Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2017, 04:58 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 03:57 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
Quote:You don't get aluminum oxide just by melting aluminum.

Former blacksmith here.

Chas is correct.

You missed HMS Shefield and the exocet fired by the Super Etendard?

Good example.

Countries that had the misfortune to buy the US M-113 armored personnel carrier, made of aluminum (including the USA, in Vietnam) also had the misfortune to learn this chemistry lesson the hard way, when the vehicles were struck by certain types of shaped-charge antitank warhead.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
21-01-2017, 05:12 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2017 05:16 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 01:11 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(21-01-2017 12:55 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I never claimed that they built airplanes out of aluminum oxide you dumb fuck. Yes one of the products of thermite is Aluminum Oxide, correct and congratulations on finally figuring out how google works you twat, hyowever their are two rather large problems with your implication.

1.) There is nowhere even close to the amount of aluminum oxide that in the rubble that we should expect to find given the amount of thermite it would take to carry out your hypothesis that thermite brought down the buildings.
"Moreover, the thermite reaction is highly exothermic. Supposed evidence of thermite use is the presence of unreacted thermite in the WTC debris. This, however, comes as close to falsifying the hypothesis of thermite use as one can reasonably get: any place containing significant amounts of elemental aluminum and iron oxide (unreacted thermite), yet not far higher amounts of aluminum oxide and elemental iron (the reaction products), can be safely assumed to be not even close to where a thermite reaction recently occurred. This criticism has been "answered" by claiming that the unreacted "nanothermite" is indeed merely a trace residue. But this would require attaching some 100 metric tons[21] of thermite to the WTC buildings' structure,"

2.) Thermite is not the only way to create Aluminum Oxide, as all it takes is aluminum and an open flame hot enough to start oxidization. The aluminum of the jet, of which there was plenty, would have undergone partial oxidization when exposed to a significantly hot enough source....like say motherfucking jet fuel. That's not even taking into account all the office supplies, computers, and other materials present that are enough, by themselves and without aluminum oxide, which would cause molten aluminum to glow yellow.

Also not taking into account that we don't have to invent a jew conspiracy to make our story work. Go fuck yourself.

No, I'm really not you cum gargling piece of shit, I don't need fucking thermite to oxidize aluminum I just need aluminum and jet fuel to get it done.

Stop posting victory videos when you are losing a fight you incompetent cunt. I don't need to be reminded of your actions in your last debate.

No whiskey. You don't get aluminum oxide just by having a hot fire that's how you get 'molten' aluminum

This is how you get aluminum oxide. From wikipedia.

Production.

Aluminium hydroxide minerals are the main component of bauxite, the principal ore of aluminium. A mixture of the minerals comprise bauxite ore, including gibbsite (Al(OH)3), boehmite (γ-AlO(OH)), and diaspore (α-AlO(OH)), along with impurities of iron oxides and hydroxides, quartz and clay minerals.[14] Bauxites are found in laterites. Bauxite is purified by the Bayer process:
Al2O3 + H2O + NaOH → NaAl(OH)4
Al(OH)3 + NaOH → NaAl(OH)4
Except for SiO2, the other components of bauxite do not dissolve in base. Upon filtering the basic mixture, Fe2O3 is removed. When the Bayer liquor is cooled, Al(OH)3 precipitates, leaving the silicates in solution.
NaAl(OH)4 → NaOH + Al(OH)3
The solid Al(OH)3 Gibbsite is then calcined (heated to over 1100C) to give aluminium oxide:[6]
2 Al(OH)3 → Al2O3 + 3 H2O
The product aluminium oxide tends to be multi-phase, i.e., consisting of several phases of aluminium oxide rather than solely corundum.[10] The production process can therefore be optimized to produce a tailored product. The type of phases present affects, for example, the solubility and pore structure of the aluminium oxide product which, in turn, affects the cost of aluminium production and pollution control.[10]
For its application as an electrical insulator in integrated circuits, where conformal growth of thin film is a prerequisite and the preferred growth mode is atomic layer deposition, Al2O3 films were prepared by the chemical exchange between trimethylaluminum Al(CH3)3 and H2O:[15]
2 Al(CH3)3 + 3 H2O → Al2O3 + 6 CH4
H2O in the above reaction was subsequently replaced by ozone (O3) as the active oxidant and the following reaction took place:[16][17]
2 Al(CH3)3 + O3 → Al2O3 + 3 C2H6
The Al2O3 films prepared using O3 show 10–100 times lower leakage current density compared with those prepared by H2O.
Known as alundum (in fused form) or aloxite[18] in the mining, ceramic, and materials science communities, aluminium oxide finds wide use. Annual world production of aluminium oxide in 2015 was approximately 115 million tonnes, over 90% of which is used in the manufacture of aluminium metal.[6] The major uses of speciality aluminium oxides are in refractories, ceramics, polishing and abrasive applications. Large tonnages of aluminium hydroxide, from which alumina is derived, are used in the manufacture of zeolites, coating titania pigments, and as a fire retardant/smoke suppressant.

3 errors for whiskey.

(21-01-2017 01:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Aluminum burns, you dumb fuck. The fires were far hotter than the combustion point of aluminum, you ignorant fuck.

Throw an aluminum can in the backyard barbecue and watch it burn to ash.

Aluminum ash is not aluminum oxide. I believe what you are referring to is known as Aluminum Powder. Aluminum powder is used to make thermite.

However I am not familiar that you can turn aluminum into an ash. If you get something into a liquid stage then the next logical stage for it to go into is a gaseous stage.

So I'm gonna count this as 2 errors for Chas, unless you can prove me wrong. That molten aluminum goes from a liquid to a solid ash stage.

You just cited the process for how to turn ore into aluminum. Excellent. What does that have to do with combustion of aircraft aluminum in a JetA-fueled fire?

Fire is an oxidation reaction. Aluminum is reactive enough that its outer layer (if not painted or otherwise coated with an oxygen-proof layer) will form its own layer of aluminum oxide that prevents further reaction, underneath, in a very thin layer. But if you expose any type unreacted aluminum to enough energy in the presence of oxygen, it will oxidize rapidly-- a thing we like to call "fire".

The "ash" they're speaking of is a powdery residue of Al2O3, the end product of an aluminum fire.

They've also pointed out to you that thermite, which is a combination of "aluminum powder" (just another way to say aluminum metal ground down to powder size) and rust (Fe2O3), which releases its oxygen when exposed to heat. This oxygen immediately reacts with the monatomic aluminum in a highly exothermic reaction to produce Al2O3. This leaves elemental iron behind, as they have tried to point out to you. Not all reactions are perfect, either, so there would have been traces.

If an actual thermite reaction had occurred, to the degree required to make the amount of heat you're talking about for this collapse to be artificial, it would have required a large enough amount that the investigators would have been able to immediately identify the thermite reaction.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-01-2017, 05:16 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
I've built a model of the aeroplane. It is well known.

[Image: 91_2_b3.jpg]

Aluminium.

HMS Sheffield.

[Image: hms-sheffield-burning.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
21-01-2017, 08:52 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 01:11 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Aluminum ash is not aluminum oxide.

Yes, it is. It is what is left after aluminum burns.

Quote:I believe what you are referring to is known as Aluminum Powder. Aluminum powder is used to make thermite.

No, it isn't. It is the ash left after the aluminum burned. The aluminum oxidized - that's what burning means. Facepalm

Quote:However I am not familiar that you can turn aluminum into an ash. If you get something into a liquid stage then the next logical stage for it to go into is a gaseous stage.

You're not familiar with burning? Seriously? You are seriously ignorant.

Quote:So I'm gonna count this as 2 errors for Chas, unless you can prove me wrong. That molten aluminum goes from a liquid to a solid ash stage.

Your knowledge of chemistry seems that of a six-year-old.
Aluminum is the most common metal in the earth's crust yet it is never found in its elemental form. Why is that? Because it reacts so readily with oxygen and other elements.

"Aluminum burns when exposed to a flame, as it is a reactive and flammable metal. It burns in oxygen with a white flame and by forming aluminum trioxide."

If you burn aluminium in oxygen you will form the oxide.
The chemical formula for aluminium oxide is: Al₂O₃.
The balanced chemical equation is:
4Al + 3O₂ → 2Al₂O₃

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
21-01-2017, 09:17 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 08:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your knowledge of chemistry seems that of a six-year-old.

I think you're being overly generous.

Dodgy

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
21-01-2017, 10:09 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
LOL, you don't get aluminum oxide when you burn aluminum. OMG. It is an energetically favorable reaction. That's why it is used to make thermite. What the fuck do you think Thermite is? Aluminum and iron oxide powders. That's it. What a complete assclown and dumbfuck we have here.
have you tossed a beer can in a fire? it does not melt, It burns. The byproducts are heat and wait for it.......




drumroll






aluminum oxide.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like skyking's post
21-01-2017, 10:25 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 10:09 AM)skyking Wrote:  have you tossed a beer can in a fire?

In all fairness he's not old enough to drink beer yet.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
21-01-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(11-01-2017 03:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Are theists more likely to be conspiracy theorists than atheists...

Inconsequential. So-called conspiracy theorists—of any/all theist or atheist backgrounds—are equally deluded, gullible, ill-informed, psychotic etc.

(11-01-2017 03:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ... given the few people who have come on these forums who have openly called themselves conspiracy theorists the community here thus far has ostracized them for their beliefs, shunning them, and berating them.

Just as they rightly should be denigrated for their nonsensical, fantastical notions that have no place in any truly meaningful, fact-based debate.

(11-01-2017 03:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  While this could be due to the fact that atheists might be more skeptical...

There's no "might" about it. Atheists are—by nature and educated inclination—more skeptical than theists. In fact, many theist's lack of self-protective skepticism is what largely facilitates their acceptance of the absolutely preposterous idea of the existence of supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena.

(11-01-2017 03:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ... To be so opposed to the very notion that you chase away all those who come to you wanting to share with you their discovery just as you might try and share with theists your 'discovery' about god?

A conspiracy theory is not a "discovery" in any traditional sense. It's just an ad hoc, cockamamie litany of worthless factoids.

(11-01-2017 03:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ... Yet you seem to reject science, to reject the very thing you consider the pinnacle of reason.

Conspiracy theories have nothing at all to do with science. They're based solely on poor observation, scientific ignorance, selective manipulation of evidence, speculation, supposed inside knowledge, hearsay, misrepresentation, fear of the unknown, and even blatant lies.

(11-01-2017 03:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ... Do you still believe that OJ Simpson never murdered his wife? That Casey Anthony never murdered her daughter? Yet the evidence in said cases were no less than say the evidence indicating that the government orchestrated the September 11th attacks.

There is (to date) absolutely no evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government as a false flag operation.

(11-01-2017 03:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This pack mentality may also explain why it took so long for atheism to really take off and why it still is struggling to take hold in modern America...

Correction. Professor Tim Whitmarsh, a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge says in part: "Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world—raising considerable doubts about whether humans really are 'wired' for religion... atheism—which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon—was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilizations since. In fact, early societies were far more capable than many since of containing atheism within the spectrum of what they considered normal.

Whitmarsh says: "belief is actually 'as old as the hills'. Early examples, such as the atheistic writings of Xenophanes of Colophon (c570-475 BCE) are contemporary with Second Temple-era Judaism, and significantly predate Christianity and Islam. Even Plato, writing in the 4th Century BCE, said that contemporary non-believers were 'not the first to have had this view about the gods'.

And you limit your overall conclusions of atheistic take-up with your typically myopic viewpoint bounded by America's borders. At any rate, you're also obviously unaware that only 71% of the US population is Christian [Pew, 2014]. Things are a bit different here in Australia, where only 61% of the population is Christian—and 23% are atheists (no religion) [ABS, 2011]. And in a socially progressive country such as Norway, only 37% of the population believe in God, whilst 39% do not [Ipsos, 2016].

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
21-01-2017, 01:07 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Ya,all know fukin nothing bow down and worship CW NOW!!!!! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
21-01-2017, 09:34 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 05:12 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(21-01-2017 01:11 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No whiskey. You don't get aluminum oxide just by having a hot fire that's how you get 'molten' aluminum

This is how you get aluminum oxide. From wikipedia.

Production.

Aluminium hydroxide minerals are the main component of bauxite, the principal ore of aluminium. A mixture of the minerals comprise bauxite ore, including gibbsite (Al(OH)3), boehmite (γ-AlO(OH)), and diaspore (α-AlO(OH)), along with impurities of iron oxides and hydroxides, quartz and clay minerals.[14] Bauxites are found in laterites. Bauxite is purified by the Bayer process:
Al2O3 + H2O + NaOH → NaAl(OH)4
Al(OH)3 + NaOH → NaAl(OH)4
Except for SiO2, the other components of bauxite do not dissolve in base. Upon filtering the basic mixture, Fe2O3 is removed. When the Bayer liquor is cooled, Al(OH)3 precipitates, leaving the silicates in solution.
NaAl(OH)4 → NaOH + Al(OH)3
The solid Al(OH)3 Gibbsite is then calcined (heated to over 1100C) to give aluminium oxide:[6]
2 Al(OH)3 → Al2O3 + 3 H2O
The product aluminium oxide tends to be multi-phase, i.e., consisting of several phases of aluminium oxide rather than solely corundum.[10] The production process can therefore be optimized to produce a tailored product. The type of phases present affects, for example, the solubility and pore structure of the aluminium oxide product which, in turn, affects the cost of aluminium production and pollution control.[10]
For its application as an electrical insulator in integrated circuits, where conformal growth of thin film is a prerequisite and the preferred growth mode is atomic layer deposition, Al2O3 films were prepared by the chemical exchange between trimethylaluminum Al(CH3)3 and H2O:[15]
2 Al(CH3)3 + 3 H2O → Al2O3 + 6 CH4
H2O in the above reaction was subsequently replaced by ozone (O3) as the active oxidant and the following reaction took place:[16][17]
2 Al(CH3)3 + O3 → Al2O3 + 3 C2H6
The Al2O3 films prepared using O3 show 10–100 times lower leakage current density compared with those prepared by H2O.
Known as alundum (in fused form) or aloxite[18] in the mining, ceramic, and materials science communities, aluminium oxide finds wide use. Annual world production of aluminium oxide in 2015 was approximately 115 million tonnes, over 90% of which is used in the manufacture of aluminium metal.[6] The major uses of speciality aluminium oxides are in refractories, ceramics, polishing and abrasive applications. Large tonnages of aluminium hydroxide, from which alumina is derived, are used in the manufacture of zeolites, coating titania pigments, and as a fire retardant/smoke suppressant.

3 errors for whiskey.


Aluminum ash is not aluminum oxide. I believe what you are referring to is known as Aluminum Powder. Aluminum powder is used to make thermite.

However I am not familiar that you can turn aluminum into an ash. If you get something into a liquid stage then the next logical stage for it to go into is a gaseous stage.

So I'm gonna count this as 2 errors for Chas, unless you can prove me wrong. That molten aluminum goes from a liquid to a solid ash stage.

You just cited the process for how to turn ore into aluminum. Excellent. What does that have to do with combustion of aircraft aluminum in a JetA-fueled fire?

Fire is an oxidation reaction. Aluminum is reactive enough that its outer layer (if not painted or otherwise coated with an oxygen-proof layer) will form its own layer of aluminum oxide that prevents further reaction, underneath, in a very thin layer. But if you expose any type unreacted aluminum to enough energy in the presence of oxygen, it will oxidize rapidly-- a thing we like to call "fire".

The "ash" they're speaking of is a powdery residue of Al2O3, the end product of an aluminum fire.

They've also pointed out to you that thermite, which is a combination of "aluminum powder" (just another way to say aluminum metal ground down to powder size) and rust (Fe2O3), which releases its oxygen when exposed to heat. This oxygen immediately reacts with the monatomic aluminum in a highly exothermic reaction to produce Al2O3. This leaves elemental iron behind, as they have tried to point out to you. Not all reactions are perfect, either, so there would have been traces.

If an actual thermite reaction had occurred, to the degree required to make the amount of heat you're talking about for this collapse to be artificial, it would have required a large enough amount that the investigators would have been able to immediately identify the thermite reaction.

Combusting aluminum, to burn it.

Aluminum burns at over 6920°F

You guys are confusing burning metal with melting metal.

Secondly the thin ash like layer created from burning an aluminum can is indeed aluminum oxide created during a corrosion process with the oxygen in the air. This thin layer of aluminum oxide prevents the aluminum behind it from oxidizing as it serves as a sort of barrier. At least this is true so long as you aren't BURNING the aluminum.

Being half right still doesn't make you right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: