What brought down WTC7

[JEDIYoda]

damn you guys are as bad as those freakin 9/11 conspiracy morons...oopps...this is one opf those threads..lol

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you've yet to prove that doing so is impossible.

You've got to come to terms with the physics dicussed in the OP to accept the fact that I have.

Originally posted by: Cogman
And how is your argument anything more then a faith based argument?

Because it is based on long understood and consistently demonstatable laws of physics, as explained in the OP.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
... thermite doesn't blow up.

Again, it does it when it is engineered to, but of course such facts don't stop a falser like yourself from claiming otherwise.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
They believe it so strongly they don't need to listen to contradictory facts or arguments; how could any facts possibly disprove something that they absolutely know is true?

This is a good description of you and the rest of your ilk who refuse to address the facts presented in the OP.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You have no basis to doubt intelligent people with no agenda that were actually there.

I not only have reason to doubt them, but outright reject their claims, and I presented the reasoning for that in the OP.

Again, to everyone:

Please look at the facts I presented in the OP. Then ask yourself, without even thinking of 9/11; could fires cause a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration? Please don't try to interpret how you believe it once did, don't imagine up theories of how it could, and don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you; but rather seek proof of what can be done in physical reality. Also, please ask your friends to do the same. If you are unwilling to do as much, then please at least respect the fact that you are arguing from a position of faith here, and stop trying to shout me down for doing otherwise.

From now on, I will only respond to posts here which address WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, as that is what this thread is about.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Again, to everyone:

Please look at the facts I presented in the OP. Then ask yourself, without even thinking of 9/11; could fires cause a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration? Please don't try to interpret how you believe it once did, don't imagine up theories of how it could, and don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you; but rather seek proof of what can be done in physical reality. Also, please ask your friends to do the same. If you are unwilling to do as much, then please at least respect the fact that you are arguing from a position of faith here, and stop trying to shout me down for doing otherwise.

From now on, I will only respond to posts here which address WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, as that is what this thread is about.

Hahaha, you said your op is filled with facts. Good one. Ever thought about doing stand-up?

 

[jonks]

Ooooh, I got a good one:

http://wcbstv.com/local/uss.new.york.2.1244575.html

That's right, a newly commissioned warship was built with steel recovered from the WTC attacks! Following? They took the evidence of the crime and shipped it to Louisiana where they melted it down and made it into a boat, winking at CTers as if to say, "now your case really doesn't hold water". Damn these guys are good. It's like when Richard Pryor mailed the $1 million stamp he bought in Brewster's Millions!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky
In the photos over the web, you can clearly see pieces of rubble glowing orange from the heat. Last I checked, molten aluminum, which does melt at much lower temperatures than iron, doesn't glow orange hot. And the photos show solid chunks of metal glowing orange from the heat. Sounds like aluminum to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Then I have to wonder what would cause the rubble to sustain such high temperatures for weeks after the collapse, especially after being dumped with rainwater, and being doused by fire fighters.

And, that still doesn't explain the ridiculous reaction from the director when being questioned about it.

If steel is glowing orange it isn't "molten." Hot steel != molten steel. And last I checked the WTC wasn't a foundry. Pure aluminum doesn't glow orange hot. However, there were all kinds of impurities mixed in with the aluminum which can easily cause it to glow orange.

As far as what caused the rubble to sustain such a high temperature you might want to check out the reaction between iron and steam, which just happens to be exothermic and also, incidentally, causes sulfidation as well.

Besides that, truthers imply that thermite fueled these underground fires. However, when the calculations are done the results show that an obscene amount of thermite would have been required to do that.

So where did the energy come from to stoke the underground fires in the first place? It came from the energy released during the collapse of the buildings themselves. The collapses generated a massive amount of heat, plenty of "fuel" (paper, plastics, etc) was buried in the rubble, and the rubble pile acted as an insulator to retain that heat for weeks.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Do you have a proper "debunking" explanation? I think it's pretty clear that the material was NOT simply rust, but a thermitic material. Calling people "troofer morons" for bringing up these questions is not a satisfactory answer.

You're new here. Jones's chips have been debunked as invalid "evidence" over and over in P&N. When something is debunked and the troofers continue to trot it out, seemingly obliviously, they deserve to be tagged as morons.

 

[nick1985]

Anyone else think "truthers" spew this garbage because they have nothing else to do and for some odd reason get some sort of satisfaction from it, even when they know deep down they are full of shit?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

to the pseudoskeptics-
this is your mission if you choose to accept it. think about how 15.9mm of a36 steel "corrodes" in just 8 days. that would be wtc 7 steel. i wanna see corrosion rates, how much sulfur content is needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C and all that jazzzzzzzz.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

btw, it's truthers that believe "Active Thermitic Material has been Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". So who do you think you're fooling with your regurgitated, debunked garbage?

Do you have a proper "debunking" explanation? I think it's pretty clear that the material was NOT simply rust, but a thermitic material. Calling people "troofer morons" for bringing up these questions is not a satisfactory answer.

There is no chain of custody. We have no idea where this "active thermatic material" came from, except that a Manhattan resident found it? Can you imagine if the NIST report relied on evidence like that? Imagine what YOU would be saying. "There's no chain of custody! It could have come from anywhere."

The point is that we have no idea what that stuff is or where it came from. Sure, it might be thermite from Ground Zero. It also might be thermite cooked up in a lab and passed off as stuff from Ground Zero.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Anyone else think "truthers" spew this garbage because they have nothing else to do and for some odd reason get some sort of satisfaction from it, even when they know deep down they are full of shit?

In my humble opinion, people that buy into the truther nonsense do so because it is comforting. Somehow believing that our government did this rather than a bunch of relatively uneducated arabic men helps them sleep better at night and they'll do anything to deny the reality of how vulnerable our country is to attacks from abroad.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Do you have a proper "debunking" explanation? I think it's pretty clear that the material was NOT simply rust, but a thermitic material. Calling people "troofer morons" for bringing up these questions is not a satisfactory answer.

OMG another one of them Twouthers.....these people are infesting these forums...lolol......the more the merrier...heheee

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: nick1985
Anyone else think "truthers" spew this garbage because they have nothing else to do and for some odd reason get some sort of satisfaction from it, even when they know deep down they are full of shit?

In my humble opinion, people that buy into the truther nonsense do so because it is comforting. Somehow believing that our government did this rather than a bunch of relatively uneducated arabic men helps them sleep better at night and they'll do anything to deny the reality of how vulnerable our country is to attacks from abroad.

The one guy I know personally, who insisted on playing the VHS tape "Loose Change" before I caught on to what was coming, will buy into many different things.
He got into Fingerhut and many many other mail order companies before the internet was popular, and he got all sorts of 'jewelry' that purportedly had high value for a bargain.
His mail was full of every kind offer known, since he would buy and that put his name on more and more lists.
Then the internet arrived and he would buy all sorts of stuff there too. I got a glimpse of his mailbox and it was your worst nightmare.
All that above is purely anecdotal but is my only personal experience with someone who has bought into the 9/11 conspiracies, and many many others.
His long time girlfriend finally left him over that and other things, and we don't talk to him anymore. I try to be friendly but he knows I think he is a gullible paranoid.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: munky

So it doesn't raise your suspicion to see claims such as:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)?who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards?found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

lets continue reading:

Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you've yet to prove that doing so is impossible.

You've got to come to terms with the physics dicussed in the OP to accept the fact that I have.

so, you've got nothing.


you've still not responded to the NIST's graphic on page 37, have you? you know, the one that shows their model and the destruction of the 8 stories of exterior support that you claim their model doesn't account for?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky
In the photos over the web, you can clearly see pieces of rubble glowing orange from the heat. Last I checked, molten aluminum, which does melt at much lower temperatures than iron, doesn't glow orange hot. And the photos show solid chunks of metal glowing orange from the heat. Sounds like aluminum to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Then I have to wonder what would cause the rubble to sustain such high temperatures for weeks after the collapse, especially after being dumped with rainwater, and being doused by fire fighters.

And, that still doesn't explain the ridiculous reaction from the director when being questioned about it.

If steel is glowing orange it isn't "molten." Hot steel != molten steel. And last I checked the WTC wasn't a foundry. Pure aluminum doesn't glow orange hot. However, there were all kinds of impurities mixed in with the aluminum which can easily cause it to glow orange.

As far as what caused the rubble to sustain such a high temperature you might want to check out the reaction between iron and steam, which just happens to be exothermic and also, incidentally, causes sulfidation as well.

Besides that, truthers imply that thermite fueled these underground fires. However, when the calculations are done the results show that an obscene amount of thermite would have been required to do that.

