Molten and Glowing Metal

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Well first of all let us bear in mind that what they say is not necessarily what it IS. ...
Those confirm that the temperatures were NOT anywhere near 1000 degrees.
Argue it if you like, you are arguing NIST and FEMA not me. You are arguing real science not me.
The statement was 'even NIST concluded temperatures did not reach temperatures high enough to melt aluminium.'
This is shown to be false by NIST's own statements on the matter. Simple.

The question of what the temperatures actually are, is a different one. Saying normal office fires don't reach higher temps, therefore because these fires were in an office, that proves they didn't reach higher temperatures, is really weak.
For one thing, what on earth was 'normal' about these 'office fires'?
 

Bmead

Member
I concede overkill there but as you know, you like to beat me with 6 2x4's not one, so i have to be clear as i can.

What is Normal is actually as you insinuate, probably NOT normal. The jet fuel aspect is a total irrelevance because of it being burnt off so soon and its distinct minimal amount.
But when i say normal, i mean of course the burning of wood and paper etc. Which burn within certain ranges, and of course oxygen and pressure ranges

At 1000 feet the oxygen content diminishes about 3 %
Air temperature decreases too by abt 3 degrees per 1000 feet
And pressure too decreases
All of which actually combine to make a fire at that height lower in temperature than a large open air fire at ground level. And due to the severence of piping for sinks and toilets and the spriklers, there was water in many places (witnesses too) and so this required more heat to cause ignition of things.
Effectively meaning that once offices ignited, they very quickly consumed the available oxygen and the steel acting to raidiate heat throught the ENTIRE building as steel does radiate heat and conduct it. It quickly brings us to a office fire which we realise is not "normal" as in like any other lower building office fire, it is actually much lower in temperature and so not "normal" at all
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I concede overkill there but as you know, you like to beat me with 6 2x4's not one, so i have to be clear as i can.

What is Normal is actually as you insinuate, probably NOT normal. The jet fuel aspect is a total irrelevance because of it being burnt off so soon and its distinct minimal amount.
But when i say normal, i mean of course the burning of wood and paper etc. Which burn within certain ranges, and of course oxygen and pressure ranges

At 1000 feet the oxygen content diminishes about 3 %
Air temperature decreases too by abt 3 degrees per 1000 feet
And pressure too decreases
All of which actually combine to make a fire at that height lower in temperature than a large open air fire at ground level. And due to the severence of piping for sinks and toilets and the spriklers, there was water in many places (witnesses too) and so this required more heat to cause ignition of things.
Effectively meaning that once offices ignited, they very quickly consumed the available oxygen and the steel acting to raidiate heat throught the ENTIRE building as steel does radiate heat and conduct it. It quickly brings us to a office fire which we realise is not "normal" as in like any other lower building office fire, it is actually much lower in temperature and so not "normal" at all
You need to put actual numbers on your assertions there. How much lower? How much more heat? How quickly consumed? How much radiated? How much "not normal"?
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Pete Tar said:
How will that change that you saying NIST concluded temperatures were not high enough to melt aluminium is a falsehood?
Well first of all let us bear in mind that what they say is not necessarily what it IS. Remember this is the organisation that said they found no evidence of missiles or explosives. A statement that implies they looked. Now before choking out the well worn "there was non, no need to look" hokum, the point is 1. They did need to look based on many points but 2. They implied they did look. So what they say must be double checked. Remember they also said 12th floor east side of wtc 7 was on fire at a time that their own images said it was not. So we need to doubt them. So i base what i said off of what NIST said about the actual beams they tested.
That isn't the answer to the question.

Restating the question: why did you lie when you said that NIST stated the temperatures within the towers were insufficient to melt aluminum?

you can also base the temperatures achievable by what Jet fuel in OPEN AIR can achieve which is not 1000 degrees at all. We all know this it is the reason that combustion engines have oxygen fuel mixed together and under a pressurized system.
But the jet fuel was NOT in open air. It had a chimney. Six floors are seventy-two feet in height. Perhaps a chimney to the roof, seeing as it was closer than the basement, to which the fuel/air blast reached. It was a furnace.

And normal office fires also do not reach these temperatures.
But they do. Furnaces do even better.

If you read through NIST work (i do wonder if you have) you won't remember all of it
You do have a winning way with you.

they load the tests, ie, they set the temperatures around 1000 degrees to find the times it took to achieve creep. Which of course proves what happens at that temperature and how fast. What it does not do is prove the temperature. The ONLY thing that did is the actual tests on the steel.
Well, actually, the COLOR of the exposed steelwork within the buildings did it for me. What color do you see?

The actual temperatures acheivable by the jet fuel in open air (+ a whole lot of rubbish)
Go to show how far you have receded from reality.

You are arguing real science not me.
That's true.

By the kitchen molten aluminum pour test, i can see that the aluminum poured out as a silvery color
Then it wasn't hot enough. You too should read up Planck's Law. There are no exceptions to it.

If it was molten steel, or iron, as you stated
Don't worry about that. Neither steel nor iron are molten when orange in color.

Also i note the blue white color of flames - Does that not coincide with what Jazzy said, so this is a thermite induced fire?
I said blue/white liquid thermitic iron. Not flames.

(i am assuming it didn't have a hat truss)
Why?

Oh, and by the way, Bmead, thanks for not answering my points yet attempting to use them. A new low.

.
 
Last edited:

Mark Barrington

Active Member
Jazzy is right, anything that's not reactive (basically not burning) is basically going to glow with a color that is only dependent on its temperature. To my eyes, the aluminum in the kitchen test was glowing red, but it very quickly turned silver when it cooled. In any case, the crucible it was in was glowing orange, and if it were the same temperature as the crucible it would be glowing with the same color temperature. So, honestly, if you just watch the kitchen crucible test and don't listen to the narration, it, as far as I can tell, actually debunks the myth that molten aluminum does not glow at the temperature in the test. The fact that he used an infrared sensor to test temperature means that he was using the black body radiation of the molten metal to test its temperature. The diagram on the wikipedia page for blackbody radiation puts the color of a 1,000 C blackbody at orange-red, which looks like the metal in the crucible. When it's poured out, it very quickly cools to the phase change temperature, where it takes a bit longer to cool beyond that because of the energy released by the phase change from liquid to solid.

So, yes, Aluminum that is heated just to its melting point (660 C) does not glow orange, but at 1000 C it does. The kitchen crucible test does a good job of demonstrating that.

Mick raises the possibility that the cascade from the building may not be molten metal at all, but just a stream of burning material. That's certainly possible.

Edit: Black body radiation and Planck's Law are basically two different formulations of the same idea. Credit for Jazzy for bringing it into the conversation.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I see the point being repeatedly made that steel or iron is not actually liquid at the colour shown - the repetition confirms the wisdom in blocking whoever is being replied to, but I still thought I'd contribute this table from wiki's article on "Red Heat":

The colours which can be observed in steel are:[1]
Colour Temperature [°C]
Black red (when viewed in dull light) 426 to 593
Very dark red 593 to 704
Dark red 704 to 814
Cherry red (lower critical point) 815 to 870 (critical point depends on carbon content of steel)
Light cherry red 871 to 981
Orange 981 to 1092
Yellow 1093 to 1258
Yellow white 1259 to 1314
White 1315+
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
I see the point being repeatedly made that steel or iron is not actually liquid at the colour shown - the repetition confirms the wisdom in blocking whoever is being replied to, but I still thought I'd contribute this table from wiki's article on "Red Heat":

The colours which can be observed in steel are:[1]
Colour Temperature [°C]
Black red (when viewed in dull light) 426 to 593
Very dark red 593 to 704
Dark red 704 to 814
Cherry red (lower critical point) 815 to 870 (critical point depends on carbon content of steel)
Light cherry red 871 to 981
Orange 981 to 1092
Yellow 1093 to 1258
Yellow white 1259 to 1314
White 1315+
Thanks, Mike. I forget that others have some difficulty orientating themselves in this subject.

So I will add additional info.

The wind speed was 22 to 25 mph.

Black red (when viewed in dull light), 426 to 593 deg C, has in its mid-range the transition point temperature (475 deg C) above which the structural steel would start to creep if under load. The higher the temperature above that, the faster the rate of progressive collapse. The steel in question was, of course, LOADED.

The melt point of 0.2% carbon steel is over 1500 deg C. That's about 200 deg C HOTTER than when it turns WHITE.
 

Jason

Senior Member
But the jet fuel was NOT in open air. It had a chimney. Six floors are seventy-two feet in height. Perhaps a chimney to the roof, seeing as it was closer than the basement, to which the fuel/air blast reached. It was a furnace.
I see this pop up quite often in threads related to the fires in the Towers on this forum, and I wanted to know if this is purely an assumption, or something that NIST concluded in their report.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Everyone should be careful around self cleaning ovens

Overall, oven cleaning technology consists of three types:
Self-cleaning pyrolytic ground coat
The first reduces foodstuffs to ash with exposure to temperature around 500 °C (932 °F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_oven

Self-cleaning ovens use an approximately 900 degrees Fahrenheit (482 degrees Celsius)
http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/tools-and-techniques/question559.htm


That idea was already discussed extensively here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc7-fire-temperatures-and-effects-on-the-east-floor-system.2509/
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I see this pop up quite often in threads related to the fires in the Towers on this forum, and I wanted to know if this is purely an assumption, or something that NIST concluded in their report.
Neither. Does that work for you?
 

Bmead

Member
Right since NIST said temperatures observed did not exceed 250 degrees in any but 3 columns (they deem not to provide those) Then 250 degrees doesnt melt aluminium

And telling me that iron or steel do not glow any colour near what was observed is just a factually provable lie.

I have a winning way? Yes because i don't get a fair debate, i get twisting of what i say and changing the goal posts. It is alumium became, it was debris, became, it is something just not iron. Now i fail to see how since i have looked up multitudes of foundry images and thermitic reactions, now heading into hundreds, i am also going to speak to metallurgists and foundry workers, with not a mention of 9/11. But when i black and white it for you you will stretch the goal post a bit more.

And still what test will you or ANY do? None, the point you made Mark is that at 1000 degrees the aluminium is orange because the crucible is, but i am not saying it has to be red, what i said was, in multiple incidents i saw what appeared to be the reflection of the container/fuel etc, so ie if it was orange the liquid had a orange tinge, but did not match the orange tinge of the container exactly.
And when poured it poured silver and at what height? NOWHERE near 12 feet even.

So then if it is aluminium molten at 1000 degrees, then you are saying the heat in that window and all along that side was at 1000 degrees at floor level. After it dropped 36 feet it finally cooled. So, that directly contradicts the blatant fact we saw anyway.

There is no getting away from the following

The liquid is NOT glass.plastic.wood.paper
It is as best as can be determined a liquid
It is NOT aluminium
It is NOT aluminium with debris mixed in

That is provable and has been. That i will not argue again JAZZY we have seen plain as day, that a few inches drop turns Aluminium to silver colour at a ground level.

Now Mike-You are right i need more numbers. Unfortunately i cant jump 1000ft up and make two exact fires. So until i can conduct such test, all we can do is take the details and numbers i have given. And work out a ground based fire temperature and minus the factors. Which i will allow you to do so i can't be accused of lying

What we can also do is Jazzy can show how molten iron and steel never ever get to yellow or orange.

But you see i understand now, why you contest this. Steel needs such a high temperature to melt that it isn't that it cant be steel through a thermitic reaction that bothers you it is that the temperatures simply did not exist and you can't prove they did. And if they did there would be no accelerant or combustible that can provide that required thermal energy. So it starts breaking down the story, you have a finite balance of temperatures to work inside, hot enough to melt aluminium but not much cooler, but not much hotter than that either.

I should point out that i do not even suggest therite or anything even definitely steel. All i know is quite clear no it is not Aluminium, and yes steel and iron CAN match the colours and as they would do so at higher temperatures, they would drop much further before cooling to be invisible to the eye.

