Merged Molten metal observations

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you scared to bring the number out?

If I cared enough to answer your question I would have done it a long time ago. I simply do not have enough study in chemistry, nor any knowledge of the specific conditions of the debris pilesw to tell you. I will not attempt to answer something which I cannot offer a substantive response to. I don't think it warrants enough attention - given the overwhelming evidence of corrosion having already taken place - to attempt if I knew how to do such calculations.. Save yourself the trouble and stop asking, thankyou

Why do you ask me for absurd documents on eutectic reactions and then say something like this? It seems you're trying to position me as both supporter and not supporter of eutectic corrosion.

For starters, you could probably answer your own question by explaining your bizarre rational for likening an obvious case of corrosion to melting induced by temperatures consistent with the ignition of thermite. You were arguing earlier that the molten metal streams from the towers were more consistent with thermite, yet you keep pushing a sample from WTC 7 that shows damage consistent with something else entirely as the smoking gun. Corrosion is not melting, Java man, if you would like to argue therm*te, then find something else. You're apparent confusion over the difference between the two mechanisms (corrosion and melting) isn't helping you, and if you're smoking gun is leaning thermite then you need more compelling evidence than casting doubt on more valid alternatives.

 

[Java Man]

For starters, you could probably answer your own question by explaining your bizarre rational for likening an obvious case of corrosion to melting induced by temperatures consistent with the ignition of thermite.

Well because there is evidence for an eutectic reaction. Isn't there?

 

[Java Man]

I don't think it warrants enough attention - given the overwhelming evidence of corrosion having already taken place - to attempt if I knew how to do such calculations.. Save yourself the trouble and stop asking, thankyou

Well I don't think anyone is questioning the corrosion. What I'm questioning is where did the elements involved come from in enough quantity to produce that level of deterioration.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, he's pretty clear about it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7095175&postcount=472

How is the math coming along for the amount of acid required to affect the beam coming along?

That post says nothing about the paper by Sisson et al. of WPI.

How's that theory coming along? You give us a complete theory, I will get you your calculations. I happen to know a chemist that I teach with.

 

[beachnut]

Well because there is evidence for an eutectic reaction. Isn't there?

When will you explain this post, in detail?

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

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S

How does your post, the post above support your claims? If you can't explain this, your failure explains why you can't understand the topic at hand, asking silly questions to avoid making sense.

 

[GlennB]

How does your post, the post above support your claims? If you can't explain this, your failure explains why you can't understand the topic at hand, asking silly questions to avoid making sense.

And this is exactly what Java Man is doing - throwing marginal points into the discussion in order to confuse the issue as much as possible, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge a single fact along the way. His motivation for this is unclear, but plain trolling looks favourite. Or it's just the Truther Tango.

 

[ozeco41]

And this is exactly what Java Man is doing - throwing marginal points into the discussion in order to confuse the issue as much as possible, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge a single fact along the way. His motivation for this is unclear, but plain trolling looks favourite. Or it's just the Truther Tango.

It's trolling with a low "degree of difficulty" so even if we award him high marks he will still not score higher than some of the other practitioners.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How much Thermite was needed to create the flow of metal we see coming from the building?

 

[ozeco41]

How much Thermite was needed to create the flow of metal we see coming from the building?

Several tonnes but that is not the only problem.

How do you use bulk quantities of thernXte to produce bulk quantities of molten steel/iron???

 

[TheRedWorm]

Several tonnes but that is not the only problem.

How do you use bulk quantities of thernXte to produce bulk quantities of molten steel/iron???

GodTherm*te cannot be fully understood by man. Therefore, GodTherm*te can do any actions truthers attribute to GodTherm*te.

 

[tsig]

GodTherm*te cannot be fully understood by man. Therefore, GodTherm*te can do any actions truthers attribute to GodTherm*te.

Ah, I see! Thermite Works In Mysterious Ways.

TWIMW

Well that answers every possible question so i guess we're done here.

 

[Java Man]

Several tonnes but that is not the only problem.

How do you use bulk quantities of thernXte to produce bulk quantities of molten steel/iron???

I hardly believe it would be in the tonnes. It only takes a few kilos to cut through steel.

 

[Java Man]

throwing marginal points into the discussion in order to confuse the issue as much as possible

They're not marginal points. They are relevant points which seem unconnected from one another. And that is the perception you get because you have no clear understanding of you own theory, you've never had the burden of proof and you've never had to come up with something coherent. Your tactic depends on hammering the truther's position with a load of "what ifs" that you really don't have to support in any way. So your options and possibilities are infinite.

Now when the arguments are presented in a disjoint manner, discussed and then brought together your tactic doesn't work that well anymore. That is the reason I haven't brought my theory to the table. It would be foolish of me to present a text which would be picked to bits and pieces by your team and lead down a path of impossibly large discussion paths.

It is so much better to follow your proposed theory and then analyze it as you should if you carried the burden of proof. And with that find it lacking. As they say, the devil is in the details.

But I won't entertain you anymore. You have plenty of work to do in getting those acid volume numbers right. Remember, no numbers no theory on your part.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I hardly believe it would be in the tonnes. It only takes a few kilos to cut through steel.

It takes only a small ammount to weld railtrack and I am sure only a few ounces to burn through a tion can but we are talking about cutting enough steel to produce a flow from the building and enough to collapse the building.

What thickness of steel is being cut and how much steel has to be melted to produce a flow like the one being discussed?

Would that be possible with only a few kilos? How much energy is released by a kilo of thermite?

 

[Java Man]

What thickness of steel is being cut and how much steel has to be melted to produce a flow like the one being discussed?

Not much steel needs to be cut. Just the support beams for the floors which are not very thick.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

with a load of "what ifs" that you really don't have to support in any way. So your options and possibilities are infinite.

I agree, let's skip the "what if's and get to the point: What physical evidence for thermite exists? Since you can't use the WTC 7 sample let's get a bit more specific; a good starting point would be for you to name a thermite-only ingredient that was found in the debris pile.

What I mean about "thermite-only"... I mean an ingredient that is found as a widespread anomaly that cannot be explained by the release of sulfur from drywall, or heat consistent with the rubble fires, or from corrosion, or the microspheres already being present from site cleanup and construction. That might be your strongest starting point, at least if you can find something like it. I hear barium nitrate is sometimes used as an ingredient in thermite, do you know of any such thing or similar being found?

 

[Java Man]

Since you can't use the WTC 7 sample let's get a bit more specific; a good starting point would be for you to name a thermite-only ingredient that was found in the debris pile.

Actually I can

What I mean about "thermite-only"... I mean an ingredient that is found as a widespread anomaly that cannot be explained by the release of sulfur from drywall,

Ah, but it hasn't been explained. Yes the drywall can release sulfur. But has it been proven in an experiment? No it has not. Once again how much acid would be required to corrode that beam? Because SO4 is required to be released in large quantities to affect that beam. And the proper conditions need to occur. If you want to go to say that sulfur (pure S) was obtained from the drywall then even more steps are required. So your theory although theoretically possible is practically impossible to occur.

 

[Oystein]

...
Ah, but it hasn't been explained....

True.
One of many non-explanations is "thermate".
Espacially in light of the fact that the supposedly found "unreacted nano-thermitic residues" (Harrit and his crazy bunch) contain no sulfur.


Also, no-one has explained why a piece of weirdly corroded steel bears any relevance on the question of collapse.

 

[Java Man]

Also, no-one has explained why a piece of weirdly corroded steel bears any relevance on the question of collapse.

That simple to explain. If the elements involved in its destruction are not easily available in the fire then another "non-natural" source must be providing them.

 

[Oystein]

That simple to explain. If the elements involved in its destruction are not easily available in the fire then another "non-natural" source must be providing them.

If.
What are these elements?