Merged Molten metal observations

[Java Man]

You're severely misinterpreting what you're seeing.

No I'm not and you know it. Just concede, don't keep making and even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[carlitos]

Misspelled Godwins totally rock!

Java Man, this would be a good time to present evidence that the stuff shown is molten steel.

 

[carlitos]

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.

As would a frickin' laser beam from outer space. So?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Rubbish. Where atmospheric oxygen is the oxidising agent, it's vastly more common than the substance being oxidised.

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.

Oh, nice piece of misdirection there. You're pretending that I was talking about oxidation and reduction as the fictitious descriptions. Of course, anyone who's read the thread can see you're lying, but it was a nice try. No, what I'm saying is that your statement that "the fuel consumes the oxygen" is an anthropomorphic fiction, by casting the fuel as the actor and the oxygen as acted upon. Look at your equation again, and explain why it's valid to say that the oxygen is consumed by the hydrogen but not that the hydrogen is consumed by the oxygen. You can't. Because it's the reaction that consumes both, producing water and heat.

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.

Oh, the irony.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

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.

Here we are with "office fires".....
Is there ANY evidence of thermite? No. If thermite was the culprit you'd see white smoke coming from there. Not only that, but the columns where this thermite is supposed to be would have been severed by the aircraft. There is literally no way humanly possible for any nefarious device to survive the impact of that aircraft. None. [/quote]

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?

You have a hard time believing anything contrary to your silly notions. You have an unfortunate inability to grasp rational thought.

 

[Java Man]

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.

Simple, I've just ruled out aluminium as a main possible alternative and your camp is quickly running out of alternatives.

I don't need to recover any piece of molten metal anymore than NIST needs to recover beams exposed to higher temperatures. They did their model without them I'm doing mine without them too.

Your collapse initiation reason is ludicrous. One can easily damage many perimeter wall beams and not have the tower collapse. The airplanes did it and the towers didn't collapse immediately. So that argument of yours is bogus.

 

[NoahFence]

Trying to pull a Goebbles there?

Nope. Just stating a fact.

 

[NoahFence]

No I'm not and you know it. Just concede, don't keep making and even bigger fool of yourself.

Bottom line this for me, Java. Are you under the impression that aluminum can't melt? That it only burns?

Lemme guess - WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed because it wasn't hit by a plane, right?

 

[Java Man]

Misspelled Godwins

Who's Godwins?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Simple, I've just ruled out aluminium as a main possible alternative

Only in your own mind. Reality disagrees with you.

Your collapse initiation reason is ludicrous. One can easily damage many perimeter wall beams and not have the tower collapse. The airplanes did it and the towers didn't collapse immediately. So that argument of yours is bogus.

Ponder very carefully, if you will, the true meaning of the word "cumulative".

Dave

 

[Java Man]

[qimg]http://breakfornews.com/3i/images/WTC/weidlinger2.gif[/qimg]


You have a hard time believing anything contrary to your silly notions. You have an unfortunate inability to grasp rational thought.

Thank you for proving my point with that picture. As it clearly shows that only a fraction of the aircraft could have remained in that corner.

 

[NoahFence]

Simple, I've just ruled out aluminium in my mind as a main possible alternative and your camp is quickly running out of alternatives.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Above and beyond what I just wrote, we must also remember this: Isolation of the flow to just being steel ignores the fact that there were a multitude of metals that could also have been rendered molten by the fires. Recall: The floors were an acre wide, roughly. If you simply take into account the wiring, interior plumbing, HVAC (or whatever it's called) system, the metal components of furniture, etc., you're talking about an abundance of materials that also could have contributed towards a molten metal sighting.
And speaking of interior contents: That leads into the best possible theory I've personally seen for the flow: Metals from enterprise class uninterruptible power supplies:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

No, not the simple bricks for individuals workstations. I'm talking very large systems. As Paolo Attivismo noted, there was indeed such a setup in that exact area. At any rate, my point is that there are mulitple, far more likely candidates for the sightings on that floor than steel, and that's even before you take into consideration the contradiction to the notion that I posted above. The UPS theory is of course not outright proven, but it's compelling enough for me to accept it as being far and away more probable than any notion of steel melting. You don't need to introduce exotic substances like thermite to account for the flow, which doesn't in turn open the door to the multitude of problems inherent in thermite proposals (not the least of which is opportunity to install, lack of molten remains on the recovered steel components from that area, lack of followup reports of cooled, rehardened pools of iron, etc.). You just need what was there (the enterprise class UPS units) and the event that occured (impact by a high speed jetliner and subsequent fires). That's it; the rest flows naturally from that without deus-ex-machina explanations being crowbarred in.

Bottom line: That WTC molten flow being steel is a fantasy proposal, contradicted in many ways, and is simply not a viable candidate.

 

[carlitos]

successfull troll is successful

Misspelled Godwins

Who's Godwins?

Trying to pull a Goebbles there?

Godwin's Law^WP

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

On edit - I see that Java Man may have been trying to be funny, as Mike Godwin is not named "Godwins." My use of Godwins was as a plural for "Godwin" as "Godwin" is shorthand for "violation of Godwin's Law."

/pedant

And now back to your regularly scheduled incredulity and butchery of chemistry and physics.

 

[NoahFence]

Thank you for proving my point with that picture. As it clearly shows that only a fraction of the aircraft could have remained in that corner.

'Cuz yea - only an entirely intact aircraft can melt. If it's broken in a bunch of bits, it can't.

 

[GlennB]

The irregular shapes the edges have. The white/gray color it has. Just like the soft drink bottle.

Partially melted stuff has irregular edges.

The white-gray colour is caused by oxidation of the metal. It's a film of aluminium oxide.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Simple, I've just ruled out aluminium as a main possible alternative and your camp is quickly running out of alternatives.

I don't need to recover any piece of molten metal anymore than NIST needs to recover beams exposed to higher temperatures. They did their model without them I'm doing mine without them too.

Your collapse initiation reason is ludicrous. One can easily damage many perimeter wall beams and not have the tower collapse. The airplanes did it and the towers didn't collapse immediately. So that argument of yours is bogus.

Wait, what? Excuse me? How is that a refutation? Repeat: Steel was recovered. Whether or not you want to admit it, it was recovered. And no component showed any signs of melting. You cannot ignore this. For your suggestion to be correct, there must be signs of steel having been rendered molten, and there is not. That is the whole point, and is why I'm saying that your proposal is contradicted. The evidence shows that steel from that area was not rendered molten. You cannot argue your way out of that. You are arguing in contradiction to the evidence.

 

[NoahFence]

snip
Recall: The floors were an acre wide, roughly. If you simply take into account the wiring, interior plumbing, HVAC (or whatever it's called) system, the metal components of furniture, etc., you're talking about an abundance of materials that also could have contributed towards a molten metal sighting.

I have it on good authority that they^tm emptied floors 80 through 85 the weekend before 9/11, there was nothing but an empty shell. I think Dick Cheney did it using Bush's cousin's 2nd nephew's security firm that he delivered a pizza to.

And speaking of interior contents: That leads into the best possible theory I've personally seen for the flow: Metals from enterprise class uninterruptible power supplies:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Probably part of the debris, yes. NIST and others speculate that it was aluminum from the aircraft. It started to flow when the floor started sagging. Simple gravity.

 

[Java Man]

Godwin's Law^WP
On edit - I see that Java Man may have been trying to be funny, as Mike Godwin is not named "Godwins." My use of Godwins was as a plural for "Godwin" as "Godwin" is shorthand for "violation of Godwin's Law."

No, I actually meant Goebbels. I didn't misspell anything.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I have it on good authority that they^tm emptied floors 80 through 85 the weekend before 9/11, there was nothing but an empty shell. I think Dick Cheney did it using Bush's cousin's 2nd nephew's security firm that he delivered a pizza to.

So that's what the black vans and sunglasses-wearing agents were for!!

Probably part of the debris, yes. NIST and others speculate that it was aluminum from the aircraft. It started to flow when the floor started sagging. Simple gravity.

Well, regardless, we all shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the flow was a single substance or came from a single source. The reality of the situation is that all the towers components were there plus the components of the jetliner, so it logically follows that anything with a melting temperature at or below what the fires burned at would of course have been rendered molten there. The most likely explanation is that Paolo Attavismo identified a large portion of the flow (lead) and other components (aluminum, other sorts of metals present in the towers) got mixed in. We have no basis at all to presume that the flow was homogenous. And a whole heckuva lot of reason to believe it was a mix.

But for a variety of reasons, steel is ruled out. That's the point we all keep making. You have to propose conditions outside of what was determined to have been present in the fire zones to make a molten steel argument, and that's why those proposals fall flat on their face. But that's old news; it's not like this ground hasn't been trod before.