To: Raymond Duray who wrote (15276 ) 1/14/2005 3:13:47 AM From: Michelino Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20773 Edgar anticipates your arguments. As he points out heat and temperature are two different things, in fact his theory can account for lower temperatures than I've read elsewhere:It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire. The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire. tms.org The fact that three buildings built of similar materials met similar fates on the same day actually enhances Edgar's theory rather than yours. None of those other skyscrapers you mentioned got hit by a "90,000 L Molotov cocktail". So your order of magnitude theory is very weak. As Edgar also mentions, heat released by the fire is more important than anecdotes about temperature. Reports of the imminent collapse of WTC 7 were circulated hours before hand...quite a bit of flaming debris hit the building. I wasn't surprised when it fell, because, frankly, so many people on-site seemed to be expecting it. I do agree with you that the De Mott article is an important response to the 9-11 commission’s failure to address the woeful performance of Bush, Cheney and their henchmen before and after the towers fell. But if De Mott is somehow a believer in the Mossad/bomb theory, it is surely not apparent in the Harper’s article.