Merged Molten metal observations

No, you cannot. However, the chair in my living room right now, consumes no oxygen as it sits.

Light that puppy on fire, and I guarantee that it will. But, it's not the chair that is consuming the oxygen, it's the fire.

But, I wouldn't do that as it will also piss me right the **** off, as it's my favorite chair.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Here's some more melted aluminum pictures.

http://www.waynefischer.com/07AF/07AngoraFireP1.html

Impressive.
Click to expand...

It's weird and impressive how truthers can utterly fail to connect the dots when they should, but insist on connecting them when they shouldn't.

The fact that aircraft debris was present on the floors where the molten material came out, added to the fact that there were large fires on those floors, should be enough to 'connect-the-dots', you'd think. :boggled:

But sadly they prefer to fantasize about the presence of materials for which there is NO EVIDENCE. Could they possibly screw it up any worse?
 
Since Eschat has now notified me through pm that he has given up, I wonder if you can respond with a scientific or mathematical argument to this, cheers
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
Since Eschat has now notified me through pm that he has given up, I wonder if you can respond with a scientific or mathematical argument to this, cheers
Click to expand...
I don't know who is the 'you' Joey.

Your linked explanatory post is a reasonable overview as a first step to explaining the collapse initiation to a non-engineer/non-applied scientist.

I personally doubt that floor joist sag pulling in outer perimeter columns is the only mechanism in play but that is not a matter for the first round explanation.

To explain further probably needs an understanding of some engineering principles. One principle is that the initiation of collapse was a cascade failure. That is a process where, expressed colloquially, 'as things get worse they get worse faster'. In other words it is exponential. Another is that removing 25% of columns does not put a 30% additional load uniformly on the other columns. It depends which columns are cut and their proximity to other columns which take the redistributed load. To a very rough approximation cutting all the columns on one side could see zero force in the opposite side columns and a doubling of load on those in the middle. (OK Engineers - I said rough approximation :mad: ) More details if you need but the key point is that the loads from failed columns are not evenly spread over what remains.

And that would be a key factor in the building up of a rapidly accelerating cascade failure as redistributed loads from failed columns trigger failure of the next overloaded column which triggers failure of the next overloaded column which triggers.....etc

I'll stop there before I get in too deep. :o
 
ozeco41 said:
I don't know who is the 'you' Joey.

Your linked explanatory post is a reasonable overview as a first step to explaining the collapse initiation to a non-engineer/non-applied scientist.

I personally doubt that floor joist sag pulling in outer perimeter columns is the only mechanism in play but that is not a matter for the first round explanation.

To explain further probably needs an understanding of some engineering principles. One principle is that the initiation of collapse was a cascade failure. That is a process where, expressed colloquially, 'as things get worse they get worse faster'. In other words it is exponential. Another is that removing 25% of columns does not put a 30% additional load uniformly on the other columns. It depends which columns are cut and their proximity to other columns which take the redistributed load. To a very rough approximation cutting all the columns on one side could see zero force in the opposite side columns and a doubling of load on those in the middle. (OK Engineers - I said rough approximation :mad: ) More details if you need but the key point is that the loads from failed columns are not evenly spread over what remains.

And that would be a key factor in the building up of a rapidly accelerating cascade failure as redistributed loads from failed columns trigger failure of the next overloaded column which triggers failure of the next overloaded column which triggers.....etc

I'll stop there before I get in too deep. :o
Click to expand...

I hear you, all vitally important points. The key, of course, is that the weight of evidence debunks the points the truthers have, but properly explaining the reality is far more important than that simple goal, as you've illustrated here. Its all-important that the science of how things happened is explained eloquently and with brevity. Properly explaining the nature of the events at hand is an entirely new level of skill and difficulty than simply knowing the core facts, it can be a tough gig, for true.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
I hear you, all vitally important points. The key, of course, is that the weight of evidence debunks the points the truthers have, but properly explaining the reality is far more important than that simple goal, as you've illustrated here. Its all-important that the science of how things happened is explained eloquently and with brevity. Properly explaining the nature of the events at hand is an entirely new level of skill and difficulty than simply knowing the core facts, it can be a tough gig, for true.
Click to expand...
Presuming you or I face a one on one discussion my experience is that most of those we enter into discussion with will fall into two extremes.

Either they are genuine sceptics who are unsure of something and are genuinely seeking help OR they are committed obsessed truthers who are dug deep into their trenches of denials.

In the 4 years I have debated/discussed/explained 9/11 matters, mainly the WTC Twin Towers collapses, I have met many from both ends of that spectrum and a handful who occupied middle ground. I will return to the middle ground later.

The genuine seekers of truth - those looking for explanations are nearly always open to a structured approach where you present them with broad brush explanation as starters. They then identify the bits they are unsure of and you can go to more detail on those bits only. Three or four rounds max and they say something like "Thank you - I have a sufficient grasp now." and they depart the scene.

Contrast the so called truthers who almost universally are not prepared to listen to reasoned explanation. In fact the more rational the explanation the more they will evade or deny. They decline to be specific, attempt to pass the burden of disproving their claim to you rather than carry the burden themselves of proving their claim etc etc all within the common truther goal of debating forever so no conclusion can be reached.

The demography of 2007-8 had about equal numbers from either of those sides coming to the forum I frequented. That 50/50 split is long gone and most coming in opposition are either committed and obsessed truthers or trolls who are merely 'jerking chains' to see who is silly enough to respond. My personal view, not explicitly shared by anyone I am aware of, is that most of our present 'truthers' are actually trolls with no interest in 9/11 truth other than it gives them an excuse to play their trolling and needling games.

One lone exception was a 'truther inclined' member who came to that other forum but was open to reasoned discussion. Over a few months he valiantly tried to assemble a pro-demolition explanation for the Twin Towers collapses and as he advanced step by step I confronted him to close each door in turn. But that one was the exception occupying middle ground.

There are a couple of other points that your post triggers but let me stop there for now.
 
ozeco41 said:
....
I personally doubt that floor joist sag pulling in outer perimeter columns is the only mechanism in play but that is not a matter for the first round explanation.

... It depends which columns are cut and their proximity to other columns which take the redistributed load.
Click to expand...

For WTC1,2 the core columns severed stopped supporting the compression loads of these unsupported columns and floors above. These unsupported compression loads then, for the outside core columns, were at least partially redistributed in tension through the floor joists to the perimeter columns adding to their pull-in forces. Adjacent core beams attached to these cut columns would also have been in tension. In effect, the outer perimeter columns were holding up the unsupported outside core columns for the width of the span to the two adjacent uncut outside core columns.
I don't know if NIST talks about this.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
But, it's not the chair that is consuming the oxygen, it's the fire.
Click to expand...

Actually it is the chair that is consuming the oxygen. You see when you put sufficient heat it will begin a self sustained chain reaction. The material from the chair reacts with the oxygen and this in turn releases more heat which maintains the reaction. Fire is heated output of said reaction. Take out the fuel and there is nothing left to react with the oxygen and thus no flame. Take out the oxygen and the same thing happens.

We all know how a bic lighter works. A small spark is thrown into the path of the outgoing gas. Now a spark is not fire. According to you if fire consumes oxygen then only fire should be able to start fires. The spark not being fire should not be able to consume oxygen. Yet the lighter turns on. You see the heat from the spark (which is not fire) starts the chain reaction between the gas (which does consume the oxygen) and the oxygen itself. This reaction produces sufficient heat to continue the reaction. Said heat is seen as the flame.
 
Just as an FYI, folks, if you want to get a Moderator's attention in a thread, please report a post or send a PM as we do not read all of the threads and posts and, therefore, may not otherwise see your requests.
Posted By: LashL
 
triforcharity said:
We know that lightweight, thin, garbage aluminum will burn. It's your claim that no other aluminum in the plane will melt. But, we know that to be incorrect, as myself and others have shown without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Like I've said not all the fuselage in the airplane is made of the same type of aluminium. But the bulk is as I showed in the reference when doing the calculations for the volume of aluminum.

Now take a look at this picture and notice the similar burn patterns between it and the can:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/17/xinsrc_1920904180602015229075.jpg


You also have the numbers and the volume of aluminium I've arrived at. Also the amount of floor space it would occupy if it were spread into a puddle 1 cm high. Although it is true that some aluminium does melt it is hardly as much as you'd expect. Otherwise all the aircraft incident photos I showed would have a huge puddle under them and there is none. A fully melted aircraft would occupy an area 50 x 50 m aprox. And nothing like that is seen. So at best about 20% of the aircraft would melt in such a way as to leave remains. That's about a 10 x 10 m area. Spread that over 4 or 5 floors involved in the impact and consider that each floor is about a city block in size. And above that the floors were sagging and the lowest points were in the center of the floor panels not the inner and outer edges.

How then could aluminium in such quantities just happen to pile up in the least possible position which was that corner?
 
triforcharity said:
We know that lightweight, thin, garbage aluminum will burn. It's your claim that no other aluminum in the plane will melt. But, we know that to be incorrect, as myself and others have shown without a doubt.
Click to expand...

No. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. My claim is that the fuselage burns. Leaving way less molten aluminium than is inferred by the claim that the pouring hot material is from the aircraft.

Your claim based on the NIST report is that the aluminium is from the aircraft. Being such a huge aircraft you get to sell the idea in the understanding that there's so much aluminium laying around to get melted. But as we see from accidents that is hardly so. Yet given that you're exempted from the burden of proof I take it on me to analyze your proposal. And voilà, we soon realize there isn't a "whole aircraft" to melt. Because a great deal just oxidizes like a soft drink can. And what do you do? You come up with photos of melted engines and tires. But airplane fuselage material is thin and not the same type as used on tires and engines. So you prove nothing. You have to come with melted fuselage pictures. But all the pictures of fuselages have the tell tale signature of burn marks as seen on the can. So you're out of luck.

So there is way less molten aluminium available. All over a huge area covering many floors. Your idea seems less convincing with every post you make.
 
Java Man said:
No. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. My claim is that the fuselage burns. Leaving way less molten aluminium than is inferred by the claim that the pouring hot material is from the aircraft.
Click to expand...

No. The fuselage of an airliner will not burn whatsoever in a fire fuelled by office or plane contents, whether or not accelerated by kerosene fuel.

Note that the extremely fine aluminium in your video needed a 3000°C flame to get it to 'burn'. A plane's fuselage is just too thick and the flame of the fire insufficiently hot.

It might well melt, however.
 
Java Man said:
Actually it is the chair that is consuming the oxygen.
Click to expand...

No. Not at all.

Java Man said:
You see when you put sufficient heat it will begin a self sustained chain reaction.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an organic process called combustion. I know this.

Java Man said:
The material from the chair reacts with the oxygen and this in turn releases more heat which maintains the reaction.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an organic process called combustion. I know this.


Java Man said:
Fire is heated output of said reaction.
Click to expand...

No **** sherlock.

Java Man said:
Take out the fuel and there is nothing left to react with the oxygen and thus no flame. Take out the oxygen and the same thing happens.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called a fire triangle. It's fire 10. Not even 101, because it's taught in 2nd grade science class.


Java Man said:
We all know how a bic lighter works. A small spark is thrown into the path of the outgoing gas. Now a spark is not fire. According to you if fire consumes oxygen then only fire should be able to start fires.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I have never claimed that, as it is absolutely false.

And no, the fire triangle is not "Fuel-Oxygen-FIRE" it's actually "FUEL-OXYGEN-HEAT/IGNITION SOURCE". The spark is the ignition source.


Java Man said:
The spark not being fire should not be able to consume oxygen.
Click to expand...

Ok.....

Java Man said:
Yet the lighter turns on.
Click to expand...

The spark is the ignition source, and the fuel is the butane, and oxygen is in the air. Why do you seem to have a problem with this?


Java Man said:
You see the heat from the spark (which is not fire) starts the chain reaction between the gas (which does consume the oxygen) and the oxygen itself. This reaction produces sufficient heat to continue the reaction.
Click to expand...

No, the organic process of the combustion is what consumes the oxygen. Not the ingition source, not the fuel. It's the organic process.

The fuel does not consume the oxygen. Not in any sense of the matter.


Java Man said:
Said heat is seen as the flame.
Click to expand...

Der.
 
Java Man said:
No. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. My claim is that the fuselage burns. Leaving way less molten aluminium than is inferred by the claim that the pouring hot material is from the aircraft.

Your claim based on the NIST report is that the aluminium is from the aircraft. Being such a huge aircraft you get to sell the idea in the understanding that there's so much aluminium laying around to get melted. But as we see from accidents that is hardly so. Yet given that you're exempted from the burden of proof I take it on me to analyze your proposal. And voilà, we soon realize there isn't a "whole aircraft" to melt. Because a great deal just oxidizes like a soft drink can. And what do you do? You come up with photos of melted engines and tires. But airplane fuselage material is thin and not the same type as used on tires and engines. So you prove nothing. You have to come with melted fuselage pictures. But all the pictures of fuselages have the tell tale signature of burn marks as seen on the can. So you're out of luck.

So there is way less molten aluminium available. All over a huge area covering many floors. Your idea seems less convincing with every post you make.
Click to expand...

So, you seem to think that the wings, and main airframe of the plane, would only account for a small portion of the plane's mass?

I think you're not understanding how a plane is built.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom