Merged Molten metal observations

Close? Oh c'mon we still need to debate all the copper, and bronze and lead from the UPS and the remains of the T-1000 airplanes. Don't leave now.
 
There's no debate.

It IS possible to not be 100% sure of what something is, while at the same time being 100% sure what it isn't.

It isn't steel. There was no thermite.
 
Java Man said:
I think we've pretty much ruled aluminium out.
Click to expand...

No you have not. Nor have you ruled out lead, copper, or any other metals known to have been in the towers. Simply positing that aluminum would catch fire instead of melting is not only an unsupported claim but is ludicrous in the face of aluminum forging being an easily verifiable industrial - and even amateur - process.

And in the end: The point is to demonstrate that you are wrong about the flow being steel. You have not established that to any degree, instead choosing to concentrate on the reasons for and against aluminum being the candidate. Again: Multiple metals were known to be present. All the ones I'm mentioning above have melting points lower than steel and well within the expected range of temperatures in the Twin Towers fires. You have provided zilch as far as positive evidence for steel being the flow, and besides, we've seen the truther arguments for that before, and they've been defeated. You can obsess with aluminum minutiae all you want, but it doesn't suddenly mean that the observed flow is steel. Not in the face of all the evidence establishing that it is not.
 
NoahFence said:
There's no debate.

It IS possible to not be 100% sure of what something is, while at the same time being 100% sure what it isn't.

It isn't steel. There was no thermite.
Click to expand...

Well you might want to chip in and help lefty on showing how a molten metal can flow up and onto the perimeter wall.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Simply positing that aluminum would catch fire instead of melting is not only an unsupported claim but is ludicrous in the face of aluminum forging being an easily verifiable industrial - and even amateur - process.
Click to expand...

I've supported it quite well with prior experience from other crashes. It has even been admitted by Glenn B that it is aluminium oxide and thus impossible to melt under 2000ºC.
 
Java Man said:
I've supported it quite well with prior experience from other crashes. It has even been admitted by Glenn B that it is aluminium oxide and thus impossible to melt under 2000ºC.
Click to expand...

I missed that post. Could you please tell me what number it is or link to it?

Thanks a million!
 
NoahFence said:
Why would I want to show him how something that didn't actually happen, happened?
Click to expand...

It must have happened because the metal has to flow from the molten debris pile to the exit point. Which is on the perimeter wall and that's the highest point on a sagging floor.
 
Java Man said:
I've supported it quite well with prior experience from other crashes. It has even been admitted by Glenn B that it is aluminium oxide and thus impossible to melt under 2000ºC.
Click to expand...

"Other crashes" doesn't eliminate whatever aluminum from the jet that was not initially burnt. Recall: Parts of the plane were found.

On top of that, you forget that the entire facade of the building was aluminum, and furthermore there would be other sources of aluminum from whatever office items would have had it: Computer cases, desks, furniture, refridgerators, what not.

Third, we know there was molten aluminum present; Mark Roberts held some and provided a picture of it. Whether the South Tower flow was aluminum or something else is not determined, but whatever the case, you cannot make a blanket statement that aluminum burns rather than melts. Again: The existence of an aluminum forging industry refutes that very premise.

Fourth: What does aluminum oxide have to do with this? Neither the jet fuselages or the facades were made of aluminum oxide. That's an incredibly stupid proposition.

And finally: Again, you can obsess with aluminum all you want, but again, it doesn't change the fact that steel is refuted as a possibility. That is the point you're trying your best to avoid; regardless of what the flow was, steel is firmly ruled out.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
"Other crashes" doesn't eliminate whatever aluminum from the jet that was not initially burnt. Recall: Parts of the plane were found.

On top of that, you forget that the entire facade of the building was aluminum, and furthermore there would be other sources of aluminum from whatever office items would have had it: Computer cases, desks, furniture, refridgerators, what not.

