Merged Molten metal observations

[W.D.Clinger]

No, you clearly neglected to say the "raise one gram one degree" part when you stated the factor of 540. Here's exactly what you said:



Because I didn't fall for your miscalculations/misrepresentations, you're now accusing me of the crimes you've committed:

So here's your story:

1. First you ignored specific heat and the distinction between moles and kilograms.
2. Then you ignored the difference in units between specific heat and heat of fusion so you could claim that the latter is "540 times larger".
3. Then, after I had again pointed out that the specific heat requires as much energy as the heat of fusion even under your own impossible assumptions, you quoted a passage in which NIST made the same point I had made and pretended the agreement between NIST and myself involved some kind of contradiction.
4. You then demanded I replace your miscalculations with the correct calculation.
5. When I pointed out that I had already done so (by quoting Sunstealer) and noted that your factor of 540 was off by more than two orders of magnitude, you pretended I had been talking about something else.
6. In your most recent post, quoted above, you have finally agreed that the energy required to raise the temperature to the melting point is comparable to the heat of fusion, instead of the "540 times larger" you had originally claimed.^*

You were off by more than two orders of magnitude.

You're "sad sad sad" to have been caught out.

LOL you're too funny. I did the same calculation on two units (kJ and calories) and came to the same relationship.

So the reason you've been disagreeing with me is that your own calculations came out the same as mine?

Why don't you address the relevant point here. What is the temperature of the metal there. Because a great deal many people here have claimed that to be molten aluminium or copper or lead or what not.

I don't know the temperature there. Neither do you.

Our little diversion began when I agreed with Sunstealer that you know next to nothing about chemistry. You then proceeded to demonstrate our point. Thanks for playing.

 

[Java Man]

Our little diversion began when I agreed with Sunstealer that you know next to nothing about chemistry. You then proceeded to demonstrate our point. Thanks for playing.

At least I brought my own calculations to the table. I didn't copy them from someone else like you did.

 

[Java Man]

Do you accept that Harrit found thermite?

So you do support the thermite theory!

 

[Oystein]

So you do support the thermite theory!

A question is not a statement. Don't put words in my mouth, that is a dishonest thing to do! I despise dishonesty!

Why are you such a cowardly weasle? Why can't you give a straight reply to a straight question? Why can't I talk with you like I do with a grown-up man?


Will you man up and just answer this now, please:

Do you accept that Harrit found thermite?




ETA: Oh, and you nearly got me to drop the other issue that you DODGED:

We aren't discussing barium here. We are discussing sulfur. So you still need to support your assertion that sulfur from thermate would create a eutectic.

 

[Myriad]

At least I brought my own calculations to the table. I didn't copy them from someone else like you did.

In special education, one gets more credit for attempting to get the answer yourself and getting it completely wrong, than for searching for an existing solution that's correct, verifying its correctness, and citing it.

In the rest of the world... not so much.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[W.D.Clinger]

At least I brought my own calculations to the table. I didn't copy them from someone else like you did.

In special education, one gets more credit for attempting to get the answer yourself and getting it completely wrong, than for searching for an existing solution that's correct, verifying its correctness, and citing it.

In the rest of the world... not so much.

For what it's worth, I had already done the calculation before I first commented on Java Man's calculation.

When Sunstealer posted a link to the truther's paper, I examined the truther's calculation and realized that my own calculation was off by a factor of about 2 because I had forgotten about the specific heat of the thermite itself.

So I actually learned something from a truther's calculation.

Someday, perhaps, I may learn something from Java Man.

 

[Sunstealer]

Well considering the fact that sulfur drops the melting point of iron as it mixes with it I'd say it does.

Mixes with it eh? So how does this "mixing" occur and over how much time? Remember that the steel and sulphur are solid at this time. I know the answer, do you?

 

[Sunstealer]

At least I brought my own calculations to the table. I didn't copy them from someone else like you did.

So you think that just because you tried to do the calculation and failed spectacularly that you somehow win? You got it wrong because you don't know what you are doing.

There is nothing wrong with using someone else's calculation when that calculation is correct. Not only that, but you can follow the method he used and his assumptions.

2+2=5 is still wrong, you don't get marks for effort. Sheesh.

 

[beachnut]

If you took the time to fill in the "citation needed"
>>> http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744

You'd see barium is the one that reduces ignition temperature, as mentioned on the patent.

Did Harrit find barium and sulfur in the dust chips which burn releasing energy different than thermite?

How did they mess up and not find thermite? Funny, they fake a paper and can't get their chips of "fake thermite" to match thermite? And with heat energy 14 times less than burning plastic, 10 times less the 66,000 pounds of jet fuel planted by jet aircraft, you would think they would come up with better lies to apologize for their terrorist buddies who were solely responsible for killing fellow humans on 911. Jones made it up, and he fooled you.

Only paranoid conspiracy theorists and those who refuse to think for themselves (lack knowledge) accept the thermite theory. Thermite is as dumb as nukes and beam weapons.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You have no idea what holds the core to the perimeter. It is not huge steel beams. And you have no knowledge of the properties of steel. Pleaese feel free to back your opinion with some science.

Here is a huge steel beam.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcfloor.jpg[/qimg]
See the beams (trusses) below the floor? Is that a huge steel beam? You need to get your story straight before making up false claims, and nonsense. Better study steel, it could take years, but you will google 911 truth lies and come back with more insane claims based on your own lack of knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfK7SDWbOLw

http://www.bollyn.com/public/WTC_Floor_pan_and_truss.JPG
A photo hosted by a bigot 911 truther. Extra credit stupid web site. Bollyn blames 911 on Jews, he is a typical truther, zero evidence. Does Bollyn hate Jews as much as you do with your Holocaust denial junk? Why do you Holocaust deniers jump on the insane claims of 911 truth wagon?

Setting up your defense as some sort of hate crime adjudicated by the Homeland Security?

 

[Oystein]

Setting up your defense as some sort of hate crime adjudicated by the Homeland Security?

just pointing out that your witness, bollyn, is also a holocaust-denier and rabid anti-semite. if you buy his arguments, be prepared to be questioned on your source. do you follow bollyn all the way?

beachnut also pointed out a tiny engineering detail: that your "huge beams" aren't huge at all, but surprisingly fragile, lightweight assemblies. It would suit you well to address that point as well.

 

[Clayton Moore]

just pointing out that your witness, bollyn, is also a holocaust-denier and rabid anti-semite. if you buy his arguments, be prepared to be questioned on your source. do you follow bollyn all the way?

beachnut also pointed out a tiny engineering detail: that your "huge beams" aren't huge at all, but surprisingly fragile, lightweight assemblies. It would suit you well to address that point as well.

The core beams were huge, huger, and much huger yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.

Look who also starts his everybody hates me defense. He'd better think of something because the PNAC and the neoconsevatives won't help him/them as they're concerned with getting back Israeli super spy hero Jonathan Pollard, reincarnate Robert Maxwell, and blanket past and future immunity for Israeli spies.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/motherofallscandals.php

Think about that as billions of your tax dollars flow to Israel while your roads and schools crumble and decay and services are cut.

Think about that as the coffins come home with your loved ones inside.

Think about that when you and a million of your fellow citizens march down the streets of America opposing wars built on lies and deceptions and wonder why the government just doesn’t want to listen to you any more.

See also: Is Israel Blackmailing America?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Isra...&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1DVFC_en___US329

 

[Justin39640]

Why are you such a cowardly weasle? Why can't you give a straight reply to a straight question? Why can't I talk with you like I do with a grown-up man

After 29 pages of circle talk and answering questions with questions, are you shocked he wont answer? lol

 

[Justin39640]

Mixes with it eh? So how does this "mixing" occur and over how much time? Remember that the steel and sulphur are solid at this time. I know the answer, do you?

Like pouring sand on a dry bar of dove and hoping to come out with a lava soap bar...

 

[beachnut]

The core beams were huge, huger, and much huger yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.

...

Core? The core can't stand without the floors and the shell. Darn, you said 4 or 5 seconds of what? And what does this have to do with molten metal? Why are you off topic? You post some antisemitic BS and post free fall speed nonsense.

Your 4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed is a lie, a huge lie, a huger lie, a much huger lie. lol

Exactly what is free fall speed? Do you do physics?

Explain in detail how 4 or 5 seconds works with molten mental, and why you are wrong?

 

[Oystein]

The core beams were huge, huger, and much huger yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.

Huh???
First of all, what building are you talking about here? All three? The Twins? 7?
Then: Please make sure you use engineering terms when you discuss engineering. Are you sure you mean "beams"? If not, if you in fact mean "columns", please make sure to use the word "columns" next time.
Then: What on earth do you mean by "4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed"?? At the Twin Towers, it was observed that a good deal of the cores remained standing even after all the floors had collapsed. At WTC7, the core collapse was never directly obseved, but had 14-18 seconds to happen, or 2.3-3 times longer than free-fall would have been.
Then: What pulverization? Are you saying any beams (or columns) were pulverized? Honestly??

I have rarely seen so much wrong about the collapses in just one sentence.

Look who also starts his everybody hates me defense. He'd better think of something because the PNAC and the neoconsevatives won't help him/them as they're concerned with getting back Israeli super spy hero Jonathan Pollard, reincarnate Robert Maxwell, and blanket past and future immunity for Israeli spies.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/motherofallscandals.php


http://www.google.com/search?q=Isra...&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1DVFC_en___US329

Whoops - that was a fast jump from engineering to unadulterated, rabid, ideological (and completely off-topic) Jew-bashing! I am impressed!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Huh???
First of all, what building are you talking about here? All three? The Twins? 7?
Then: Please make sure you use engineering terms when you discuss engineering. Are you sure you mean "beams"? If not, if you in fact mean "columns", please make sure to use the word "columns" next time.
Then: What on earth do you mean by "4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed"?? At the Twin Towers, it was observed that a good deal of the cores remained standing even after all the floors had collapsed. At WTC7, the core collapse was never directly obseved, but had 14-18 seconds to happen, or 2.3-3 times longer than free-fall would have been.
Then: What pulverization? Are you saying any beams (or columns) were pulverized? Honestly??

I have rarely seen so much wrong about the collapses in just one sentence.



Whoops - that was a fast jump from engineering to unadulterated, rabid, ideological (and completely off-topic) Jew-bashing! I am impressed!

A photo hosted by a bigot 911 truther. Extra credit stupid web site. Bollyn blames 911 on Jews, he is a typical truther, zero evidence. Does Bollyn hate Jews as much as you do with your Holocaust denial junk?

 

[twinstead]

Ah, the Jooooooooooooos. LOL

You do realize, Clayton, that simply saying something, even if you believe it (or WANT to believe it) with all your heart does not make it true, right? And, it appears that you also have NO idea what the PNAC means. Finally, you make a statement to close that is simply untrue. Good thing your opinions are irrelevant.

 

[beachnut]

Clayton Moore,
What do you have to say about your 4 or 5 second faster than free fall lie, and tie it to molten metal of 911 truth? What is free fall speed, got a number? What do you have to say?

A photo hosted by a bigot 911 truther. Extra credit stupid web site. Bollyn blames 911 on Jews, he is a typical truther, zero evidence. Does Bollyn hate Jews as much as you do with your Holocaust denial junk?

Molten metal?
Bollyn is a bigot, and that fact will not help your problem not understanding 911. Are you a Holocaust denier too? And how does that keep you from understanding 911? Molten metal?

Does this mean you will not explain what speed is free fall speed?
Does this mean you will not correct your lie of 4 or 5 seconds of faster than free-fall?

 

[Oystein]

A photo hosted by a bigot 911 truther. Extra credit stupid web site. Bollyn blames 911 on Jews, he is a typical truther, zero evidence. Does Bollyn hate Jews as much as you do with your Holocaust denial junk?

You failed to make an argument. Maybe it got lost in inept tagging?

Allow me to repost some questions. Please consider answering them rationally now:

The core beams were huge, huger, and much huger yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
...

Huh???
First of all, what building are you talking about here? All three? The Twins? 7?
Then: Please make sure you use engineering terms when you discuss engineering. Are you sure you mean "beams"? If not, if you in fact mean "columns", please make sure to use the word "columns" next time.
Then: What on earth do you mean by "4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed"?? At the Twin Towers, it was observed that a good deal of the cores remained standing even after all the floors had collapsed. At WTC7, the core collapse was never directly obseved, but had 14-18 seconds to happen, or 2.3-3 times longer than free-fall would have been.
Then: What pulverization? Are you saying any beams (or columns) were pulverized? Honestly??