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.
No numbers, so you are still arm waving. I am familiar with the combustion energy of aluminum because of its use in large solid rocket boosters. The propellant is about 30% aluminum powder.
Pyroclastic clouds are hot ash made buoyant by the hot air entraining it. Volcanoes produce them, not explosives. I notice the continual oscillation between blaming "explosives" or "thermite." Explosives are not thermite, and thermite is not an explosive. Explosives generate large volumes of gas. Thermite generates a large amount of heat (from combustion of aluminum---which you should think abou,t if you want to pooh-pooh the energy available from aluminum combustion). More arm-waving. And I am beginning to suspect that these architects were in over their heads with this analysis.
What is there about "shattering, crumbling, and spalling" that is not "pulverization"? Reduction to dust is an outcome, along with all kinds of bits and pieces that cannot withstand the collision environment of a massive collapse. There would never be a stack of concrete pancakes. That would be the most amazing development of all. (A structural simulation of the WTC7 collapse showed an asymmetric process that involved the twisting and separation of the steel columns. Unless the floor slabs were intended for a hydroelectric dam, this would be like crushing a soup cracker.)
If clouds of dust proceeded from all three towers, the thing they had in common was a rapid chain-reaction compressive overload, and all the concrete breaking up upon impact with each other and with the ground.
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.
No numbers, so you are still arm waving. I am familiar with the combustion energy of aluminum because of its use in large solid rocket boosters. The propellant is about 30% aluminum powder.
Pyroclastic clouds are hot ash made buoyant by the hot air entraining it. Volcanoes produce them, not explosives. I notice the continual oscillation between blaming "explosives" or "thermite." Explosives are not thermite, and thermite is not an explosive. Explosives generate large volumes of gas. Thermite generates a large amount of heat (from combustion of aluminum---which you should think abou,t if you want to pooh-pooh the energy available from aluminum combustion). More arm-waving. And I am beginning to suspect that these architects were in over their heads with this analysis.
What is there about "shattering, crumbling, and spalling" that is not "pulverization"? Reduction to dust is an outcome, along with all kinds of bits and pieces that cannot withstand the collision environment of a massive collapse. There would never be a stack of concrete pancakes. That would be the most amazing development of all. (A structural simulation of the WTC7 collapse showed an asymmetric process that involved the twisting and separation of the steel columns. Unless the floor slabs were intended for a hydroelectric dam, this would be like crushing a soup cracker.)
If clouds of dust proceeded from all three towers, the thing they had in common was a rapid chain-reaction compressive overload, and all the concrete breaking up upon impact with each other and with the ground.