Merged Molten metal observations

When aluminum and copper are in contact they undergo galvanic corrorsion. Does anyone know what would occur if molten copper and molten aluminum are mixed?
My google-fu is not up to the task to answer this question it seems.
 
That does not answer the question as to why you would bring up the corroded piece of steel, that originated in WTC 7, in a discussion about molten metal (which YOU claim is steel) exiting from WTC 2.
Care to comment, inquiring minds want to know.

Well that piece is more related to the usage of thermate than thermite. Bringing that up would be changing topics to WTC 7 and I don't think it would be good. But clearly the piece indicates the usage of incendiary material on WTC 7. So it raises the question on WTC 1 & 2.
 
Well that piece is more related to the usage of thermate than thermite. Bringing that up would be changing topics to WTC 7 and I don't think it would be good. But clearly the piece indicates the usage of incendiary material on WTC 7. So it raises the question on WTC 1 & 2.

Um,,, no!

First of all YOU DID bring it up.

Second, thermate will cause the same melting as thermite, unless you have a different definition of thermate than I do. Perhaps to you 'thermate' is simply a substance that can do whatever the hell you wish it to.
 
That sample looks like the corroded steel from a worn out locomotive Firebox. Crown Stays, Throat Plates and Girder Stays as well as the ends of the Fire Tubes look like that on Locomotives that have been using high sulfur coal for a few years.
 
Well that piece is more related to the usage of thermate than thermite. Bringing that up would be changing topics to WTC 7 and I don't think it would be good. But clearly the piece indicates the usage of incendiary material on WTC 7. So it raises the question on WTC 1 & 2.
Fire. Yes, WTC 7 was destroyed by fire. No thermite was used, thermite leaves evidence, products of themite, not found at the WTC. Thermite is an insane delusion invented by Jones, who also thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti. The evidence you presented was corrosion. I suggest taking a chemical engineering course, or two.
 
Yes, but like I mentioned none could stand in a vertical position and be filmed at the temperature we see. They would be molten in a pool and not visible from the street as they would be in a horizontal position ( a pool, get it?) The fact that we can see something like that so bright is because it's a metal that hasn't managed to melt into a pool of liquid at that temperature.

oi vey

So no liquid metal can stand vertical....except thermite reacted steel.

Dude. Give it up. Take up knitting.
 
But clearly the piece indicates the usage of incendiary material on WTC 7.

Bollocks. You make this claim as a bare assertion with no scientific basis offered.

Show us another piece of steel that has been so formed by therm*te. Please.


But you've also avoided the nagging question, that - since molten metal was reported in both WTC 5 and WTC 6, was that caused by fire or therm*te?

If the former, then you concede that WTC fires produced molten metal.
If the latter, then you must show the physical evidence of therm*te in both WTC 5 and WTC 6, or at least attempt to explain why we should believe you since no evidence was found in either, to our knowledge.

The lack of evidence for your claims - and the wealth of evidence against them - is pretty staggering. I don't think you have a prayer in overcoming that deficit, personally.
 
Exactly my point. Thanks for posting another example on how he's wrong in believing the fireball is a destroy all event. Much appreciated.

as I have explained (and so many others have to, do you have a learning disability?) the passport was on the hijacker AT THE FRONT OF THE JET moving 500 mph. He would have passed (in pieces) through the building BEFORE the "fireball."
 
Fire. Yes, WTC 7 was destroyed by fire. No thermite was used, thermite leaves evidence, products of themite, not found at the WTC. Thermite is an insane delusion invented by Jones, who also thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti. The evidence you presented was corrosion. I suggest taking a chemical engineering course, or two.
Quoted.
 
as I have explained (and so many others have to, do you have a learning disability?) the passport was on the hijacker AT THE FRONT OF THE JET moving 500 mph. He would have passed (in pieces) through the building BEFORE the "fireball."

Try using words with less syllables and type slowly because truthers can't read very fast.
 
The industrial batteries I work on look like this pic after they have been overfilled/boiled over and the sulfuric acid attacks the metal case (takes a while to get that bad). They appear flaky and brittle. Start off with a white "salt" all over them. Same idea (result) but different method?


Yes, slightly different. Not by much though. Same concept. An acid attacks the steel, but the heat that is being generated around it, accelerates the process.

Same basic concept though. Different acid.
 
Yes, slightly different. Not by much though. Same concept. An acid attacks the steel, but the heat that is being generated around it, accelerates the process.

Same basic concept though. Different acid.

But heat also evaporates the acid if you know, its above the melting point of aluminium. Sulfuric acid boils at about 340º.

You also have to consider that battery acid is relatively low concentration acid. How many batteries would you require to do away with that beam?
 
Yes, and where does that acid go? You've had this explained to you BY A METALURGIST, and you STILL don't understand it.

I am not a metalurgist, so I will take a stab in the dark here and say that the beam was not "done away with", especially considering we have a part of it still left.
 
Colour means little as well since as soon as it starts falling, for all we know the added windstream is causing it to burn, releasing more heat and keeping the reaction going until the mass of the 'blob' is too small to retain enough heat. (that is to say that the surface area to volume ratio gets larger) In the few instances when a 'blob' gets blown back and hits the building it shatters (wow I hesitated to say 'explode' for some odd reason:D) into a shower of white hot material.

I have seen some types of glass shatter when hit hard enough, even while it was still glowing a rather bright orange or yellow.I have also noticed that it gives up its heat rather quickly. There is a very high probability that this is molten glass.
 
Well that piece is more related to the usage of thermate than thermite. Bringing that up would be changing topics to WTC 7 and I don't think it would be good. But clearly the piece indicates the usage of incendiary material on WTC 7. So it raises the question on WTC 1 & 2.
No, The thinned and curled portions show exposure to sulphuric or nitric acid. I have seen pieces wind up like that when somebody forgot to watch his etching project.
 
But heat also evaporates the acid if you know, its above the melting point of aluminium. Sulfuric acid boils at about 340º.

You also have to consider that battery acid is relatively low concentration acid. How many batteries would you require to do away with that beam?
funny thing about sulphuric acid. You can store it in a highly concentrated condition in a steel bottle. Add as little as ten percent water and it eats right through it.
 
But heat also evaporates the acid if you know, its above the melting point of aluminium. Sulfuric acid boils at about 340º.

You also have to consider that battery acid is relatively low concentration acid. How many batteries would you require to do away with that beam?

Sulfur in coal comes out as it burns, it is in quite low concentratiob but it still contributes to the corrosion of a boiler firebox.
 

Back
Top Bottom