NIST: 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.
All this video does is prove the first sentence right.
@riggermortisify Yes, exactly. Aluminum theory that recently came up is easily debunked. Not enough heat to generate the melting of other metals in the building.
To everyone mentioning the twin towers; It happened. There's nothing specific to analyze about the tower, it was hit by a fucking plane for the love of god. Jet fuel burns hot, plus, to add you're high up, and winds add to the fire that's burning organic stuff, like wood, and whatever else may be burning. The steel failed because there's suddenly extra weight of the jet and everything else inside of it in the middle of the tower. It was not a hoax, the government had no idea about it. Get overit
Take out the spaces in this link and there are like 5 pics of molten steel for 911; glowing hot, dripping down. glowing bright white and orange is molten. htt p:// projectavalon.n et/forum/showthread.p hp?t=3863&page=2
if you define being rational as ever excepting what the government tells you then you can keep your version of rationality. to me if any one disagrees with the outcome of an investigation into a crime like say 80000 people for example then the investigation should be done over again. especially if the members of the last investigation dont agree with the outcome
Bullshit of the 1st order.Acetylene is a CONTROLLED FLAME - open fires are not! 600C max! Why you constantly choose to put yourself over as stupid I don't understand why. Your knowledge of this subject needs serious revision.I suggest you study up before you comment further.
There's a case study on office fire temp curves, which AGAIN proves you don't have the beginnings of a clue.
Lol! 600C max? Only in the vivid imaginations of truthers. You probably got that little bit of BS from some other ignorant truther, who got it yet another ignorant truther, etc.
What are you looking at? I see no glowing steel around even the places where the fires were supposedly burning at hot enough to make steel warp. NIST only found evidence that the fires were above 600C via gypsum paint chip analysis, and that was only in certain areas.
There's pictures of glowing steel in the rubble pile. None in the still standing buildings, but then that wouldn't have been visible anyway, as it would have been inside in the core columns, and there aren't any pictures from the inside.
And NIST is so full of crap about so much of their report I wouldn't take anything they said seriously.
At least you admit NIST is full of crap, but the perimeter columns were steel and would have been glowing if the fires were as hot as many claim, even in daylight.
The fires were (obviously) not uniformly hot. Remember, each floor is a full acre. There's no chance the perimeter columns were that hot where they were exposed (and thus visible.) Basic physics.
You're right, they weren't uniformly hot, this is why it SHOULD have collapsed assymmetrically. But anyway, the fire was supposedly hottest in the corner with all the debris (the one where the molten metal is seen pouring from) and the heat has to go somewhere, it would have escaped out the window and heated the steel, even if it didn't, you should be able to see glowing from the inside where some flames are visible.
No way it could collapse asymmetrically. At least not in the sense of it toppling over like a tree or something... I suppose it depends on what you mean by asymmetrically... the upper floors did tilt quite a bit in one tower before it fell.
But buildings that size cant topple over. In the physics of structural engineering size really does matter. Buildings that size can only hold their own weight on close to a vertical plane. Tilt too far off that plane and the whole thing will fall apart.
Well, the towers were meant to flex and then return to their normal structure like they did when the planes hit, but if the destruction was just a little bit faster on one side, it would make the collapse unbalanced and it would most likely destroy one side and leave the other with considerably less damage. In that case, it would be a gradual collapse and the perimeter columns on the other side could still hold their own and a lot more of the build would be left.
They could flex a little, like when the planes hit, or in a high wind, but they couldn't topple over like a tree. Too much off of vertical stresses and they would just fall apart.
So like with one of the towers the upper floors did tilt because one side collapsed faster, but once that one side collapsed the other side couldn't hold the weight for more than a second and then it collapsed too. Then once the upper floors fell on the lower floors that was all she wrote.
and to use you as an example, the conspiracy nuts feed off the 9/11 BS and you feed off of them, you need them to "live" apparently so you can enact your form of justice by "debunking these bitches", but without them you wouldnt exist and you feed off of them an you have no real goal, so your kinda like a bottom feeder or a virus sucking at the foundation of truth, instead of consoling with your fellow man an going to distant to put his fear at ease you outcast him an deem him weird? your logic?
1000C ???? FOR A CARBON FIRE? don't talk rubbish!! Just what are you up to here because you are not making any sense at all? 'Proofers' what a strange bunch of adolescent nerds.You 'Manlove' for Mroberts has twisted your view of reality.Your weird.
Lol! What are you going on about "carbon fires?" Your ignorance is typical for truthers . It's most likely that every fire you have ever encountered in your short little life has been a "carbon fire." The fire from an acetylene torch is a carbon fire.
Typical truther--obstinately ignorant and too stupid to realize just how ignorant you really are.
The question is so stupid I don't even know how to answer it. Aluminum melts at a little under 700C. At that temp it doesn't visibly glow. Get it up to a little under 1000C and it does visibly glow.
So what is your question? Are you unaware that regular old office fires get that hot? And this wasn't even just a regular office fire.
So the metal at the towers was a few hundred degrees hotter? How is that possible?and why does it stay orange while it is falling through the air? You don't half talk a load of crap.
Explain how carbon fire can burn a 'few hundred degrees hotter'.
Yet another picture of molten aluminum glowing. Again, a non 911 related site, and this time in lighting conditions more similar to what was on 911--(overcast day, outside, vs on 911 in the shade of a building with lots of thick black smoke in the air.)
Don't even know who that is, but you obviously don't need any help to look like an asshole.
So basically you are still continuing to believe that aluminum doesn't glow? In spite of the entire field of physics saying you are wrong? And pictures and videos of aluminum glowing proving you are wrong?
Do you wonder why people make fun of truthers? Perhaps the most ironically named "movement" in the history of the world, "truth" is the last thing truthers are interested in.
people don't make fun of 'truthers' (non existent word) they make fun of you because you talk complete and utter bullshit.Honestly, just what the hell do you think you are doing? Talking babble and quoting the great tourist guide idiot.Grow up and get a hobby you ignoramus - you people are an embarrassment to what is a very serious subject.
Typical truther, unwilling top face reality and too stupid to understand it even if you WERE willing.
Just at it's melting point aluminum is silver. Couple hundred degrees hotter and it glows. Don't strain your brain trying to understand that simple fact--it's too complicated for idiots.
Here's another science page discussing this concept--
homepagesDOTwmichDOTedu/~korista/color-bbDOThtml
The gist is (again) EVERYTHING glows unless it's at absolute zero. The wavelength it glows at depends on the material and the temp, so, for instance, room temp things glow in infrared. Get them hotter and the wavelngth shortens till they reach visible.
And metals all glow pretty much the same color at the same temp. AL is not the magic exception to this.
And here's another video showing aluminum glowing.
v=AfWJrQyCkBw
Note that this also is a non 911 related video. Notice that the pot it's being poured from is also glowing at the same color, which is as you would expect, but the molten AL inside the pot is glowing significantly brighter and continues to glow as it is poured.
You're ignorant, one way or another. And LLCoolpass still can't grasp the very easy concept that it depends on temperature. Your engine never gets that hot. Any aluminum would melt long before it starts to glow anyway.
No one is side-stepping. You're the one trying to change the subject. I've already said 1800F temps are possible in regular office fires. And it wouldn't need that high temps to get AL to glow anyway, so you're the one obsessing about 1800.
its not tru! it's just annoying you would come on here and fib like that. ignoring 911 bolgna. just on Al. look above, you see the Al disagree with you
You are apparently not bright enough to grasp the concept. The glow is dependent on the temperature. Aluminum, right at it's melting point, isn't hot enough to glow. It glows at higher temps. The range of possible temps for molten aluminum is anything between its melting and boiling point. That's a WIDE range of possible temp.
Mystylplx - you have been questioned rationally on a well observed scientific phenomenon.Unfortunately the answers you have given are nothing more than contradictory contrary garbage.
strato, the answers I've given are standard well observed basic science. I notice you can't refute them but instead resort to simply asserting nonsense.
They have NOT been refuted. If they had been those who did the refuting would revolutionize science. What's to the right is some very poorly designed experiments carried out by idiots who don't know what they are doing and?or don't understand that that molten aluminum doesn't glow right at it's melting point but needs to be at a higher temp than that.
This is really simple stuff here guys. You really have to be pretty stupid to not be able to get it.
I didn't quote her, I just showed some pictures she'd gathered of glowing aluminum. Just because she's a nutcase doesn't mean the pictures are bad.
And office fires easily get that hot. They can get as hot as 1800F. 1100 is EASY and typical. Heck, a cigarette lighter flame gets that hot or hotter.
Aluminum most certainly glows at 1800F. You can't see the glow under direct light because it's reflectivity overcomes it's emissivity (the reflection is brighter than the glow) but the glow is there, and you CAN see it under dimmer or indirect lighting conditions.
You guys need to go back and redo Jr. High school physics. This is basic basic stuff. Everything glows depending on temp. Aluminum is not the magic exception.
Don't be silly man. Show just one example of aluminum glowing like red hot steel. It can't and you know it. You claimed you could confirm it through scientific study. Show how exactly.
"That would explain the molten metal at the base of the towers for 2 months afterwards. "
No it wouldn't. Both thermite and thermate burn very hot and very fast. They release their stored energy within seconds, which is why they are so good at quickly melting through metals. They certainly don't sustain that heat for months. Not even for hours or minutes. If they could do something like that we'd be using them as a power source and there would be no energy crisis.
Normal welding doesn't heat aluminum up enough to glow. There's no point in getting it that hot for the purposes of welding. And the oxide coating is just that, a coating. The aluminum underneath melts at a much lower temperature and the coating doesn't protect it from that except for in cases like welding where the heat source is concentrated on the surface.
Basically EVERYTHING glows at high enough temps. EVERYTHING. It's called 'black body radiation." Even clouds of hot diffuse hydrogen (called nebula's) glow. Rock (called lava) glows. Everything in the universe glows at high temp.
when near the molting point its still silvery looking
but when you go to really high temperature the Al starts to look more red hot, but I do not have a chart in front of me to tell you the temp where this starts to happen
"...but I do not have a chart in front of me to tell you the temp where this starts to happen "
Same temps as steel. Same color too. The difference is steel has a much higher melting point, so starts to glow even before it's melted, while aluminum, with its much lower melting point, doesn't start to glow until it's well past melting.
Temps and color for metals-- C F Color 400 752 Red heat, visible in the dark 474 885 Red heat, visible in the twilight 525 975 Red heat, visible in the daylight 581 1077 Red heat, visible in the sunlight 700 1292 Dark red 800 1472 Dull cherry-red 900 1652 Cherry-red 1000 1832 Bright cherry-red 1100 2012 Orange-red Doesn't matter what metal, they are all close enough to the same to fit.
The aluminum seems to have more of that orange-red color where it's near the back of the heating vessel and this is because the aluminum is reflecting the interior color emitted by the vessel itself.
+ Even worse is being murdered by our own nation's military ..(see Operation Northwoods)
+ But far worse is that our souls are also sacrificed to conduct the planned savage & barbaric genocidal aggression upon tens of millions of innocents. And to begin a Nazi-style Fanaticism (GWOT) against these noble civilizations. Manipulating even our own families into looking away from the truth.
You're an idiot. Crack a physics text. Look up 'black body radiation.' Iron has nothing to do with the color, temperature and only temperature determines the color hot objects glow at. Iron and steel have a higher melting point than aluminum, which is why they start glowing BEFORE they melt and just at its melting point aluminum doesn't glow at all.
But at 1800F aluminum glows EXACTLY the same color as iron or steel. This is high school physics, folks. Sad so few understand it.
THANK YOU!! What some people dont seem to realize is that the color of molten materials is based off of the temperature, not the material itself, as any high school physics student would know. THANKU! lol
"Actually both happened. It wasn't thermite keep in mind. It was thermate. If you take out just the central beams with thermate it will cause the building to collapse."
Why bother with the thermate when you can just use the shaped charges which are much more efficient and reliable?
(And if exploding charges were used AT ALL they should be able to be heard audibly for quite some distance, probably miles. Near the towers the sound should be overwhelming. Why don't we hear it?)
True that. Watch (and listen to) videos of real CD's and it's unmistakable--popopopopopopop! like a REALLY loud popcorn maker that starts BEFORE the building starts to fall and continues. There was nothing remotly resembling that on 911.
i was under the impression that uncontrolled or "dirty" burns could only reach a MAXIMUM of 1800. is that untrue? if it is true then what makes people think the towers even got that hot? WTC was showing all the characteristics of a oxygen starved fire, few visible flames and a dark black smoke emanating(not to mention the people standing in the impact area, where fires should have been hottest, not burnt or scorched). that suggests much cooler fires. any thoughts? keep it civil please.
That's untrue, but even 1800F is hot enough to get aluminum to glow, depending on lighting conditions. Aluminum has relatively low emissivity compared to its reflectivity, so in direct sunlight (as in the video above) it appears silvery, but in the shade of a building with lots of thick black smoke in the air (as on 911) you can see the glow.
As for the heat of the fires--it wasn't uniform. Each floor is an acre, remember. The black smoke was from burning plastics, not oxygen starvation.
they had to make it look like real attack instead of a controlled demolition, the planes hitting the towers was just a cover for destroying the buildings, they had to blow it up in a way to make it look fantastic but not do alot of damage to other buildings except the world trade center complexes.
(#5) Why even BOTHER with thermite anyway? A real demolition is done with shaped charges, which are way more compact (but then again they make sounds that weren't heard on 9/11 when they're set off. One way you do it (thermite), people should see it. The other way (high explosive), people should hear it (and cameras, too!). Neither happened on 9/11).
Not to perpetuate any conspiracies but if you review some of the news footage of the towers coming down there appears to be explosions on the lower floors of the building, and witnesses (as well as the radio chatter before the emergency band went mostly dead due to the lost antenna) said they heard multiple explosions separate from the obvious fires.
hearing explosions and actual explosions are very diffrent..... most of the people on ground zero that day have never heard an explosion, the only place they have ever seen an explosion is probrably the cinema.
as far i can see (on the video's showing those explosion) they dont look anywhere strong enough to cut trough a I-beam. (even if it where shaped charges)
(#4) All those "odd" patchings of the walls and stuff? No bags piled up anywhere where the walls couldn't hold it? Were the unused floors evenly-spaced throughout the building (evenly enough for a "Controlled" demolition)? -cont'd in #5-
(#3) for weeks and weeks after the attack (there's another explanation though that does not involve thermite), it would take TEN YEARS at that rate. To get it done in 1 year would take 50 tons, every day. 6 months, 100 tons/day, every day. For 6 months and every 7 days instead of every day, it would take 700 tons/day or 30 tons/hour. (For only 2200 tons it would still take 70 tons/day and 3 tons/hour.) You sure nobody would see that? And what about after it's all planted? -cont'd in #4-
(#2) it on the columns, etc. And 2200 tons is a woefully low estimate when you consider that there also has to be enough thermite there to keep the steel molten for weeks/months after the collapse as people have been saying.
"It doesnt all have to be brought in at once, strange construction was heard for weeks/months before 9/11."
Was it heard every day, for the entire year before 9/11? Remember, -cont'd in #3-
-cont'd from part 3- Would be a lot easier to just sneak a Nuclear Bomb into the basement and set it off the next day. Even a SADM ("backpack nuke") would've done way more destruction.
-cont'd from part 2- information in that video (it was said that the "facts have not been made public", which CONVENIENTLY makes it 100% uncheckable. That's the biggest problem with my investigations into these 9/11 allegations -- a frustrating lack of sources to V the info.)? In addition, a single weekend or even a week is a silly-short amount of time to load 2200+ tonnes (around 2400 English short tons) of materials into the building without anyone noticing. -cont'd in part 4-
-cont'd from part 1- it would probably be. It is roughly the amount needed to melt a 1-meter section of column, all 40 core columns, on *25 of the floors per tower*, assuming *all* the energy from the thermite went into the columns (so the actual amount is likely going to be HIGHER, not lower. Wouldn't be surprised if it took twice this much, like 4400 tons or so.). Also, are there any verifiable sources for the -cont'd in part 3-
Realize the 9/11 coverup is ONGOING, with many LYING SHILLS devoting HUGE AMOUNTS OF TIME AND ENERGY attempting to "debunk conspiracy theorists" while they fantatically support the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.
You may even spot some of the LYING SHILLS working to defend the mass murderers Bush and Cheney here on YouTube. Just look below...
"hey man, you seem to be working hard putting up those straw men, and then knockin' them down like a real smart 'official conspiracy theorist' "
If you're questioning the "2200 tons" figure, I could go through the details, but it'll have to be in a private message as posting multi-part comments here is just a chore.
Furthermore if it was burning that would explain the bright yellow-white incandescence now wouldn't it? Hah, you just shot yourself in the foot with that comment.
"However when aluminium is molten as shown above, it pours as a silvery coloured mixture even when heated up to 850 degrees C. Do you agree? "
At around that temperature it would probably glow significantly. It's just that in this video they didn't heat it up that hot. And it's not a "mixture" by the way, it's an element. (look on the periodic table.) I would be really curious to see an experiment where aluminum has been dumped in a building that's lit on fire to see how hot it really gets.
What is the burning point, anyway (not boiling point, but burning point like you said)? And furthermore what was falling out of the WTC could have been burning, after all that large a quantity of aluminum does not just burn up instantaneously, as it's not an explosive! Furthermore you admit metal can burn. Why can't you admit the steel might have ignited in the piles and created the molten pools everyone's hooting about?
Steel is totally different from aluminum. I think those pools WERE molten steel! In order to reach energy levels high enough to melt steel it would require high explosives or incendiaries like thermite.
And this incendiary stuff would have to keep burning for months and months. Do you have any idea how much that would take? And I'm supposed to believe the government loaded the towers with many, many, many tons of this stuff without _anyone_ noticing all those boxes stacked up everywhere with wires coming out?
1) There were suspicious shut downs the week before 9/11 for "cable upgrades". All security systems were down during this period.
2)Most of the floors in the WTC were vacant, so why not just put it on those floors?
3)WTC was equipt with access ports for wiring and inspections of the structure that could allow this wiring to be fed through the whole building without notice.
4)There was lots of dust noticed around the WTC the week of 9/11, as if some type of drilling/destruction was going on.
1) That's nowhere near the time needed to rig up a buildign full of 2,200 tons of thermite, OK? Even at an impressive 5 tons per day it would take over a year of constant work.
2)Do you know exactly how many vacant floors there were? And you still have to go through the non-vacant floors to get to the vacant ones.
3)Perhaps, but someone should've noticed all the activity.
Here are people reporting the strange activity. Oh and I dont think they would rig the whole building with thermite, perhaps just to melt away the incredibly strong core columns.
"Here are people reporting the strange activity. Oh and I dont think they would rig the whole building with thermite, perhaps just to melt away the incredibly strong core columns."
My figure was not based on an assumption of rigging the entire building, just on the core columns. They're BIG, those columns -- they'd take a LOT of thermite to melt them in enough places to give a "controlled" collapse. 2200 (metric) tons is actually lower than it -cont'd in part 2-
So? They have the power, potential, and motive to set a controlled demolition. Why shouldnt they be able to place thermite in the building? It doesnt all have to be brought in at once, strange construction was heard for weeks/months before 9/11.
"So? They have the power, potential, and motive to set a controlled demolition."
But the question is not that they could set it up, but that they could set it up _without being seen_. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, saw them trucking in truckloads of thermite to bring down the towers, or loading it onto the freight elevators, or planting -cont'd in #2-
That's an interesting clip, alright. I'd still need to see the sources for the footage to verify it's aluminum. But it could still be since any metal will glow red hot if heated to the right temperature.
"Scuse me- my bad- I typed without looking at the vid- I thought it was another video where the guy claims the molten metal is aluminium when in fact it is clearly steel. This is aluminium (8-)) and it pours silver when molten. "
Alright. What is this video that shows steel, anyway?
"This is not aluminium. Aluminium does not pour orange/red when molten it remains silvery. "
If you heat it up hot enough it will. As something heats up the bias in the emitted wavelengths of EM radiation shifts to higher frequencies, like light.
Actually steel pours a more of a yellow-white color. If you look at the area of the crucible shaded by it's shadow you can see the aluminum is in fact glowing red here. What's your point, anyway?
NIST: 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.
All this video does is prove the first sentence right.
riggermortisify 7 months ago
@riggermortisify Yes, exactly. Aluminum theory that recently came up is easily debunked. Not enough heat to generate the melting of other metals in the building.
NothingAtAllXD 5 months ago
To everyone mentioning the twin towers; It happened. There's nothing specific to analyze about the tower, it was hit by a fucking plane for the love of god. Jet fuel burns hot, plus, to add you're high up, and winds add to the fire that's burning organic stuff, like wood, and whatever else may be burning. The steel failed because there's suddenly extra weight of the jet and everything else inside of it in the middle of the tower. It was not a hoax, the government had no idea about it. Get overit
TheOnedeadguy 8 months ago
was it a wasp nest? cool
fly2000jtb 1 year ago
why did you let it out? now that shit is going for John Conner
NateDoner 1 year ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
htt p:// projectavalon.n et/forum/showthread.p hp?t=3863&page=2
zeezrom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Take out the spaces in this link and there are like 5 pics of molten steel for 911; glowing hot, dripping down. glowing bright white and orange is molten. htt p:// projectavalon.n et/forum/showthread.p hp?t=3863&page=2
zeezrom 2 years ago
Molten metal. Not molten steel.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
? wtf is this video for? showing how to waste metal?
BlueMacGyver 2 years ago
You're a demented self gratifying fool.A typical 'proofer'. You're ridiculous 'evidence' and sources would be worthy of the most crackpot creationist.
You are either a bad liar or you you have an untreatable personality disorder.Are your parents aware of your activities? You need help man - soon.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Another good link to help you understand the science behind this--
newtonDOTdepDOTanlDOTgov/askasci/gen06/gen06272DOThtm
And my sources are science. These are standard non 911 related science/research sources.
You, on the other hand, obviously get your information from ignorant truthers who have an agenda and don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Typical truther--deny science, facts, reality, and everything else that doesn't confirm your purely ignorant beliefs.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
That last link, BTW, is from the Office of DOE Science Education.
But you'll just dismiss them too. Too stupid to understand and too dishonest to admit--typical truther.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
@stratocaster539 is he is strange for posting this then why are you watching and an talking shit? wouldnt that make you just as fucking weird?
REVOLTbydesign86 2 years ago
Any rational person would not say I'm talking shit.Stop using 'proofer' websites for your research.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
if you define being rational as ever excepting what the government tells you then you can keep your version of rationality. to me if any one disagrees with the outcome of an investigation into a crime like say 80000 people for example then the investigation should be done over again. especially if the members of the last investigation dont agree with the outcome
REVOLTbydesign86 2 years ago
Bullshit of the 1st order.Acetylene is a CONTROLLED FLAME - open fires are not! 600C max! Why you constantly choose to put yourself over as stupid I don't understand why. Your knowledge of this subject needs serious revision.I suggest you study up before you comment further.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Acetylene is still a carbon fire, moron. And temps is office fires commonly exceed 1000C.
maceDOTmanchesterDOTacDOTuk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Others/defaultDOThtm#fig5
There's a case study on office fire temp curves, which AGAIN proves you don't have the beginnings of a clue.
Lol! 600C max? Only in the vivid imaginations of truthers. You probably got that little bit of BS from some other ignorant truther, who got it yet another ignorant truther, etc.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Shoot, regular campfires get considerably hotter than 600C. I myself have got steel glowing in a normal outdoors campfire.
eachlittlemysteryDOTcom/2008/07/campfire-chemistryDOThtml
Your ignorance is unbelievable.
Mystylplx 2 years ago 2
And yet the steel wasn't glowing at the WTC with temperatures more than twice that, how odd...
(rolls eyes)
fakeham 2 years ago
There was glowing steel at the WTC. No melted steel, but definitely glowing hot.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
What are you looking at? I see no glowing steel around even the places where the fires were supposedly burning at hot enough to make steel warp. NIST only found evidence that the fires were above 600C via gypsum paint chip analysis, and that was only in certain areas.
fakeham 2 years ago
There's pictures of glowing steel in the rubble pile. None in the still standing buildings, but then that wouldn't have been visible anyway, as it would have been inside in the core columns, and there aren't any pictures from the inside.
And NIST is so full of crap about so much of their report I wouldn't take anything they said seriously.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
At least you admit NIST is full of crap, but the perimeter columns were steel and would have been glowing if the fires were as hot as many claim, even in daylight.
fakeham 2 years ago
The fires were (obviously) not uniformly hot. Remember, each floor is a full acre. There's no chance the perimeter columns were that hot where they were exposed (and thus visible.) Basic physics.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
You're right, they weren't uniformly hot, this is why it SHOULD have collapsed assymmetrically. But anyway, the fire was supposedly hottest in the corner with all the debris (the one where the molten metal is seen pouring from) and the heat has to go somewhere, it would have escaped out the window and heated the steel, even if it didn't, you should be able to see glowing from the inside where some flames are visible.
fakeham 2 years ago
No way it could collapse asymmetrically. At least not in the sense of it toppling over like a tree or something... I suppose it depends on what you mean by asymmetrically... the upper floors did tilt quite a bit in one tower before it fell.
But buildings that size cant topple over. In the physics of structural engineering size really does matter. Buildings that size can only hold their own weight on close to a vertical plane. Tilt too far off that plane and the whole thing will fall apart.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Well, the towers were meant to flex and then return to their normal structure like they did when the planes hit, but if the destruction was just a little bit faster on one side, it would make the collapse unbalanced and it would most likely destroy one side and leave the other with considerably less damage. In that case, it would be a gradual collapse and the perimeter columns on the other side could still hold their own and a lot more of the build would be left.
fakeham 2 years ago
They could flex a little, like when the planes hit, or in a high wind, but they couldn't topple over like a tree. Too much off of vertical stresses and they would just fall apart.
So like with one of the towers the upper floors did tilt because one side collapsed faster, but once that one side collapsed the other side couldn't hold the weight for more than a second and then it collapsed too. Then once the upper floors fell on the lower floors that was all she wrote.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
and to use you as an example, the conspiracy nuts feed off the 9/11 BS and you feed off of them, you need them to "live" apparently so you can enact your form of justice by "debunking these bitches", but without them you wouldnt exist and you feed off of them an you have no real goal, so your kinda like a bottom feeder or a virus sucking at the foundation of truth, instead of consoling with your fellow man an going to distant to put his fear at ease you outcast him an deem him weird? your logic?
REVOLTbydesign86 2 years ago
Sorry
REVOLTbydesign86
the posting on this page seems to be all to cock.
stratocaster539 2 years ago 3
1000C ???? FOR A CARBON FIRE? don't talk rubbish!! Just what are you up to here because you are not making any sense at all? 'Proofers' what a strange bunch of adolescent nerds.You 'Manlove' for Mroberts has twisted your view of reality.Your weird.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Lol! What are you going on about "carbon fires?" Your ignorance is typical for truthers . It's most likely that every fire you have ever encountered in your short little life has been a "carbon fire." The fire from an acetylene torch is a carbon fire.
Typical truther--obstinately ignorant and too stupid to realize just how ignorant you really are.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Answer the question Mystylplx. Either confirm your'e a coward or back off while the goings good.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
The question is so stupid I don't even know how to answer it. Aluminum melts at a little under 700C. At that temp it doesn't visibly glow. Get it up to a little under 1000C and it does visibly glow.
So what is your question? Are you unaware that regular old office fires get that hot? And this wasn't even just a regular office fire.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
C'mon 'proofer' contradict yourself again -it's entertaining.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
The truth is you are a useless liar.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
So the metal at the towers was a few hundred degrees hotter? How is that possible?and why does it stay orange while it is falling through the air? You don't half talk a load of crap.
Explain how carbon fire can burn a 'few hundred degrees hotter'.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
"So the metal at the towers was a few hundred degrees hotter? How is that possible?"
The fact you could even ask a question that stupid illustrates my point quite well for me.
Thank you.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Stop using that idiotic childish word 'truther' it means nothing in the real world.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
And just like the above video PROVES - Aluminum is SILVER when molten!!!!
You will be saying the moon is made of cheese next.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Yet another picture of molten aluminum glowing. Again, a non 911 related site, and this time in lighting conditions more similar to what was on 911--(overcast day, outside, vs on 911 in the shade of a building with lots of thick black smoke in the air.)
eecueDOTcom/images_archive/eecue-images-21718-pouring_the_molten_aluminumDOThtml
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Where did you get that nugget of crap from? mark full of shit roberts?Boy is he making you all look like arsholes -deservedly so.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Don't even know who that is, but you obviously don't need any help to look like an asshole.
So basically you are still continuing to believe that aluminum doesn't glow? In spite of the entire field of physics saying you are wrong? And pictures and videos of aluminum glowing proving you are wrong?
Do you wonder why people make fun of truthers? Perhaps the most ironically named "movement" in the history of the world, "truth" is the last thing truthers are interested in.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
people don't make fun of 'truthers' (non existent word) they make fun of you because you talk complete and utter bullshit.Honestly, just what the hell do you think you are doing? Talking babble and quoting the great tourist guide idiot.Grow up and get a hobby you ignoramus - you people are an embarrassment to what is a very serious subject.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Typical truther, unwilling top face reality and too stupid to understand it even if you WERE willing.
Just at it's melting point aluminum is silver. Couple hundred degrees hotter and it glows. Don't strain your brain trying to understand that simple fact--it's too complicated for idiots.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Here's another science page discussing this concept--
homepagesDOTwmichDOTedu/~korista/color-bbDOThtml
The gist is (again) EVERYTHING glows unless it's at absolute zero. The wavelength it glows at depends on the material and the temp, so, for instance, room temp things glow in infrared. Get them hotter and the wavelngth shortens till they reach visible.
And metals all glow pretty much the same color at the same temp. AL is not the magic exception to this.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
And here's another video showing aluminum glowing.
v=AfWJrQyCkBw
Note that this also is a non 911 related video. Notice that the pot it's being poured from is also glowing at the same color, which is as you would expect, but the molten AL inside the pot is glowing significantly brighter and continues to glow as it is poured.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
please save my engine because it never melts even at constant speed of 125 mph
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
Here's an online physics text (unrelated to 911) that discusses this very subject.
You guys are in denial of reality.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Here's a little lesson for you kid.
to assume - makes an ASS out of U not ME. Another good one would be in CONDUCTIVITY.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Here's a lesson for YOU kid, that "ass out of U and ME" thing was old when your grandmother was sucking dinosaur dicks.
I'm not assuming anything. This is basic standard well agreed upon physics. You're the ones trying t refute science.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
I'm a truther? Wrong! I don't even know what the stupid word means!
Your an ignorant assuming fool.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
You're ignorant, one way or another. And LLCoolpass still can't grasp the very easy concept that it depends on temperature. Your engine never gets that hot. Any aluminum would melt long before it starts to glow anyway.
Brainiac.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
You think that taking a colour chart for heated iron and trying to pass it off as aluminum is research?
Trust me you a bigger stubborn git than me!
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Stay of the JREF, stop reading 'gravy's' rubbish.He's making you all look like idiots.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
it doesn't glow!!!! How many fuggin' times??Give it up now, you seriously need to exercise some damage limitation.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
You can deny science all you want. You can deny the pictures I showed of AL glowing all you want.
It says something about YOU that you do that, but heck, you're a truther.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Oh I just love it when a so-called 'debunker gets caught out because they have not researched their own bullshit.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
You are the ones who haven't researched. Stubborn ignorance is rather pathetic.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
And while your still here- what caused temps of 1800 at WTC? Answer it and stop side stepping!
stratocaster539 2 years ago
No one is side-stepping. You're the one trying to change the subject. I've already said 1800F temps are possible in regular office fires. And it wouldn't need that high temps to get AL to glow anyway, so you're the one obsessing about 1800.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
drjudywoodDOTcom/articles/alum inum/glowingDOThtml - your quote I beleive?
Get a life man - you have lost the plot!
stratocaster539 2 years ago
its not tru! it's just annoying you would come on here and fib like that. ignoring 911 bolgna. just on Al. look above, you see the Al disagree with you
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
LLCoolPass,
You are apparently not bright enough to grasp the concept. The glow is dependent on the temperature. Aluminum, right at it's melting point, isn't hot enough to glow. It glows at higher temps. The range of possible temps for molten aluminum is anything between its melting and boiling point. That's a WIDE range of possible temp.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Mystylplx - you have been questioned rationally on a well observed scientific phenomenon.Unfortunately the answers you have given are nothing more than contradictory contrary garbage.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
strato, the answers I've given are standard well observed basic science. I notice you can't refute them but instead resort to simply asserting nonsense.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
They have been refuted - look right and watch the experiments for yourself. Your debunking ignorance is impressing no one!
stratocaster539 2 years ago
They have NOT been refuted. If they had been those who did the refuting would revolutionize science. What's to the right is some very poorly designed experiments carried out by idiots who don't know what they are doing and?or don't understand that that molten aluminum doesn't glow right at it's melting point but needs to be at a higher temp than that.
This is really simple stuff here guys. You really have to be pretty stupid to not be able to get it.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
well, you 'debunkers' are really scraping the barrel.When will you get it into your thick little heads that NO ONE LISTENS TO YOU?
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Lol! No one listens to truthers. Well... except other truthers.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
1100 2012 Orange-red - your scientific analysis.
so, if you are referring to the spurting metal at WTC, just what exactly was creating such heat from a carbon fuel fire?
stratocaster539 2 years ago
I didn't quote her, I just showed some pictures she'd gathered of glowing aluminum. Just because she's a nutcase doesn't mean the pictures are bad.
And office fires easily get that hot. They can get as hot as 1800F. 1100 is EASY and typical. Heck, a cigarette lighter flame gets that hot or hotter.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
ah at last! dr judy wood!! look at my home page and get the truth about that idiotic bitch.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Well, she's a truther, so yeah she is an idiotic bitch. But she's right about this, and pictures don't lie.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
you quoted her buddy - not me.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Re: molten aluminum - 1800F!!!!
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Aluminum most certainly glows at 1800F. You can't see the glow under direct light because it's reflectivity overcomes it's emissivity (the reflection is brighter than the glow) but the glow is there, and you CAN see it under dimmer or indirect lighting conditions.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
the temps were 1800 in the wtc?
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
complete and utter bollocks! look to your right man! lots of examples right in front of you!
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Pictures of aluminum glowing--
drjudywoodDOTcom/articles/aluminum/glowingDOThtml
You guys need to go back and redo Jr. High school physics. This is basic basic stuff. Everything glows depending on temp. Aluminum is not the magic exception.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Don't be silly man. Show just one example of aluminum glowing like red hot steel. It can't and you know it. You claimed you could confirm it through scientific study. Show how exactly.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
That is completely false! You are just lying because you are not big enough to admit that you simply don't know.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
"That would explain the molten metal at the base of the towers for 2 months afterwards. "
No it wouldn't. Both thermite and thermate burn very hot and very fast. They release their stored energy within seconds, which is why they are so good at quickly melting through metals. They certainly don't sustain that heat for months. Not even for hours or minutes. If they could do something like that we'd be using them as a power source and there would be no energy crisis.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Normal welding doesn't heat aluminum up enough to glow. There's no point in getting it that hot for the purposes of welding. And the oxide coating is just that, a coating. The aluminum underneath melts at a much lower temperature and the coating doesn't protect it from that except for in cases like welding where the heat source is concentrated on the surface.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Nope it remains silver at any temperature.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
Nope. You dn't know what the hell you're talking about
Mystylplx 2 years ago
so you refute scientific study?
stratocaster539 2 years ago
I confirm scientific study. It's the people who say aluminum doesn't glow that are contradicting science.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Basically EVERYTHING glows at high enough temps. EVERYTHING. It's called 'black body radiation." Even clouds of hot diffuse hydrogen (called nebula's) glow. Rock (called lava) glows. Everything in the universe glows at high temp.
Basic physics.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
when near the molting point its still silvery looking
but when you go to really high temperature the Al starts to look more red hot, but I do not have a chart in front of me to tell you the temp where this starts to happen
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
"...but I do not have a chart in front of me to tell you the temp where this starts to happen "
Same temps as steel. Same color too. The difference is steel has a much higher melting point, so starts to glow even before it's melted, while aluminum, with its much lower melting point, doesn't start to glow until it's well past melting.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
now that's absolutely not true! how can you say that?
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
Because it's absolutely true. You can deny it all you want, but facts are facts.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
Mystylplx 2 years ago
The aluminum seems to have more of that orange-red color where it's near the back of the heating vessel and this is because the aluminum is reflecting the interior color emitted by the vessel itself.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Someone who must have very special talking-head genetics recently said "cock-fighting."
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
lol i love you people.
your all cock-fighting about who is right about a color of a hot metal.
you people just made my day
enasniT 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
+ A MESSAGE FROM 9-11 VICTIMS
+ Being murdered is bad
+ Even worse is being murdered by our own nation's military ..(see Operation Northwoods)
+ But far worse is that our souls are also sacrificed to conduct the planned savage & barbaric genocidal aggression upon tens of millions of innocents. And to begin a Nazi-style Fanaticism (GWOT) against these noble civilizations. Manipulating even our own families into looking away from the truth.
Imagine
Nazi fanaticism - American style
4aaaaa4 2 years ago
You're an idiot. Crack a physics text. Look up 'black body radiation.' Iron has nothing to do with the color, temperature and only temperature determines the color hot objects glow at. Iron and steel have a higher melting point than aluminum, which is why they start glowing BEFORE they melt and just at its melting point aluminum doesn't glow at all.
But at 1800F aluminum glows EXACTLY the same color as iron or steel. This is high school physics, folks. Sad so few understand it.
Mystylplx 2 years ago 2
THANK YOU!! What some people dont seem to realize is that the color of molten materials is based off of the temperature, not the material itself, as any high school physics student would know. THANKU! lol
Franko94 2 years ago
"Actually both happened. It wasn't thermite keep in mind. It was thermate. If you take out just the central beams with thermate it will cause the building to collapse."
Why bother with the thermate when you can just use the shaped charges which are much more efficient and reliable?
(And if exploding charges were used AT ALL they should be able to be heard audibly for quite some distance, probably miles. Near the towers the sound should be overwhelming. Why don't we hear it?)
mike4ty4 3 years ago
True that. Watch (and listen to) videos of real CD's and it's unmistakable--popopopopopopop! like a REALLY loud popcorn maker that starts BEFORE the building starts to fall and continues. There was nothing remotly resembling that on 911.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
i was under the impression that uncontrolled or "dirty" burns could only reach a MAXIMUM of 1800. is that untrue? if it is true then what makes people think the towers even got that hot? WTC was showing all the characteristics of a oxygen starved fire, few visible flames and a dark black smoke emanating(not to mention the people standing in the impact area, where fires should have been hottest, not burnt or scorched). that suggests much cooler fires. any thoughts? keep it civil please.
The4LA2Baker0 3 years ago
That's untrue, but even 1800F is hot enough to get aluminum to glow, depending on lighting conditions. Aluminum has relatively low emissivity compared to its reflectivity, so in direct sunlight (as in the video above) it appears silvery, but in the shade of a building with lots of thick black smoke in the air (as on 911) you can see the glow.
As for the heat of the fires--it wasn't uniform. Each floor is an acre, remember. The black smoke was from burning plastics, not oxygen starvation.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
they had to make it look like real attack instead of a controlled demolition, the planes hitting the towers was just a cover for destroying the buildings, they had to blow it up in a way to make it look fantastic but not do alot of damage to other buildings except the world trade center complexes.
firewarrior343 4 years ago
(#5) Why even BOTHER with thermite anyway? A real demolition is done with shaped charges, which are way more compact (but then again they make sounds that weren't heard on 9/11 when they're set off. One way you do it (thermite), people should see it. The other way (high explosive), people should hear it (and cameras, too!). Neither happened on 9/11).
mike4ty4 4 years ago 2
Not to perpetuate any conspiracies but if you review some of the news footage of the towers coming down there appears to be explosions on the lower floors of the building, and witnesses (as well as the radio chatter before the emergency band went mostly dead due to the lost antenna) said they heard multiple explosions separate from the obvious fires.
GrEmLiN76X 4 years ago
hearing explosions and actual explosions are very diffrent..... most of the people on ground zero that day have never heard an explosion, the only place they have ever seen an explosion is probrably the cinema.
as far i can see (on the video's showing those explosion) they dont look anywhere strong enough to cut trough a I-beam. (even if it where shaped charges)
silendshade 4 years ago
(#4) All those "odd" patchings of the walls and stuff? No bags piled up anywhere where the walls couldn't hold it? Were the unused floors evenly-spaced throughout the building (evenly enough for a "Controlled" demolition)? -cont'd in #5-
mike4ty4 4 years ago
(#3) for weeks and weeks after the attack (there's another explanation though that does not involve thermite), it would take TEN YEARS at that rate. To get it done in 1 year would take 50 tons, every day. 6 months, 100 tons/day, every day. For 6 months and every 7 days instead of every day, it would take 700 tons/day or 30 tons/hour. (For only 2200 tons it would still take 70 tons/day and 3 tons/hour.) You sure nobody would see that? And what about after it's all planted? -cont'd in #4-
mike4ty4 4 years ago
(#2) it on the columns, etc. And 2200 tons is a woefully low estimate when you consider that there also has to be enough thermite there to keep the steel molten for weeks/months after the collapse as people have been saying.
"It doesnt all have to be brought in at once, strange construction was heard for weeks/months before 9/11."
Was it heard every day, for the entire year before 9/11? Remember, -cont'd in #3-
mike4ty4 4 years ago
-cont'd from part 3- Would be a lot easier to just sneak a Nuclear Bomb into the basement and set it off the next day. Even a SADM ("backpack nuke") would've done way more destruction.
mike4ty4 4 years ago
-cont'd from part 2- information in that video (it was said that the "facts have not been made public", which CONVENIENTLY makes it 100% uncheckable. That's the biggest problem with my investigations into these 9/11 allegations -- a frustrating lack of sources to V the info.)? In addition, a single weekend or even a week is a silly-short amount of time to load 2200+ tonnes (around 2400 English short tons) of materials into the building without anyone noticing. -cont'd in part 4-
mike4ty4 4 years ago
-cont'd from part 1- it would probably be. It is roughly the amount needed to melt a 1-meter section of column, all 40 core columns, on *25 of the floors per tower*, assuming *all* the energy from the thermite went into the columns (so the actual amount is likely going to be HIGHER, not lower. Wouldn't be surprised if it took twice this much, like 4400 tons or so.). Also, are there any verifiable sources for the -cont'd in part 3-
mike4ty4 4 years ago
Realize the 9/11 coverup is ONGOING, with many LYING SHILLS devoting HUGE AMOUNTS OF TIME AND ENERGY attempting to "debunk conspiracy theorists" while they fantatically support the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.
You may even spot some of the LYING SHILLS working to defend the mass murderers Bush and Cheney here on YouTube. Just look below...
.
GordonBlowhard 4 years ago
@mike4ty4
hey man, you seem to be working hard putting up those straw men, and then knockin' them down like a real smart 'official conspiracy theorist'
grozlz 4 years ago
"hey man, you seem to be working hard putting up those straw men, and then knockin' them down like a real smart 'official conspiracy theorist' "
If you're questioning the "2200 tons" figure, I could go through the details, but it'll have to be in a private message as posting multi-part comments here is just a chore.
mike4ty4 4 years ago
Furthermore if it was burning that would explain the bright yellow-white incandescence now wouldn't it? Hah, you just shot yourself in the foot with that comment.
mike4ty4 4 years ago
"However when aluminium is molten as shown above, it pours as a silvery coloured mixture even when heated up to 850 degrees C. Do you agree? "
At around that temperature it would probably glow significantly. It's just that in this video they didn't heat it up that hot. And it's not a "mixture" by the way, it's an element. (look on the periodic table.) I would be really curious to see an experiment where aluminum has been dumped in a building that's lit on fire to see how hot it really gets.
mike4ty4 4 years ago
850 deg C. Is most likely past Aluminums burning point.
Truthicon333 4 years ago
What is the burning point, anyway (not boiling point, but burning point like you said)? And furthermore what was falling out of the WTC could have been burning, after all that large a quantity of aluminum does not just burn up instantaneously, as it's not an explosive! Furthermore you admit metal can burn. Why can't you admit the steel might have ignited in the piles and created the molten pools everyone's hooting about?
mike4ty4 4 years ago
Steel is totally different from aluminum. I think those pools WERE molten steel! In order to reach energy levels high enough to melt steel it would require high explosives or incendiaries like thermite.
Truthicon333 4 years ago
And this incendiary stuff would have to keep burning for months and months. Do you have any idea how much that would take? And I'm supposed to believe the government loaded the towers with many, many, many tons of this stuff without _anyone_ noticing all those boxes stacked up everywhere with wires coming out?
mike4ty4 4 years ago
1) There were suspicious shut downs the week before 9/11 for "cable upgrades". All security systems were down during this period.
2)Most of the floors in the WTC were vacant, so why not just put it on those floors?
3)WTC was equipt with access ports for wiring and inspections of the structure that could allow this wiring to be fed through the whole building without notice.
4)There was lots of dust noticed around the WTC the week of 9/11, as if some type of drilling/destruction was going on.
Truthicon333 4 years ago
1) That's nowhere near the time needed to rig up a buildign full of 2,200 tons of thermite, OK? Even at an impressive 5 tons per day it would take over a year of constant work.
2)Do you know exactly how many vacant floors there were? And you still have to go through the non-vacant floors to get to the vacant ones.
3)Perhaps, but someone should've noticed all the activity.
4)Do you have some sources for this claim?
mike4ty4 4 years ago
Here are people reporting the strange activity. Oh and I dont think they would rig the whole building with thermite, perhaps just to melt away the incredibly strong core columns.
/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8
dudepal187 4 years ago
"Here are people reporting the strange activity. Oh and I dont think they would rig the whole building with thermite, perhaps just to melt away the incredibly strong core columns."
My figure was not based on an assumption of rigging the entire building, just on the core columns. They're BIG, those columns -- they'd take a LOT of thermite to melt them in enough places to give a "controlled" collapse. 2200 (metric) tons is actually lower than it -cont'd in part 2-
mike4ty4 4 years ago
So? They have the power, potential, and motive to set a controlled demolition. Why shouldnt they be able to place thermite in the building? It doesnt all have to be brought in at once, strange construction was heard for weeks/months before 9/11.
dudepal187 4 years ago
(#1)
"So? They have the power, potential, and motive to set a controlled demolition."
But the question is not that they could set it up, but that they could set it up _without being seen_. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, saw them trucking in truckloads of thermite to bring down the towers, or loading it onto the freight elevators, or planting -cont'd in #2-
mike4ty4 4 years ago
"/watch?v=VE9moGyrzgs"
That's an interesting clip, alright. I'd still need to see the sources for the footage to verify it's aluminum. But it could still be since any metal will glow red hot if heated to the right temperature.
mike4ty4 4 years ago
"Cool. Its a long story."
But you couldn't give a condensed version, or just the name of the video? Or you don't remember the name?
mike4ty4 4 years ago
"Sorry I revoked that- see below. "
Just saw it.
mike4ty4 4 years ago
"Scuse me- my bad- I typed without looking at the vid- I thought it was another video where the guy claims the molten metal is aluminium when in fact it is clearly steel. This is aluminium (8-)) and it pours silver when molten. "
Alright. What is this video that shows steel, anyway?
mike4ty4 4 years ago
"This is not aluminium. Aluminium does not pour orange/red when molten it remains silvery. "
If you heat it up hot enough it will. As something heats up the bias in the emitted wavelengths of EM radiation shifts to higher frequencies, like light.
mike4ty4 4 years ago
"Molten aluminium pours silver. Steel pours bright orange."
Actually steel pours a more of a yellow-white color. If you look at the area of the crucible shaded by it's shadow you can see the aluminum is in fact glowing red here. What's your point, anyway?
mike4ty4 4 years ago