Hi all. I am Heiwa. Naval architect. Designing ships since 40 years. Quite complex! Lots of forces acting on a ship structure in the interface water/air affecting strength, buoyancy and stability. Like planes. Structures fixed on land are easier to design. Take a tower/skyscraper:

A tower/skyscraper structure consists generally of load carrying elements of only two types, i.e. vertical steel columns and horizontal composite steel/concrete floor panels, all joined together one way or another, e.g. by bolts.

The vertical elements, the columns, joined on top of each other are primary structural elements that transmit their loads down to ground.

The horizontal elements, the floor panels, placed between and connected to the columns are secondary structural elements that transmit their loads to the columns.

And that’s it. Nothing magic at all! Not like a ship or a plane.

If a skyscraper has 110 floors, like WTC, there are thus 110 assemblies of horizontal floor panels all connected to the vertical columns. Evidently the columns between ground and the first floor are designed to carry 110 floors and the columns below the top floor (or roof) are designed to carry just one floor (or the roof).

It means that the lowermost columns of a tower structure are 110 times stronger than the topmost columns.

Airplane pilots are highly recommended not to fly their planes into towers/skyscrapers, as the vertical and horizontal elements of the towers/skyscrapers will slice/shred the plane into small pieces. Evidently the plane will cause some local damage to the structural elements of the tower or skyscraper … but that’'s it.

Anyone believing that flying planes into the weak tops of skyscrapers will destroy or crush the strong bottom parts of same towers should read my scientific paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm . I am happy to inform that you can in fact fly as many planes you like into the tops of skyscrapers and nothing will happen to skyscraper below impact. The plane's pilot will evidently get smashed.

If you belong to a terrorist organization and plan a flying attack anywhere you should thus avoid flying planes sideways into the weak tops of skyscrapers as you will only produce local failures up in the weak top and kill yourself. Better is to hit the bottoms or Stuka style vertically through the roof. But you will still kill yourself.

I have informed the FBI and CIA about the above and they, Pearl Harbour style, informed that couldn’t care less, I was sorry to hear. They apparently have great difficulties in Afghanistan forgetting the home front. Well, do not blame me.

I worked on the Berkman Plaza collapse in Jacksonville, Florida and in spite of being across the street from the police station…no FBI or CIA agents was there and no material was allowed to be removed until after an investigation had been performed.

No kidding dude, i remember you from the govt loyalist site good old Heiwa, just classic.

Yep just like what have should have been done on 9/11 a proper real investigation, one that doesnt involve destroying, ignoring, sweeping
away half of the evidence and leaving out anything that is inconvenient and will not fit in with the official narative of that day, sweep it all
under the rug and have it conveniently cut up melted down and recyled, but i think the only difference is as with the building collapse above
nobody had anything to hide, or did they? Just kidding lol.

You didn't take that seriously ..... did you, Justice now???

Just in case you didn't know - it's called 'typical Scandinavian sarcasm',

especially amongst Scandinavians themselves!


Cheers

You will have to explain the "term" Scandinavian Sarcasm to me i tried googling it but i got not search result explaining what the terms really means.

Thankyou cheers

That would be rather difficult as it comes in many and varied nuances.

Suffice to say though, that fundamentally it's based on 'dry humour'

to highlight the 'ridiculousness' or 'ludicrousness' of a situation, or of

somebody's behavior etc..

Heiwa's use, was but one such example -


Cheers

Bjorkman has been discredited... he doesn't know what he is talking about. The collapse had nothing to do with the columns after the initiation. The destruction was a floor collapse and anyone who looks carefully sees that.

Go away Anders... you've been pounding that drum for years.

Has he? He is actually offering you €1 million if you can prove him wrong at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Isn't that kind of generous? Reason is of course that the money is safe in his bank for ever. Reason is that flying planes into weak tops of skyscrapers will never destroy the much stronger bottom parts below the weak top. No structure of any kind can be destroyed by a small top of itself and gravity ... according to the Bjorkman axiom.
If above link is too long, try http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm#TBS where Bjorkman discredits Bazant!

Above picture by my, to explain what we are talking about, shows a structure of 110 floors (actually it is 400+ meters tall full scale skyscraper) and a roof and a mast. Structure left shows the intact structure, structure right is damaged! A stupid terrorist pilot flow a plane into floor #97 and started a fire and the upper top part C (floors #98-110 + roof and mast) is shown to drop down 3.7 meters on bottom part A (floors#0-97).
Now, does anyone really believe that small (and weak) top part C can crush down bigger (and stronger) bottom part A in 10-20 seconds?
If you can prove it, I'll give you € 1 000 000:-, which is plenty of US$.
If you cannot prove it, welcome to the real world of pilotsfor911truth that I am glad that it exists.

As an engineer myself, I’m not sure if I grasp the conflict of this conversation.

If 6 Boeing 747 hump-backs hit the towers at the exact time…the damage would only be superficial.

Only controlled demolition could have brought down all three buildings.

SandersO you became "famous" by writing long posts about the significance of 5/8" bolts,

(wasting our time as usual) and never letting an opportunity slip by telling us all you're an

'architect'.

I think you would have impressed us more had you been involved in the construction of

the Sydney Opera House, or the bridge between Denmark and Sweden etc. instead of just

one or two story warehouse buildings.

If the above had been the case, you would surely never have mentioned the damn 5/8" bolts,

as you then would have been fully aware of this absolute 'triviality'.

Because you would then again have been aware, that the towers would have come down

anyway, even if even 1 1/2" or 2" bolts had been used!


Cheers


PS!
Btw, just noticed that you're in deep shit over at the 9/11 truth forum.

There also, are some guys who can easily see through your "spin"!

Never wrote a long post about 5/8" bolts.

Not in deep doo at the 911 Free Forums

At this point I am not going to waste your time. If you want to consider what appears to be the best and most current research... all done within the last two years... visit the 911 Free Forums.

And if you have a problem with their findings... register and pick a fight about the work.

I don't think you or elreb will do that or if you do make them back down as you try to get me to do here.

Bjorkman had a go over there and left with his tail between his legs. Szamboti tried for a while and his work was also found to be flawed.

The 911FF has debunked NIST, WOOD, mini Nukes, explosive controlled demolition, Bazant and those who explain the twins with blocks...

You can remain isolated by and in your beliefs.... or you can try to inform yourself of ongoing research.

Your choice.

Anders,

You should know that what happened to the twin towers was the the floor system was overwhelmed and collapsed. The columns had nothing to do with the collapse or resisting it. The destructive loads were not applied axially to the columns but to the floors.

You can see the strongest part of the building remained post collapse - the core - most of it standing 50 stories...

What do you expect would happen if you dropped 10,000 tons of anything on one of the twin tower floors? The floor would fail... and drop.. the columns it was supported by and attached to would remain.

The column failure (aside from initiation) occurred after and as result of the floor destruction. Look at the videos.

Of course the axial load of the upper or weaker columns could not crush the lower ones. That is not what happened.

That's a bait and switch argument and you are a liar as well because you don't have a million dollars. Let's see you post a bond for that amount and your proof with be forth coming.

Your mickey mouse physics is laughable. Really... it is.

Sandero you should know, that no one's buying your bullshit.

Sure? Floor system was overwhelmed and collapsed? Columns were not snapping as suggested by Bazant at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm#TBS . OK,OK! Describe it and win €€1000000:- . Bazant failed! Come on, SanderO. Show that you are not a 0!

I know what happened to the twin towers while the Hollywood show was running 'live on TV'. The towers were destroyed from bottom up. Only way to do it.
Planes??? You can fly any number of planes into tops of skyscrapers and kill yourself and nothing happens to the bottoms of skyscrapers.

I express agreement…

This reminds me of General Sherman, a Giant Sequoia in California.

It has a 102 feet circumference at the base and 44 feet circumference near the top. Now crash a plane like Air France flight 296 into the tree.

The tree wins…and is still standing…

Anders,

Bazant has been shown to be wrong... The floors were overwhelmed when the top section collapsed on to them... the columns broke at the joints which were much weaker than the cross sections themselves. Most of the core columns up to the 50th floor survived the floor collapse.. so obviously they didn't resist it. The core column fractured... but at their joints and many experienced Euler buckling.

Your conception is reductionist.. mickey mouse and doesn't match the observables.

Stick to ships...

But the weak top section consisted of what? Floors? OK, so top section floors overwhelmed the bottom section floors ... and the walls just fell off? Great!
Pls describe the structure with floors in more detail and test it in a laboratory - top section floors overwhelming bottom section floors - and walls just falling off. It sounds like pancaking? If it works € € 1000000:- are yours! Come on, O!

Heiwa,

I would estimate that 90% of this forum is behind you.

