Merged Molten metal observations

[TjW]

Well Glenn B concludes the same after seeing the pictures. Which are after the fire. Thus what we see is oxidized aluminium.

ALL untreated aluminum is oxidized. Actually, even anodized aluminum is oxidized, it's just that the oxidized layer is thicker and more stable.

Saying "I'm suspicious because that aluminum is oxidized" has all the brilliance of saying "I'm suspicious because that water is wet."

 

[Dave Rogers]

Uh yes. It's clear the fuselage would have quickly oxidized as it does in any other crash and would be very hard to melt.

No. Liquid aluminium can flow away from the heat source, and remain molten without burning. Only if it's confined close to the heat source is it likely to combust. Since we've already established this, we've proved you wrong, therefore aluminium cannot be ruled out.

Let us move along to a point I raised and everyone conveniently skipped. If the floors are sagging how come the metal (whatever it is) pools conveniently by the wall. It should pool at the center of the floor area.

Unless the sag is due to detachment of the support trusses at the perimeter end, in which case the molten aluminium, molten lead, molten glass with entrained debris, or whatever the clearly non-ferrous hot liquid is, will flow to the lowest point by the wall and exit through a broken window.

Really, how hard are you having to try not to understand this?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well Glenn B concludes the same after seeing the pictures. Which are after the fire. Thus what we see is oxidized aluminium.

No. Aluminium oxide forms a protective surface layer that prevents the material below from contacting oxygen and combusting. This is not the same as complete combustion of the aluminium. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here you go

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7084234&postcount=316

Ah, I see you're even more ignorant than I thought. You don't understand what the word "film" means in this context. I suggest you purchase a dictionary, or use one of the many online ones that are available for free. GlennB's post does not suggest that the entire mass of aluminium was oxidised, but due to your rather serious level of ignorance you appear to have misunderstood him, as you have everyone and everything else.

Dave

 

[phunk]

I've supported it quite well with prior experience from other crashes. It has even been admitted by Glenn B that it is aluminium oxide and thus impossible to melt under 2000ºC.

Uhhh no. The oxide only forms a very thin layer on the surface of the metal. It does nothing to prevent melting.

 

[Joey McGee]

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.

I would explicitly share that view with you. I think there are also some truthers that troll just to mess with people's heads a bit. In any case I want you to know I appreciated this post, it's an important observation from the trenches of the "info war" (There IS a war on for your mind... between memetic viruses and the truth...)

 

[TruthersLie]

did anyone claim the stundie worthy post from JM about not understading godwins law and then using a nazi reference?

Ifnot I'm claming it.

 

[TjW]

did anyone claim the stundie worthy post from JM about not understading godwins law and then using a nazi reference?

Ifnot I'm claming it.

Oh, yes. They included both of his spellings of Goebbels, along with his denial of having misspelled anything.

 

[Joey McGee]

What does the sagging floor above have to do? In that case the metal would accumulate in the lower point of the sagging upper floor. Which would also be at the center of said floor. So you're back to square one.

What the pictures seem to show is that some 81st floor trusses broke from the perimeter, still attached to the core, this is what forms the slide out the 80th floor windows. Therefore you're not even talking about anything that matters.

You really are trying to win the argument with ideas. This is a very unhealthy way to think about reality. I suggest learning what this man has to teach you.

 

[carlitos]

Oh, yes. They included both of his spellings of Goebbels, along with his denial of having misspelled anything.

 

[GlennB]

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

Er, no.

Common-or-garden rust is also an example of oxidation and can cheerfully occur on any old piece of iron left lying around in your back yard.

Oxidation is not synonymous with burning.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If it's molten steel why is it the wrong colour? It is obviously not the right colour to be molten steel.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No. Aluminium oxide forms a protective surface layer that prevents the material below from contacting oxygen and combusting. This is not the same as complete combustion of the aluminium. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Dave

Ah, I see you're even more ignorant than I thought. You don't understand what the word "film" means in this context. I suggest you purchase a dictionary, or use one of the many online ones that are available for free. GlennB's post does not suggest that the entire mass of aluminium was oxidised, but due to your rather serious level of ignorance you appear to have misunderstood him, as you have everyone and everything else.

Dave

Oh mother of GOD! He tried to claim that a thin film of aluminum oxide would raise an entire piece's melting point??

 

[dafydd]

If it's molten steel why is it the wrong colour? It is obviously not the right colour to be molten steel.

That will all be explained when Java Man publishes his draft.

 

[dafydd]

Oh mother of GOD! He tried to claim that a thin film of aluminum oxide would raise an entire piece's melting point??

Yes.Hard to believe but yes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

My dad melts Aluminium quite happily in his home made furnace, and copper, and barass, and bronze and even up to 5lb of Iron. I will have to tell him he can't do it, it will just oxidise away to ash.

 

[Java Man]

Unless the sag is due to detachment of the support trusses at the perimeter end, in which case the molten aluminium, molten lead, molten glass with entrained debris, or whatever the clearly non-ferrous hot liquid is, will flow to the lowest point by the wall and exit through a broken window.

Really, how hard are you having to try not to understand this?

Dave

Very hard. Because it would fall short of the wall. You should have taken a hint from my response to lefty. The hypotenuse of a triangle is shorter than the sum of the othre sides. So the edge of the slanted floor would land a few meters from the wall and that would again be an uphill climb for the aluminium.

 

[Java Man]

No. Liquid aluminium can flow away from the heat source, and remain molten without burning. Only if it's confined close to the heat source is it likely to combust. Since we've already established this, we've proved you wrong, therefore aluminium cannot be ruled out.

Ok, lets try this again. I've already shown the math to calculate the amount of molten aluminium that should come out of a big airplane. Please show us where the 40x40 m solidified aluminium is on the tarmac.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/5074662060_a29f752bfa.jpg

If the aluminium from the fuselage did indeed melt and not turn to aluminium oxide ash where is it? It can't be inside the fuselage because the aircraft is upside down. Where is the solidified aluminium? You've all shown pictures of molten aluminium flowing. It has a distinct dull white color. I don't see it on the tarmac.

 

[Java Man]

If it's molten steel why is it the wrong colour? It is obviously not the right colour to be molten steel.

What would the right color be?

 

[Java Man]

Er, no.

Common-or-garden rust is also an example of oxidation and can cheerfully occur on any old piece of iron left lying around in your back yard.

Oxidation is not synonymous with burning.

Oh so now you're a no planer? And a no fire either? Are you so ridiculous you're going to claim the impact area was full of nice green gardens? Or what's the relevance of garden rust with this incident? Did you not see the fireballs and the smoke?