But if you'll call it biased immediately, there's no point in providing one

That response is quite immature.

Don’t accuse someone of something before they have done it

I'm looking for the sites again, give me a second

The websites elude me. I'll need more time to find them again

Well, there's a Popular Mechanics article that states the temperature, but it's also dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, so...

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

I figured you wouldn't accept it

Popular mechanics is owned by the Hearst family. They may have a vested interest in debunking. Not the best source.

I will proceed to find more sources then.

Is there another source?

There are

But they're mostly from "debunk" articles, or conspiracy sites

"The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. "

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

🤔

That converts out to 1,800°F, roughly, not factoring in burning desks, rugs, and wood furnishings

I’ve always understood that the twin towers would have explanations. Whether true or not, they are hard to disprove. However, building 7 is not. Especially since a reporter was announcing the collapse of building 7 before it had happened.

Unlike you...I was old enough to remember this.

Are we sidetracking again, or can I continue?
Hey, it's always possible that WTC 7 was brought down in a completely unrelated government plot

😂. That’s really really stretching it. I wouldn’t even know how to calculate the odds of that.

That wasn't me being serious, for the record

No. However it’s approaching condescension. I don’t appreciate it.

It was meant to be a joke

Understood

It's a reference to a webcomic I read, which I later realized you probably wouldn't read

XKCD

No. I wouldn’t actually. 😂

It's pretty nerdy

Anyways, is that citation for the burning temperature of jet fuel sufficient?

Kind of. However the twin towers were never the smoking gun. It was always building 7

Most people don't actually bring up building 7 to me

In any case, if 7 was an inside job, that would mean that the other ones also had to be taken care of from the inside

So do you wish me to not continue on the collapse of the main towers?

Because I can stop

No. It’s always been building 7. I accepted the narrative until I learned about it.

It took me 12 years to learn about building 7.

You said it was "stretching the odds" for the collapses to be unrelated

Which means, in your eyes, it's all or nothing

So if the two primary towers weren't brought down in a controlled manner, why would 7 have been?

Yes. Coincidences do happen but a series of coincidences...no