So this new theory of office fires causing structural steel to lose its strength so catastrophically that it resulted in the building falling straight down into the path of most resistance at free fall speed (for a few seconds) should have a major effect on the field of architecture. Given this new information architects must have studied this and changed how they design buildings so they don’t just collapse during an office fire.
What has the industry done with this new information?
There may not be much to do. The special case is aluminum catching fire. It is extremely energetic (used for rocket fuel) and would ordinarily not be present---unless an airplane crashes into your building. I don't see that there is much that can be done. The materials in use are arguably suitable and well-performing.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
Are you talking about the aluminum in the air plane? That makes no sense because even if you too all the the aluminum in that air plane and assumed a 100% conversion to energy and then looked at the energy requirement to pulverize all the concrete, it's nothing. Don't forget, the pyroclastic cloud that was generated. The resulting dust blew away on the wind and settled into a blanket all over that area of new york. I remember that dust layer being reported as 12 to 18 inches thick.
This is on the WTC 7 page "Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption, that poured into the streets following the final collapse of the building."
Talk of aluminum was to point out sources of heat (and potential temperatures) in the conflagration. Your claim about the energy available from the aluminum is arm waving; it would be interesting if you actually were able to produce numbers. And it would be beside the point, because the main energy involved in the destruction of each of the Towers was gravitational potential energy. Failure of concrete in compression leads to fragmentation, shattering, crumbling, and spalling. I've seen this in a materials testing laboratory. No mystery that a cloud was produced. What are we talking about, now? The Twin Towers or WTC7? I've seen structural wreckage from both. If you are going to call it a pyroclastic cloud, you can hardly deny its origins in a combustion environment. Otherwise, it is simply a cloud. I've seen that, too (Mount St. Helens eruption).
“Your claim about the energy available from the aluminum is arm waving; it would be interesting if you actually were able to produce numbers. “
No not my numbers, but the math was done and I remember seeing it in one of the architects and engineers for 911 truth presentations.
“ If you are going to call it a pyroclastic cloud, you can hardly deny its origins in a combustion environment. ”
Pre-planted explosives, not office fires.
“Failure of concrete in compression leads to fragmentation, shattering, crumbling, and spalling.”
Sure, but it does not lead to pulverization. If it was just a collapse without explosive force then we should have a stack of concrete pancakes. That’s not what we had. We had pyroclastic clouds and were left with concrete dust.
“ What are we talking about, now? The Twin Towers or WTC7?”
Pyroclastic clouds were observed with all three towers.
So this new theory of office fires causing structural steel to lose its strength so catastrophically that it resulted in the building falling straight down into the path of most resistance at free fall speed (for a few seconds) should have a major effect on the field of architecture. Given this new information architects must have studied this and changed how they design buildings so they don’t just collapse during an office fire.
What has the industry done with this new information?
There may not be much to do. The special case is aluminum catching fire. It is extremely energetic (used for rocket fuel) and would ordinarily not be present---unless an airplane crashes into your building. I don't see that there is much that can be done. The materials in use are arguably suitable and well-performing. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
Are you talking about the aluminum in the air plane? That makes no sense because even if you too all the the aluminum in that air plane and assumed a 100% conversion to energy and then looked at the energy requirement to pulverize all the concrete, it's nothing. Don't forget, the pyroclastic cloud that was generated. The resulting dust blew away on the wind and settled into a blanket all over that area of new york. I remember that dust layer being reported as 12 to 18 inches thick.
This is on the WTC 7 page "Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption, that poured into the streets following the final collapse of the building."
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/101-free-fall-and-building-7-on-9-11
My understanding of the pyroclastic cloud is that the concrete was pulverised mid air and the resulting concrete dust formed the pyroclastic cloud.
Other wise, please show photographic evidence of the concrete slabs and chunks. I have not seen any of that in the photos.
Talk of aluminum was to point out sources of heat (and potential temperatures) in the conflagration. Your claim about the energy available from the aluminum is arm waving; it would be interesting if you actually were able to produce numbers. And it would be beside the point, because the main energy involved in the destruction of each of the Towers was gravitational potential energy. Failure of concrete in compression leads to fragmentation, shattering, crumbling, and spalling. I've seen this in a materials testing laboratory. No mystery that a cloud was produced. What are we talking about, now? The Twin Towers or WTC7? I've seen structural wreckage from both. If you are going to call it a pyroclastic cloud, you can hardly deny its origins in a combustion environment. Otherwise, it is simply a cloud. I've seen that, too (Mount St. Helens eruption).
“Your claim about the energy available from the aluminum is arm waving; it would be interesting if you actually were able to produce numbers. “
No not my numbers, but the math was done and I remember seeing it in one of the architects and engineers for 911 truth presentations.
“ If you are going to call it a pyroclastic cloud, you can hardly deny its origins in a combustion environment. ”
Pre-planted explosives, not office fires.
“Failure of concrete in compression leads to fragmentation, shattering, crumbling, and spalling.”
Sure, but it does not lead to pulverization. If it was just a collapse without explosive force then we should have a stack of concrete pancakes. That’s not what we had. We had pyroclastic clouds and were left with concrete dust.
“ What are we talking about, now? The Twin Towers or WTC7?”
Pyroclastic clouds were observed with all three towers.