I don’t think so. It might have been able to heat up some small bit of steel, but look at the massive thermal mass and then compare that to the energy output of the office fires. Not nearly enough energy there.
Same goes for the amount of energy in the kerosene / jet fuel from the two planes in wtc 1 and wtc 2. Most of that fuel was burnt up on impact and while it would generate heat, that heat would be dissipated throughout the whole core and the steel skin for the towers. There is not enough energy there to do the damage we saw.
“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.
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."
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.
“ I'm not a skyscraper architect, so I am unacquainted with other cases,”
Nor am I, but I have listened to lectures by architects looking precisely at this issue. There are a couple of other examples of modern concrete and steel high rise building burning for extended periods of time. No collapse. No loss of structural integrity.
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?
High temperatures resulting in loss of a steel columns ability to load bear would be a significant event.
Is there an example of this happening anywhere else in the world? Or is this the first time it had happened to your knowledge?
Oh! it's the arrogant stupidity from a misguided person that is obviously intelligent and persistent.
ok ok
-
This organization was created in 2007 and is populated with credentialed architects and engineers. What ever your credentials are (and no, assuming you are a fren, you do not want to reveal this online because of the cancel culture we are in, simply posting here may be cause for some people to cause you problems at work) we can reasonably agree that credentialled architects are able to comment on building that were standing one day, and not standing the next. https://www.ae911truth.org/
-
in this discussion we do not stray into why things happened. There are all kinds of potential why's and so few hard facts to ground that conversation. So let's stick with just what did happen and what evidence substantiates that understanding of events.
-
we take one issue at a time. This way we can fully explore a single issue while preventing the confusion of issues.
The first issue, is free fall in WTC 7. Please review this page. Please excuse my prior comments on freefall, I was saying them from memory. We will use what is printed here as the starting point for this discussion.
One of us, not one of us, doesn't matter.
The use of accusations that have not been proven in court, to cancel someone is wrong.
In this way we have a lot in common with him because this is a strategy that has been used against us, and is currently being used against him.
This gives us the opportunity to seek unity with people who on other issues see themselves as our opponents.
Frenz! Making new frenz is a good thing. Then we truth action them mercilessly and wake em all up!
lol
"I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. "
It shows.
"But what I do know is solid;"
No. You are wrong, but you are highly confident in your ignorance.
"You, on the other hand, have no credentials"
You do not know this for a fact, yet you project this as a conclusion with great confidence. You are ignorant.
" and use this opportunity to throw insults at me."
Because it is a language you understand.
"The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers."
Are you evaluating information based upon information, or are you evaluating information within the filter of your prejudice and ignorance?
Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.
“As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.”
Prove your bullshit. This is not an optimized combustion chamber. This is an open fire with black smoke indicating poor efficiency at burning its combustible materials.
“ No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.”
Again more revisionist bullshit. Watch the videos listen to the explosions.
If you are honestly interested this is a site with factual information.
Because that explanation is total bullshit.
Thermal expansion is a concept that NIST came up with and was popularized in a popular mechanics article on the topic. Also total bullshit.
Review the facts;
- no plane hit wtc 7.
- no additional combustible material was supposed to be there (I.e. contents of an airplane’s gas tanks)
- this means the only combustible material would be standard office tower contents. Review all prior office tower fires in history, is there a single one that collapsed into its own foot print? The answer is no.
- in the dust of the wtc complex we find micro iron spheres. Operating theory is that they are produced when molten metal (not hear weakened, but steel in liquid state) is forcibley blown out into the atmosphere where is cools while on free fall.
- in the dust of the wtc complex unexploded nano thermate is detected. (I forget many of the details, there is a difference between thermate and thermite; the nano bit comes in because commercial grade stuff is made of materials with x particle size; but this unexploded stuff that was found had component bits that were MUCH MUCH smaller. This means highly sophisticated manufacturing techniques and a thermate that is much more expensive than commercial grade stuff and a thermate that is not commercially available was in fact used.
- then we get to the free fall speed. Proven using video and known measurements. Wtc 7 collapsed entirely within … 11 seconds? For 6 of those seconds it can be shown (and was demonstrated by analysis performed in university of Alaska) the roof line of wtc 7 falls at free fall speed. That means everything under the roof also was falling at the speed of gravity. No resistance whatsoever. Think of a tower of wood in your camp fire. It falls over. Ok. But it falls over and hits another piece of wood that changes trajectory of the fall or slows the fall to some degree. Now imagine what is required for a roof line to fall at free fall speed. Answer: everything supporting that roof line also collapsed at that same instant.
- squibs. Aka lateral ejections of material from the building often seen in controlled demolitions. Squibs are clearly visible in all three buildings pre and during collapse.
“ Carbonaceous fuels “ that’s a new one to add to the pile of revisionist bullshit.
You realize wtc 7 was not hit by a plane did not have hydrocarbons and the “office fires” were consuming standard office equipment (desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc).
Donald Duck! Hqhahahahahahha
Ok we have to meme this!