Third, we know there was molten aluminum present; Mark Roberts held some and provided a picture of it. Whether the South Tower flow was aluminum or something else is not determined, but whatever the case, you cannot make a blanket statement that aluminum burns rather than melts. Again: The existence of an aluminum forging industry refutes that very premise.

Fourth: What does aluminum oxide have to do with this? Neither the jet fuselages or the facades were made of aluminum oxide. That's an incredibly stupid proposition.

And finally: Again, you can obsess with aluminum all you want, but again, it doesn't change the fact that steel is refuted as a possibility. That is the point you're trying your best to avoid; regardless of what the flow was, steel is firmly ruled out.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It still fails to explain the flow as aluminium and you're back pedaling. Sure there were other metals and sure there was aluminium, but that's a long shot from the claims of "oh the airplane melted" and that's what we see. Aluminium is a lot scarcer than you want to make us believe. Aluminium has no way to maintain an incandescent curtain as we see in the video. Even the crucibles I posted quickly cool off and the molten pool would be very hard to see from so many stories below. Then there's the issue of the molten metal climbing "up hill" over sagging floors. Then NIST even adds some stuff about impurities and organic material remains. Which would obscure the molten material. Not make it brighter.

Your argument is a set of sort sighted points that don't stand up to any scrutiny as a whole.
 
NoahFence said:
er....

what if it's the floor above that point sagging down?

come on man.
Click to expand...

What does the sagging floor above have to do? In that case the metal would accumulate in the lower point of the sagging upper floor. Which would also be at the center of said floor. So you're back to square one.
 
Java Man said:
Wrong. It still fails to explain the flow as aluminium and you're back pedaling. Sure there were other metals and sure there was aluminium, but that's a long shot from the claims of "oh the airplane melted" and that's what we see. Aluminium is a lot scarcer than you want to make us believe. Aluminium has no way to maintain an incandescent curtain as we see in the video. Even the crucibles I posted quickly cool off and the molten pool would be very hard to see from so many stories below. Then there's the issue of the molten metal climbing "up hill" over sagging floors. Then NIST even adds some stuff about impurities and organic material remains. Which would obscure the molten material. Not make it brighter.



Your argument is a set of sort sighted points that don't stand up to any scrutiny as a whole.
Click to expand...
  1. Show this supposed "backpedal".
  2. My argument is drawn directly from facts and is in fact a set of mutually consistent points and the proper conclusions to draw from them. As opposed to your argument via unsupported assertion.
  3. They stand up to scrutiny. You want to argue different, then argue how they don't. Assertions don't cut it.
  4. Aluminum may be "scarcer", but that doesn't change the fact that the entire jet fuselage was made of it, as well as the facade of the Twin Towers. Saying they're scare in general is a complete lunacy in the light of the fact that those were both present en mass at the Towers.
  5. " Aluminium has no way to maintain an incandescent curtain as we see in the video": Support this argument.
  6. "Then there's the issue of the molten metal climbing "up hill" over sagging floors": Who even claimed this? To properly create a strawman, you must pick a point that was actually made. You're not even creating logical fallacies correctly; that's a double whammy of wrong.
  7. "Then NIST even adds some stuff about impurities and organic material remains. Which would obscure the molten material. Not make it brighter." Unevaluated inequality fallacy. You are not proving that you're analyzing luminescence values for pure aluminum, pure steel, and aluminum with impurities and organic material. You're just blanket assessing that it fails to meet some magical threshold that you're not even providing. In debate circles, that is known as a "handwave".
And again, my whole point in responding (look where I jumped into the conversation, what I was responding to, and what I said) was to demonstrate that your argument in favor of steel was insupportable. Again, regardless of any obsession you have with aluminum, steel is ruled out. Take note that, out of all the posts I've said this in, you've failed to acknowledge this even once, let alone defend your statement in post 290:
Java Man said:
Well that it isn't really aluminum, but rather steel being melted by some agent.
Click to expand...
It is not, you are incorrect, QED via my arguments before and your failure to even defend the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom