Merged Molten metal observations

Myriad said:
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
Click to expand...

I presume that the technical arguments will be presented in his draft of his full 911 theory that he promised us he would deliver in a few days,about three months ago. How's it coming along Java?
 
Java Man said:
Well aprox 70 % of the aircraft is aluminum. How much of that would melt. Mhh lets see. If we have 164000 lbs that makes 118000 of molten material. That times density would make what ?? 22 cubic meters of molten aluminum?

Does this make sense? Nope not really. Because about 20,000 lbs are engine weight. That's about 13% of the aircraft. Then add to that landing gear, avionics, hydraulics, seats and interior accommodations.

Taking the engines out we are down to 144000 lbs. How much of that is avionics, hydraulics, landing gear and interior stuff? 30%? Leaves us at 100000 lbs for fuselage. Of that 80% is aluminium (http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/TransportationMarket/Aircraft/default.htm) and of that about 90% is Al of the alloy. So that puts us at 80000 lbs of alloy. Guess something like 17 to 19 cubic meters of molten aluminum.

Now if all that aluminum were to spread out in a sheet of molten goo 1 cm thick it would cover 1800 square meters. Roughly half a football field. Why is that not visible in the pictures I've posted?
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
Why would you require that all this aluminum be molten just to satisfy the visual of the molten material that is seen exiting the tower?

How many cubic meters of material actually was seen?
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
I don't. I'm on the truther camp that believes in thermite, remember? You're the one with the answer to that question.
Click to expand...

Although I really do not believe that you did not understand my question's thrust, allow me re-phrase it ....

Why would you assume that the debunker position is that ALL of the aluminum YOU calculated above would have to have melted?
 
dafydd said:
I presume that the technical arguments will be presented in his draft of his full 911 theory that he promised us he would deliver in a few days,about three months ago. How's it coming along Java?
Click to expand...

Actually it was October last year.
 
Java Man said:
Well its not falling through a morning breeze like the WTC one. And BTW the material falling remains incandescent all the way through the fall.
Click to expand...

If the melted aluminum could not pool in that corner of the building, then how did the “melted steel” pool in that area? Wouldn’t all melted metals have the same characteristic dynamics? Just like any other liquids, they would flow in the direction that offered the least resistance… no?
 
http://forums.randi.http://www.inte...t=117org/showpost.php?p=7080841&postcount=117

Never did get an answer to this.

Mistake or lie?

jaydeehess said:
In this latest case 'your error' would be in claiming that you "did not say molten steel"





Did you just forget you posted this in which you refer to the claim in the video and ask the questions regarding molten steel, AND that you refered to molten steel in the very post I quoted in my own post?
, or is this a deliberate lie? (I am open to other explanations if you have one that makes sense)
Click to expand...
 
fess said:
If the melted aluminum could not pool in that corner of the building, then how did the “melted steel” pool in that area? Wouldn’t all melted metals have the same characteristic dynamics? Just like any other liquids, they would flow in the direction that offered the least resistance… no?
Click to expand...

The melted steel didn't pool. The agent is acting on it as we watch. You see a beam heated up and parts of it melt off and fall. That's why you can see an incandescent wall. That's the heated steel that's red hot. As the agent continues to burn and begins to melt the steel parts of the steel flow out as molten metal. We can see short expulsions of material consistent with a progressive melting. But not consistent with a dropped floor panel that produces a flow from a pool. That would be seen as a quick surge and then nothing.
 
Java Man said:
The melted steel didn't pool. The agent is acting on it as we watch. You see a beam heated up and parts of it melt off and fall. That's why you can see an incandescent wall. That's the heated steel that's red hot. As the agent continues to burn and begins to melt the steel parts of the steel flow out as molten metal. We can see short expulsions of material consistent with a progressive melting. But not consistent with a dropped floor panel that produces a flow from a pool. That would be seen as a quick surge and then nothing.
Click to expand...

Just what "melted steel" and "agent" are you speaking of? Are we back on "it was therm*te" again? If so, you lose.

BTW, where is the bright flash produced by a therm*te reaction. You must have a video that no one else has.
 
Once again, for all its bluster, our truther friend has only an argument from incredulity regarding anything which challenges its beliefs. It sees only what it wants to see.

Fires, sources of metal are all handwaved away, and instead the magic substance is invoked, the substance which truthers are bound to believe in, lest their cult evaporate.
 
alienentity said:
Once again, for all its bluster, our truther friend has only an argument from incredulity regarding anything which challenges its beliefs. It sees only what it wants to see.

Fires, sources of metal are all handwaved away, and instead the magic substance is invoked, the substance which truthers are bound to believe in, lest their cult evaporate.
Click to expand...

Tens of tonnes of thermite of the "no emitted light" variety.

Has anyone anywhere ever used tens of tonnes of thermite to melt a heap of steel?

How in fact do you do it?
 
Java Man said:
The melted steel didn't pool. The agent is acting on it as we watch. You see a beam heated up and parts of it melt off and fall. That's why you can see an incandescent wall.
Click to expand...

My bolding.

There were no "beams" in the exterior walls. If you're suggesting that a spandrel plate was pointlessly attacked - in this one particular location - you'd need to suggest why.
 
Java Man said:
The agent is acting on it as we watch. You see a beam heated up and parts of it melt off and fall. That's why you can see an incandescent wall.
Click to expand...

No.

That's the heated steel that's red hot. As the agent continues to burn and begins to melt the steel parts of the steel flow out as molten metal. We can see short expulsions of material consistent with a progressive melting.
Click to expand...

Again, no, because we can see no source of heat other than ordinary office fires and no bright white lights that would be a cvontrast with a bright sunny day in the middle of the Shara.

But not consistent with a dropped floor panel that produces a flow from a pool. That would be seen as a quick surge and then nothing.
Click to expand...

No, because it takes some time for all that molten whatever to reach the corner. It did not melt there, or we woulld have seen some trace of the heat source.
 
Java Man said:
The melted steel didn't pool. The agent is acting on it as we watch. You see a beam heated up and parts of it melt off and fall. That's why you can see an incandescent wall. That's the heated steel that's red hot. As the agent continues to burn and begins to melt the steel parts of the steel flow out as molten metal. We can see short expulsions of material consistent with a progressive melting. But not consistent with a dropped floor panel that produces a flow from a pool. That would be seen as a quick surge and then nothing.
Click to expand...

Will we have to wait for the draft to find out who planted the thermite and when and how they did it without anyone noticing and................
 
leftysergeant said:
No.
Click to expand...

Yes

leftysergeant said:
Again, no, because we can see no source of heat other than ordinary office fires and no bright white lights that would be a cvontrast with a bright sunny day in the middle of the Shara.
Click to expand...

You mean the ordinary fires which are seen above? I usually put the burgers over the fire. Not under. Helps a lot in getting them cooked.


leftysergeant said:
No, because it takes some time for all that molten whatever to reach the corner. It did not melt there, or we woulld have seen some trace of the heat source.
Click to expand...

According to you it did not melt there, but it pooled. Once the containment is broken it flows out together in one pulse/wave. There is nothing holding it back so it can't flow out in bits. It all should flow out at once. That's the flaw in your theory.

Now having the melting occur there by an agent it makes all the sense in the world. The molten metal flows out as it is being melted. There is no need for a fire source below it because the reaction is occurring on the spot. Possibly behind or around the affected area and that's why we don't see it directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom