First off, you and "padre" are the same person using proxies to hide your actual location.<quoted text>
Seems to me that the good Padre was inviting you to enumerate those "special circumstances" that led to the very fast destruction of WTC7.
Padre asks: "Maybe you can describe the right conditions that caused this unprecedented global failure in a building where the fire burned out within 20 - 30 minutes at any given location, where the steel was insulated with SFRM rated for 2 - 3 hours, where the insulation was admittedly not damaged throughout most of the structure, and where the design elements regarding the Con Edison substation played no substantial role?"
Are you saying that steel that is insulated by SFRM rated for 2 to 3 hours (even without additional fire protection like a functioning sprinkler system) is vulnerable to fires that last at most 20 - 30 minutes in any given area? How hot would the thermally protected steel get, do you suppose?
And what circumstances could possibly result in the free-fall drop of the entire visible perimeter of this massive steel-framed building -- other than demolition, the most likely cause by far? Remember, the block that is in free-fall is contributing ZERO energy to the destruction of its former supports underneath. Those former supports -- ALL OF THEM -- were SUDDENLY the structural equivalent of cooked spaghetti!!!
Secondly, I have explained in terms even someone as simple as you, aka padre, should be able to understand that just because a fire goes out in one area, it doesn't mean the original conditions of the steel are restored nor does it mean the ambient conditions return as they were pre-fire.
Fire retardant isn't designed for large scale fires on multiple floors that input heat into a system for hours on end. It's designed for typical office fires where passive and active fire protection systems can allow for people to escape and for fire fighting to take place.
Your idiotic canard that free fall=demolition still has zero qualification and you making the exact same ignorant claim over and over with various proxy induced socks will not make your wet dream come true. All NIST is commenting on regarding the transfer loading assembly over the ConEd power station is that fire didn't directly cause it to fail and that the global failure of the structure was causedby column 79 which was integral to the overall structural stability of the building.
The very simple reality is that fire can and does cause conditions in steel structures where the threat of structural failure is very real. There are no reputable materials experts or engineers arguing against that fact. NIST's theory isn't that fires were present in one area for long periods of time causing failure in that particular spot. It's theory is that the fires caused damage in various locations and that the accumulated damage from conditions such as thermal heating and linear expansion created stresses not designed for in joints which ultimately failed.
You can dance around pretending fire can't destroy a building all you want...the real experts ad real world will jus continue to ignore you just as all STREET CORNER JEEBUSES are generally ignored....although some might take pity on you and put a few coins in your cup.