Merged Molten metal observations

[Java Man]

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.

Neither did NIST find beams exposed to the temperatures it claims in its simulation. Because according to them the sample was "too small". Same applies to this. If they can get away with it so can I.

And still it remains that aluminium could not have pooled there, could not have made the incandescent wall we see, etc etc etc.

 

[Java Man]

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

Exactly. AKA burning. You've made my point. Thank you.

 

[NoahFence]

Exactly. AKA burning. You've made my point. Thank you.

Oh.
My.
God.


I really think you've gone above and beyond simple truther misinterpretation. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. I have honestly never seen someone misinterpret something so bad.

 

[carlitos]

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

 

[Java Man]

Oh.
My.
God.

Oh your God what? He clearly says it is aluminium oxide. Aluminum Oxide has a melting point of 2072 °C. Did the fires reach 2072 °C in the WTC tower? If not it is impossible for the oxidized fuselage to melt and pour out of the wall as we see in the video.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh your God what? He clearly says it is aluminium oxide. Aluminum Oxide has a melting point of 2072 °C. Did the fires reach 2072 °C in the WTC tower? If not it is impossible for the oxidized fuselage to melt and pour out of the wall as we see in the video.

Now let's see. Aluminium gets hot. Aluminium melts. Once melted, it's a liquid, and liquids can flow downhill, away from the source of heat. Aluminium needs to get well above its melting point before it will burn in atmospheric oxygen, so if it flows away from the heat, it won't get hot enough to burn. If the heat spreads, the aluminium nearest the heat source melts, and can flow away, so it still doesn't burn. If the heat spreads to the edge of the building, the melted aluminium will flow to the edge of the building, and if there are any holes it'll pour out.

I think a seven-year-old could probably understand all of that. I wonder which bit is too complicated for Java Man.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

Oh your God what? He clearly says it is aluminium oxide. Aluminum Oxide has a melting point of 2072 °C. Did the fires reach 2072 °C in the WTC tower? If not it is impossible for the oxidized fuselage to melt and pour out of the wall as we see in the video.

I'm talking about pictures of airplanes you keep posting.

The fires in the WTC were plenty hot enough to melt a whole bunch of things that were in there. The airplane, aluminum that makes up cubicles, UPS systems, (no, not the delivery company), and on and on and on.

Since for whatever reason you don't want to admit any of those things could be the culprit, you're left with only one item - steel. Unfortunately, that's already been ruled out.

 

[Java Man]

Now let's see. Aluminium gets hot. Aluminium melts. Once melted, it's a liquid, and liquids can flow downhill, away from the source of heat. Aluminium needs to get well above its melting point before it will burn in atmospheric oxygen, so if it flows away from the heat, it won't get hot enough to burn. If the heat spreads, the aluminium nearest the heat source melts, and can flow away, so it still doesn't burn. If the heat spreads to the edge of the building, the melted aluminium will flow to the edge of the building, and if there are any holes it'll pour out.

I think a seven-year-old could probably understand all of that. I wonder which bit is too complicated for Java Man.

Dave

Wrong. As we clearly see in the pictures the fuselage quickly oxidizes and as our friend Glenn B has said it becomes aluminium oxide which has a very high melting point.

 

[NoahFence]

Wrong. As we clearly see in the pictures the fuselage quickly oxidizes and as our friend Glenn B has said it becomes aluminium oxide which has a very high melting point.

Hate to be the master of the obvious, but a photo can't show how quickly something happens.


It's a frozen moment in time. Got any video?

 

[alienentity]

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.

.....

How then could aluminium in such quantities just happen to pile up in the least possible position which was that corner?

1) We don't know exactly what the dripping/falling substance was
2) You have no legitimate basis for claiming the corner was 'the least possible position' for plane debris or melted plane components.

You negate the valid parts of your analysis by insisting on an illogical conclusion that the plane could not have contributed to the molten or dripping materials. You have no valid evidence to support such a position.

 

[Java Man]

Hate to be the master of the obvious, but a photo can't show how quickly something happens.

Yes it can. We clearly see the burned fuselage (oxidized aluminium). If its seen there then it happened. We may not know how fast it happened, but it happened. And once it happened its melting point went from about 600ºC to 2000ºC.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Neither did NIST find beams exposed to the temperatures it claims in its simulation. Because according to them the sample was "too small". Same applies to this. If they can get away with it so can I.

*Facepalm*

You completely misread the NIST data. The temperatures that were directly determined were done so via paint analysis. And those could only have been done on structural pieces that were intact enough and unburnt enough to have paint to analyze. They come out and say that they could only conduct this analysis "... when sufficient paint was availble for study", endquote.

That is the limiting case there. None of those pieces you're referring to that were tested were in the hottest zones because pieces recovered from those areas could not have been tested in that manner. Why do you think they ended up having to model for those other areas? Repeat: The pieces directly tested were outside the hottest fire zones. This is determinable simply by examing the piece mapping available in one of the NCSTAR 1-3 subreports. It is clear that those paint tested components were on the edges of the fire zones. That is why they were determined to "... (show) a "negative" conclusion indicating that these areas were not exposed to temperature excursions above 250^oC". They were outside of the area that did experience that range.

Why do you think they had to conduct the simulations to begin with? Read the NIST reports, specifically but not limited to NCSTAR 1-3C. You are painfully unaware of the context of the data you allude to.

And still it remains that aluminium could not have pooled there, could not have made the incandescent wall we see, etc etc etc.

Irrelevant. Again, as I have noted, aluminum is not the only candidate for the flow. I have no idea why the rest of the folks here zoomed in on that; as I said earlier, there are multiple candidates for the flow, among which is the aluminum, but not exclusively so. Again, there are the metals in the UPSs that Attavismo had demonstrated were present. As well as the mundane sources, such as plumbing, wiring, furniture, etc. We know they were present by simple logical deduction.

And lastly, you haven't disproven aluminum. Your posts do not rise to that level. Being argumentative and expressing an opinion is not the same as using facts to QED a point. We have done this; you haven't. Work from facts.

 

[Java Man]

1) We don't know exactly what the dripping/falling substance was.

Your camp has been pretty confident it's aluminium, but that position is beginning to look very very flaky (no pun intended).

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong. As we clearly see in the pictures the fuselage quickly oxidizes and as our friend Glenn B has said it becomes aluminium oxide which has a very high melting point.

In a situation where the molten aluminium doesn't have a convenient route to flow away from the heat source. Now, what if there is such a route?

Yes it can. We clearly see the burned fuselage (oxidized aluminium). If its seen there then it happened. We may not know how fast it happened, but it happened.

Are you truly unaware that the two bolded portions contradict each other?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your camp has been pretty confident it's aluminium,

Nope. There are several possibilities, and aluminium is just one of the ones that hasn't been ruled out.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

I think the only rational position to have is nobody can know exactly what that substance was, so it's not evidence for or against anything. It can be safely ignored in lieu of any corroborating evidence one way or another.

 

[carlitos]

Are you truly unaware that the two bolded portions contradict each other?

Dave

It doesn't matter; he's just trolling.

 

[Java Man]

Nope. There are several possibilities, and aluminium is just one of the ones that hasn't been ruled out.

Dave

Ok aluminium is out. Which is next on your list of alternatives?

 

[twinstead]

What is this thread for, anyway? The material in question CANNOT be identified. End of story.

 

[NoahFence]

Nope. There are several possibilities, and aluminium is just one of the ones that hasn't been ruled out.

You read that.....

Ok aluminium is out. Which is next on your list of alternatives?

and translated it into this?


OK. That pretty much takes care of this thread I think. Just some pea-brain looking for attention.

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

2 cents.....