That is it. It could be some other material and show fairly what an why and i am happy. But lies like saying it was definitely 1000 degrees when the actual evidence says not, is selecting a statement to meet your wants rather than selecting the evidence to meet the need for proof

Just like NIST choosing to test at 1000 degrees instead of- Starting low to detect the lowest temperature sagging will occur and the degree of that, then seeing what temperature the beams got to. Then it would have said, hang on, that isn't right, most of these are no where near hot enough lets dig deeper

But i must apologise i came here via a link from a post and i am distracting myself from my pentagon work. Thanks and i will check back at a later stage to continue when i actually get around to wtc research
 

Mark Barrington

Active Member
Bmead, when you cite a temperature, please tell us what scale you are using? 1000F is very different from 1000C, so without knowing which one you're referring to, it's really impossible to reply to your posts. I'm actually having a hard time making sense of your post, since there seem to be a lot of ideas all jumbled together there.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
It is NOT aluminium
It is NOT aluminium with debris mixed in
That is provable and has been.
Can you back up a bit and show how this was proved again? I don't understand why it can't be aluminium, maybe I'm just not following the complexity of your argument.
And can you post where NIST say 250C, and also where it was referring to. They seemed to make it clear that temps up to 1000 were calculated.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I love the assumption that temps can't be higher. One can fire porcelain in a kiln fired with only wood. It has to be built correctly, with additional airflow.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Neither. Does that work for you?
I don't know why someone found your answer to be funny, I guess its over my head. So its a matter of fact to you, and I'm curious because it seems like something that could have definitely attributed to higher than normal temps in the office space, yet NIST doesn't put that detail in their report. Why? And when you refer to it acting like a furnace, are you implying it could've been hotter than suggested, possibly causing more damage to the steel than concluded. Or is it just your interpretation of how the fire played out based on your experience with office fires?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I don't know why someone found your answer to be funny,
I found it's terseness, and the fact that he answered your question yet didn't at the same time, amusing.
Sort of helpful and not at the same time. Don't overthink it.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I don't know why someone found your answer to be funny, I guess its over my head.
You could be right there. :)

So its a matter of fact to you, and I'm curious because it seems like something that could have definitely attributed to higher than normal temps in the office space
Yes, it is a matter of fact to me.

  • A 25 mph wind blowing on the fire isn't something you'll find happening often in fire test establishments, so already there's no direct means of comparison available from them.

  • The access for this blowing wind was blown-out windows on six floors - seventy-two feet.

  • The ignited fuel-air mix in a semi-confined space expanded, compressing the as-yet unburnt gases up to and beyond the point of self-ignition - like a diesel engine. The profoundly powerful blast thus produced was very deadly indeed and did account for the foyer and basement explosions. The same blast wave only had to travel half the distance to reach the roof, which it would have struck with at least double the pressure it achieved in the foyer and basement.

  • Witness accounts of the foyer and basement explosions apparently preceding the airplane's arrival are explained by the delay in the arrival of the aircraft noise due to its high Mach Number putting its apparent sonic position about as far behind the impact horizontally as the vertical distance between the impact and the foyer.

  • So there wasn't a single floor access to a restricted fire, but a seventy-foot multi floor perforation with a hundred-foot chimney. Quite different from truther-speak.

yet NIST doesn't put that detail in their report. Why?
The executives were compartmentalized and made to produce independent analyses. No-one was given the role of analyzing the intensity and development of the explosion flame, as far as I can see. Why they did so is anyone's guess. My guess is for efficiency reasons. ("cost/benefit" !)

And when you refer to it acting like a furnace, are you implying it could've been hotter than suggested, possibly causing more damage to the steel than concluded. Or is it just your interpretation of how the fire played out based on your experience with office fires?
It was definitely a chimneyed freely-fed fire - especially visible at the corner where the aircraft fragments melted. Especially invisible much higher up in the central core where it was creating irrecoverable damage.


@ Bmead. One thing at a time, please. Your post is unanswerable. Good luck with your "Pentagon work".

.
 
Last edited:

Bmead

Member
What you need to work on is making shorter posts. You are not going to get many readers with rambles.
I know but i am arguing 6 or 10 people and have to be 100% spot on whereas you guys just say NOPE and that is proof. So it is harder for me than you
 

Bmead

Member
Can you back up a bit and show how this was proved again? I don't understand why it can't be aluminium, maybe I'm just not following the complexity of your argument.
And can you post where NIST say 250C, and also where it was referring to. They seemed to make it clear that temps up to 1000 were calculated.
No i am sorry Pete,As goes aluminium i can't or i am am going to be bogged down in repetition in snappy one liners. The temperature proof is in what i already posted i provided the image and link to it.

It is all in the prior posts and when i actually get on to this subject in full i will devote a more detailed pointer to each

To those who think i am too long and jumbled, yes as i said to Mick, so i am but i have to be more accurate than you which means further in depth.
Ill look to improve on that
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I know but i am arguing 6 or 10 people and have to be 100% spot on whereas you guys just say NOPE and that is proof. So it is harder for me than you
You are free to focus. Your goal should not be to argue with as many people as possible, but to create a concise and rigorous argument that can be used to demonstrate your point.

Also consider you are perhaps labouring unnecessarily. If there's plenty of other things that the shower of sparks could be, then the minutia of how likely it is to be steel or aluminum is rather a moot point.
 

Jason

Senior Member
. This video was sent to me from a buddy of mine who obviously thinks 911 didn't go down the way the 911 commission report concluded. I need help debunking this because honestly I can't figure out what it is. The part of the video I'm referring to starts around 27 seconds. You can clearly see something streaming down the wall that looks like molten metal. It looks like a 2 story drop based on its surroundings. If its not metal what else could it be? It stays "red" hot for its entire descent as well, thats why I have a hard time writing it off as something other than metal...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
. This video was sent to me from a buddy of mine who obviously thinks 911 didn't go down the way the 911 commission report concluded. I need help debunking this because honestly I can't figure out what it is. The part of the video I'm referring to starts around 27 seconds. You can clearly see something streaming down the wall that looks like molten metal. It looks like a 2 story drop based on its surroundings. If its not metal what else could it be? It stays "red" hot for its entire descent as well, thats why I have a hard time writing it off as something other than metal...
It's from two days after the collapse. Likely something being cut with a thermal lance, and dripping slag. e.g.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Thanks, and that was my thinking. Does anyone know when they initiated cutting steel at the site, and where did they start.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks, and that was my thinking. Does anyone know when they initiated cutting steel at the site, and where did they start.
Almost immediately, as they were thinking there were people buried alive, and so they would remove various things to get access. Rescue efforts were round the clock from shortly after the collapse.
 
The molten steel flowing from the south tower is liquid iron a eutectic mixture of sulphur,iron and oxygen which lowers its melting point to 1000c , aluminium would have melted at 440c so it can't be aluminium and even if it were it would be silver.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Why couldn't it be aluminium? And I heard 660.3C.
If it can melt at that temperature, it can be liquid at higher temperatures too can't it?
It evaporates at 2327C.
And the temperature can be in a range anywhere up 1000C. (I read 1200C as another estimate for the highest)
It would just be runnier.

It's been claimed that it *would* actually be orange at 1000C.
Molten and Glowing Metal

I guess eutectic steel is a possibility, but the presence of liquidised steel hasn't been established yet.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
The molten steel flowing from the south tower is liquid iron a eutectic mixture of sulphur,iron and oxygen which lowers its melting point to 1000c , aluminium would have melted at 440c so it can't be aluminium and even if it were it would be silver.
Where did all the sulfur required to produce several tons of "eutectic iron" come from?

Making eutectic iron would have required either more time than was available (one hour) or that the iron were in small particles. It couldn't have been eutectic iron from thermite because that would have been produced at blue/white temperature (2,500 degrees Centigrade) and NOT have fallen outside the building (because it would have immediately melted and penetrated whatever it was resting upon).

Aluminum at 1000 deg C would NOT be silver in color. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_Law

Why must you make such mis-statements?

Why aren't you reading this thread properly?
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
It was a possibility in that I didn't know enough about the subject to confirm or deny it. I knew someone would.

(well, not someone, you, I knew it would be you) :)
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
(I read 1200C as another estimate for the highest)
For the sake of clarifying a minor point, this is what I meant (I was wrong 1100C is the highest estimate.)
Comes from
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It's interesting, isn't it? As an example of the tunnel vision of chemists without engineering experience.

The towers were assumed to have fallen without any frictional events.

What temperatures are achievable using friction? I will answer that for you.

The answer is ALL temperatures up to the point where the material experiencing friction changes its state, changing from solid to liquid or gas.

So steel can (and definitely will) reach its melting point of 1500 deg C, and ceramic alumina can (and definitely will) reach its melting point of 3000 deg C, etc.

Was there any friction when 100 steel floors fell up to 1350 feet past 200 steel columns, exposing a million square feet of steel-to-steel sliding contact at speeds of up to 180 feet per second?

Er, just maybe a tad, a smidgeon, eh? A Fermi calculation suggests that between ten and a hundred tons of steel microspheres per tower could have been frictionally-created.

This is on the topic of where and how some tower steel melted - in this case to form microspheres.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Yeah as that paper is about the apparently suspicious micro-spheres then that's an observation that has obvious relevance that wasn't made.
But NIST never foresaw the need to account for that (if one can call it a need) so never brought it up.

(edit)
Searching for NIST microspheres brought me to a page that offers traceable microspheres.
Why is that a thing?

 

Jason

Senior Member
Almost immediately, as they were thinking there were people buried alive, and so they would remove various things to get access. Rescue efforts were round the clock from shortly after the collapse.
Just out of curiosity, at what time did they decide this is no longer a rescue mission. Point being, they wouldn't have been cutting steal, especially with a thermal lance if they thought there could be people underneath the rubble. I mean we can clearly see the effects of the thermal lance, molten metal is falling away and sparks are flying everywhere. This wouldn't be prudent in a Rescue mission. The video above claims this was shot on the 2nd day, whether that is verifiable I have no Idea. Something else keeps bothering me, and its a bit off topic, so I apologize ahead of time. Why does it seem like a there are a lot of hyperlinks that come back as an error or its been removed. I find it frustrating when I try to research certain claims from all perspectives. I don't ever or "rarely" ever run into this when researching psuedoscientific claims. Is there already a CT for that as well?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just out of curiosity, at what time did they decide this is no longer a rescue mission. Point being, they wouldn't have been cutting steal, especially with a thermal lance if they thought there could be people underneath the rubble. I mean we can clearly see the effects of the thermal lance, molten metal is falling away and sparks are flying everywhere. This wouldn't be prudent in a Rescue mission. The video above claims this was shot on the 2nd day, whether that is verifiable I have no Idea. Something else keeps bothering me, and its a bit off topic, so I apologize ahead of time. Why does it seem like a there are a lot of hyperlinks that come back as an error or its been removed. I find it frustrating when I try to research certain claims from all perspectives. I don't ever or "rarely" ever run into this when researching psuedoscientific claims. Is there already a CT for that as well?
Rescuers cut steel all the time during rescue operations. They were probably more careful for the first few days though. Very few people were recovered alive.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Y...cetylene trapped&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false


http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...-the-trade/gasoline-oxygen-cutting-torch.html
There's lots of dead links around 9/11 because it's quite an old subject, and a lot of links go to personal pages. You can try archive.org
 
Where did all the sulfur required to produce several tons of "eutectic iron" come from?

Making eutectic iron would have required either more time than was available (one hour) or that the iron were in small particles. It couldn't have been eutectic iron from thermite because that would have been produced at blue/white temperature (2,500 degrees Centigrade) and NOT have fallen outside the building (because it would have immediately melted and penetrated whatever it was resting upon).

Aluminum at 1000 deg C would NOT be silver in color. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_Law

Why must you make such mis-statements?

Why aren't you reading this thread properly?
thats clearly not the case that it would be blue/white

Aluminium would be orange in colour at 1000 degrees but as the metal is already a liquid and is a flowing liquid it if were aluminium it would have melted at a temperature lower than 1000c and have already flown away from the heat source. Only aluminium contained to a crucible has managed to keep its orange yellow colour as experiments have shown , as soon as it is poured out onto other metals it loses it temperature and reverts to silver in colour instantly. Liquid Iron/Eutectic mixture doesnt display this effect.

Where is a source for sulphur, gypsum or thermate ? I think the gypsum has already been debunked so Thermate is the main suspect now.
 
Top