Merged Molten metal observations

[dafydd]

So if they don't find evidence of something after an exhaustive investigation, instead of moving to the next most plausible culprit they need to investigate even more on one thing they eliminated because the lack of evidence is in itself suspicious? What a bizarre way to put things...

Quite normal in Trutherland. They do things differently there.

 

[dafydd]

That's why murderers always benefit from a disappeared body. No body no crime. That doesn't mean there was no murder.

Who are you accusing of murder? Are their names in your draft?

 

[Java Man]

Your post without the perfection fallacy:

BEGIN POSTEND POST

As if the accepted narrative rests solely on this 'missing beam.' As if doubt of the precise mode in which a particular building collapsed has any bearing on the overal conclusion that 19 Islamic radicals hijacked 4 aircraft and crashed them into buildings, faling in one attempt.

Let us see. The accepted narrative is based on:

radar data
CVR recordings
ATC recordings
video evidence
photographic evidence
DNA evidence
FDR data
other physical evidence
eyewitness accounts
computer modeling
science


The twoof is based on:

BEGIN EVIDENCEEND EVIDENCE


The twoof has lost. It is pathetic parody of a delusional movement.


The above provided as a free service.

So now since you can't argument against my points you're trying to rewrite them? You seem to be addressing the beam in WTC 7 while I'm talking about the simulations run on WTC 1 & 2.

I'm also not denying the hijackers. So why challenge that if I'm not? Are you?

 

[NoahFence]

So now since you can't argument against my points you're trying to rewrite them? You seem to be addressing the beam in WTC 7 while I'm talking about the simulations run on WTC 1 & 2.

I'm also not denying the hijackers. So why challenge that if I'm not? Are you?

Are you under the impression that they^tm planted explosives that can survive the impact of those jets?

 

[Java Man]

Are you under the impression that they^tm planted explosives that can survive the impact of those jets?

No, are you? If not so and if I haven't mentioned such nonsense either, why are you bringing this up? Are you trying to derail the conversation?

 

[NoahFence]

No, are you? If not so and if I haven't mentioned such nonsense either, why are you bringing this up? Are you trying to derail the conversation?

settle down....

I'm just trying to gauge why in your opinion these small details are so important. Simple curiosity I guess.

 

[Java Man]

settle down....

I'm just trying to gauge why in your opinion these small details are so important. Simple curiosity I guess.

Well you brought the whole 19 terrorist thing to the table when I've never made reference to them in this thread. So tell us what lead you to believe I was something along the lines of a no terrorist no planer supporter?

 

[Java Man]

So nobody up for grabs on the questions I put forward?

 

[carlitos]

thermite cutter charges

LOLwut?

 

[NoahFence]

Well you brought the whole 19 terrorist thing to the table when I've never made reference to them in this thread. So tell us what lead you to believe I was something along the lines of a no terrorist no planer supporter?

Maybe you can answer the question I've put forward a few posts back. How can aluminum or a mix of other alloys that melt at a lower temperature create a vertical wall of incandescent material as seen in the video?

Stuff like that. It's the constant harping on irrelevant details that define a 9/11 truther. You got an answer to that, and it wasn't good enough for you.

In case you missed it, it was gravity.

 

[Java Man]

Stuff like that. It's the constant harping on irrelevant details that define a 9/11 truther. You got an answer to that, and it wasn't good enough for you.

In case you missed it, it was gravity.

I got "Gravity?", which more than an answer looks like a question missing an explanation. I'm not quite sure what the member meant by that or how molten metal would stay in a vertical shape under the influence of gravity. Shouldn't it puddle?

 

[NoahFence]

Why are these details so important to you?

 

[Java Man]

Why are these details so important to you?

To understand what we are seeing in the video. Shouldn't that be obvious? I'm quite confident the veracity of your counter arguments and answers would not be undermined by the importance I lay on these details. Right? Why don't you just answer the question?

 

[NoahFence]

To understand what we are seeing in the video. Shouldn't that be obvious? I'm quite confident the veracity of your counter arguments and answers would not be undermined by the importance I lay on these details. Right? Why don't you just answer the question?

The question has already been answered.

What was the substance pouring out of the tower?

Most likely metal of some sort. Steel? No. Perhaps plastic, perhaps glass, I don't know. I'm not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV - but I do know, for a fact, that it's irrelevant. Finding out what it is precisely will not further anybody's narrative.

So there - I answered your question. Are you going to continue asking people to answer a question that's been answered already for years? Or are you going to move on?

 

[Java Man]

The question has already been answered.

What was the substance pouring out of the tower?

Most likely metal of some sort. Steel? No. Perhaps plastic, perhaps glass, I don't know. I'm not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV - but I do know, for a fact, that it's irrelevant. Finding out what it is precisely will not further anybody's narrative.

So there - I answered your question. Are you going to continue asking people to answer a question that's been answered already for years? Or are you going to move on?

No you haven't answered the question. The question is regarding the ability of molten aluminum to remain in a vertical position. Let's look at the picture:

The green line surrounds the material that's clearly falling. The red surrounds an area which is incandescent and the source of the material in the green. Now if it is molten aluminum or glass how can it remain vertical. Shouldn't have pooled and we should just see the material as it pours out and not the incandescent wall?

Looks more like something is actively affecting the vertical surface and it is pouring down. In other words melting it as we watch. Considering the video was shot from ground level many stories below the "crucible" it should be very hard to see the bottom of the molten pool from such a low observation point.

 

[NoahFence]

Whatever it was probably had low viscosity. Maybe it was more like molasses than it was water. Who knows.

Again, why is this so important to you? What are you trying to prove?

(or are you immune from answering questions yourself?)

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
You seem to have missed it where you have been asked "What causes you to assume the molten material is steel?"
Its been pointed out that molten aluminum is present on many other fires.

I did not say molten steel I said

"none of them had pools of molten metal in their basements" Aluminum melts in a barbecues if it is of a thin enough gauge. In fact if the fire is hot enough long enough Aluminum will actually start to vaporize. But regardless of that point I have no proof that aluminum or any other metal in any other fire in history had any substantial quantities like were found at 9/11.

In fact I know of no structural fire to even compare it with. If you have one please provide me the link so I can be amazed at my error and educated correctly by the provision of your link.

In this latest case 'your error' would be in claiming that you "did not say molten steel"

Here is my take on that. Great video link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm8-COJwzis

The video above focuses on the fire, the molten steel for 3 weeks in the basements of all three buildings and molten steel coming from the window before the collapse. Only a dislodged Thermite pre-demolition cutter charge that was still operational could cause molten steel to come out of the window. It was one of the bloopers of the 9/11 planners that failed for those smart enough to understand what they are looking at, when they see the molten steel pouring out the window. It is the 9/11 smoking gun. Unpressurized Jet fuel burns at about 800 degrees. That's it 800 degrees tops, yet it takes 1600 degrees to melt steel. Watch the video at the top for more information. After you watch the 9/11 video at the top ask yourself then answer to yourself the following questions.

Question 1: What is causing the molten steel to pour out the window of the towers shown in the first minute in the video above?

Question 2: At what temperature does industrial grade structural steel melt?

Question 3: What is the highest temperature possible for Jet fuel?


For more click link below

.
Why has no molten steel in large quantities ever been found in other structural steel building fires that burned hotter and longer?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

Did you just forget you posted this in which you refer to the claim in the video and ask the questions regarding molten steel, AND that you refered to molten steel in the very post I quoted in my own post?
, or is this a deliberate lie? (I am open to other explanations if you have one that makes sense)

 

[Java Man]

Whatever it was probably had low viscosity. Maybe it was more like molasses than it was water. Who knows.

Again, why is this so important to you? What are you trying to prove?

(or are you immune from answering questions yourself?)

Well I'm trying to prove that it couldn't be aluminium because it couldn't have that shape. On the other hand steel having a much higher melting point could be incandescent in a vertical position as parts of it are melted away by thermite.

For example in this picture http://www.loupiote.com/photos/26781935.shtml You clearly see how it is necessary to have a view from above to see the molten metal in the crucible.

In this picture http://www.loupiote.com/photos/26781866.shtml the molten material is hardly visible as our view approaches the level of the molten metal. It is clear to see how hard it would be to see said molten material pool from the street. Notice also how the bottom of the crucible is no longer as hot as the pouring material. Something we don't see in the video. The wall has the same brightness and color as the falling material.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well I'm trying to prove that it couldn't be aluminium because it couldn't have that shape. On the other hand steel having a much higher melting point could be incandescent in a vertical position as parts of it are melted away by thermite.

For example in this picture http://www.loupiote.com/photos/26781935.shtml You clearly see how it is necessary to have a view from above to see the molten metal in the crucible.

In this picture http://www.loupiote.com/photos/26781866.shtml the molten material is hardly visible as our view approaches the level of the molten metal. It is clear to see how hard it would be to see said molten material pool from the street. Notice also how the bottom of the crucible is no longer as hot as the pouring material. Something we don't see in the video. The wall has the same brightness and color as the falling material.

If molten aluminum cannot be "incadescent" at the temps of an office fire how do you explain the fact that the flames of the fires themselves do give off visible light in not only this fire but in all fires?

Furthermore would you have a picture of molten steel being poured in direct sunlight?

 

[dafydd]

Well I'm trying to prove that it couldn't be aluminium because it couldn't have that shape. On the other hand steel having a much higher melting point could be incandescent in a vertical position as parts of it are melted away by thermite.

For example in this picture http://www.loupiote.com/photos/26781935.shtml You clearly see how it is necessary to have a view from above to see the molten metal in the crucible.

In this picture http://www.loupiote.com/photos/26781866.shtml the molten material is hardly visible as our view approaches the level of the molten metal. It is clear to see how hard it would be to see said molten material pool from the street. Notice also how the bottom of the crucible is no longer as hot as the pouring material. Something we don't see in the video. The wall has the same brightness and color as the falling material.

Where did you study metallurgy and what are your qualifications?