Merged Molten metal observations

Java Man said:
So I guess airport runways are full of office material? And coincidently so are all the airplane crash sites in the world! Or how else do airplanes burn as they do without the help of office furniture?

May I nominate you for a stundie? It's pretty clear that if an airplane burns on a runway it very well burns up inside a WTC tower. Even if the tower were stripped naked of any flammable material.
Click to expand...

Yes, by all means, nominate me for that. It would be funny, since that's exactly what you'd have to prove in order to justify your belief there should be a puddle of aluminum there. If you could magically make sure fire burned on a plane at over 800 C, it would turn into a puddle, yeah. But that's clearly not what happens in a plane fire, that is possible inside normal office building fire, as I demonstrated in my original post, explaining how we know how hot the fires were in wtc 2. End of story right!
 
Joey McGee said:
Yes, by all means, nominate me for that. It would be funny, since that's exactly what you'd have to prove in order to justify your belief there should be a puddle of aluminum there. If you could magically make sure fire burned on a plane at over 800 C, it would turn into a puddle, yeah. But that's clearly not what happens in a plane fire, that is possible inside normal office building fire, as I demonstrated in my original post, explaining how we know how hot the fires were in wtc 2. End of story right!
Click to expand...

Oh I see. So airplanes burning on the tarmac are doing so by magic tarmac fire and not "plane fire". LOL you truly are ridiculous. Look at the pictures and see how wrong you are. All those planes burned to ashes on the tarmac due to fire from their fuel and elements inside the fuselage and had nothing to do with office furniture.
 
Java Man said:
Oh I see. So airplanes burning on the tarmac are doing so by magic tarmac fire and not "plane fire". LOL you truly are ridiculous. Look at the pictures and see how wrong you are. All those planes burned to ashes on the tarmac due to fire from their fuel and elements inside the fuselage and had nothing to do with office furniture.
Click to expand...

:(

No the difference is that the fires aren't on the entire plane, they aren't all around it from every direction, they aren't on it for a sustained period of time. Melting is happening but only in certain places because the fire burns out. Surrounded by an office building, in that corner where the debris was piled high to the ceiling like I linked to in the post, there's lots of material to burn to keep it hot for a long time. This is the simplicity of what you don't get about this.
 
Well shouldn't my hand be burned by dripping aluminum????

img2688qn.jpg


What's this? No dripping aluminium? Maybe that flame wasn't hot enough, but is sure did look blue in the previous picture. And the aluminium was red hot and yet it didn't drip.

img2689af.jpg
 
Java Man said:
Oh I see. So airplanes burning on the tarmac are doing so by magic tarmac fire and not "plane fire". LOL you truly are ridiculous. Look at the pictures and see how wrong you are. All those planes burned to ashes on the tarmac due to fire from their fuel and elements inside the fuselage and had nothing to do with office furniture.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go ahead and assume you weren't at either of those fires.

Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, there IS melted aluminum, maybe inside the aircraft, or maybe the photos were taken after the aluminum re-solidified?

I didn't see any photos of these planes actually on fire, except for one:

614_molten_metal.jpg
 
Java Man said:
Well shouldn't my hand be burned by dripping aluminum????

[qimg]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/5839/img2688qn.jpg[/qimg]

What's this? No dripping aluminium? Maybe that flame wasn't hot enough, but is sure did look blue in the previous picture. And the aluminium was red hot and yet it didn't drip.

[qimg]http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7968/img2689af.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

OK, now I have a better understanding of what you're up to.

Silliness.

You just compared the events of 9/11 to a cigarette lighter.
 
Joey McGee said:
:(
Melting is happening but only in certain places because the fire burns out.
Click to expand...

Ok so let me see. According to you plane fires are less intense than office fires. I'll indulge you in this for discussions sake. Then according to you a less intense shorter fire on the tarmac that burns the airplane to ashes is not the same than a more intense office fire. But if a short less intense airplane fire is capable of burning the airplane to ashes there would be nothing left to melt by the more intense office fire. So you've clearly argued against yourself. And won BTW! LOL
 
LOL! You used a paper thin sheet of aluminum to model something that involved considerably more material? That's your experiment!? XD
 
NoahFence said:
OK, now I have a better understanding of what you're up to.

Silliness.

You just compared the events of 9/11 to a cigarette lighter.
Click to expand...

No, I just showed aluminum under intense heat burning and not melting.
 
Java Man said:
Ok so let me see. According to you plane fires are less intense than office fires. I'll indulge you in this for discussions sake. Then according to you a less intense shorter fire on the tarmac that burns the airplane to ashes is not the same than a more intense office fire. But if a short less intense airplane fire is capable of burning the airplane to ashes there would be nothing left to melt by the more intense office fire. So you've clearly argued against yourself. And won BTW! LOL
Click to expand...

FYI -
I don't see piles of ash, either.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
LOL! You used a paper thin sheet of aluminum to model something that involved considerably more material? That's your experiment!? XD
Click to expand...

Yes that's my experiment. Then there's the real life photos of burnt aircraft with no molten aluminum under them so you can take a peek view to more "real life" scenarios.
 
Java Man said:
Ok so let me see. According to you plane fires are less intense than office fires. I'll indulge you in this for discussions sake. Then according to you a less intense shorter fire on the tarmac that burns the airplane to ashes is not the same than a more intense office fire. But if a short less intense airplane fire is capable of burning the airplane to ashes there would be nothing left to melt by the more intense office fire. So you've clearly argued against yourself. And won BTW! LOL
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you seem to be saying that the plane on the tarmac turned to ashes, as is the metal transformed into dust-like material and didn't "melt" I can see what I would have a hard time conceptualizing your argument, it's nonsense. If we were actually at those crash scenes, me an you could go find evidence of melting in there dude. Wait, is this really your argument? Judging conclusively the way you are on this matter from looking at a photo is quite silly.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Err, when we weed out the logical fallacies very little to discuss remains, so it seems.

I was just pointing out your logical fallacies. Consider it a service, free of charge.

Oh, and I goofed a little on the last one. Let me correct my error.

In response to the claim that you have no evidence at all, you responded with an argument of the 'I have problems with the absence of evidence for detail XYZ (that has no bearing on the overall conclusion and/or for which other evidence exists)' type. Which makes it in this context a tu quoque by equivocation: you equate the non existence of evidence in favour of your position to the non existence of some particular type of evidence for (unimportant) detail XYZ and imply "your evidence situation is as bad as mine."

Usually when a Truther comes up with an argument of the above type it is the context of attempting to falsify the dreaded "official story" like this: no serial number! therefore official story is wrongy-wrong. Total undeniable proof!!1! In that context it is the perfection fallacy.

Sorry about my mistake.

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

Challenging? Who? Me?

Look I really don't care what flavour of twoof you believe in in or what details you are obsessed with. You have as much evidence as any other twoof flavour: zero, nothing. And the accepted narrative is based on solid evidence. That's the point.
 
Java Man said:
Yes that's my experiment. Then there's the real life photos of burnt aircraft with no molten aluminum under them so you can take a peek view to more "real life" scenarios.
Click to expand...


Did you check inside the aircraft? It could be in there, you know.

PLEASE answer this -
Are you under the impression that aluminum cannot melt?
 
Joey McGee said:
If we were actually at those crash scenes, me an you could go find evidence of melting in there dude. Wait, is this really your argument? Judging conclusively the way you are on this matter from looking at a photo is quite silly.
Click to expand...

So please show us the molten aluminum on the tarmac.
 
bic lighters might get up to 450 or so, well under the melting temperature for aluminum or even solder, but not that far. Close, but no cigar. And for the record that did make me question your sincerity.
 
NoahFence said:
Did you check inside the aircraft? It could be in there, you know.

PLEASE answer this -
Are you under the impression that aluminum cannot melt?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the metal from the wings also leapfrogged into the fuselage. Yea right.

Oh I'm sure aluminum can melt. I'm not under the impression that aluminum cannot melt. But airplanes are not made out of pure aluminum, but rather alloys that as you see burn. That's why a close look at the fuselage shows an rough ash like edge rather than a molten drip. Like you see in my aluminium foil picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom