Merged Molten metal observations

Java Man said:
Because I believe the thin fuselage skin can oxidize very quickly and not melt. He believes otherwise. I err in his favor asking for a much smaller surface area for him to identify than is really needed. He can't do that. What's the point of following up on the remainder of his post? Let him show me the molten area and be done with it. But he can't. Even when I err in his favor.
Click to expand...

The oxidation layer is measured in nanometers and will not protect structural Al from melting. Otherwise scrap Al from cans and hard drives cannot be melted and cast in backyard smelters, right? It would just end up as useless aluminium oxide according to you.

It was you who chose a 40m X 40M x 1cm 'pool' as a requirement, for reasons known only to yourself, even though this was an absurdly unrealistic over-estimate of the volume of melted Al at that aircraft crash site.

You 'erred' because you were under the impression that 20x20 is half of 40x40.

Your record for accuracy is vanishingly small, so far. Can you do better?
 
DGM said:
Way past that point. This has been explained hundreds of times. By the way, that color comparison picture you posted, It debunks you.

If only you paid attention.
Click to expand...

Well feel free to explain it again for clarity. And no the color comparison by no means debunks me.
 
NoahFence said:
Thermite, and more specifically whatever vessel was used to house the thermite, wouldn't survive the impact and fireball.
Click to expand...

True. And don't forget the ignition system which is more sensitive than the majestical thermatriotonic material itself.

And, interestingly, the delivery vessel would not survive the thermite itself at the volumes required.

And let's not mention that these <cough> 'delivery vessels' would be sticking out of walls into workspaces all over WTC1+2

To summarise: it's all a crock of thermitic residues.
 
GlennB said:
True. And don't forget the ignition system which is more sensitive than the majestical thermatriotonic material itself.

And, interestingly, the delivery vessel would not survive the thermite itself at the volumes required.

And let's not mention that these <cough> 'delivery vessels' would be sticking out of walls into workspaces all over WTC1+2

To summarise: it's all a crock of thermitic residues.
Click to expand...

So you're basically saying that whatever was used to contain it would not hold and that thermite would ignite on its own due to fire? No way to have control over those "delivery vessels"?
 
Java Man said:
I'm more and more convinced that it is steel. It's more understandable that what we see is steel under the effect of a burning agent like thermite than molten aluminium or glass that somehow manages to stay vertical and radiate that yellowish hue out.
Click to expand...
Iron begins to cool rather quickly once it moves away from the source of the heat which melted it, but it goes through some gradation of color as it cools. What we see falling from the towers seems to go from bright yellow to silver or clear rather quickly, within a space less than the height of the tower. This is consistant with aluminum or glass. Iron would go through a significat red-hot period on the way down . It does not. Further, iron is not liuquid at the color we see.

We also do not see any sign of light consistant with thermitic asctivity in the immediate area. There is no place else it coud occcur if the iron were still liquid.

Glass is glowing un til long as it solidifies.

Note further that at some point you see a large object fall trailing a cascade of sparks. This is only possible if some of the falling matter is so light as to be impeded by the resistance of air from keeping up with the container from which it separated. Definitely an argument for glass over iron.
 
Java Man said:
So you're basically saying that whatever was used to contain it would not hold and that thermite would ignite on its own due to fire? No way to have control over those "delivery vessels"?
Click to expand...

There is no way to control the "delivery vessels" - no.

Why? Because they didn't exist.
 
Java Man said:
So you're basically saying that whatever was used to contain it would not hold and that thermite would ignite on its own due to fire? No way to have control over those "delivery vessels"?
Click to expand...

Roughly speaking, apart from the bolded part. The fire would not ignite the thermite but it would ignite the ignition system, which would in turn ignite the thermite. Just as you can use a lighter to ignite a magnesium strip (or kiddies sparkler) which could then ignite thermite.

You're trying so hard to be cunning that you really must be trolling. You fail.
 
Last edited:
Determining the temperature by color comparison is going to be very unreliable. But there is another factor we can visually examine: the brightness. The molten material in the 9/11 images does not appear bright enough to be molten iron or steel. It is much less bright than the diffusely reflected sunlight off the wall to the left, and (more significantly) it is not bright enough to illuminate any of its immediate surroundings in the shadowed space it emerges from. That's one reason we can't see what's actually happening at the place it's pouring out.

In the photos of actual molten iron and steel posted here, the molten metal does illuminate its surroundings. Which is not surprising; the minimum temperature for molten steel is within (though near the low end of) the range of operating temperatures for incandescent electric light bulb filaments. Freshly generated thermite reaction product would be another 500-1000°C hotter. It would be saturating the camera sensor (as the reflected sunlight is close to doing) and lighting up that space.

Since this thread is about "observations" which appears to mean "subjective impressions based on looking at photos," mine are as relevant as anyone else's, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
jaydeehess said:
Your speculation is apparently based upon a complete non-understanding of electricity. I hold no reason to believe then that you have any better grasp of any other technical concept involved.



Given your complete and utter balls-up of any understanding of electricity I find that all you have done is destroy your credibility. There is no reason to suspect you are any better with cutter charges or thermite.
Click to expand...

However, why not provide a refutation (either yourself or link to one if it's been done before) of his "technical" claims about thermites, etc. so that other non-expert people who want to learn something can do so? I hate these kinds of "credibility" arguments because they don't provide knowledge for anyone (and I think the point of online debates like this is not necessarily to convince the other of their wrong (which is almost always impossible since if their mind is made up absolutely nothing will make them change their belief -- only they can decide to change it), but for the benefit of the audience.).
 
mike3 said:
However, why not provide a refutation (either yourself or link to one if it's been done before) of his "technical" claims about thermites, etc. so that other non-expert people who want to learn something can do so? I hate these kinds of "credibility" arguments because they don't provide knowledge for anyone (and I think the point of online debates like this is not necessarily to convince the other of their wrong (which is almost always impossible since if their mind is made up absolutely nothing will make them change their belief -- only they can decide to change it), but for the benefit of the audience.).
Click to expand...


But he hasn't made any technical claims about thermite. He's basically claimed that the pouring material looks like molten steel to him. He's probably right. It probably does look like molten steel to him. Even if he's somehow wrong about what it looks like to him, there's no way to prove that without reading his mind.

To my knowledge he has not yet made any argument, technical or otherwise, for why anyone should care what it looks like to him. So, what is there to address?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Strange, Java, you could very well rest your case if you could prove a thermite exclusive agent was present in any of the samples you've looked up. Maybe you're still looking for the non-existent barium nitrate, and you're stuck in a bind ;)

George152 said:
Especially when its not present !
Click to expand...
Now now, let's give him a chance. I only asked him to start looking a few hours ago. He means serious business!!
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
So make it 50% gone. That's still a 20x20 m area
Click to expand...

Was the aluminum melted, or oxidized and carried away with the other products of un-burnt combustion After all, oxidization is a large part of the process of fire… is it not? Fire; A self sustaining, rapid oxidization of a material, resulting in the release of energy in the form of heat and light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom