Merged Molten metal observations

alienentity said:
I didn't say it was molten. i said it was a dam. YOU said it was molten - so the burden of proof is indeed on you.
Your desperation has defeated your intelligence sir. You are simply boring and childish.
Click to expand...

You said "So you're 100% sure that the dam of material was molten steel?". Since the stored molten material theory was brought forth by your crew and thus the "dam" or crucible too. It is clear that I never said it was molten. Heck I didn't even say there was a dam. Remember I stand on the idea that it is melting steel by action of thermite. It your crew that stands on the molten dam or whatever you want to call it idea. Or should I say stundie? LOL
 
Java Man said:
You said "So you're 100% sure that the dam of material was molten steel?". Since the stored molten material theory was brought forth by your crew and thus the "dam" or crucible too. It is clear that I never said it was molten. Heck I didn't even say there was a dam. Remember I stand on the idea that it is melting steel by action of thermite. It your crew that stands on the molten dam or whatever you want to call it idea. Or should I say stundie? LOL
Click to expand...

You seem to think it was molten. I don't. I frankly can't tell what it was from the blurry photos, and neither can you.
But you want therm*te, and can't accept anything else, and you've refused to step up to the burden of proof. This picture is not proof of any kind of therm*te. And it's your main evidence, unfortunately...

Any more tripe you care to fling about?

metald.png
 
Java Man said:
Just point out the solidified slabs of aluminum on the photos.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/22/article-1369020-0B4898DD00000578-574_634x392.jpg

Take a hint from the facial expression of the guy in front. That look in his face is what I figure you must look like now trying to find the solidified aluminum.

Huh? you say? Yup, it's not there.
Click to expand...

Half way down on this page. Look for the pics of the 'B26 Martin Marauder Crash Site'. Lots of solidified molten aluminum.
http://www.scottishhills.com/html/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9329
Direct links to images:
http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/...ills/Beinn na Fusaige 09-10-10/26Wreckage.jpg
http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/...ills/Beinn na Fusaige 09-10-10/28FuelTank.jpg
http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/...einn na Fusaige 09-10-10/27MoltenAluminum.jpg
 
alienentity said:
bump

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7081683#post7081683
Click to expand...

Well aprox 70 % of the aircraft is aluminum. How much of that would melt. Mhh lets see. If we have 164000 lbs that makes 118000 of molten material. That times density would make what ?? 22 cubic meters of molten aluminum?

Does this make sense? Nope not really. Because about 20,000 lbs are engine weight. That's about 13% of the aircraft. Then add to that landing gear, avionics, hydraulics, seats and interior accommodations.

Taking the engines out we are down to 144000 lbs. How much of that is avionics, hydraulics, landing gear and interior stuff? 30%? Leaves us at 100000 lbs for fuselage. Of that 80% is aluminium (http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/TransportationMarket/Aircraft/default.htm) and of that about 90% is Al of the alloy. So that puts us at 80000 lbs of alloy. Guess something like 17 to 19 cubic meters of molten aluminum.

Now if all that aluminum were to spread out in a sheet of molten goo 1 cm thick it would cover 1800 square meters. Roughly half a football field. Why is that not visible in the pictures I've posted?
 
Further on the burden of proof, and your attempt to dodge it - of course the burden of proof is on 9/11 Truth to support their claims of therm*te!! What do you expect?

Your arguing against the clear evidence (causal relationships) of massive fires, plane impacts etc... and proposing another, entirely different mechanism.

The erroneous tactic you are using, as do most other truthers, is to look for any uncertainty in the evidence of fire failure, and claim that this proves fires didn't do it, and therm*te did!!
It's ludicrous, even outright dishonest.

But I guess 9/11 Truth is the natural home for this kind of boneheaded thinking, so I shouldn't be surprised. I'm already bored with the subject, it's so patently stupid. Not really worth addressing further.
 
Java Man said:
No, I just showed aluminum under intense heat burning and not melting.
Click to expand...

You showed a thin piece of aluminum heated to melting point IN the presence of lots of oxygen.
Same applies to the aircraft fires. The aluminum that gets consumed is in ready contact with oxygen and in such cases I could see it burning or vapourizing more than puddling. Vapourized aluminum would quickly condense in the air or on nearby cooler surfaces and the resultant 'blobs' (for lack of a better word) would be small and spread about.

You will notice in the picture of the burned out car that the running aluminum began from the inside surface of the wheel rim, under the car where oxygen would be limited and radiant heat more prominant than convection heat flow.
In the case of a confined fire like the towers, radiant heat would take on a greater role and be capable of heating larger masses of aluminum to melting without there being enough oxygen at the surface of the aluminum to cause it to burn and it would puddle.

As for the somewhat oddly worded post about 'incadescence' of the hanging material, yes it could then be a piece of steel accross which molten aluminum flows once the structure tilts enough to cause an already formed pool of aluminum to flow over the side. The steel never melts even though red hot due to fires raging in the interior next to that piece and which is proximate to a sagging floor section with the puddling aluminum.

If it were thermite that was heating this piece of steel we would see the rather obvious spattering of molten steel and the white hot thermite burning as well as the telltale white smoke from that specific location.

Also if the steel was what was melting we would have seen this specific piece of steel radically deform as it approached melting as it lost ALL structural integrity. IIRC this does not occur
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Well aprox 70 % of the aircraft is aluminum. How much of that would melt. Mhh lets see. If we have 164000 lbs that makes 118000 of molten material. That times density would make what ?? 22 cubic meters of molten aluminum?

Does this make sense? Nope not really. Because about 20,000 lbs are engine weight. That's about 13% of the aircraft. Then add to that landing gear, avionics, hydraulics, seats and interior accommodations.

Taking the engines out we are down to 144000 lbs. How much of that is avionics, hydraulics, landing gear and interior stuff? 30%? Leaves us at 100000 lbs for fuselage. Of that 80% is aluminium (http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/TransportationMarket/Aircraft/default.htm) and of that about 90% is Al of the alloy. So that puts us at 80000 lbs of alloy. Guess something like 17 to 19 cubic meters of molten aluminum.

Now if all that aluminum were to spread out in a sheet of molten goo 1 cm thick it would cover 1800 square meters. Roughly half a football field. Why is that not visible in the pictures I've posted?
Click to expand...


Good start, but you've ruined it by asking an incredibly stupid question at the end. We've already established that not all the metal will melt, and indeed some of it was ejected from the towers immediately.
Since you've already argued that some of it will burn away, that means a smaller percentage will be left to melt.
(You wrote 'How much of that would melt?' You postulate 100% of it!! LMAO)

You've established that there was more than enough metal from the jet to be the main source of the pool of material, so you've answered the one question you are too afraid to ask. The one obvious question you cannot bear to ask: Was there enough source material to account for the observed 'drips'?

Answer: Hell yes.

Thank you for debunking your own arguments again.

Add this question to the list: Is there any evidence this molten material was molten steel?
Answer: No

Is there any evidence that therm*te was present, or required, to cause materials to melt?

Answer: No

We're done. Really.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
In the case of a confined fire like the towers, radiant heat would take on a greater role and be capable of heating larger masses of aluminum to melting without there being enough oxygen at the surface of the aluminum to cause it to burn and it would puddle.
Click to expand...

So there's not enough oxygen to oxidize aluminum, but enough to keep fires up that weaken the steel? You can't seem to have it both ways.
 
alienentity said:
Good start, but you've ruined it by asking an incredibly stupid question at the end.
Click to expand...

Yea that inconvenient question I'm sure you'll never get around to answering, heck not even addressing it. But you'll have to. You see the volume of molten aluminum calculated doesn't match photo evidence form airplane fires on tarmacs. So my calculations are either wrong or a great deal of the fuselage aluminum turns to ash and what we do get as molten material is the non alloy stuff that constitutes 20% or less of the aircraft.
 
Java Man said:
Well aprox 70 % of the aircraft is aluminum. How much of that would melt. Mhh lets see. If we have 164000 lbs that makes 118000 of molten material. That times density would make what ?? 22 cubic meters of molten aluminum?

Does this make sense? Nope not really. Because about 20,000 lbs are engine weight. That's about 13% of the aircraft. Then add to that landing gear, avionics, hydraulics, seats and interior accommodations.

Taking the engines out we are down to 144000 lbs. How much of that is avionics, hydraulics, landing gear and interior stuff? 30%? Leaves us at 100000 lbs for fuselage. Of that 80% is aluminium (http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/TransportationMarket/Aircraft/default.htm) and of that about 90% is Al of the alloy. So that puts us at 80000 lbs of alloy. Guess something like 17 to 19 cubic meters of molten aluminum.

Now if all that aluminum were to spread out in a sheet of molten goo 1 cm thick it would cover 1800 square meters. Roughly half a football field. Why is that not visible in the pictures I've posted?
Click to expand...

Why would you require that all this aluminum be molten just to satisfy the visual of the molten material that is seen exiting the tower?

How many cubic meters of material actually was seen?
 
jaydeehess said:
Why would you require that all this aluminum be molten just to satisfy the visual of the molten material that is seen exiting the tower?
Click to expand...

I don't. I'm on the truther camp that believes in thermite, remember? You're the one with the answer to that question.
 
Java Man said:
Agreed and the lack of evidence is in itself suspicious and should be investigated. It is at best a good case of administrative negligence. Worst case a full blown conspiracy to cover up the incident.
Click to expand...

So your lack of evidence means an inside job?
 
Justin39640 said:
Lets see...
The huge fire consuming all the oxygen, and heating all the steel might have had something to do with it.
Click to expand...

Wow you're better than the truthers you seek to debunk. You've outdone the super nano thermite with selective burning oxygen. That so happens to distinguish aluminium from everything else and selects the later rather than aluminium. LOL!!!
 
Eschat said:
Only a dislodged Thermite pre-demolition cutter charge that was still operational could cause molten steel to come out of the window.
Click to expand...



I disagree. Only a dustification beam from a directed-energy weapon housed on a space satellite could do that. Isn't it obvious to you by now?
 
Java Man said:
Wow you're better than the truthers you seek to debunk. You've outdone the super nano thermite with selective burning oxygen. That so happens to distinguish aluminium from everything else and selects the later rather than aluminium. LOL!!!
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, aluminum doesn't draw in and consume air. Even if it's right next to a fire. Not to mention the smoke and hot gasses that further limit the amount of available oxygen.
 
alienentity said:
So you're 100% sure that the dam of material was molten steel? Really?

Upon what hard evidence would you make that claim? Oh, you don't have hard evidence, just another opinion based on your vast experience with therm*te, fire science and engineering, I suppose...:cool:
Click to expand...

Java Man refuses to answer any questions about his studies or qualifications,and he has the cheek to come here and argue with real engineers. The hudspeh of these truthers is breathtaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom