Merged Molten metal observations

triforcharity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh really? So where do the oxygen atoms end up? Do they fly off as part of the fire? I'll give you a hint. Simple hydrogen burning:

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat

The fuel hydrogen consumes the oxygen an water is produced. There is excess heat from the reaction and that is seen as a flame But the fuel is what is consuming the oxygen. Otherwise water wouldn't be produced.
 
Java Man said:
Oh really? So where do the oxygen atoms end up? Do they fly off as part of the fire? I'll give you a hint. Simple hydrogen burning:

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat

The fuel hydrogen consumes the oxygen an water is produced. There is excess heat from the reaction and that is seen as a flame But the fuel is what is consuming the oxygen. Otherwise water wouldn't be produced.
Click to expand...

No. Would the fuel normally consume the oxygen, if the fuel wasn't burning?

Of course not.
 
Java Man said:
The fuel hydrogen consumes the oxygen an water is produced. There is excess heat from the reaction and that is seen as a flame But the fuel is what is consuming the oxygen. Otherwise water wouldn't be produced.
Click to expand...

I must confess I haven't followed the process by which Java Man reasons from semantic distortion like this to the conclusion that 9/11 is an inside job, but it's a very odd way of looking at it. The reaction is consuming both hydrogen and oxygen, and producing water. We only think of it as "the fuel consuming the oxygen" because (a) there's lots of oxygen around, and (b) most common exothermic reactions consume oxygen. If we lived in a hydrogen atmosphere and ran a burner off an oxygen bottle, it would be equally valid to think of it as the oxygen consuming the hydrogen, because the oxygen, as the less common component, would be seen as the "fuel". Neither view is particularly useful, in that both assign completely fictitious, and vaguely anthropomorphic, roles to the chemicals participating in the reaction. So, no, the fuel is not consuming the oxygen; the reaction is consuming both the oxygen and the fuel.

Not that any of that has any relevance whatsoever to the topic of this forum.

Dave
 
You're still going?

What's your theory about what the molten aluminum really is? You've had close to 10 years to come up with something.
 
Java Man said:
You see, the fire is a result of the reaction. If the hydrogen doesn't pull the oxygen in and creates water there would be no release of energy.
Click to expand...

Your characterisation of one chemical as the actor and the other as the acted upon is purely a construct; both oxygen and hydrogen are equally required for the reaction to occur.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
If we lived in a hydrogen atmosphere and ran a burner off an oxygen bottle, it would be equally valid to think of it as the oxygen consuming the hydrogen, because the oxygen, as the less common component, would be seen as the "fuel". Neither view is particularly useful, in that both assign completely fictitious, and vaguely anthropomorphic, roles to the chemicals participating in the reaction.
Click to expand...

Totally and absolutely wrong. First and furthermost oxygen in the reaction IS the less common component. You don't need an all H2 atmosphere for that.

Secondly the names are assigned according to their role in the reaction. The oxygen is the oxidant. But it could very well be fluorine as oxidizing agent. The assignment is by no means completely fictitious.

And I do believe it is relevant matter to touch as it comes to show how little you understand of chemical reactions. This should be taken into account when listening to your arguments.
 
NoahFence said:
You're still going?

What's your theory about what the molten aluminum really is? You've had close to 10 years to come up with something.
Click to expand...

Well that it isn't really aluminum, but rather steel being melted by some agent.
 
Java Man said:
Well that it isn't really aluminum, but rather steel being melted by some agent.
Click to expand...
You are claiming that orange sparky stuff running out of the World Trade Center tower (as shown the video in the OP) is melted steel? That's your claim?
 
Actually, it's a great photo of a fuselage that's melted.


Java - you can't say the fires in the WTC weren't hot enough to melt steel, then say you have evidence of melted steel.

Where the debris is pouring out is where the aircraft came to rest. This isn't a hypothesis, it's a fact. Why then, is it so damn hard to imagine that the melted material is aluminum from the aircraft?
 
GlennB said:
What on earth makes you think that photo is the result of an alloy fuselage burning as opposed to melting?
Click to expand...

The irregular shapes the edges have. The white/gray color it has. Just like the soft drink bottle.
 
NoahFence said:
Java - you can't say the fires in the WTC weren't hot enough to melt steel, then say you have evidence of melted steel.
Click to expand...

The office fires were not hot enough to melt steel. But localized elements, some would claim thermite, would raise the local temperature of steel high enough to melt it.

NoahFence said:
Where the debris is pouring out is where the aircraft came to rest. This isn't a hypothesis, it's a fact. Why then, is it so damn hard to imagine that the melted material is aluminum from the aircraft?
Click to expand...

What's the source of that "fact"? I have a hard time believing so much of aircraft if any ended up resting there. Particularly since you clearly see the entry point at the left of the video. So if the aircraft was flying left to right and through the building how did it come to rest on a corner on the left side?
 
Java Man said:
Well that it isn't really aluminum, but rather steel being melted by some agent.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the flow from around the 82nd to 80th floor*, then that is demonstrably incorrect. That flow cannot be steel.
  1. You forget that steel components had been recovered from that area. NIST published their study of those components in NCSTAR 1-3C, and none of the recovered pieces showed signs of melting at all. Physical forcing and distortion yes, but melting, no.
  2. If you posit that the steel came from unstudied steel, then you'd have to eliminate any of the steel components from floors above the impact zone. Had any of that steel been molten to the degree it was flowing, those floors would've failed at the time that steel melted and everyone would have noted collapses starting there. And as can be told from collapse video, the south towers collapse did indeed start in the impact zone, not above it.
  3. If you posit that it came from below the impact zone where the steel components were recovered and studied: How the heck did the molten stuff flow upward to the 80-something floor where it could be observed from the outside?
Those are only a few reasons why the notion that the molten flow observed can't be steel. You can do a forum search for the other threads where this has been discussed. Inevitably, others will also chime in with their own recollections about why this is an untenable suggestion.



*If you refer to some other sighting, let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom