and damaged fire suppression equipment and water mains. Again, read the actual report which gives a much more involved explanation of the failure than the final moments . Yes, fire and thermal expansion cause the final death blow to the building. It was not fire alone that killed it. Your argument, and one NIST doesn't make, it like saying water sank the Titanic. Yes, in the end it did but it did so because of a serious of other factors that made water the coup de grace.Furthermore, rather you think I am precisely right the simple fact is the report outlines (and you are NOW arguing FOR) a thermal based structural failure. Either you are taking crazy pills or trying to change horses mid-stream...or are you trying to claim the NIST report is accurate in dismissing OTHER theories of the collapse but then lying about the thermal collapse.
This has already been addressed, structural damage had nothing to do w/ the collapse of that building. I understand you can't accept that because it is so outlandish and you feel required to embellish the story, but that's the corner you're in w/ this NIST report. Deal with it.
But let me tell you what I know w/ o being an expert. The only steel structure building in the history of mankind to fall due to fire, according to the NIST report, was the result of office fire. Not only did it fall, it fell symmetrically, at free fall speed then it landed essentially in it's own foot print. No jet fuel, no diesel fuel, no airplane collision and no structure damage contributing.
You keep saying "office fire" like this was just a trash can fire as opposed to an unchecked fire blazing on for hours on end. There is a LOT of combustible material inside an office, when it burns on it will burn insanely hot. Hot enough to melt steel....no. Hot enough to cause expansion of the steel and a loss of structural integrity? Yes, the beams don't have to melt, they have to weaken past failure points in a variety of ways. Once that happens these particular buildings are lunched. Also, the WTC buildings aren't constructed like any other steel framed building to catch fire. The famed Madrid Windsor tower that burned for 26 hours didn't bring down the whole structure, why? Concrete core design which was NOT the WTC designs which distributed the load externally onto steel beams. As this site so ably demonstrates: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm the steel only parts of the building (not supported by reinforced concrete) DID collapse a scant 2.5 hours into the blaze. There were also "technical floors" which were concrete floors which resisted collapse and damage. In particular scroll down and look at the images of the buckled steel support beams and think about what happens to a building that doesn't have concrete to "save" it.
The free fall collapse of a 47 story steel structure building has now become the "loss of structural integrity"…as result of .." A LOT of combustible material that's inside an office." That doesn't even pass the giggle test. I'll say this, watching the evolution of your argument is quite novel. Especially the part where you tell us the story about yet another high rise building that didn't fall due to fire.
