Added: 5 years ago
From: 8real
Views: 17,124
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (90)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • That looked exactly like the molten material seen pouring from the South Tower on 9/11, except this is clearly silver in colour, not bright orange.

  • 9/11 truthers=America haters=muslim looney lovers=go fuck yourselves.

  • @madisonelectronic well said

  • @madisonelectronic retarded "sceptics" caught in a lie = fag = no u

    this isnt america anymore you fuckin piece of shit. get it through your thick skulls!

  • @madisonelectronic 911 goverenment believers=murdering cocksuckers=george bush wankers=go fuck yourselves

  • t-1000's come

  • There's no sense arguing with a conspiracy theorist, they ignore the facts and are wasting your time.

  • Theirs so much fail in the comments it's just pathetic... Christ people get your heads of your asses...

  • Nice one! Silver and shiny as predicted!

  • wow....kaboom*the end*

  • Test to see if you are censoring comments. I noticed mine didnt get posted right away.

  • Right, but "debunkers" have that famous anonymous color-temperature chart that implies that at 1200 C some unnamed substance will glow a marvelous beige color they call "white," so what are ya gonna do?

    I guess no one can count on S. Jones to clear that fake chart up, or to even to note that Popular Mechanics used a picture of molten iron being poured and labeled it aluminum.

    And I get downrated on other videos for pointing these things out.

    9/11 accountability is being hijacked.

  • you want to see the height of their stupidity, check out rkowens4's channel comments trying to debate with them

  • BTW that chart that the debunkers use is used for steel hahaha, basically pulled from an iron phase diagram(may or may not show steel colour with temps).....their stupidity amazes me

  • The big picture isn't the molten iron vs. molten aluminum. It isn't even 9/11. The U.S. needs to take control of the world. The soviets are gone. We won the Cold War. The planet is ours. Sure some alliances (SCO) would be problematic and India and Brazil will rise as regional powers. Notice all future conflict zones are Chinese oil nations. Sudan/Darfur, Nigeria, Iran. So noticing the details as no official will ever be prosecuted about 9/11. Just best you can live and be happy. :)

  • Chinese saying:

    "You cannot wake someone up who is pretending to be asleep."

    Yes, our government was behind 9/11. Yes, there are people that will say it wasn't till the end of time. For some it "safer" to not realize the world empire (troops in over 100 nations, 500k troops serve outside the U.S.) they live in needs a "international reason" to move troops and secure a higher % of world oil supplies. (If we get all the oil no one else can fuel there militaries, but us)

  • @FieldTactics Then we're attacking the wrong countries as Iraq has some of the fewest oil reserves of any middle eastern nation and Afghanistan has none. >.> If we're fighting wars for oil, then I have to ask why we didn't invade Iran first.

  • @YoshiyukiTomino I hate to be the one to point out that Iraq has low known reserves - known being the key word. The majority of the country has not been explored. It is possible, and there are indications that it may have reserves as extensive as Saudi Arabia. Which you can find the reports on the USGS site if you don't believe me, which you won't.

    Of course, this wasn't known until after we invaded. We invaded because Bush ad a grudge against Sadam, from his father not finishing the job.

  • Comment removed

  • @Lessinath I find it ironic if you have these reports you don't link them at all.

  • @YoshiyukiTomino exactly the reason why Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first place. Saddam wanted oil because he had very little.

  • I want to direct anybody that has been reading this discussions to look at this video:

    watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ

  • @8real

    So what's your point?

    If this was truly relevant to your 9/11 conspiracy theory(or theories) then there would be more than ONE spot on ONE of the towers that this happened at...but it didn't so using common sense that this happened on ONE spot on ONE of the towers it is easily dismissed as an anomaly and can be completely ruled-out as anything connected to idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories

  • Great strawman argument you have there. The claim was thermite which is a mixture of rust and aluminum that burns at high temperatures.  I am sure you can find videos of it on here, and it looks identical to what was pouring out of the WTC.