Anyone with a 4th grade education would recognize that the buildings were brought down from the bottom-up.

The planes were nothing more than a distraction…

Why wastes your time…

Actually, it wasn't just a bottom-up CD. These were the tallest buildings and the Towers had structural features that were exploited. The Towers were like three cubes one on top of the other. The destruction of the top cube was initiated first, then the bottom cube and then middle one. In the top cube was the hat truss that held the core together. Once the hat trusses were blown up, fuel air explosives in the elevator shafts would force the core columns out like peeling a banana.

They even controlled the direction of the collapses and both buildings were tilted to fall into the plaza. Made it a lot easier to clear the perimeter streets, which were mostly reopened in a day or two.

DYEW,

That is an interesting theory / conception of the structure of the twins and how they were deconstructed. I would take exception that the hat truss " held the core together".

This is not incorrect but not accurate either. All the bracing and steel *held the core together. The main purpose of the hat truss was:

To provide an effective wide end place for the very tall antenna load which would not only represent a large concentrated load on the 3 columns in the center of the core...but would see enormous lateral loads from the wind. You can't support a telephone pole.. or a flag pole.. very high aspect ratio items without a proper foundation pinning the end.

The hat truss also distributed the axial antenna loads to as many as 23 core columns and 8 points on the facade. This enabled a reduction of size (cross section) of the 3 columns which were directly below the antenna... and that would mean saving beefing up 38 - 36' sections... and marginally, if at all increasing the columns supporting the hat truss.

The hat truss since it acted like an end plate and was connected to the 32 points noted above... if columns were destroyed.. and some were.. from the plane damage / initiating event... the hat truss was the structure which facilitated load redistribution to remaining columns.

Ironically it was load redistribution which led to the core failure at around the location of the plane damage/initiating event to the core. As loads were redistributed.. the remaining columns were seeing their factor of safety reduced. When the factor of safety or the remaining columns slipped below 1 from continuing multiple causes... the core failed... and we saw a rapid onset of the collapse as a crushing down at the location of the plane strike / initiating event.

Once the enormous mass was released on to the intact floor below the place strike zone... the mass overwhelmed the floor system and everyone beneath it crushing and fracturing them... mechanically rendering the floors to *sand* and concrete dust.

I don't know that we can determine that the hat trusses were blown up.... but they did not do well as the tops crashed down. Like most steel frames subjected the forces that they saw.. the would come apart at their weakest points.. the joints/seams.

There is very little if any evidence which indicated explosion damage to steel.. at least I haven't seen any. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. This could have been removed to cover up such things. But we can't conclude there were explosions which blew the hat truss apart.. without hard evidence of this.

Anders...

Let see...Go to any load table for the components of the composite. You know that the load tables which you may use in your own work were determined with empirical testing.

A section of steel which has an ASTM A36 designation has a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi. A36 steel is made to spec with a specific set of additive metals to the alloy.

The same applies to the concrete used for the floor slabs. The strength is determined by the admixtures, the amount of water, the time of curing, the type and amount of aggregate and reinforcing for tensile stress with steel... wire mesh or rebars if required.

Concrete used in construction is sampled both at the time of pour and after curing for testing. One is a slump test at pour time and the other is a cylinder which is then subject to compression testing.

The WTC floor concrete floors outside the core was designed to support minimum 58 psf. This was a 42% strength reduction negotiated by PONY, with LERA, and the NYC DOB which as a code requirement of 100 psf. The strength reduction applied to the ENTIRE composite... not JUST the concrete.

As you may know a composite is only as strong as its weakest component. Under stress, the weakest element fails first... and this may or may not result in failure of the other components. If the trusses were to fail first.. it is unlikely that the floor slabs would not shatter and fracture. On the other hand it is possible for the concrete to be shattered... and the trusses to remain. After all the trusses were self supporting before the concrete was poured.

The floor system at the twin towers likely experience progressive... top to bottom failure - shattering, fracturing, crushing, grinding and pulverization from mechanical interactions.. millions of them in a very short span of time.. turning the 4" slabs to sand sized particles and dust.

I'll split the $1,000,000 prize with a worthy cause like OWS... Thank you.

Yes, the planes were a distraction and an excuse.

An excuse to build DHS and TSA and all their budgetary glory for federal bureaucrats.

Amazed...

We agree on that... whatever happened.. whomever caused 911... it was the excuse to step up the oppression and hegemony of the national security state.

