Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Myriad]

Speaking of aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃), it's a rather durable material. And thermite reactions produce large quantities of it, in the form of small particles.

So, where is it? What percentage of the WTC dust samples Jones tested consists of those particles?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dabljuh]

Speaking of aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃), it's a rather durable material. And thermite reactions produce large quantities of it, in the form of small particles.

So, where is it? What percentage of the WTC dust samples Jones tested consists of those particles?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thing is, when you burn aluminum, or in a thermite reaction, the aluminum oxide evaporates as it is formed. So a lot of it would simply puff away as an aerosol, and only a small amount would end up as fallout on nearby solids. So you wouldn't expect to find much of it anywhere.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Simple calculation. (Warning: Math incoming. Non-Asians, brace yourselves!)

Molten ferrous substances have an emissivity of 0.4.

We know the Stefan Boltzmann Law: P = e * o * T^4
where e is emissivity, o is the boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature in kelvin. A perfect blackbody would thus have

P1 = 1 * o * T^4

Now we calculate, if we assume it's iron, according to the visual identification it looks like it's at least 1300°C (1573K) hot at its hottest when it's visible.

P2 = 0.4 * o * (1573K)^4

Now for another material to appear as bright as iron, we can assume that in the worst case it's a perfect blackbody that doesn't occur in nature. P1 = P2, x is the temperature of the perfect blackbody:

0.4 * o * (1573K)^4 = o * x^4

We resolve for x

0.4 * (1573K)^4 = x^4
(0.4 * (1573K)^4)^1/4 = x
0.4^1/4 * 1573K = x
1573K / 2.5 = x
1250K = x

That means the lowest possible temperature of the item in question, that is, if it's in fact a perfect blackbody that doesn't occur in nature, is 1250K = 975°C = 1790°F

Add in a margin of error, and it still can't be cooler than 900°C - after it lost already hundreds of kelvin flowing to the edge of the building from the core (edge of core to edge of building = ~80-90ft)

Meaning, even if you assume this is pixie dust, you still have to wonder how or why it got so hot, if the fire in the WTC didn't even manage to heat the glass windows to the point where they blow out which happens at 700°C...

EMH, you're still just protesting the evidence. Come up with an alternative explanation.

I can explain everything to you with just one word: "Thermate"

And that means it's the best theory to explain the observation.

When I divide 1573 by 2.5, my calculator gives 629.2, not 1250.

I didn't check the rest of your math.

 

[Dabljuh]

When I divide 1573 by 2.5, my calculator gives 629.2, not 1250.

I didn't check the rest of your math.

Uh, yeah, typo there. 0.4^(1/4) = 0.795, 1573*0.795=1250.96 actually, result is correct ultimately. I think I wanted to write 1573/1.25 (which is mathematically speaking, correct) but instead wrote 1573/2.5

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Simple calculation. (Warning: Math incoming. Non-Asians, brace yourselves!)

Molten ferrous substances have an emissivity of 0.4.

We know the Stefan Boltzmann Law: P = e * o * T^4
where e is emissivity, o is the boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature in kelvin. A perfect blackbody would thus have

P1 = 1 * o * T^4

Now we calculate, if we assume it's iron, according to the visual identification it looks like it's at least 1300°C (1573K) hot at its hottest when it's visible.

P2 = 0.4 * o * (1573K)^4

Now for another material to appear as bright as iron, we can assume that in the worst case it's a perfect blackbody that doesn't occur in nature. P1 = P2, x is the temperature of the perfect blackbody:

0.4 * o * (1573K)^4 = o * x^4

We resolve for x

0.4 * (1573K)^4 = x^4
(0.4 * (1573K)^4)^1/4 = x
0.4^1/4 * 1573K = x
1573K / 2.5 = x
1250K = x

That means the lowest possible temperature of the item in question, that is, if it's in fact a perfect blackbody that doesn't occur in nature, is 1250K = 975°C = 1790°F

Add in a margin of error, and it still can't be cooler than 900°C - after it lost already hundreds of kelvin flowing to the edge of the building from the core (edge of core to edge of building = ~80-90ft)

Meaning, even if you assume this is pixie dust, you still have to wonder how or why it got so hot, if the fire in the WTC didn't even manage to heat the glass windows to the point where they blow out which happens at 700°C...

EMH, you're still just protesting the evidence. Come up with an alternative explanation.

I can explain everything to you with just one word: "Thermate"

And that means it's the best theory to explain the observation.

OMG

Now we calculate, if we assume it's iron, according to the visual identification it looks like it's at least 1300°C (1573K) hot at its hottest when it's visible.

You assume that if what we see falling is a perfect blackbody radiator it appears to be 1300 degrees C, then you plug into the equation to say what would it be if you vary the emmisivity... but you're still assuming 1300 degrees C in that calculation! You're treating that figure as if it's a given. And you don't see what your problem is?? You're not proving 1200+ degrees C of temperature for the material, you're setting up a calculation that says "if a perfect radiator is 1300 degrees C, what would steel's temperature be at that same irradiance". Either way, you're still treating 1300 degrees as if it's a given, and that's where you fail. The temperature is supposed to be what's solved for; you can't supply it and then say "that's what the temperature is". All you've done is shown how a given temperature changes with emissivity!

Good God... I can't believe you're passing that calculation off as proof that the material is 1200+ degrees. You don't even have a figure for the power density. How can your calculation as it's set up apply to the falling material observed?

 

[chillzero]

Several posts moved to AAH. Do not personalise the discussion. If you cannot attack the claims without attacking the arguer, then don't post. Please keep the thread on topic from here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Myriad]

Thing is, when you burn aluminum, or in a thermite reaction, the aluminum oxide evaporates as it is formed. So a lot of it would simply puff away as an aerosol, and only a small amount would end up as fallout on nearby solids. So you wouldn't expect to find much of it anywhere.

Yes I would, if tons of thermite were set off in largely enclosed spaces. It condenses (and would do so even at office fire temperatures), producing the same sort of particles that form the white powder observed on surroundings after thermite reactions. It should be there.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Evilgiraffe]

No, clay isn't layered nor is its main ingredient aluminosilicate. Feldspar is an aluminosilicate for example. Of course, naturally ocurring clay is not pure, but its effective ingredient, the thing that makes it clay, is Gamma-Al2O3, in its pure form also known as "white clay"

There are four main groups of clays

Kaolinite - Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄ - Crystal structure shown (notice the layers).


Silicon atoms are pink/purple, Aluminium atoms are green, Oxygen are red and Hydrogen are white.


Smectites, of which Nontronite Ca_0.5(Si₇Al_0.8Fe_0.2)(Fe_3.5Al_0.4Mg_0.1)O₂₀(OH)₄ is a representative member. - Crystal structure shown (again notice the layers).


This crystal structure is slightly more complex than the Kaolinite. Again, we have a tetrahedral layers of alternating Al and Si tetrahedra. Connecting these is a layer of octahedrally coordinated Fe atoms (light green). In the structure shown, charge balancing Ca atoms are blue.

The real structure of Nontronite is more complex than that shown. As one can see from the formula, there are substituent magnesium atoms in the layers and these have associated charge balancing hydroxyl (OH) groups.


Illite - (K,H₃O)(Al,Mg,Fe)₂(Si,Al)₄O₁₀[(OH)₂,(H₂O)] - Crystal structure below (Layered)



Again, the structure shown is a simplified version of the actual mineral. In reality there will be huge variation in the composition of the layers as evidenced by the large number of alternatives shown in the formula. K and H₃O for the charge balancing cations. Al, Mg and Fe for the octahedral layer.


Chlorites - (Mg,Fe)₃(Si,Al)₄O₁₀(OH)₂·(Mg,Fe)₃(OH)₆ - Crystal structure shown below (Layered)



As with Illite, the Chlorite group shows considerable substitutional flexibility.

Gamma alumina doesn't appear in any of these minerals, and as such can't really be described as "what makes clay, clay".

 

[SDC]

But tests have to be repeatable to be scientific. That means, if you can't possibly guess, then by the same standards, no one else can.

And we can go down the slippery slope:

You can't guess the color of the sky because your eyes could be deceiving you. But you trust another to make that judgement?

Doesn't that ultimately mean, that you have no opinions on your own and simply parrot what others tell you the world is like?

Isn't that what organized religion is like?

Oh for heaven's sake. It is as simple as this. I can read Russian and Polish. The hypothetical you cannot. Here is your choice: ask me to read/ translate it for you, or just ignore it and pretend it doesn't matter.

Same deal with engineering or other technical areas. I can't fix my car but I can ask Elko to do it. (Local garage.) Read Max Weber on the division of labor in the modern world.

You are just trolling. No one could be so senseless. Which one are you ... LastChild? P'doh? ZenSmack? Actually, I believe there are several individuals posting here, as you lurch from semi-literate anti-Semitism to educated prose.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sure... because they never make mistakes. Or lie intentionally. Whichever you chose.

And how are we not to believe the same of you?

 

[twinstead]

OMG



You assume that if what we see falling is a perfect blackbody radiator it appears to be 1300 degrees C, then you plug into the equation to say what would it be if you vary the emmisivity... but you're still assuming 1300 degrees C in that calculation! You're treating that figure as if it's a given. And you don't see what your problem is?? You're not proving 1200+ degrees C of temperature for the material, you're setting up a calculation that says "if a perfect radiator is 1300 degrees C, what would steel's temperature be at that same irradiance". Either way, you're still treating 1300 degrees as if it's a given, and that's where you fail. The temperature is supposed to be what's solved for; you can't supply it and then say "that's what the temperature is". All you've done is shown how a given temperature changes with emissivity!

Good God... I can't believe you're passing that calculation off as proof that the material is 1200+ degrees. You don't even have a figure for the power density. How can your calculation as it's set up apply to the falling material observed?

Circular reasoning ROCKS!

 

[Dave_46]

Oh, Aluminium can certainly glow, it can get as bright as iron... just at different temperatures. And as it so happens, aluminum at a temperature where it melts... doesn't glow.

If you bring it above 2000°C it'll glow brighter than iron does at 1300°C though.

The problem is, from your point of view, is that the molten aluminium was not at a very high temperature. It was about to be used for experiments in continuous casting, where it is poured into the top of a mould, and comes out of the bottom as a solid bar, as a continuous operation. If the temperature was much above the melting/freezing point the metal would be pouring out of the bottom of the mould as a liquid.

Dave

 

[Dave_46]

Much as I hate to interrupt this highly enlightening discussion on the emmisivity of materials. I have to point out that the above statement is flat out wrong.

<snip>

I don't know about "highly enlightening", but it is, I suppose, interesting, even if fairly simple (it would have to be for me to understand it).

Not really relevant to the collapse of the WTC, but interesting as a side note.

Dave

 

[Evilgiraffe]

Yeah, um.... sorry. I'll take my derail about complex solids back to the sidelines. It was only really worth pointing out to highlight Dabljuh's lack of research.

The wiki page on clay here clearly describes them as layered aluminosilicates. Another wiki page on aluminium oxide here has nary a mention of "clay". As I said earlier...

[/derail]

Carry on Chaps.

 

[1337m4n]

But tests have to be repeatable to be scientific. That means, if you can't possibly guess, then by the same standards, no one else can.

And we can go down the slippery slope:

You can't guess the color of the sky because your eyes could be deceiving you. But you trust another to make that judgement?

Doesn't that ultimately mean, that you have no opinions on your own and simply parrot what others tell you the world is like?

Isn't that what organized religion is like?

This, coming from the guy who has decided that the material in question is molten steel with not a shred of evidence to back it up.

No, Dabljuh, organized religion is making wild guesses and insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

Your "evidence" would never be accepted by any scientific institution. But you don't have to take my word for it. Send in a paper detailing your "evidence" to the National Academy of Sciences and post the reply you get so we can see.

Your sky analogy is as bad as your evidence. I can guess the color of the sky, sure. But can I write it in perfect hexadecimal purely off the top of my head? Because that is precisely the ability you claim to have with this alleged "molten steel".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So basically any material can be determined by its color no matter how much various materials are mixed in with them? Is that what we're supposed to believe? That while material make up can be completely determined by color, material make up also has no bearing on color at the same time.

 

[1337m4n]

Somebody should ask Dabljuh which of these two things is hotter, judging solely based on color:

 

[TheRedWorm]

Best. Example. Ever.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I'm trying to get a handle on this thread. Does molten metal running from the corner of the building prove that the towers shouldn't have collapsed?

Are there any other metals with emissivity similar to steel? Copper or lead for example? These elements could be found in UPS system batteries. What happens when those suckers burn?

If the molten metal was steel, which is not proven, it would mean that something unexplained happened to melt the steel in one limited area (of one of the towers) where portions of the aircraft ended up. Could something unexplained be a piece of steel from the airplane shorting a UPS? Could something like an oxygen tank from the airplane venting over-pressure due to heat cause burning materials to reach temperatures high enough to melt steel?

So, there is not only one explanation for molten metal. The type of metal is unknown. There is only evidence of a small amount of molten metal in one limited area. How can this show that the towers shouldn't have collapsed?

 

[pomeroo]

Well, to follow up. Indeed, my point was that eyeballing photos and video of highly variable quality, from many different sources, is no way to run a railroad.

The eye is a liar. So is the ear. We did not evolve like Superman with all those supervision and superhearing abilities. Except, perhaps, Dabljuh did. And Truthers in general seem to claim great sensory powers. Say, you don't think... Are they all from Krypton?

Are you suggesting that they're "Krypto-nuts"?