Then don't comment. Don't bring in the "lets wait for the expert", but meanwhile "I'll make an experts comment and sell it". Like you said you've only got undergrad classes and on top of that you're using terms like "obviously"? Only a debunker with the benefit of no burden of proof would get away with this. That still doesn't make you look less silly to the readers here.
Refute on merits, not nitpicks based on personal aggravation. I showed you the sources I found detailing the reaction kinetics for aluminum oxidation;
here they are again. You have a disagreement with
those, then bring it up. Until then, yes, I
am speaking as someone more knowledgeable than you on the topic. Don't mistake humility and honest requests for double-checks as charlatanism; my
undergrad degree was in chemistry, and I was appealing to people who may have actual practical knowledge above me as a double-check because I was never a
practicing chemist; I ended up going into Information Technology. I never made that statement as a completely uninformed person reaching out to professionals because I don't know a damn thing; that's
your misapprehension. Like other truthers before you, you overreach with your presumptions.
ON top of that, as far as understanding when someone writes, quote,
"...the growth of the oxide layer on an aluminum single crystal, at 20 oC and 1 atmosphere of dry oxygen, and that the oxide layer grew to 35 angstroms (3.5 nm) over the course of seven days and then stopped..."
...that doesn't take anything more than a
middle school level of comprehension to understand that you're talking about a reaction that takes on the order of hours to days to progress to the point where it gets to nanometer depth. Same when another academic writes, very plainly
"...While aluminum is a very energetic material, its rate of oxidation is relatively low"
It doesn't take a genius to see that the consensus is that aluminum oxidations rates are
low. It's reading comprehension that's the important skill here.
To properly refute a post, you must refute the
merits. My argument is plain to see: Aluminum oxidation has been measured to be a reaction that takes on the order of hours to days; see references above. Combustion, in contrast, proceeds rapidly. A rapid reaction using oxygen will consume oxygen at a faster rate than a slow reaction using oxygen. Ergo, aluminum oxidation will proceed at a far slower rate than any combustion in the same area, and ounce per ounce, pound per pound will not consume as much oxygen as whatever else in the area is burning at the same time. If you think anyone needs an expert to derive
that, then that's your fantasy to have.
------
And for the umpteenth time, aluminum is only
one of the candidates for the molten flow being discussed. Again, there are multiple others,
all of which are far more logical that steel. Since you have not even attempted to defend your claim
Well that it isn't really aluminum, but rather steel being melted by some agent.
...then I can only conclude that you
have no support for it. Given that no one else's arguments in the past have substantiated that claim either, I'm quite certain I'm on firm ground that whatever support you may marshal will come up short. And given that you have failed to even attempt to support it in the face of multiple posts bringing it up, I can only conclude that you do not care to defend it. Consider that argument closed, then; that flow was not steel. I urge others to remember this and refer to this portion of this thread if he tries to claim molten steel as the falling flow from the South Tower ever agian. He has given no proof, and he's uninterested in even acknowledging the arguments proving him wrong in that regard.
And since you're unintersted in discussing merits, I'm uninterested in conversing with you. Welcome to ignore. You can continue to be everyone else's chew toy from here on out, but I don't care to respond to a person who, in the face of a logically constructed posts with verifiable information, avoids discussion of said verifiable info choosing instead to misinterpret and misrepresent. That's so emblematic of truther dishonesty.
