Merged Molten metal observations

[Dave Rogers]

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.

False precision fallacy. In real life there are no such restrictions on the precise geometry of structural deformation due to impact. We've seen photos that show sagging sections of floor truss across windows. And, as one or two other people have pointed out, a stream of flowing liquid gains momentum and will cross small gaps very easily. Again, this is something that will be familiar to anyone who's poured water out of a jug. How is it that truthers manage to jettison the most basic empirical understanding of anything at all when they choose to?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

It's spread out over the tarmac, covered by a surface layer of aluminium oxide - which will give the grey-white colour of some parts of it - and by black residues from the fires in places. Again, a classic piece of lack of the most basic empirical information; have truthers never heard of soot?

It's fairly clear where the aluminium from the starboard wing has melted, flowed out along the tarmac, and solidified as soon as it's away from the main heat source. It's black because it's covered with soot, but it's clearly visible. There's a pile of all kinds of debris where the burned section of the fuselage was, with people standing on it. Some of this is, no doubt, aluminium.

So, congratulations on presenting a classic piece of truther evidence. As usual, it demonstrates the exact opposite of what you want it to demonstrate; you're just to idealogically blinded to understand it.

Dave

 

[Jono]

Notice both become incandescent and still the foil fails to melt. Just turns into this ash like material that is very brittle and peals with the touch of my finger.

This has been clarified before. If you're using something with such low density in its composition of a metal like aluminum foil, in air, the metal will oxidize, vaporize, burn up, before it melts. This isn't how structurally applied aluminum (or other metals) alloys, or even chunks of pure aluminum would behave, and I'm sure you know that too.

 

[Java Man]

False precision fallacy. In real life there are no such restrictions on the precise geometry of structural deformation due to impact. We've seen photos that show sagging sections of floor truss across windows. And, as one or two other people have pointed out, a stream of flowing liquid gains momentum and will cross small gaps very easily. Again, this is something that will be familiar to anyone who's poured water out of a jug. How is it that truthers manage to jettison the most basic empirical understanding of anything at all when they choose to?

Dave

Wrong and very hard to believe. If the aluminium is pooling in the center of the sagging floor and then the floor panel is released from the perimeter wall, the floor edge would fall about two meters short of the wall (or more). Secondly the flow would gain momentum as you say, but it would also be obstructed by the debris and irregularities on the floor. Making it probable to slide of the panel before reaching the wall. AKA diverting its course due to obstructions. Thirdly I don't see the sagging floor panel across the window. Maybe the photos are in another area or form another angle. Can you clarify that?

 

[Java Man]

This has been clarified before. If you're using something with such low density in its composition of a metal like aluminum foil, in air, the metal will oxidize, vaporize, burn up, before it melts. This isn't how structurally applied aluminum (or other metals) alloys, or even chunks of pure aluminum would behave, and I'm sure you know that too.

Well we seem to be seeing that same behavior with the soft drink bottle and the airplane fuselage. Surely there is structural aluminium that will melt, but clearly the fuselage oxidizes quickly as seen in the photos.

 

[Java Man]

It's spread out over the tarmac, covered by a surface layer of aluminium oxide - which will give the grey-white colour of some parts of it - and by black residues from the fires in places. Again, a classic piece of lack of the most basic empirical information; have truthers never heard of soot?

The photo of the van in the forest who's aluminium tires melted did not have soot over them. The trail was clearly visible. Did the aluminium wait for the fire to run out before it flowed out? Is that why it doesn't have any soot?

 

[Java Man]

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22513909/stock-photo-molten-steel-pouring.html

http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=848100072

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-3702193/stock-photo-glowing-molten-hot-steel-steel-casting.html

White Hot

Yea we've been over this. I showed some photos of steel pouring in direct sunlight. Didn't look that white hot. Go back, check it out and compare it with the color on the WTC and you'll see they match a whole lot more.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can you clarify that?

Not to the level of your will to misunderstand, no.

The photo of the van in the forest who's aluminium tires melted did not have soot over them. The trail was clearly visible. Did the aluminium wait for the fire to run out before it flowed out? Is that why it doesn't have any soot?

Forest floors aren't generally engineered to be level like airport runways. If there's a slope in the forest, the aluminium can flow away from the fire. If the aluminium can flow away from the fire, it's less likely to be covered in soot, because the soot comes from the fire. Runways are level, so the aluminium can't flow away from the fire because there's no slope for it to run down. If the aluminium can't flow away from the fire, it's more likely to be covered in soot.

(I'm trying to pitch this at the three-year-old level now, less in the hope that you'll actually follow it, more in the hope that, in order to wilfully misunderstand, you'll have to regress to a pre-verbal level of functioning.)

And I suspect, by the way, that it wasn't the tyres, but the wheels, that were made of aluminium.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

I really, really would need a real chemist here to explain the details well (too bad Maldach doesn't play in the CT subforum ; I merely took undergrad classes and don't have his experience... ).

...

Anyway, what must be understood is that a fire of office contents (and in the beginning, jet fuel) in the area would quite obviously be proceeding far faster than an air-aluminum oxidation. And without aluminum being consumed at a fast rate, oxygen won't be consumed in an aluminum oxidation at a high rate. That's the bottom line. ....

Then don't comment. Don't bring in the "lets wait for the expert", but meanwhile "I'll make an experts comment and sell it". Like you said you've only got undergrad classes and on top of that you're using terms like "obviously"? Only a debunker with the benefit of no burden of proof would get away with this. That still doesn't make you look less silly to the readers here.

 

[Java Man]

Not to the level of your will to misunderstand, no.

Yea we all know what that really means. Don't worry I'll be gentle with you from now on.

Forest floors aren't generally engineered to be level like airport runways. If there's a slope in the forest, the aluminium can flow away from the fire. If the aluminium can flow away from the fire, it's less likely to be covered in soot, because the soot comes from the fire. Runways are level, so the aluminium can't flow away from the fire because there's no slope for it to run down. If the aluminium can't flow away from the fire, it's more likely to be covered in soot.

That's exactly the point. The forest fire is raging all around as the aluminium is flowing out. So it should be covered by soot according to you. But it isn't. Even smoke and soot from smoldering trees and grass fails to taint it.

Sorry, but your theory totally collapses here. Go back to the drawing board.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's exactly the point. The forest fire is raging all around as the aluminium is flowing out. So it should be covered by soot according to you. But it isn't. Even smoke and soot from smoldering trees and grass fails to taint it.

Well, if you could post the picture, it might help. But it seems to me that one might expect a different result from a forest fire than an aircraft fuel fire, and an insistence that both should give precisely the same results is evidence of a desire to obfuscate, rather than understand. For example, how much soot is actually produced by a forest fire, compared to jet fuel which we know produces black and sooty smoke?

Dave

ETA: And, of course, criticising somebody else's theory is rather hypocritical from someone who can't articulate his own.

 

[Java Man]

Well, if you could post the picture, it might help. But it seems to me that one might expect a different result from a forest fire than an aircraft fuel fire, and an insistence that both should give precisely the same results is evidence of a desire to obfuscate, rather than understand. For example, how much soot is actually produced by a forest fire, compared to jet fuel which we know produces black and sooty smoke?

Plenty of soot:

http://sierrafiresupport.com/images/California_Wildfire_Firefighter.jpg

ETA: And, of course, criticising somebody else's theory is rather hypocritical from someone who can't articulate his own.

You can only get away with a statement like that because you don't carry the burden of proof.

 

[TruthersLie]

The photo of the van in the forest who's aluminium tires melted did not have soot over them. The trail was clearly visible. Did the aluminium wait for the fire to run out before it flowed out? Is that why it doesn't have any soot?

<facepalm>

are you truly comparing a flat level runway with a van in the forest where the area is not level?

Really?
Truly?
honestly?

do you not see why the aluminum would go downhill away from the van as opposed to a level tarmac which would not let the aluminum go anywhere?

really?

 

[Java Man]

<facepalm>

are you truly comparing a flat level runway with a van in the forest where the area is not level?

Really?
Truly?
honestly?

do you not see why the aluminum would go downhill away from the van as opposed to a level tarmac which would not let the aluminum go anywhere?

really?

I'm quite aware of that. Please don generate an issue to cover up the soot problem you have in your hands now. Why is there no soot on the aluminium in the forest fire?

 

[TruthersLie]

Yea we've been over this. I showed some photos of steel pouring in direct sunlight. Didn't look that white hot. Go back, check it out and compare it with the color on the WTC and you'll see they match a whole lot more.

the colour of the material doesn't tell you anything unless you know what the material is.

Oy had a great 8 photo test for truthers... All of them are molten materials which are the same colour. Has he given you this test? if so can you identify wnat any of those 8 photos are based just on the colour? yes or no?

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm quite aware of that. Please don generate an issue to cover up the soot problem you have in your hands now. Why is there no soot on the aluminium in the forest fire?

I can think of several reasons.
1. it is a much smaller fire which is burning less materials hence less soot.
2. it is in an area that is not flat and the material ran down hill away from the fire
3. I have no way of determining which way the wind was blowing, for all I know it could have blown it away from the fire.
4. The size of the fire does matter and the materials in the fire matter. A huge 100 ton jet filled with jet fuel and things like baggage, wires etc would look different than a car fire.
5. I don't know when the photographs were taken. The time between the photographs matters.
6. for all we know the person cleaned up the aluminum from the car fire to make it look shinier (now I am just postulating, but it is a possibility)
7. what was the material used to put out each fire. if it was foam for the aircraft fire and water for the car fire it would make a difference to how the debris look.
8. was the car fire fought?

You asked for a reason as to why the aluminum in the picture doesn't show soot and I gave you a simple one.

you are trying to compare apples to oranges... but hey from someone who can't figure out godwin's law, I'm not surprised.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm quite aware of that. Please don generate an issue to cover up the soot problem you have in your hands now. Why is there no soot on the aluminium in the forest fire?

We're trying to answer your questions, but our stock of wise men is a little short of the required 1,000.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Plenty of soot:

http://sierrafiresupport.com/images/California_Wildfire_Firefighter.jpg






You can only get away with a statement like that because you don't carry the burden of proof.

handwave noted... where is the picture of the van in the forest fire ...

trying to compare apples and oranges again. wrong picture.

 

[Java Man]

handwave noted... where is the picture of the van in the forest fire ...

Look it up yourself mate. Your camp brought it up.

 

[Java Man]

I can think of several reasons.
1. it is a much smaller fire which is burning less materials hence less soot.

That's an argument against you since a forest fire is bigger than an airplane fire. So there should be less soot in the airplane incident.

2. it is in an area that is not flat and the material ran down hill away from the fire

And so did the soot?

3. I have no way of determining which way the wind was blowing, for all I know it could have blown it away from the fire.

Given the forest fire was all around it really doesn't matter which way the wind was blowing. There's bound to be soot.

4. The size of the fire does matter and the materials in the fire matter. A huge 100 ton jet filled with jet fuel and things like baggage, wires etc would look different than a car fire.

Well a forest fire is bigger than an airplane fire and they didn't strip the car before they let it burn. So there were seats, wires, gasoline, oil, plastics, paint, rubber, etc on the car.

7. what was the material used to put out each fire. if it was foam for the aircraft fire and water for the car fire it would make a difference to how the debris look.
8. was the car fire fought?

By the looks of the remains I don't think it was fought. Do you?