Exactly! If you drop a weak top part C on the stronger bottom part A of similar structure (A supports C and A is therefore stronger than C) you can be sure that elements of top part C fails first ... and that's it! A arrests C.
That a weaker assembly of elements can crush a stronger assembly of elements is not possible according to the Björkman axiom, which pls Google!

And flying planes into the weak tops of skyscrapers will just kill the pilot, destroy the plane and cause some local structural failures to the skyscraper. The US NIST institute, National Institute in Support of Terrorism, of course believes the opposite and encourages terrorist pilots to collide with skyscrapers.

Crazy, isn't it?

Anders,

Of course you simplify and misrepresent what happened.

Even if there was no plane damage... and someone had exploded enough of the columns on the 95th floor...collapsing the 15 floors above... this would have as much as 50,000 tons of mass descending not on the columns of the 94th floor... but on the floor itself.

But if it were possible to gather up all that mass.. 15 floors and place it on top of the columns of the 94th floor... you are absolutely correct... the columns would not collapse.

This is not what happened... and you know it.

The 50,000 tons of material came down on the 94th floor which was designed to support 58 PSF = 58#x 30,000 = 870 tons...

A floor designed to support 870 tons is no match for even half the 50,000 tons.... and since all the floors were the same except the mech floors.. this mass would destroy every floor one after the other including the stronger mech floors.

I win the Anders $1,000.000 challenge... I'll have a friend in Holland receive the payment.

Thank you.

The following link is not Apples to Apples comparison but simply an example of how real collapses are investigated.

http://failures.wikispaces.com/Harbour+Cay+Condominiums

Amen to that brother!

SanderO

I forget if we've discussed this before, but what do you suppose Willie experienced and witnessed down there?

Are you sure? Just demonstrate it and make a video of it. Then check is in the mail!

Anders,

Before the lowers sections disintegrated... from whatever mechanism... the top sections of both towers somehow got destroyed... We can leave that aside for the time being. By destroy I don't mean *disappeared*, but rather dissociated.. much the way a demolition destroys a structure... the destroy structure is taken apart. One could explode it to kingdom come.... with the mass being blasted away and in its fractured state land some distance for the explosion. Or you could dismantle the structure by a series of smaller explosions attacking the integrity of the frame. With the frame destroyed... the floors and the roof., the walls and the contents have no support and would drop down by gravity. I suppose you could also slowly take the structure apart... stacking it up piece by piece on some floor... no explosives.

The bottom line here is unless the top sections of the twin towers were made to disappear... or the mass was blasted far from the foot print... gravity would see all or most of the mass bearing down on the top floor of of the intact lower structure. As noted that floor was designed for a static load of about 900 tons. Even with a factor of safety of 3 or 4 (not likely) when the equivalent of 4 floor masses...(FOS 3 for example)... landed on the top undamaged floor...(as it did) that floor would fail.

As already stated if you could some how add this mass as an AXIAL load to the columns of the intact structure, the tower would not fall, the frame would not fail... all the mass would be concentrated loads applied axially to the columns. That is impossible.... and you know it.

The mass.. enough mass came down on the top floor of the undamaged lower section... it did not disappear... it did not MOSTLY go outside the floor foot print... it was broken apart as it landed on that floor... it came down on it as a series of dynamic loads... the assault lasted about 3.75 seconds for tower 1 and the assault destroyed the entire footprint of the 94th floor... caused the columns above to lose their bracing and descend... all came down as a destructive dynamic load which the 94th floor could not support. It broke apart... And the same exact conditions were then presented to the 93rd floor. This proceeded (repeated) downward at the rate of about 100 feet per second more or less and no floor had the strength to arrest this gravity driven mass flow...

The planes or whatever kicked off the event were not of sufficient destructive force to destroy enough of the frame to have it all break apart. We saw that. Other factors then began to work at weakening the frame until it could not support the floor mass... they then came crashing down... leading to the gravity driven progressive floor collapse.

There is no other possible outcome if that much mass is coming down on a 58 psf floor system. We don't know what the precise mix of the core weakening factor were. But we can see that it took place.. the tops broke apart... the loads were freed from the column support below and gravity did what it does... pull the mass toward the ground.

It's all visible in many of the videos of the event. Open you eyes.

SanderO

Do you think Willie was making that up? Or do you think some transformers or decaying baby diapers exploded?

When I watch any video of the 911 one-way crush downs I just see Hollywood CGI at work. Why is that? Because no structure of any kind can destroy itself as shown - a fountain of smoke and debris - according the laws of physics. To me it is obvious fakery of normal Hollywood standard.
Actually every electronic video/photo of the 911 destructions are fake. Imagine the planning behind that. Of course all videos/photos were taken before the real destructions and then smoke/debris were added and parts of buildings removed using standard photoshopping.
So you failed the Challenge, 0!

Anders,

This last post was totally nonsense. If you refuse to accept the visual record.. then there is nothing to work with. You reductionist block models are not reality. And there's this:

"I think it's important for both the yayers and the nayers on a given topic to recognize the mutual gaps which sometimes exist in the common language of discourse. If you don't know that Euler buckling exists, it's not even part of your worldview constructions let alone your arsenal of tools for explaining observed phenomena.

If the phenomena you are observing is indeed Euler buckling, and you have no concept of it, you will be at a total loss to explain what you're seeing. I'm not talking about the name for something, I'm talking about the something itself. It may be possible for you to leverage your observation into a true understanding of the phenomena - and then might be tempted to name the effect after yourself not knowing it's taught in undergraduate structural classes.

The issue is - ignorance. I don't mean it in a disparaging sense, just that when you don't know something you are ignorant of it and can't make use of it to aid in further understanding. Many discussions I see are steeped in incredulity at very well understood phenomena and invariably go off course into pointless bickering because one side simply cannot accept that the boundaries of their knowledge on a particular subject may end right where standard freshman coursework begins.

On the other side of the fence, someone who is comfortable with a subject may not approach it with the necessary rigor to differentiate the cases where looks can be deceiving, simply because of a rote familiarity and habit of reaching for the same old tools when solving a problem.

Here, in this thread, the explanations DO come off as "this IS what happened" as opposed to "this COULD be what happened" and naturally that reflects personal confidence of those telling the tale. So long as that is understood, what's the problem? Of the two conditions I've raised in this post, ignorance of well-understood principles of physics and engineering seems to me a much bigger obstacle towards obtaining representational models. If you don't know about Euler buckling, you cannot explain the fall of certain core segments towards the end of collapse. You will resort to some f***king magic to explain your observation, whereas a structural engineer will not only be able to call it for what it is, they will be able to predict the threshold at which it would occur.

Most of what I see here are remedial explanations of very basic engineering concepts which your average person does not know. They cannot be faulted for not knowing; though elementary it is also specialized and there is no expectation the general populace should be conversant. However, if members of the general populace choose to inject themselves into conversations of this nature, it is essential they get up to speed on certain tools and vocabulary such that they are not fatally impeded by their ignorance.

Like discussing disease vectors when you have no concept of the existence of a microbial world, your position will be stilted by what you don't know. It's really as simple as that. Now, you learn the rules, examine things carefully, and it still doesn't make sense - then you may have something, but at least you'll have the means to articulate it in such a way that others will be able to objectively reconstruct what you claim to be discrepant."

Amazed,

PC crashed last night and wiped out my reply.

I have spoken with William and also Sofia Smallstorm who did 911 Mysteries and interview WR.

I asked WR if he had ever heard a power transformer explode. He said no. I asked him if there wasn't a large electrical power sub station in the sub basement where he heard the blast from. He said there was. He added that he did not say he heard a bomb... he said he heard explosions and wants that investigated.

Sofia said when she interviewed WR he was not sure of the timing except it seemed to occur just before he heard the plane crash.

I say that it is possible that the plane caused an immediate voltage spike which blew several transformers... You can see evidence of this at the very top mech floor in tower 1 as there appears to be black smoke coming from 15 floors above the impact. I think this might be the electrical sub station up there.

The sound of the impact would have taken just over a second to reach WR in the sub basement as sound travels as 1180 feet per sec and this was just below the strike elevation at the 95th floor. But the voltage spike traveled at the speed of light and so WR witness the transformer explosion at the actual moment of the plane strike... but he heard the plane 1 second later... His perception was that the explosion preceded the plane strike.. but they happened simultaneously.

I can't say this is certain. But this may explain what he witnessed.

186,282 miles per second...

One foot in a Nano second is as one second is to 31.7 years.

1.017 nanoseconds (approximately) – time taken for light to travel 1 foot.

Sure thing...Andy...

SanderO, post the two transformer videos again.

They caused no damage. So what blew the shit out of those sub basements?

Cheers big ears.

OMG lol the collapses where really just CGI, Grow up Anders get a life will you? Next you will be saying that Nukes did it,
and that the planes where really just lollergrams.

If the visual record is a Hollywood cartoon, it is not much to discuss in case of 'progressive top crush down by gravity NIST collapse', etc, etc. The good news are that nukes do not work at all (impossible to trigger a nano-seconds explosions of a 0.5' diameter 100 lbs uranium sphere) so we can discount that possibility.
It was much simpler. Plenty of smoke around the WTC and bottom-up controlled demolition, while the Hollywood pre-fab cartoons was aired 'live on TV' as direct news.

Are you trying to say that the collapses on TV where just CGI so they could hide the actual demo of the twins?

That's is what I wrote. Yes, the WTC1/2 911 collapses are CGI. Reason being that no structure of any kind can go POUFF, POUFF, top crushing bottom down to ground at high speed; http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm .
I have actually investigated plenty of collisions between the biggest moving steel structures in the world and the result is always the same. The bigger, stronger structure always arrests the smaller, weaker one regardless if collision is horizontal (ships) or vertical (comet hitting Earth).

SanderO

I've watched WR probably 5 or 6 different times--he even spoke in Europe about his experiences.

A transformer explosion will not burn the flesh off the human body so that it is hanging.

What he witnessed was the first attack, I assume, on the lower structure. High Explosive of some sort, enough to cause structural steel to remain molten for many days. Something special--weapons grade technology.

You fool.

sanderO: "I say that it is possible that the plane caused an immediate voltage spike which blew several transformers..."

OR, the various explosives wired inside the building, like those that blew up the lobby elevators, blew up the glass, and knocked marble off walls, were precisely timed to coincide with the impact of the plane, in order to (duh) mask their source/cause. looks like some people (like yourself apparently) were indeed fooled by the coincidental timing. or perhaps, as is your modus operandi, you gravitate toward whatever explanation that involves least complicity by nefarious forces, and or whatever explanation that doesnt contradict your personal gravity-collapse theory.


you're always looking the other way when better or more-plausible explanations are available, and thats where your bias is most transparent. and as such, i shall now return to ignoring you - please dont use this response as a platform from which to spew an hour's worth of techno-babble. thank you kindly sir.

Guys,

Kettle calling the pot black...

The transformers were below WR... and when they explode all sorts of hot oil is expelled. I didn't say that it was power transformers.. I offered that as an possible explanation.

I didn't see any evidence of core columns from the sub basement melted. Why would they attack the central core columns anyway? They had so little to do with supporting floors... but they *framed* the shaft of car #50 - them main freight car which traveled from the sub basement to the roof... and from which I believe is where the building engineers emerged burnt.

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show “Thermal Hot Spots” on September 16 and 23, 2001.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates “temperatures greater than 800 degree F”.

Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone…

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

NOTE: Jet fuel [Kerosene] has an open air burn temperature of less than 600 degree F.

In physics and thermodynamics, heat is energy transferred from one body, region, or thermodynamic system to another due to thermal contact or thermal radiation when the systems are at different temperatures.

Planck's law describes the spectrum of black “Kettle” radiation, which depends only on the object's temperature.

This is around 1200 degree F.

No offence guys, but when I see SanderO is being subjected to a barrage of criticism, mockery and ridicule from every conceivable angle, while in the meantime quotes such as the one above are left basically unchallenged, I know for sure that I have entered cloud cuckooland.

SanderO has failed the Heiwa Challenge and is thus a failure.
Re CGI at work may I clarify:
All footage of videos and photos of 911 at NY is fake! Planes flying into towers, big holes in top of towers, fires, smoke, top-down destructions, more smoke and debris, heaps of rubble are fake. They are just parts of pre-made Hollywood cartoons to mislead the public.
How do I know? Do the plane/tower collisions look real? Maybe, maybe not? Do the holes in the towers and the fires and smoke look real? Maybe, maybe not. Do the top-down destructions look real? This is my expertize! Structural, dynamic damage analysis! And I can assure you that no structure can self-destroy by small, weak top crushing big, stronger bottom. So the top-down destructions are CGI. Easy to see for an expert like me.
And as the top down destructions are CGI, the rest is also CGI. Welcome to cuckooland USA/Hollywood/GWB/Condi Rice and other fools. Don't blame me. I am just a concerned observer from far away.