Well...if you claim my post has errors...why aren't you correcting my mistakes...instead of asking me for more information to prove these things, which you already know are errors, are true? How can I prove an error to be true? Where is the logic, here?
Actually, as many have pointed out on this forum, I do not need to correct you; you need to provide evidence for your contentions, which you did not do, as I already said (I repeat for your convenience):
(1) You did not provide evidence that 1000 C was the absolute maximum temperature possible (I believe NIST says its the likely upper temperature or something, but that doesn't rule out higher temps);
(2) nor did you provide evidence that hotter metals "hop and dance," or however you whimsically phrased it. Please provide those evidences.
But excuse me; I misspoke when I said there were "so many errors." This whole passage (re-posted below) is one long exercise in thinking in a non-logical, nonsensical way. This passage, in other words, IS one long error.
Therefore, not only is it not my job to "correct your mistakes." It would also require throwing out your whole passage of drivel, asking you what you were trying to say, and rewriting it from scratch. Do you know what you were trying to say?
I think, in reality, as in most of your posts, you are trying not to arrive at any true understanding of the events in the towers, but rather to "spin" the "facts" (i.e., any factoids that you can assemble from YouTube, regurgitations of NIST on truther sites, etc.) to favor your "PET" theory.
So, no, I cannot and refuse to "correct your mistakes," because your whole mode of thinking is a mistake, and only you can correct that.
Thanks.
Another point I need to stress. Even if you want to say that this molten metal (pouring from WTC 2) is aluminum mixed with ambers of other burning materials....still, NIST clearly states that the hottest temperatures on those impacted floors, were around 1000°C - so while aluminum melts at around 660°C - it will NOT appear red or orange at this point...but most importantly...it CANNOT have the type of reaction we see from the molten metal pouring from WTC 2. BY reaction, I am referring to the way the molten metal pops and dances...kind of like a sparkler or something you may see from a welder. These are clear signs of extreme heat at work...much hotter than 1000°C, the hottest temperature available on those floors.
No, in order to get a molten metal to react like that...you need massive amounts of heat (i.e. furnace) like those caused by a thermite reaction. So just going by complete and utter scientific facts [sic] ...we can determine, just by visually observing the BEHAVIOR of that molten medal....that it is burning hotter than the 1000°C maximum temperature available on those floors. Which means...that something else must have been present in order to generate the heat needed to cause that type of reaction in the molten metal. Something else like a chemical reaction...from thermite.
