|
Post by 8real on Sept 19, 2006 2:08:45 GMT -5
Moved the old post..
|
|
|
Post by alastair on Sept 19, 2006 16:55:53 GMT -5
Hi there, especially Breal. I shall try to do that. Be Real... So let's introduce myself, My name is Alastair Carnegie, and I reside in Colne Lancashire. currently I am a fine artist, but with all this 9/11 biz the paint is in danger of drying on my brushes. "That would never do!" I am conversent with mathematical notation, but have not kept up with the plethora of new symbols. I belong to a 'Brotherhood of Mathematicians' that apply the Occam's Razor principle, we style ourselves "The Minimal Criminals". I suspect that I use it as an escape from all the crazy stuff going on in the world right now. I am also a semi-retired Military Chaplain from the RMPTA (an Artist's Rifle as well) To put this all in perspective, Google up [Officers Club "The man who saved the World" September 26th 1983]. After that experience, that is when it started! I can frankly say most things hardly bother me. This 9/11 biz is different. I saw it comeing. with many others. Currently I note there is a debate about 'molten Aluminium' may I just add it's boiling point, i.e. 2467 Celcius or 4473 F. beyond 1260 C or 2300F molten Aluminium starts to glow 'white hot' as anything else that temperature will. i.e. a porcelain pot in a kiln. At 1010C it will glow orange at 1070C Dark Yellow, at 1180C Light Yellow. below 1000C it does have a silvery light cherry appearance. a bit like some eye sheen cosmetics. At 660C it's melting point the silver sheen is far more pronounced than the deep cherry red. which is only visible in the dark. I hope that answers the question. There is loads more to cover, so I look forward to all your excellent and clearly committed research.
|
|
|
Post by alastair on Sept 19, 2006 17:14:56 GMT -5
Oh yes, an explanation about molten Aluminium is called for. Aluminium is actually a high explosive. It is so reactive with oxygen that it never gets a chance to explode, instead it forms an instantaneous 'oxide' film. An extreemly thin one at that. Molten Aluminium has a highly reflective surface, and appears much the same a molten tin in this respect. Tin boils at 2270 C about 200 degrees less than Aluminium. They look extremely similar in their molten condition. You can check out the 'Float Glass' manufacturing plant to see what high temperature molten tin looks like. Also there may be photographs of molten Aluminium in scrap reclamation furnaces. In order to reduce pollution from combined plastics, the kilns are often fired to over-temperature. so that would be a good place to look. Another point I would like to clarify, is the 'provenance' of the samples examined by Professor Steven Jones. the presence of Fluoride could be from a variety of sources, perhaps high current PTFE wire in the WTC. or possibly an old Teflon Saucepan (that would concern me)
|
|
|
Post by alastair on Sept 19, 2006 17:15:59 GMT -5
Extremely (My Spelling!) Dyslexic as well!
|
|
|
Post by 8real on Sept 19, 2006 17:58:57 GMT -5
Glad you dropped by to talk about this. It is to hard to have a discussion on youtube. I will change the topic of this thread to "Molten Aluminum Discussion" and start a new one on the explosions in that CNN video. Lets go over what we are talking about, so we are on the same page, and we will see where we disagree...or agree. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=thermite (WTC "molten metal") This video shows "bright orange" molten metal pouring out of the tower about a hour after the impact and a minute before the actual collapse.. The official story is that it is "molten aluminum" possibly mixed with other alloys that can melt at 1100C..But, you can see it has a uniform bright orange appearance, so it is not a few chunks of bright orange mixed with silvery and black objects. In my personal opinion, it is not possible for aluminum to look like "molten iron" UNLESS it is in a furnace..We all know that "jet fuel" fires can only last for so long, it surely didn't burn at 1100C the whole time, NIST even admitted this. After the fuel burned off, it was more likely around 400C. source: wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf (NIST WTC burning workstation report) So in other words, what the heck kept this aluminum or tin at 1100C? If these scientific experiments done by NIST are any indication of how hot it was, it is clear that 60 minutes into the disaster, the jet fuel was burned off. I believe the impact of the jet, dislodged a incendiary device and it poured out of the side of the building. It looks exactly like the thermite reaction.. Also, when molten aluminum is "bright orange" it is not "chunky", it is probably best described as 'watery" in my opinion. In the above video, it looks to me more like a "thick" molten iron rather than a watery bright orange molten aluminum...What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Amaterasu on Sept 20, 2006 12:04:46 GMT -5
Having watched some vid somewhere (I'm sure it can be found on the web...I'm just too lazy. [grin]) of thermite doing its thing, I could see that it looked virtually identical to the " "bright orange" molten metal pouring out of the tower ."
That convinced me. Not that I needed any convincing that the towers were brought down by explosives. I knew it the day they came down.
|
|
|
Post by bjspurple on Dec 28, 2007 19:42:34 GMT -5
Let me get this straight... because I'm easily confused by chemistry and thremodynamics. (I'm more a biologist and psychologist)....
NIST admits that the fires were not hot enough, to turn molten aluminum into a bright orange-yellow color? Is that correct?
NIST states that:
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." - NIST Report
"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." - NIST Report
I would really appreciate some confirmation as I myself am trying to 'debunk' the so-called 'debunkers.' Thank-you so much.
|
|
|
Post by bjspurple on Dec 29, 2007 5:55:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 8real on Jan 28, 2008 3:16:37 GMT -5
Let me get this straight... because I'm easily confused by chemistry and thremodynamics. (I'm more a biologist and psychologist).... NIST admits that the fires were not hot enough, to turn molten aluminum into a bright orange-yellow color? Is that correct? NIST states that: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." - NIST Report "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." - NIST Report I would really appreciate some confirmation as I myself am trying to 'debunk' the so-called 'debunkers.' Thank-you so much. I think it is universally accepted that the fires (or any office fire) could not have gotten any hotter than roughly 1800F(1000C). The question now: What does aluminum look like to you at 1800F when it is falling from a building, 80 floors up, through the wind? Here is a short video you may want to look at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQI will read over that link, but right off the bat, I will tell you that she is the same lady that tried to use pictures of molten iron and called them aluminum...She also used deceptive pictures of molten aluminum in the dark and in a furnace to show aluminum can "glow-bright-orange"..... In short, her credibilty is questionable, to say the least....If you think some kind of space weapon took down the WTC's, then you may want to read some of her other stuff on direct energy weapons ect.
|
|
Searching for the Truth
Guest
|
Post by Searching for the Truth on Nov 11, 2009 23:29:27 GMT -5
Hi B Real My english istn't the best, so sorry when its hard to read ;D i got a question about stephen chastain, on the website www.debunking911.comthere is a text from him: Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange? The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum. The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum. The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8 Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible. Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up. The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them. THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron. Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling. I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely. Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color. Stephen D. Chastain Is this true ? is it possible that aluminium, mixed up with different components, is able to glow yellow-orange for such a long time? would be nice to get a answer on that question, thank you in anticipation! greetings Searching for the Truth
|
|
|
Post by PookztA on Dec 7, 2010 23:40:57 GMT -5
I will read over that link, but right off the bat, I will tell you that she is the same lady that tried to use pictures of molten iron and called them aluminum...She also used deceptive pictures of molten aluminum in the dark and in a furnace to show aluminum can "glow-bright-orange"..... In short, her credibilty is questionable, to say the least....If you think some kind of space weapon took down the WTC's, then you may want to read some of her other stuff on direct energy weapons ect. Is this discussion about whether "aluminum glows silvery at all temperatures," as Steven Jones claims, comparing aluminum at 600-dg. C with iron at 1,600-dg. C? If you conduct a scientific experiment, you will need to compare aluminum and iron at the same temperature. If or when you do, you will find that Dr. Wood has been correct all along. This is high school physics. This phenomenon is independent of what day of the year it is and whether or not such material was in the WTC. Material behavior is like that. It is a physical property, not a political one. Check out these links. One is an audio clip of Dr. Jones saying something along the lines of, "Liquid aluminum has the property that it's silvery, rather like aluminum foil, you know, at all temperatures in daylight conditions." The other has to do with Dr. Wood's experiments with molten aluminum: drjudywood.com/media/JonesAudioClips/06_SJonesSilveryAlum_s.mp3drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.htmland here is an article I recently put together to prevent a brief summary of the overwhelming amount of easily verifiable physical evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered, which explosives of any kind (including jetfuel and thermite), do not explain: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence pookzta.blogspot.comI hope that helps. Cheers, -Abe Abraham Hafiz RodriguezM2 Medical Student B.S. Biology / Neurobiology
|
|
|
Post by 8real on Jun 14, 2011 23:32:40 GMT -5
I will read over that link, but right off the bat, I will tell you that she is the same lady that tried to use pictures of molten iron and called them aluminum...She also used deceptive pictures of molten aluminum in the dark and in a furnace to show aluminum can "glow-bright-orange"..... In short, her credibility is questionable, to say the least....If you think some kind of space weapon took down the WTC's, then you may want to read some of her other stuff on direct energy weapons ect. Is this discussion about whether "aluminum glows silvery at all temperatures," as Steven Jones claims, comparing aluminum at 600-dg. C with iron at 1,600-dg. C? If you conduct a scientific experiment, you will need to compare aluminum and iron at the same temperature. If or when you do, you will find that Dr. Wood has been correct all along. This is high school physics. This phenomenon is independent of what day of the year it is and whether or not such material was in the WTC. Material behavior is like that. It is a physical property, not a political one. Check out these links. One is an audio clip of Dr. Jones saying something along the lines of, "Liquid aluminum has the property that it's silvery, rather like aluminum foil, you know, at all temperatures in daylight conditions." The other has to do with Dr. Wood's experiments with molten aluminum: drjudywood.com/media/JonesAudioClips/06_SJonesSilveryAlum_s.mp3drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.htmland here is an article I recently put together to prevent a brief summary of the overwhelming amount of easily verifiable physical evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered, which explosives of any kind (including jetfuel and thermite), do not explain: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence pookzta.blogspot.comI hope that helps. Cheers, -Abe Abraham Hafiz RodriguezM2 Medical Student B.S. Biology / Neurobiology Why would we have to compare aluminum and iron at the same temperature? This is not the debate. The debate is, what does aluminum look like at 1800F/1000C to 2000F/1100C. Then compare it to what we saw flowing out of the WTC's 80th floor. That is it. It is a fairly easy debate in my opinion. Iron doesn't melt until 2800F/1500C. There is no reason to heat aluminum up to that temperature in the context of this discussion. Molten Aluminum at 1800F www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ&feature=channel_video_title
|
|