  • /watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

  • what you suggest? get a education in pyrotechnics,small amount of rust and molten aluminium doesn't make thermite

  • "Aluminum is silvery at its melting point"

    right, but not when its molten. to get yellow molten aluminum is around 1000, well within the range for what we'd expect for those fires. and it wouldn't have to hot enough to melt the steel at all, weaking them through high temps would suffice.

    your blow torch bit was worse than this. how hot does a blow torch get pal? certainly not 1000 degrees!

  • agentorange20 said "to get yellow molten aluminum is around 1000, well within the range for what we'd expect for those fires."

    You are wrong. Even at 1000C aluminum is silvery...Why would you argue when you have done no research on the subject? Go argue with someone who enjoys to argue with morons, because I am not the guy. Get your facts straight.

    You are correct about one thing though, the fires possibly hit 1000C...

  • no, I meant a 1000F. not C.

  • C is hotter, so it doesn't matter...Aluminum is not bright orange at 1000C or F. I linked a video that shows what aluminum looks like flowing at 1800F(1100C). I am not speculating, I am telling you. Aluminum is silvery unless under extreme temperatures. When I say extreme temperatures, I am talking about temperatures HOTTER than attainable from a jet fuel based office fire. I am talking about 1500C(2700F), which is WAY WAY hotter than a jet fuel based office fire...

  • @8real You linked a video that shows aluminum starting at 1800f. As it is very first poured it comes out glowing orange. Pause it before any aluminum comes in contact with that room temperature cooking plate that absorbs the heat. An 1800deg liquid that comes in contact with metal is going to cool in seconds. This is proven by the fact that the aluminum begins to solidify immediately. What temp does it have to be at to solidify? <1200f.

  • @8real So your video is the perfect example of how it is orange at 1800deg and cools quickly and becomes silver again. Just like how the "sparks" are orange at the top of this photo and silver at the bottom as they quickly cool from 1800 to 1200: wwwDOTdebunking911DOTcom/captu­re7DOTjpg Thank you for perfectly demonstrating that the material coming out of the WTC is aluminum.

  • @DRAT311

    Not sure how you concluded all of that but, congrats! Don't thank me. You can do yourself a favor and stop looking at video and go melt yourself some aluminum! What a novel idea! Right? Hey, I have a even better idea....You could actually record it!

    And to respond directly to this quote

    "As it is very first poured it comes out glowing orange. Pause it before any aluminum comes in contact with that room temperature cooking plate that absorbs the heat."

    ANSWER : it is a REFLECTION

  • @DRAT311 I know, right?

    Course, to be sure, you'd have to know more, but it fits.

    8real needs to realize that aluminum, like every substance, will glow red or orange when heated.

  • @pjnlsn Yeah, nobody can know for sure but the debate about all things 911 needs to be "In the absence of absolute proof, which scenario is more likely given the little evidence we have." They always want to dismiss the official story because it is not proven 100% but then accept their theories as fact based on possibility alone. You cannot prove 100% that A is true so it is not. But you can't prove 100% that B is NOT true so it must be true. 

  • @8real Aluminum at 1000C is not silvery. It's yellow-white.

  • @pjnlsn

    And it snows in Miami....Cause I said so.

  • @8real It's in your other video, when you heat aluminum to 1800C. In this video, your aluminum is at a lower temperature, but still above the melting point.

    watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ

  • @8real You're kind've obtuse. As in, you have it backwards. You don't think that aluminum exhibits black body radiation at the temperature (1000C), but you (I suppose this is why you resist the idea of aluminum doing so) think that if the aluminum is glowing molten at the temperature, then somehow the OS is proven. Or at least this part is.

    You're wrong: The aluminum glowing molten would merely be a suggestion of the drip from the tower, and Al will most certainly glow at that temp. Backwards.

  • You guys, I agree with you calm down. I agree it was steel I am just looking for all the facts. Either of you know the burning and melting point of steel?

  • If the Truthers are right the crucible should be glowing orange and the aluminum inside should not be. The temperature at which the crucible glows is not influenced by the material inside. Is that not enough proof that they did NOT heat it up high enough?!

  • For the creator of the video:

    Try the experiment again only heat that thing up to around 1700 degrees, about the heat of a fuel fire -- and measure it with a high-temperature thermometer. You should be able to get that temp in a good furnace easily. Tell me if it's glowing or not.

  • I'm not positive but I think that is past the evaporation point of aluminum.

  • "I'm not positive but I think that is past the evaporation point of aluminum. "

    No it is not. Aluminum evaporates at over 4500 degrees F. Not even close. Although I suppose if you were in a much thinner atmosphere it might (less pressure), but that's not the conditions that were present at the WTC and so is irrelevant.

  • Aluminum would start on fire before it evaporated....Yet, it still would look nothing like molten iron(i.e. bright orange in daylight conditions). Go find me a video of aluminum flowing in daylight conditions that looks like what we saw pour out of the south tower...

  • "Aluminum would start on fire before it evaporated....Yet, it still would look nothing like molten iron(i.e. bright orange in daylight conditions). "

    How do you know it catching on fire wouldn't look like molten iron? Have you burned some to see?

  • It would look like a stream of fire...Do you think molten iron looks like a stream of fire?

    This is way off topic either way. Aluminum doesn't boil (it catches fire after it boils) until around 4000 F which is way, way, WAY hotter than temperatures attainable in a jet fuel based office fire...Go research the open air burning temperatures of jet fuel. Google is your friend.

  • I have burned plenty of aluminum, when it burns it looks like paper and it spews off white fluffy ash, not red hot sparks. Also, it has GOT to burn before 4000 degrees, that number is WAY off. Carbon and Iron are melted before 2000.

  • Go to google and type "Boiling Point Aluminum" and you will see where I got my numbers...Remember to distinguish if I say Fahrenheit or Celsius(F or C).

  • The stream of glowing material is probably from the foundation of the bldg. And YES,a fire caused by jet fuel can burn down the bldg. Most insurance companies will give you a cheaper rate if your bldg is made of wood, rather than steel because heat travels faster in steel beams and will destroy the foundation quicker in Bldg fires. Ever heard of 1hr protection? So that proves that office fires can be hot enough to melt the beams.

  • This is the stupidest thing I have read in a while....Sorry, but you are wrong. First off, a insurance company would not charge a cheaper rate if something is more hazardous. A wood building is way unsafer than a steel framed one. I have never seen a wood skyscraper! Secondly, whoever told you that wood buildings have a stronger "foundation" because heat doesn't travel through wood is backwards ass. Wood structures burn and collapse a lot faster than steel framed structures...

  • Also, the insurance question was on the GC exam.I didn't say that skyscrapers were made of wood, my point was, steel beams carry heat alot faster. I know this because I am a contractor. I own a company that builds large marquee signs for shopping plazas. I work with General contractors on a daily basis. Think about it, a hot blast of jet fuel hitting a steel beam, what do you think will happen?

  • microbeast29 said "Think about it, a hot blast of jet fuel hitting a steel beam, what do you think will happen?"

    I'll tell you what it won't do. MELT!

  • "I'll tell you what it won't do. MELT!"

    you're right it wouldn't, but you wouldn't need to melt structural beams to bring the building down. by raising the temp it weakens the rigidity and resorts to distributing the load further. an overloaded structure that's loosing rigidity would sag and eventually snap, just like we see for many minutes prior to their collapse.

  • It is crazy to think the top 1/4th of a building would demolish the bottom 3/4 of it. It would fall to the side with the most damage(impact zone), not follow the path with the most resistance(straight down as observed). The building under the impact zones where very much in tact and where designed to stand. The damaged part of the building supposedly demolished the bottom 70+ floors at almost the rate it would to fall through the air...

  • they weren't even 3 decades old. enough floor space for 55,000 workers, created huge revenues exceeding any sunk cost involved in maintence. till recently were an icon of western capatalism. and you call them garbage? your rational is horrid.

  • They where half empty and needed to have all the asbestos removed...They where garbage...

  • " demolished the bottom 70+ floors at almost the rate it would to fall through the air... "

    what, like how rosie and truthers think it's 9 seconds freefall? yet on numerious video records both are well outside that figure.

  • Twist my words around again...Go ahead, because that is what you are...A spin master that has done little to no research on this subject.

  • Third, office fires can not "melt beams"...That takes the cake for stupidness. Congratulations! You are a moron!

    Don't come here trying to spread dis-info! You are either misinformed about this subject or you are trying to muddle the evidence with bogus "facts" and half baked theories about wood vs steel framed buildings...

  • Actually it's in a book required for general contarctors" FUNDAMENTALS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCION, MATERIAL AND METHODS" look it up. It's required for general contractors.

  • "melt beams" had you really read the report it doesn't imply they melted at all. only that the heat weakened the rigidity of the steel and caused it to sag and evetually snap under overloads of pressure. to weaken a structure you don't have to melt it, weaking will suffice.

  • agentorange20, you are missing the point. Watch the video and the video responses. What is the "bright orange" molten metal flowing? NIST claims it was aluminum mixed with debris...I am suggesting it is iron or steel. Because molten aluminum does not look anything like that.

  • "bright orange"

    this is the remants of the alluminum alloy left from the planes that do melt at much lower temps than steel. what's the motive in bringing down the towers anyway? regardless if they fell or stood today our retaliation would be identical. them collapsing is a non factor.

  • Aluminum is silvery...To many motives to list. For starters, the towers where garbage on prime real estate. The Invasion of 2 Arab countries. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and a whole bunch of other Bills flew through congress without scrutiny...And on and on and on...

  • no. i meant motive for bringing them down. had you read carefully it said them falling would't have mattered in our retaliating and thus the 'truthers' who use this as a motive don't realize it's self defeating logic. had they stood to this day it wouldn't have changed the invasion, passage of patriot act, and virtually anything else you can think of. it's a non factor in that predicate of logic.

  • You are guessing what would of happened and I am telling you what did happen and what could have been a motive...You asked, I answered...

  • If the upper beams of the skyscraper are hit with melting force from the jet, the heat will travel extremely far throughout the steel structure, enough to weaken it to the point of collapse. Quit with the propaganda of 911 was an inside job, and try to act more professional...nut case.

  • microbeast29 said "If the upper beams of the skyscraper are hit with melting force from the jet, the heat will travel extremely far throughout the steel structure, enough to weaken it to the point of collapse"

    You have no business talking about this subject. You are saying the heat from jet fuel traveled to the foundation and caused the collapse! Whatever you are smoking, you need to stop...

  • for all the credit you give to this govt. for pulling all this off live.

    why couldn't/wouldn't they have planted WMD's in iraq to validate their post invastion?

    so you think they can pull all this off LIVE, yet not stage some WMD's...?

  • This wouldn't require another investigation if I knew who did this...I am just here to point out that the official version of what happened is a whitewash. It is garbage.

    A real investigation is what any real "9/11 truther" wants.

  • we would expect any tower that sustained what those buildings came under to possibly, if not certainly collapse. they were essentially hit with missles. we would expect floors above the 80th such as that to come down crashing after the structure gave way. buildings are like bridges and the loads on each floor are different, the higher you go the higher the load.

  • The lower you go, the stronger it gets...Again, buildings are designed to stand, not fall straight down. At the very least, they should of tipped to the side with the most extensive damage...

  • Also, your little experiment was for a tiny piece of metal. You can expect to multiply the size of that and compare it to a structure the size of the twin towers... Goof luck on your "investigation". lol

  • microbeast29 said "Also, your little experiment was for a tiny piece of metal. You can expect to multiply the size of that and compare it to a structure the size of the twin towers"

    I am simply showing idiot people like yourself what molten aluminum looks like in daylight conditions...It doesn't look "bright orange" or anything like what we say pouring out of the South WTC Tower just seconds before it collapsed...

  • "doesn't look "bright orange"

    judging by the container it's in, it's quite apparent it's not even yellow hot, let alone red hot moten liquid thus why it has no apparent molten color. had you heated it to higher temps your container would have been red hot itself, as would the aluminum you poured out. what temp did you bring it to, 500 or so? that would liquify it without making it molten.

  • Aluminum is silvery at its melting point. What we saw flowing out of the 80th floor window was bright orange. In order to get aluminum to appear BRIGHT ORANGE it would require a temperature hot enough to MELT STEEL. In other words, hotter than a open air office fire can get. A jet fuel fire does not get as hot as people think...

  • any metal is silvery (cept gold, copper) at its melting point, my point is you never even heated the aluminum in your container to even red hot molten, let alone orange or yellow.

    you deceptively didn't heat it high enough to make it look like aluminum can't glow molten, yet still liquify. but all metals do, so it's obvious you lied.

  • You are wrong, I have posted video and links to videos that show what aluminum looks like at 1100C(max temps according to NIST), have you? Aluminum is silvery, that is why NIST believes it was mixed with debris to make it glow and appear bright orange, because they know aluminum doesn't look ANYTHING like what we saw flowing from the 80th floor.

    Here is a link to a video of aluminum at 1800F(1100C)

    watch?v=HfMfHPAncZA

  • i've seen pictures of the orange molten metal falling from the 80fl and they end up being silvery upon cooling. it's likely b/c the plane had alloy and not 100% Alum. would aid in creating this.

  • The video shows a bright orange molten metal flowing and falling for a couple floors and it is still bright orange, not silvery! Go examine the video responses to this video! Show me a video that measures the temp of aluminum at 1000F and show it bright orange(comparable to what we saw flowing from the 80th floor), like you say is possible. Since I know you can't I expect some more retarded responses...

  • @8real

    LOL, aluminum sure does glow orange and red when it's aerated, just like the tip of a cigarette glows orange and red when you suck on it. You don't think a cigarette tip is molten steel, do you?

    The ONE obvious FACT is that molten steel is HEAVY and aluminum is not, the 15 mph Breeze on 9/11 blows that metal fall all over the place.

    Steel would not do this, huh?

  • @8real Sorry, fella, you cut away from the aluminum as it aerated. That's what makes ANY object glow orange/red under heat. A sudden burst of Oxygen. Blow on a charcoal. Inhale on a cigarette. Use a bellows or air pump on a forge. OR DROP aluminum in a pipe, and you get the same burst of flame and color. It's odd how you point to silver aluminum, and NOT to the burst of flame when it got air, huh?
  • How about this...You go find me a video that shows aluminum that is comparable to what we saw flowing out of the WTCs 80th floor...

  • it's cool. It is certainly Aluminium. I have done a similar experiment myself and it is all most identical to mine.

  • What is the temperature of this molten Aluminum?

  • I am working on getting something put together to show the difference between the way aluminum looks at 700C and 2400C. You may want to click the "View all comments" button and read what has been said. You are wrong, this is indeed "molten" aluminum, it's just not as hot as a industrial foundry...

  • Thats not molten.

  • Yes, it is. The word "molten" is just another way of saying "liquefied" or "to become liquid". That is "molten aluminum" or "liquefied aluminum"...

  • This aluminum looks awrully reddish-orange and isn't mixed with debris

    youtube. com/watch?v=1Cq0PbLAXJQ&NR=1

  • You are looking at a flame. If you notice the aluminum that pours out initially but is not on fire, it looks, SILVERY! If you notice the aluminum that spills off the side of the sand mold, you will notice when it drops straight down, it is not on fire and looks, SILVERY. If you notice the pools that form on the ground and are not on fire, they look SILVERY!

  • Furthermore, if will take notice at the LAST part, you will see him pour the aluminum into a ingot and pole mold, nothing catches fire and it looks...SILVERY. After watching it a few times, you will see exactly what I am talking about. You are seeing the aluminum that is ON TOP of the sand mold reflecting the flame that is shooting out of the top!

  • Please watch the most recent video response.

    watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY&watch_resp­onse

    I want you to learn that aluminum doesn't mix with "lots of other shit" and have a uniform-bright-orange appearance! Just because NIST says something, doesn't mean it is the word of God. They need to back up these absurd assertions with experiments!

  • According to my metallurgy textbook, almost all metals turn the same colors at similar temperatures even if they have different melting points.

  • You dont need a furnace to melt aluminum,house fires often melts it..Of course the house fire becomes the furnace..In the trade centers.they became blast furnaces.

  • I understand that the fires on 9/11/2001 could melt aluminum. There is no debate that a jet-fule-based-office-fire could melt alumiunum! However, the REAL debate is the color of the infamous "molten metal" that had the appearance of BRIGHT ORANGE as it flowed from the south tower just SECONDS before it structurally failed at the same exact point the "molten metal poured from.

  • ohhhh.I was wondering if it was aluminum mixed with Titanium from the jet melting.

  • Yea, we all would like to think its plane wreckage, but it's not. Titanium doesn't melt until 1600C..Thats hotter than the melting point of steel. Although, you prbably ment "other alloys" and to be honest, hardley any metals melt in regualr office fires..

  • "we all would like to think its plane wreckage, but it's not"

    Since it's obviously tons of molten metal or mostly-metal soup, and the only location it's coming from is where the plane hit ... what do you suggest it might be? Uncountable tons of thermite, only in one spot -- or are you one of those crackpots who don't even believe planes were involved?

  • First, the corner that the "mostly-metal soup" poured from, was where the plane came to rest, not entered. Second, there are only a few metals that can melt in normal fires. Go start your grill, pour as much gas in it as you want, I bet it won't "weaken" or "collapse" or anything out of the ordinary. Please research and find out what metals can melt in office fires in 60 minutes and give the appearance of "bright orange". Please read my updated description o the video.

  • "was where the plane came to rest"

    Would still suggest to me that it's mostly that aluminum we're seeing. Normal office fires are 1600f+, more than enough to melt aluminum alloy in an hour. Color doesn't concern me much since I don't know what the alloy was, or what other crap would be mixed in it.

    Again, what do you suggest the mix is? Surely not thermite, in that quantity and color?

  • Please do me a favor, go back and sift through what has already been said on this video. You obviously have done a little research on the subject. What doesn't "concern" you, is exactly what concerns me! I invite you to read the description of this video and visit those forums if you want to talk in depth..

  • I'm short on time, but I will go back & look when I can.

    Since I've melted alum alloys (cans) that most clearly DO glow red, my skepticism is obvious, & lab-pure conditions seem irrelevant. In the meantime, take a quick look at the photo on the Aluminium Council website:

    world-aluminium. org/production/processing/cast­ing

  • "what do you suggest the mix is"

    That is the crux of the argument, and since it is unknowable, it can't be argued that it was or was not predominantly aluminum. Aluminum seems likely as a major component since it's one of the few metals that will flow at the temperatures known, and there is an unlimited amount of adulterants to cause a color shift.

    Video is notorious for flaky colors anyhow.

  • "Aluminum seems likely as a major component"

    It does seem like a sensible guess, but there's really nothing to indicate that it's even mostly metal. Considering the huge amount of hydrocarbons (plastics) in office buildings, that mess could be a composite stew of almost any chemical combination on earth, and not just strictly metal.

    When I burn old sheds there's stuff burning & mixing in there that would defy any chemical analysis.

  • Hahaha, this is getting funny now. Plastics? I wonder why NIST didn't think of that? Welp, that solves it! I am sure when you burn sheds they leave a pile of bright orange molten metal in roughly 60 minutes! Right? In all seriousness, you guys need to sit down and realize that it was not aluminum mixed with anything...period!

  • "Plastics? I wonder why NIST didn't think of that?"

    Anyone following this issue knows that the largest component of office fires, and by far the most volatile, are hydrocarbons from plastics. Are you saying that this mysterious material, which you apparently believe is a metal, is laboratory-pure and not mixed with everything else that melted in the area ?

  • I am saying it is mainly made up of one metal, yes. Please, show me any metal or cocktail of metals that can appear uniformly bright orange at those temperatures. According to NIST the fires peaked at 1100C at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400C roughly 10 minutes later.

  • There are multiple videos and photos of this incident! Not just one. They all appear to show a uniform-bright-orange-molten-m­etal-flowing...The only metal that can melt in a jet-fuel-based-office-fire is *drum rolls* Aluminum! Ta-daaa!

  • "the only metal that can melt in a jet-fuel-based-office-fire is .. Aluminum!"

    You're overlooking brass, copper, zinc, lead, tin, antimony, and a few dozen others. You might want to take another look at the periodic table of elements before making such sweeping -- and incorrect -- statements.

    All of these are common in offices, as are low-melt rare-earth metals in computer drives (neodymium).

  • Yea, very common stuff there to all conveniently melt into a "molten cocktail", hahaha. I am suggesting it is mainly ONE material. You are correct about all the other metals, but the most COMMON material would be aluminum. Desks, chairs and of course the plane. Back to the issue, the color. Are you suggesting all of those metals can mix into a nice uniform-bright-orange-molten-m­etal from a office fire? Or how about just ONE of them? Can any of them appear BRIGHT ORANGE at 2000F as observed?

  • So if that's not the aluminum from the plane, mixed with lots of other shit in the building ...

    where did 80 tons of aluminum go? Seems like there had to be a big blob of melted mess falling down at some point, and this is about the right spot.

    ??

  • I am sorry but I have to disagree with anybody who thinks aluminum can look like that from a office fire. Especially considering the fact that it was a uniform-bright-orange material flowing in daylight conditions...Not silvery/orange/black and sooty as one would expect if it was a glob of airplane aluminum mixed with office furniture/carpet/plastics. Please examine the 2 video responses.

  • Check out the fire on the 'Sheffield' during the Falklands War, Aluminium can have quite an effect on a fire. I fully aggree that 1100-1500 celsius is the maximum temperature, But the fact is I have seen molten orange glowing aluminium,(scrap reclamation) photos on the net as well.

  • If you "fully agree that 1100-1500 Celsius is the maximum temperature", then whats your problem? Do you think a 60 minute 1100C fire is hot enough to give molten aluminum the appearance of molten iron(bright orange)?

  • You make a good point '8real', and the only way to settle it, would be for 'actual' experiments. This is a very important issue. We should call for a close reproduction of those events to be replicated [with advise from independent structural engineers]. Build say, a ten storey replica, with exactly the same building load, with an identical structure.(concrete blocks to simulate the upper floors)

  • The Professor at Brigham Young University, Steven Jones has had the wool pulled over his eyes about Molten Aluminium never glowing 'Orange'. it boils at 2467 Celsius, at that heat the liquid Aluminium glows so white hot you need eye protection! One more daft conspiracy theory scuppered again.

  • Every type of metal will "glow" at 2400C(4352F), but it requires a furnace to attain those temperatures. In fact, "jet fuel" based fires can only burn up to 1800C in a special combustion chamber, more likely no hotter than 1500C in realistic conditions(jet fuel office fire). Go see what molten aluminum looks like at 1100-1500C, then come back and respond...I suggest you go and work with aluminum before you try to respond, or contact a metal worker.

  • I was managing director of a Scrap Reclamation Company 'Goodlock Ltd', and Consultant to several of the largest UK firms processing scrap. I was also circa 1983/4 a listed 'Visitor' to The Metalurgy Dept Cambridge University. So please refrain from insinuations of ignorance.

  • If you worked a "Scrap Reclamation Company" then you should agree with me. Flowing molten aluminum in daylight conditions does not "glow". If you care to debate the subject I invite you to visit 8real(dot)proboards104(dot)com­. This is a "comment" section on youtube, I will not debate you here, but you are trying to convince people of something that is not true. And that is, that aluminum can "glow" from a "jet fuel" fire..

  • I beg to differ '8real', Geo Wilkinson's of Horsham UK Our UK Navy scrap contractor, separated ferrous by magnet, and melted the mixed aluminium scrap in a very hot furnace to prevent exhaust emmision polution (plastic saucepan handles etc. can give off deadly dioxins etc.) The bright 'orange glowing' molten Aluminium poured in a constant, day and night, stream into a water sprayed conveyor belt mould set-up. It glowed bright Orange, Period. No debate!

  • You are debating yourself. I clearly said "Every type of metal will "glow" at 2400C(4352F), but it requires a furnace". Key word..."FURNACE"

    We agree, aluminum can glow, but it requires a furnace to attain those temperatures. I am sorry, a regular "jet fuel" fire in a office, is not hot enough to make aluminum "glow" bright orange...Period. No debate!

  • Looks like water. >_>

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more