So where did the energy come from to stoke the underground fires in the first place? It came from the energy released during the collapse of the buildings themselves. The collapses generated a massive amount of heat, plenty of "fuel" (paper, plastics, etc) was buried in the rubble, and the rubble pile acted as an insulator to retain that heat for weeks.

Steel glows orange at temperatures well above those required to melt aluminum. And if aluminum glows orange, it definitely wouldn't be solid at that point. Not to mention that the amount of aluminum in the rubble was nowhere near the amount of steel. So as convenient as it may sound to pass it off for molten aluminum, it doesn't prove that it was aluminum melting in there.

As for your steam theory - where did the steam come from? You're saying that water poured into the rubble from outside, causing steam, but nothing went out due to insulation? That's one ridiculous claim if I ever heard one.

How much energy went into generating heat? A lot of the energy from the collapse was spent pulverizing the concrete and crushing steel. Only a fraction of it could possibly generate heat. Do you have numbers showing that the amount of energy left over was sufficient to generate all that heat?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: munky

Then I have to wonder what would cause the rubble to sustain such high temperatures for weeks after the collapse, especially after being dumped with rainwater, and being doused by fire fighters.

high temps + water + iron = lots of energy released (fire, basically)

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme


Again, to everyone:

Please look at the facts I presented in the OP. Then ask yourself, without even thinking of 9/11; could fires cause a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration? Please don't try to interpret how you believe it once did, don't imagine up theories of how it could, and don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you; but rather seek proof of what can be done in physical reality. Also, please ask your friends to do the same. If you are unwilling to do as much, then please at least respect the fact that you are arguing from a position of faith here, and stop trying to shout me down for doing otherwise.

From now on, I will only respond to posts here which address WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, as that is what this thread is about.

You moron. Your reality is only true in your twuther paranoid world. The rest of the world including the mainstream scientific community, eye witnesses, mainstream media and on and on don't believe in your shit.

It's simple
It's true, a vast majority does not believe in your fantasies.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Anyone else think "truthers" spew this garbage because they have nothing else to do and for some odd reason get some sort of satisfaction from it, even when they know deep down they are full of shit?

I don't think they know they're wrong. They're not smart enough or they have some kind of mental blockage. They are challenged people, incredibly paranoid and evil.

They probably were abused as children leading them to believe the entire world is out to get them.

I pity them not as much as I despise them.

Also if you look at their behavior it's like an addiction. Alcoholic continue drinking even though they know it's killing them. Twuthers keep professing their garbage even after being ridiculed and being made to look like complete idiots. The worst ones lose their jobs yet they can't convince any rational people.

Maybe it's time for 911 twuthers recovery groups to help some of them. But you can't help somebody who doesn't want to be helped.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: munky

Then I have to wonder what would cause the rubble to sustain such high temperatures for weeks after the collapse, especially after being dumped with rainwater, and being doused by fire fighters.

high temps + water + iron = lots of energy released (fire, basically)

Yeah, I don't see how it's surprising that such high temperatures were sustained. There was a LOT of combustible material in the WTC and it basically all collapsed down on itself. Sustained pressure + combustible material not only means that the fires could have kept going, but makes it likely. Also, we're talking tens of millions of pounds of rubble, there's no way that firefighters were able to douse even a fraction of the fires for months.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: munky

Steel glows orange at temperatures well above those required to melt aluminum. And if aluminum glows orange, it definitely wouldn't be solid at that point. Not to mention that the amount of aluminum in the rubble was nowhere near the amount of steel. So as convenient as it may sound to pass it off for molten aluminum, it doesn't prove that it was aluminum melting in there.

As for your steam theory - where did the steam come from? You're saying that water poured into the rubble from outside, causing steam, but nothing went out due to insulation? That's one ridiculous claim if I ever heard one.

How much energy went into generating heat? A lot of the energy from the collapse was spent pulverizing the concrete and crushing steel. Only a fraction of it could possibly generate heat. Do you have numbers showing that the amount of energy left over was sufficient to generate all that heat?

On the WTC 1 building, a rough calculation of the consumed energy to pulverize concrete on the first floor under the 'bloc' of 15 floors into 4 or 5 sizes (which is about what was found) would be about 230 mjoules. There could have been about 2gigajoules available from that 15 story bloc...
I'm sure someone some where has calculated with precision that number. My gson simply took from NIST and other places the values of what steel/concrete/etc was on a particular floor and the distance drop. He then looked up some place the crush factors for hammers and the like on concrete and converted the concrete mass into grams and he had like 3 joules per gram. But, that was for the first meeting of the block with the floor and I've not a clue how much mass the bloc lost etc. So to calculate the increase in energy do to increase in acceleration but with a reduction of mass is guess work for me and gson is more interested in getting his finals project started :+) which has more to do with medicine than this insanity, as he calls it. [I'm still looking for a place that did THAT calculation or any other determined 'energy sink']
He did mention, however, that aluminum does not usually glow red when molten. It is much too reflective... it is silvery or grey he said and organics would be consumed generally at melt temp of aluminium... a guess, I guess... And, he just said look for grey smoke?


hehehehehe I was told the formula.. It Starts with something like 1/2 M which looks more like 2/3rds of a 4 missing the ' - ' so I'd get lost doing it myself..

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky
Steel glows orange at temperatures well above those required to melt aluminum. And if aluminum glows orange, it definitely wouldn't be solid at that point. Not to mention that the amount of aluminum in the rubble was nowhere near the amount of steel. So as convenient as it may sound to pass it off for molten aluminum, it doesn't prove that it was aluminum melting in there.

As for your steam theory - where did the steam come from? You're saying that water poured into the rubble from outside, causing steam, but nothing went out due to insulation? That's one ridiculous claim if I ever heard one.

How much energy went into generating heat? A lot of the energy from the collapse was spent pulverizing the concrete and crushing steel. Only a fraction of it could possibly generate heat. Do you have numbers showing that the amount of energy left over was sufficient to generate all that heat?

If steel is glowing orange it's not "molten."

Of course there's nothing to prove it was molten aluminum, just as you have no proof it was molten steel. That's the entire point. However, it's far, far more likely to have been molten aluminum since the temps were not hot enough to melt steel in the first place.

As far as the water goes, yes, water seeps through soil and debris very readily. The debris being an insulator doesn't mean that NOTHING went in or out. I have no idea why you're even suggesting such a thing except to create a straw man argument or maybe you don't understand about insulating properties in the first place? Based on your comment above I'd have to say it was the latter.

Then you go on to demonstrate a further lack of physics. Pulverizing concrete and crushing steel doesn't simply cause the energy to dissolve into nothingness. Heat is generated during those process. Considering the large amount of material in the WTC buildings, a lot of heat was generated by those processes.

If you want the numbers I suggest you read the following web page:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you want the numbers I suggest you read the following web page:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

What I find interesting is that folks on one side of the issue seem to denigrate the links proffered by the other side as being a 'truther' link and that it has no validity. I think I disagree if we are speaking to fact application like applying a known formula to a problem.
To dismiss as 'truther' nonsense the findings of Thermite/Thermate or termites when the constituent bits are present that may have more than one interpretation is NOT a fair reading of the science. That kind of situation should be stated as it actually is: The findings reveal the following [insert what that would be].

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

you can't fucking melt steel without a blast furnace or some really hot shit ok? NIST put the jet fuel around 1100-1500F and with office furniture you can push the fires up to 1800F or so. That's not enough to melt steel. Steel doesn't just melt. I remember when the MacArthur maze collapsed because of a gas tanker fire people yelled MOLTEN STEEL because the steel was all twisted.

With these temperatures I listed it's very possible anything molten that was seen COULD HAVE BEEN aluminum. 660C is the MP for Aluminum (1220F I think?). You know another metal that COULD have melted although is less likely given its higher melting point? Copper? Copper pipes? Copper melts around 1000C if I remember correctly, so that's like 1900 F or so. Not entirely out of range of the 1800F for an office furniture fire. More likely than steel which clearly needs at least 1400C for a eutectoid variant...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

How much energy went into generating heat? A lot of the energy from the collapse was spent pulverizing the concrete and crushing steel. Only a fraction of it could possibly generate heat. Do you have numbers showing that the amount of energy left over was sufficient to generate all that heat?

I think the 'pulverizing' bit was heat energy. The way to calculate the total available energy (gravity energy) is to simply take the mass of the building above the foundation and subtract the energy consumed as heat energy in the various energy sinks that we can see. We know some things like how long it took to drop, how many floors of concrete were pulverized at about 230 mjoules each, how much metal deformation occurred and how much stuff was blasted outward beyond the gravity expectation...
I've been looking for that analysis but have yet to find it and I'm not able to self proclaim on this issue. If you know of a site please advise so that we can see if there is enough heat energy from the building fall remaining to melt the metals... otherwise something else did it if it is molten?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you want the numbers I suggest you read the following web page:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

What I find interesting is that folks on one side of the issue seem to denigrate the links proffered by the other side as being a 'truther' link and that it has no validity. I think I disagree if we are speaking to fact application like applying a known formula to a problem.
To dismiss as 'truther' nonsense the findings of Thermite/Thermate or termites when the constituent bits are present that may have more than one interpretation is NOT a fair reading of the science. That kind of situation should be stated as it actually is: The findings reveal the following [insert what that would be].

That's because the truther links are generally crap. They take things out of context, they make massive assumptions, and they generally lack any sort of scientific rigor. You're new to these stupid arguments but pretty much every link posted by event8horizon or any of these other guys has been ruthlessly debunked in the previous 9/11 thread.

TLC, myself, and a whole of other people have taken the time to point out the massive logical fallacies, the ridiculous assumptions, or the straight up manipulation of the truth to truthers, yet they continually come back and post the same ridiculous links that aren't facts, evidence, or analysis.

Go dig up the last huge thread we had on this retarded subject and read it. Don't be surprised to find that every single thing posted here has been posted before. Don't be surprised to find that all of these links about thermite or whatever other shit is the flavor of the week has already been taken through the wringer.

Look, truthers have had 8 full years to find a piece of hard evidence of a greater conspiracy and have failed. They have failed to provide a single scientific or circumstantial piece of evidence that indicates anything other than the planes brought down the towers, so excuse all of us if we're a little sick of rehashing the same conversations with people who think they're simply more clever than everyone else out there.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
you can't fucking melt steel without a blast furnace or some really hot shit ok? NIST put the jet fuel around 1100-1500F and with office furniture you can push the fires up to 1800F or so. That's not enough to melt steel. Steel doesn't just melt. I remember when the MacArthur maze collapsed because of a gas tanker fire people yelled MOLTEN STEEL because the steel was all twisted.

With these temperatures I listed it's very possible anything molten that was seen COULD HAVE BEEN aluminum. 660C is the MP for Aluminum (1220F I think?). You know another metal that COULD have melted although is less likely given its higher melting point? Copper? Copper pipes? Copper melts around 1000C if I remember correctly, so that's like 1900 F or so. Not entirely out of range of the 1800F for an office furniture fire. More likely than steel which clearly needs at least 1400C for a eutectoid variant...

But, that is the point, I think. Someone observes what they say is molten something. They eliminate aluminum cuz of the color. They theorize there is not much else of any volume to account for the flow volume ergo it must be Steel or Iron from a Thermate/Thermite event. They are backing into the proposition of the desired conclusion... But, it is reasonable IF the assumptions made are reasonable... No?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If steel is glowing orange it's not "molten."

Of course there's nothing to prove it was molten aluminum, just as you have no proof it was molten steel. That's the entire point. However, it's far, far more likely to have been molten aluminum since the temps were not hot enough to melt steel in the first place.

As far as the water goes, yes, water seeps through soil and debris very readily. The debris being an insulator doesn't mean that NOTHING went in or out. I have no idea why you're even suggesting such a thing except to create a straw man argument or maybe you don't understand about insulating properties in the first place? Based on your comment above I'd have to say it was the latter.

Then you go on to demonstrate a further lack of physics. Pulverizing concrete and crushing steel doesn't simply cause the energy to dissolve into nothingness. Heat is generated during those process. Considering the large amount of material in the WTC buildings, a lot of heat was generated by those processes.

If you want the numbers I suggest you read the following web page:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Did anyone measure the temperature of the hot debris down there? How do you know the temps weren't hot enough to melt steel? You sound just like the NIST report, stating that because the jet fuel fire could not be hot enough to melt steel, then the reports of molten steel in the rubble are irrelevant to the "investigation." That doesn't sound like an investigation, but a high school science lab report.

If water seeps through the debris, then how good of an insulator is it? Where is the evidence that it acted like an insulator?

You wanna talk about physics, energy is spent pulverizing concrete and crushing steel. Energy which is spent doing that work is not converted into heat. You can't say you had X amount of PE stored in the building and claim most of it got converted into heat. And whatever did get converted into heat, where is the evidence showing it's enough to raise and maintain the temperatures, despite being cooled by fire fighter efforts?

You're linking me to a site which I already looked at, despite its obvious "debunking" bias. But can the debunking site stand up to its own debunking?