Merged Molten metal observations

TheRedWorm said:
I was more getting at your hypocrisy when you answered:
"I asked you above what properties of thermate, as an incindiary, would allow it to corrode this piece in the fashion we see."

with: "sulfur"

How is that answer conforming to your standards?

ETA: I didn't have that specific exchange in mind, I just randomly went back to a post where jm was asked a specific question.
Click to expand...

It is not hypocritical, after all the question was " asked you above what properties of thermate, as an incindiary, would allow it to corrode this piece in the fashion we see." The answer is sulfur.
 
That's it? No demonstration of this actually happening? Not evidence presented that this is what happened? Since you like the burden of proof so much, how about you demonstrate that therm^te can produce this effect outside of 9/11.
 
These small thermite charges that were needed to make the floors fall. how many would there be and how big would they be to produce the river of molten metal we see plus the glowing 'wall' you claim is melting to produce the river? Why do we only see it from one place rather than all round the building?
 
TheRedWorm said:
That's it? No demonstration of this actually happening? Not evidence presented that this is what happened? Since you like the burden of proof so much, how about you demonstrate that therm^te can produce this effect outside of 9/11.
Click to expand...

Thermate can supply sulfur. Which was the question being asked. That's in the chemical composition of thermate.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
These small thermite charges that were needed to make the floors fall. how many would there be and how big would they be to produce the river of molten metal we see plus the glowing 'wall' you claim is melting to produce the river? Why do we only see it from one place rather than all round the building?
Click to expand...

You have some serious reading comprehension issues. The wall isn't melting. It is incandescent due to heat. There is no river of molten material. Just parts that become hot enough to melt away.
 
how much sulfur do you rhink is in the plaster making up the plasterboard(drywall in the USA) hint, plaster is composed of calcium sulfate in the form CaSO4·2H2O (dihydrate)



Add. Was it thermite or thermate that was used?
How much would be needed to supply more sulfur than that present in the plasterboard?
 
Java Man said:
You have some serious reading comprehension issues. The wall isn't melting. It is incandescent due to heat. There is no river of molten material. Just parts that become hot enough to melt away.
Click to expand...

but we see a river of molten something falling from the building, what is supplying the heat to melt that much steel?
 
Java Man said:
You have some serious reading comprehension issues. The wall isn't melting. It is incandescent due to heat. There is no river of molten material. Just parts that become hot enough to melt away.
Click to expand...
What? What does it mean for your claim?
Java Man said:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5306/1621.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6S-3WDC4CB-9&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1996&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1726876783&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a79ff03b520df13d26d667d87a86c021&searchtype=a

[URL="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S"]http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S[/URL]
Click to expand...
This was your best post, it sums up your extensive knowledge on chemical engineering and supports your claims perfectly.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Add. Was it thermite or thermate that was used?
How much would be needed to supply more sulfur than that present in the plasterboard?
Click to expand...

Problem is the sulfur in the plaster board isn't free to react. Before you have it as free S you have to process it and that is hard to do in the chaotic environment of the rubble.
 
Java Man said:
Problem is the sulfur in the plaster board isn't free to react. Before you have it as free S you have to process it and that is hard to do in the chaotic environment of the rubble.
Click to expand...
........If only there was heat and water.................

(add a little time for decomposition)


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
........If only there was heat and water.................

(add a little time for decomposition)


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yea, but you see for one reaction to take place there has to be no water. The heat needs to dehydrate the gypsum and then something needs to take the SO4 away and then some other processes need to occur to free the S and all of that in sufficient amounts to affect the beam.

You see if there is heat there's little water and if there is water there's probably little heat. As the water is either putting off the fire or the heat is being used to boil the water.
 
Java Man said:
LOL, you're arguing against yourself. You are aware that gas is less dense than liquid. And thus less molecules per unit of volume. So now you're saying the bean was corroded by a plume of H2SO4 vapor?

Let me quote Lefty on this "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." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7102393&postcount=759

You see, no water, no corrosion.
Click to expand...

I am sure someone already pointed out to you the obvious weakness of this silly argument.

(Hint: Both vaporization is in some ways similar to dilution dilution; hint: water vapour is present in large amounts in such debris piles; hint: I wasn't talking about concentration but about flow)
 
Java Man said:
Yea, but you see for one reaction to take place there has to be no water. The heat needs to dehydrate the gypsum and then something needs to take the SO4 away and then some other processes need to occur to free the S and all of that in sufficient amounts to affect the beam.

You see if there is heat there's little water and if there is water there's probably little heat. As the water is either putting off the fire or the heat is being used to boil the water.
Click to expand...
Let's see...........there's fire and then the firefighters put water on it.

You didn't actually read (we know you didn't understand) the WPI article, did you?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Let's see...........there's fire and then the firefighters put water on it.
Click to expand...

Yea and then all of a sudden all that water turned into 300 liters of sulfuric acid and ate away the metal in like 4 seconds. Yea right! Looks like you've been watching too much Cartoon Network.
 
Oystein said:
I am sure someone already pointed out to you the obvious weakness of this silly argument.

(Hint: Both vaporization is in some ways similar to dilution dilution; hint: water vapour is present in large amounts in such debris piles; hint: I wasn't talking about concentration but about flow)
Click to expand...

Oh I see, it's "the flow". Like the force, right? It flows over the metal and eats it away gently. That sounded very feng-shui-ish. If only it were plausible I'd congratulate you. But it isn't.
 
Java Man said:
Yea and then all of a sudden all that water turned into 300 liters of sulfuric acid and ate away the metal in like 4 seconds. Yea right! Looks like you've been watching too much Cartoon Network.
Click to expand...
You're making stuff up again. Where did you come up with these numbers (and time frame)?


BTW: I don't have cable because I don't watch TV.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
You're making stuff up again. Where did you come up with these numbers (and time frame)?
Click to expand...

Obviously I'm making it up. Just like you're making it up that firefighters and the water caused that corrosion. If you put water then the gypsum isn't dehydrated anymore. Not to mention the water kills the fire which kills the heat. So it's end of the line for your theory.
 
Java Man said:
Obviously I'm making it up. Just like you're making it up that firefighters and the water caused that corrosion. If you put water then the gypsum isn't dehydrated anymore. Not to mention the water kills the fire which kills the heat. So it's end of the line for your theory.
Click to expand...
Only if the water hits the fire directly. Ever hear of steam? You need to think out-side your box (if your handlers will permit).

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom