Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

How do you go about creating an alloy C7?

Your point?

NIST said liquid aluminum "[FONT="]very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers)[/FONT]"

This is a baseless assumption, not a viable explanation based on science.

You have been shown time and time again that your organic claim is not the case.

My organic claim? Dude, NIST is making the unsubstantiated claim.

There is even a series of pictures of people melting hard drives down that contain aluminium and plastic.

Sweet sophistry Bat Man. There is no evidence of them mixing.

It has been shown that at higher temperatures aluminium alloys in the liquid state have a colour that is not silver.

No, it has not.

The outside photos kindly provided by WhiteLion prove this.

No, they do not.

What the metal was in those photos, how hot it was, and whether or not the color is a reflection of the vessel, cannot be verified.

Prove that the material 9falling from the tower is a metal

NIST acknowledges that the material falling from the tower is molten metal.

secondly that it's iron or steel.

When other possibilities such as aluminum, are ruled out, steel is the remaining possibility.

Thremite burns at 2500°C and melts steel.

What's your point? I can throw a good half dozen things at you that will be hot enough to melt steel.

Were any of them present in the south tower in sufficient quantity to heat tons of metal to 1400°C+ ?

What is your estimate?

I wouldn't hazard a guess, nor is that relevant to the point which is:

Until NIST can establish that it is possible for molten aluminum to mix with organic materials, they have NOT established that the molten metal falling from the south tower could be aluminum.

Burned organic materials - there is a huge difference. How would dust, soot and ash particles, from burned organic material, be repelled from liquid aluminium alloy at approximately 500°C?

The unsubstantiated claim is that they could combine.

 

[Jono]

Keep in mind who you're dealing with and if continuing to respond, after years of his nonsensical whining, is wise.

Christopher 7:

There were some real home dinging statements there in the given examples, albeit it appears there is some consistency at least

 

[Sunstealer]

Why do you say the above when not only have I provided thorough scientific texts on organic materials mix and combined within aluminum. You are just ignoring the clarifications, then you make argue about another point only to return to the initial and already addressed claims.

Re-cap take three:
If aluminum and organic materials can't mix then how can one extract aluminum from aluminum-organic matter? Or better, yet, how can the latter even exist? How could aluminum-organic chemicals exist?

It's amazing isn't it? Provide evidence showing that aluminium comes from ore with aluminium-organic chemicals and he doesn't realise then in order for those to exist that aluminium must react to form those compounds.

The seepage of the organic matter from the lignite into the bauxite is shown in figures 1 and 2.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ie50337a008

oops there we go again.

C7 - Care to answer WL's (my bolded) question?
C7 - Care to refute my link or are you going to claim it doesn't work?

...odd one trying to tell a metalsmith such a demonstrably dumb thing....

I have a good friend who's an experienced blacksmith and he's taught this metallurgist a few things and tricks since I've known him. There's a gap between knowing the theory and science to actually doing some tasks for real (and vice-a-versa). Then again I've solved a couple of his problems too. It's that relationship that I like, learning from each other.

I'm still in awe of the craftsmanship, even more so, simply because he's given me a hammer and an anvil with which to abuse iron and low carbon steel with! (ow my arm hurts it's hard work.)

I know the science and theory, but actually doing, shows a whole new level especially when you consider the armour-smiths who produced the Katana (samurai sword) and medieval suits of armour such as Konrad Seusenhofer amongst others and they had no idea what a phase diagram was!

However, it's infuriating isn't it? Being told what you do and don't know, by someone, who has never had a single minute's experience in what you do everyday. Hell if my job was that easy I wouldn't have needed to spend all that time in class. I could just do nothing then shout, "Hey, You! Give me a job!" and they would say, "Sure, no problem, can you look into this failure investigation that we think caused the loss of this engine resulting in a multi-million pound plane crashing?".

Me, "Yeah, no probs, it was thermite".

Employer, "how do you know that, you've not even examined anything or produced a report?"

Me, "pfft, it was on youtube?"

 

[Christopher7]

Keep in mind who you're dealing with and if continuing to respond, after years of his nonsensical whining, is wise.
Christopher 7:

I acknowledge my mistakes and adjust my position accordingly. You do not.


Originally Posted by [FONT=&quot]Gravy[/FONT]
Christopher has yet to point out what I get wrong. Who is full of hot air?

Here are the first content links on my site:

• New to these issues and need basic information about 9/11 conspiracy claims?-Click here
• Main links section
• Featured work––
• New on this site––
• My papers, videos, appearances––
• Editorials and Articles about the 9/11 "truth" movement
• Notable 9/11 conspiracy debunking websites
• 9/11 conspiracy debunking videos––
• Recommended 9/11 books––
• Who wants me dead?

I wonder what benefit people like Chris Sarns derive from lying about things that are so easily checked? They must get something out of it. Is it just attention they need, no matter the cost to their credibility? I wish I knew, so I could know how better to deal with adults who make claims that children would be ashamed to make.

And yet Chris has never pointed out anything I get wrong. It makes me sad to see so much misplaced anger.


Originally Posted by Christopher7
Whenever someone gets something wrong you call them a liar. It makes me sad to see so much misplaced anger. You do that a lot. I guess it's because you see in others what you are yourself.

Just what is it you think I am lying about?

I clicked on the first link and followed it to your post about Richard Gage. Referring to the corroded beams in the FEMA C report he said: "It's nowhere to be found in the NIST report."
You noted that they were in the NCSTAR 1-3C report so I checked it out.

It seems you were a bit disingenuous yourself when you said:
"[FONT=&quot]Not only did NIST discuss that, the report spends several pages on it, and NIST did an independent analysis of the samples[/FONT]"

and:

[FONT=&quot]"Not only are these strangely-eroded pieces discussed for several pages in NCSTAR 1-3C, but NIST did their own analysis that resulted in several different conclusions from FEMA's analysis."[/FONT]

As it turns out, only Sample #2 was analyzed. Sample #1 from WTC 7 was not. The descriptions of the corrosion were different for the two samples but I don't know if that is important or not. NIST did not analyze Sample #1 for the Final WTC 7 report nor did they mention it.

If someone else said "NIST did an independent analysis of the samples" and only one piece was analyzed, you would call them a liar.

I'm just going to say you are wrong.


You are not man enough to admit you were wrong.

 

[bje]

Let me make it clear as day, Chris. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are intellectually dishonest and have no intention of following any standard of rational and honest discourse on this forum.

You have no place here by choosing that course.

Any questions?

 

[Gravy]

Me, "Yeah, no probs, it was thermite".

Employer, "how do you know that, you've not even examined anything or produced a report?"

Me, "pfft, it was on youtube?"

Unfortunately, Christopher 7, who says he's 65 years old, actually believes Youtube is all that's needed.

"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."

"I have been doing a lot of research on 911 and spreading the truth by giving copies of Loose Change and a 4 min. video on wtc7 to everyone I come in contact with."

"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do."

"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"

"At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs."

"The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber."

"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes."

"Wrong: An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one."

Caveat debator.

 

[Christopher7]

Unfortunately, Christopher 7, who says he's 65 years old, actually believes Youtube is all that's needed.

That is a lie.

I have read the NIST reports on WTC 7 and quoted from them. You know that.

You did not respond to my post detailing your lies about NIST analyzing the samples mentioned in the FEMA C report.

 

[beachnut]

I acknowledge my mistakes and adjust my position accordingly. You do not.

...

It seems you were a bit disingenuous yourself when you said:
"[FONT=&quot]Not only did NIST discuss that, the report spends several pages on it, and NIST did an independent analysis of the samples[/FONT]"

and:

[FONT=&quot]...[/FONT]
.

You failed to get this right. How can you be wrong when you are trying to tell someone else they are wrong. You can’t read posts correctly, you can’t understand 911. Next time read slowly and try to comprehend what you read instead of jumping to try and attack others.

Why do you support the lies of Gage and mess up as you attack others instead of trying to comprehend 911?

What is your purpose? Your OP has lies in it and you failed to acknowledge your major errors in the OP as they are pointed out.

Robertson does not support your molten metal or steel delusion. You posted a lie in the OP
You should read NIST before you attack those who read NIST.

 

[Sunstealer]

Your point?

My point? If you don't understand my point then it shows that you are hopelessly lost. Had you understood my point then you would have been able to reply with the most simple of replies; alloying elements are added to the melt - the melt is liquid.

My organic claim? Dude, NIST is making the unsubstantiated claim.

Sweet sophistry Bat Man. There is no evidence of them mixing.

And yet the evidence continues to pile up against you - my last post shows this. Please answer WhiteLion's questions. Why do you run and hide when a question is asked of you?

No, it has not.

No, they do not.

What the metal was in those photos, how hot it was, and whether or not the color is a reflection of the vessel, cannot be verified.

And yet you are not prepared to ask the same questions of the youtube video you yourself linked as evidence.

Why is it that you perfectly accept; someone heating a crucible, with unknown material, at an unknown temperature, with additions of unknown materials, which you claim to say is wood and other organic material, without evidence that such is taking place? Yet when we point this out, only then do you start using the same criteria when looking at far more comprehensive material? This shows that you have been rumbled sunshine.

Do you now retract the posting of your youtube video showing supposedly liquid aluminium, just above it's liquidus temperature with assorted, unidentifiable materials?


Well it's obvious to every other poster. The photos show hard drives being melted in a kiln/crucible that has it's heat source provided via a hydrocarbon fire. "Since hydrocarbon fires can't reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel" ^TM then aluminium is the only alternative is it not?

We can also ascertain the colour heat and material by pulling any old colour chart from our behinds and making a match can we not? Dulux colour chart anyone?

NIST acknowledges that the material falling from the tower is molten metal.

OK - so you quote NIST. Why are you quoting NIST when you think they are wrong on everything else? You are cherry picking from the official theory to gain credence for your own. Hypocrisy!

When other possibilities such as aluminum, are ruled out, steel is the remaining possibility.

Aluminium hasn't been ruled out by anyone. You have not provided any evidence that aluminium could not have been the material. You've not produced any evidence that glass is not the material. OK that's a slippery slope, however, you have not provided any evidence that the material is steel/iron. You claim NIST says a metal yet you offer no proof that a) it's a metal b) it's iron/steel. You have been shown glass that shows the similar colour.

Were any of them present in the south tower in sufficient quantity to heat tons of metal to 1400°C+ ?

You've said tons. How many tons? You've said metal. What kind of metal? How much energy is required to heat your "tons" of "metal" to liquid temperatures if this metal is not aluminium alloy?

If this energy didn't come from the fire(s) then where did it come from?

If you claim a source (such as thermite) then you must show how much liquid Iron (Fe) is produced via the thermite reaction.

Secondly you need to show how much liquid steel is produced when the thermite reaction heats steel columns/structural members.


There are many more questions I can ask but I'll leave you with these to start with.

The funny thing here is those with experience of chemistry up to A-level (age 18 in the UK although it's now quite dumbed down) would be able to calculate how much Fe is produced from the thermite reaction.

 

[Sunstealer]

I got the melting point from the MSDS, we have on site. I misunderstood it that the whole pan would melt at that temperature, not the zinc on its own. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

I was just asking a question ... evidently a dumb one at that!

It's not a dumb one, it's an inquisitive one! People think they are stupid when they ask questions or that their questions are dumb, but they are not. It's not dumb to ask questions, how the hell would we learn otherwise!

The only way to learn is to ask questions. What's dumb is not listening to the answers.

 

[Christopher7]

And yet the evidence continues to pile up against you - my last post shows this.

What evidence? Be specific.

Please answer WhiteLion's questions.

Edit to change:
[FONT=&quot]WhiteLion:[/FONT]
If aluminum and organic materials can't mix then how can one extract aluminum from aluminum-organic matter?

Aluminum ore [bauxite] contains organic material. The organic matter separates from aluminum in the smelting process and is removed with other impurities in the slag.
There is no known method of getting organic matter to recombine with molten aluminum.

And yet you are not prepared to ask the same questions of the youtube video you yourself linked as evidence.

Wrong. I acknowledged that your question of documentation was reasonable.

The photos show hard drives being melted in a kiln/crucible that has it's heat source provided via a hydrocarbon fire. "Since hydrocarbon fires can't reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel

other than in a foundry or a torch."

OK - so you quote NIST. Why are you quoting NIST when you think they are wrong on everything else? You are cherry picking from the official theory to gain credence for your own.

What you refer to as "cherry picking" is simply making a point using statements from the official government reports.

Aluminium hasn't been ruled out by anyone.

It has not been demonstrated that the molten metal falling from the south tower could be aluminum.
There is no justification for ruling it in.

NIST tried to justify their proposal that it was aluminum by asserting: "[FONT=&quot]Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow,"[/FONT]

This is speculation, it is not based on science.
It does not establish aluminum as a possibility.

 

[Sunstealer]

You aren't answering the questions. Anyone can see this.

I see that you haven't done any calculations to support your baseless assumptions.

C7 - why do you refuse to do the calculations when asked? It's rude of you to ignore the questions of calculations that would support your hypothesis. Without the maths you have nothing.

If you are not capable of doing it then just admit you can't. If you think you can then give it a go here on JREF - show us how thermite could do what you say it can do.

Unless you are willing to show your arithmetic then you have nothing but baseless assumptions.

Wow us with science and show us how liquid iron/steel is possible.

 

[Christopher7]

How many tons?
How much energy is required to heat your "tons" of "metal" to liquid temperatures?
If this energy didn't come from the fire(s) then where did it come from?
If you claim a source (such as thermite) then you must show how much liquid Iron (Fe) is produced via the thermite reaction.
Secondly you need to show how much liquid steel is produced when the thermite reaction heats steel columns/structural members.

You aren't answering the questions. Anyone can see this.

The questions ask for speculation. They are just a diversion.

C7 - why do you refuse to do the calculations when asked?

Because that has nothing to do with the point.

Unless you are willing to show your arithmetic then you have nothing but baseless assumptions.

I'm not making assumptions, NIST is.

NIST is unable to show the scientific data because there is none. So they have nothing but a baseless assumption that organic materials can mix with molten aluminum.

 

[funk de fino]

Some what?

The photo you posted is photographic sophistry.

Thats the C7 I like to see, making a fool of himself for lurkers. Everything is faked if it shows his claims to be false.

Most people here have acknowledged that molten aluminum appears silver in daylight.

That is a lie.

Even NIST knows that aluminum appears silver in daylight.
That's why they tried to explain the yellow-hot molten metal falling from the south tower by making the baseless claim that it was aluminum mixed with large amounts of organic materials.

would be expected to appear silvery

Depends on the temps and purity. You have been shown photos showing it non silvery and have to cry fake. What a poor show.

 

[funk de fino]

Unfortunately, Christopher 7, who says he's 65 years old, actually believes Youtube is all that's needed.

Caveat debator.

And who can forget when he used the sun shadow to try to prove that some of the photos in the NIST appendix L were faked. He then berated NIST for using exactly the same technique to assess the timing of something in the final report.

It was accurate enough when he wanted to use it but not NIST.

 

[Christopher7]

Thats the C7 I like to see, making a fool of himself for lurkers. Everything is faked if it shows his claims to be false.

There is no documentation for that back yard experiment. It has no scientific validity.

Most people here have acknowledged that molten aluminum appears silver in daylight.

That is a lie.

You don't think molten aluminum is silvery in daylight? NIST does.

Depends on the temps and purity.

Source?

You have been shown photos showing it non silvery and have to cry fake.

I have been shown photos but not any verification of temperature, purity or even the metal being poured.

 

[funk de fino]

There is no documentation for that back yard experiment. It has no scientific validity.

There is a lack of documentation from you also. There is no scientific validity for any of your claims. Hypocrite much?

You don't think molten aluminum is silvery in daylight? NIST does.

You said most people here, that was a lie. Are you shifting goalposts now?

Source?

You've been given sources and explanation by people who know what they are talking about. You refuse to read them or cry fake.

I have been shown photos but not any verification of temperature, purity or even the metal being poured.

As has been said before, give us any of the same type of verification for any of your fantasy claims. The claw photo for example.

 

[BigAl]

There is no documentation for that back yard experiment. It has no scientific validity.


You don't think molten aluminum is silvery in daylight? NIST does.

Once again, you have deleted the word, "Pure" from the NIST statement.

There was no pure metal flowing out of a tower on 9/11.

 

[tsig]

There is no documentation for that back yard experiment. It has no scientific validity.


You don't think molten aluminum is silvery in daylight? NIST does.

Source?

I have been shown photos but not any verification of temperature, purity or even the metal being poured.

So everybody is lying but you Chris?

You point to a photo and yell steel and we're supposed to believe you but when multiple posters show you photos of aluminum all you can do is yell fake.

Chris get a bottle of MAPP gas and a torch head and you can heat aluminum up to 2000 deg F and see with your own eyes.

N. B. The above experiment should only be done with adult supervision as high temps can be dangerous.

 

[twinstead]

Yup. Chris you are putting on the Cloak of Undebunkability^tm by claiming anything that may be contrary to your position is not on the "up and up". You certainly can never lose a debate doing that, can you?