Am I missing anything here? All critical analysis welcomed.
I believe all will concede that 1.) the planes that struck the WTC had fuel on board; 2.) the fuel was dispersed in and on the WTC; 3.) fuel will burn until it is consumed or extinguished; 4.) the fuel contained on board would have been disbursed at the point of impact, i.e. left wing tank at 78th floor; 5.) fuel will pool or flow downward, not upward, due to the effects of gravity.
Any problems with the assumptions?
During the Hardball video, the OCTer was presented with question of how the woman was standing in the hole the plane made in the WTC on the 78th floor, assuming that 1.) the fuel from the plane would have been where she was standing, 2.) burning at 1100 degrees (NIST report) which was hot enough to weaken the floor trusses, 3.) and, this caused the collapse.
The OCTer's answer was to the effect of "that" fire must have gone out. The woman seen standing in the gash was identified as Edna Cintron. There is video footage of her waving, but the footage only lasts 2 seconds. Replay it a few times and you can definitely see her waving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jRwTYbtgK8&NR
So, the fire must have “gone” out how? Consumed fuel or extinguished fuel? Did the fuel supply move itself up 2 floors? Or was the fuel contained only in the right wing (this balancing act is possible, but highly improbable) which struck the upper floor?
Or, is it physically possible that the majority of the fuel supply was consumed on impact in the fireball, fuel did not pool, the fire actually did go out, and the temperatures at the point of impact were in fact in range of tolerance for continuation of human life? And by implication, NOT in the range to weaken steel? (Occam’s razor?)
In order for the steel trusses to weaken from temperatures at 1100 degrees (that is the temp given by NIST) that temperature would be required to be maintained below the steel trusses. This is an engineering requirement because as we all know, the gaseous ambient temperature ratings in the room do not equal the internal temperatures of the steel.
I would find it questionable how a human being could find their way through a room that is maintaining a constant 1100 degrees (actually, 1100 degrees gaseous ambient temperature would not be sufficient to weaken the steel).
It is a fact that heat rises, that is why we are taught to crawl out of a fire. Maybe it was 1100 degrees at the ceiling near the trusses and below, let's say 150 degrees - the singeing temperature for human lung tissue - on the floor.
However, the fuel supply was a liquid and would not have been suspended just below the trusses. The fuel supply, following many laws - gravity for instance - would have been on the floor where the woman would have been crawling to gain access to the open hole area. Anyone who has ever stood beside a campfire or structural fire also would understand the laws of heat transference and would not attempt such an argument that a room could maintain temperatures of 1100 degrees and also support human life.
Now it seems the “new” gov’t theory is that the interior support columns were weakened by heat causing twisting and flexing. This is required because the footage showing the antennae during initial collapse shows that the center support columns failed at exactly the same time as the outer steel walls. Truss failure would not apply the needed force against the interior columns to cause complete failure, or at least according to the gov’t theory that the 5/8 “ bolts holding the trusses to the support columns sheered. So now, with a yet a third gov’t theory, we must ask: How did the center support columns, designed to be stand-alone, fail? If the gov’t theory is heat, from what source? How would the fuel reach the center equally from all sides? Or, did the wings remain intact following entry through the steel outer skin and cut 47 columns, also equally in time, force, and temperature?