Merged Molten metal observations

NoahFence said:
Java - why not give us a little hint as to how you think the thermite/mate/whatever could have survived the impact to begin with.
Click to expand...

It will all be in his draft. Just have patience. About fifty year's worth of patience.
 
Java Man said:
Never denied it. I posted that when we did the math regarding the volume of aluminium. The amount arrived to does not coincide with what is observed in photographs. So the aluminium is going somewhere that isn't the melting pot.
Click to expand...

:bigclap


You've finally come around to the inevitable conclusion that

a) <100% of the metal in the aircraft melted
b) <100% of the aircraft debris (which entered at very high speed, guaranteeing that the structure disintegrated to a high degree) ended up in one particular area, further reducing the potential sources
c) The floor was not a simple, uniform flat surface, but was undoubtedly interrupted by unknown amounts of debris, further restricting any flow of potential molten materials
d) The fires were not completely uniform over any given floor, resulting in random effects on materials deposited by said aircraft.


In short - there are so many variables which you cannot determine in an abstract 'thought experiment' argument such as the one you are attempting to make, that your attempts at hard conclusions about what 'should' or 'should not' have happened are moot and virtually meaningless.

If you were less ideologically blinkered, you might consider looking at things in terms of 'could', or 'under certain conditions' rather than in absolutes. You would then quickly realize that you're in no position to rule out the aircraft as a possible source of at least some of the material that was seen.

However, it still leaves you with the problem that there is ZERO evidence of therm*te. You have proved nothing at all, advancing as you have a series of rather fallacious arguments.

Carry on!
 
alienentity said:
In short - there are so many variables which you cannot determine in an abstract 'thought experiment' argument such as the one you are attempting to make, that your attempts at hard conclusions about what 'should' or 'should not' have happened are moot and virtually meaningless.
Click to expand...

Yet NIST claimed things with so many variables going on. And you followed up swiftly without questioning. I on the other hand am looking closer at things. I'm not deterred by the amount of variables, but neither am I going to accept handwave comments so quickly.

Yes it is hard to arrive at solid conclusions with so many variables. And that has been at the center of my complain against the debunkers here. They're real heroes because they don't actually have to prove anything. Since the burden of proof is on truthers they can get away by overwhelming a discussion with infinite amount of alternatives and options. Without ever having to question the veracity of such options.

The base of my methodology here is to lure you into posting all these "infinite alternatives" and then finding the errors in those proposals. Since your arguments are short sighted and aimed and debunking the current truther's statement it is a simple matter to let you speak your mind and then checkmate you into a paradox using your own arguments. As for example the soot and aluminium in the forest. Or the slanted floor panels that can't reach the window and have obstructions down the slide path. Or from a previous thread, the collapse of the floor panels and the squibs.

The four points you list are actually beneficial for my argument and detrimental to yours. As they clearly undermine the capability of me do arrive at a conclusion, but also undermines NIST and its capability to arrive at a conclusion. Thus you become undermined in the process too.


a) <100% of the metal in the aircraft melted
b) <100% of the aircraft debris (which entered at very high speed, guaranteeing that the structure disintegrated to a high degree) ended up in one particular area, further reducing the potential sources
c) The floor was not a simple, uniform flat surface, but was undoubtedly interrupted by unknown amounts of debris, further restricting any flow of potential molten materials
d) The fires were not completely uniform over any given floor, resulting in random effects on materials deposited by said aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

As someone who has molten more than his share of a variety of aluminum alloys, I might expect it in part to diminish into the combustion with minimum residue. For example, a 2by4 piece would not turn into a puddle of the same size, rather with enough exhaust, oxygen and brief but intense (within expected reason) fire it would leave a lot less trace in the form of droplets around the immediate location of its melt. And... these droplets of melt would be hard to notice from anything but a close up photograph. I also know jet and hydrocarbon-fueled fires get increadibly hot, very quickly to boot. The rate and intensity of a fire, when consider the given metal's behaviour, is almost as important as considering the metal's composition itself.
At least that's what I would conclude being an ex industrial smith, and I've seen the very thing so simply because you do not spot these small but (all put together) significant parts of melted aluminum droplets in the grass, wreckage or so doesn't mean they are not there. Again, perhaps not the answer you consider helpful, but that would be my two cents worth.
 
Last edited:
Jono said:
Again, perhaps not the answer you consider helpful, but that would be my two cents worth.
Click to expand...

Any answer that's not "obviously", "just because" or "read the NIST report" is helpful. I appreciate your input.

Now I did the math for the volume of aluminium in a jetliner and I posted it here. Although my "truther" positions were challenged the calculations were not. I assume then that many cubic meters of liquid metal should pile up somewhere. Even in close photographs that seems to be missing in the volumes required to match the calculations. There is though a great deal of ash and pealing ash like aluminium on the fuselages that have been exposed to the tremendous heat you mention jet fuel produces. What is going on here? I understand what you say about the droplets, but a whole aircraft?
 
Java Man said:
Now I did the math for the volume of aluminium in a jetliner and I posted it here. Although my "truther" positions were challenged the calculations were not. I assume then that many cubic meters of liquid metal should pile up somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read that, did my own calculations and was about to challenge your absurdity when it occurred to me that you were just a troll aiming to get a response. So here it is.

Your calculations ended with you concluding that there should be some 43 tonnes of re-solidified aluminium (40m x 40m x 1cm) on the tarmac at that crash scene. That would be around 70% of the unloaded weight of a 757.

Yet you totally ignored the fact that the aircraft in the photo was a very long way from being totally melted. And there is no reason to suppose that all the aluminium in UA175 ended up in that corner being melted. None. Much of it would certainly have been scattered around WTC2 entirely unmelted.

So you failed at the first hurdle. Which leaves us back at first base, really. You are trolling or your arguments are based on ignorance.
 
GlennB said:
Yes, I read that, did my own calculations and was about to challenge your absurdity when it occurred to me that you were just a troll aiming to get a response. So here it is.

Your calculations ended with you concluding that there should be some 43 tonnes of re-solidified aluminium (40m x 40m x 1cm) on the tarmac at that crash scene. That would be around 70% of the unloaded weight of a 757.

Yet you totally ignored the fact that the aircraft in the photo was a very long way from being totally melted. And there is no reason to suppose that all the aluminium in UA175 ended up in that corner being melted. None. Much of it would certainly have been scattered around WTC2 entirely unmelted.

So you failed at the first hurdle. Which leaves us back at first base, really. You are trolling or your arguments are based on ignorance.
Click to expand...

So make it 50% gone. That's still a 20x20 m area
 
The typical truther handwave.

When nailed on an inaccurate number that has been pulled out of their asses, just shift the goalposts and claim another number.

Typical.

So have you had a look at those 8 pictures of molten materials that OY has posted here, can you identify any of them by their colour? Yes or no?
 
Java Man said:
So make it 50% gone. That's still a 20x20 m area
Click to expand...

No, let's not (apart from anything your arithmetic sucks. 20x20 is not half of 40x40, its a quarter)

It was your job in the first place to get things right, rather than to totally misrepresent the facts.

We're left with the same dilemma. Are you trolling or merely ignorant? Nobody can stop you trolling, but only you can cure your ignorance unless you accept some education. For example (from my own experience of you in this thread) you have willfully misunderstood the significance of the oxidation of Al, taking this to mean that surface oxidation measured in nanometers will protect the bulk of metal from melting. You could - easily - have educated yourself on this matter, or taken a lead from other posters who pointed out the errors in your thinking.

So, what is it Java Man? Are you trolling or ignorant and refusing to learn?
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
GlennB said:
Yes, I read that, did my own calculations and was about to challenge your absurdity when it occurred to me that you were just a troll aiming to get a response. So here it is.

Your calculations ended with you concluding that there should be some 43 tonnes of re-solidified aluminium (40m x 40m x 1cm) on the tarmac at that crash scene. That would be around 70% of the unloaded weight of a 757.

Yet you totally ignored the fact that the aircraft in the photo was a very long way from being totally melted. And there is no reason to suppose that all the aluminium in UA175 ended up in that corner being melted. None. Much of it would certainly have been scattered around WTC2 entirely unmelted.

So you failed at the first hurdle. Which leaves us back at first base, really. You are trolling or your arguments are based on ignorance.
Click to expand...

So make it 50% gone. That's still a 20x20 m area
Click to expand...
:covereyes
 
GlennB said:
No, let's not (apart from anything your arithmetic sucks. 20x20 is not half of 40x40, its a quarter)
Click to expand...

I err in your favor and even then you can't get the job done. LOL, pathetic your case is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom