Merged Molten metal observations

Java Man said:
But thanks to the wonderful conversations I've had with debunkers here it has become quite clear that the collapse could have been initiated with less potent devices. Namely just releasing the floor panels in a controlled fashion.
Click to expand...

Nothing.

NOTHING flammable would survive the impact of the jet and the resulting fireball. Stop pretending anything on this planet would have.
 
NoahFence said:
Nothing.

NOTHING flammable would survive the impact of the jet and the resulting fireball. Stop pretending anything on this planet would have.
Click to expand...

LOL. Empty claim in the hopes of having some argument at all. You know very well that things such as C4 can survive such things. Not that I'm claiming C4 was used. Just to clarify that things can survive such impacts.
 
Java Man said:
LOL. Empty claim in the hopes of having some argument at all. You know very well that things such as C4 can survive such things. Not that I'm claiming C4 was used. Just to clarify that things can survive such impacts.
Click to expand...

What are you claiming? Or do we have to wait for your draft?
 
Java Man said:
LOL. Empty claim in the hopes of having some argument at all. You know very well that things such as C4 can survive such things. Not that I'm claiming C4 was used. Just to clarify that things can survive such impacts.
Click to expand...

Not an empty claim at all.
wtc_impact2.jpg


If you honestly - not troll like - but honestly in your mind think anything can survive that, I mean. I dunno. It's bizarre.

C4 is very stable and insensitive to most physical shocks. Detonation can only be initiated by a combination of extreme heat and a shock wave, as when a detonator inserted into it is fired.
Click to expand...

Yea - I think we got extreme heat and a shock wave there.

Fail.

Nothing would survive that impact and fireball. Sorry buddy.
 
dafydd said:
What are you claiming? Or do we have to wait for your draft?
Click to expand...

He's claiming that thermite (or the "magic" explosive) could survive that photo I just posted.

It's just the most bizarre notion ever. Right up there with shooting aircraft parts out of the pentagon.
 
Java Man said:
Wrong, those metals don't behave like we see in the video at red, orange or yellow hot. They would be melted long ago and could not stand vertical and be seen shining. The would have pooled into a horizontal pool of incandescent metal rather than a vertical wall.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that the "vertical" piece and the melted pool are not the same material? Or are you proposing that steel can be in both states, at the same temperature, at the same time.
 
Java Man said:
But thanks to the wonderful conversations I've had with debunkers here it has become quite clear that the collapse could have been initiated with less potent devices. Namely just releasing the floor panels in a controlled fashion.
Click to expand...
Actually I agree with that finding. I came to the same conclusion back in 2008 when I was debating this stuff more seriously.

I am trained in military engineering and looked at the collapse from the perspective of "How could I cause that collapse if the General gave me the job?" Its called putting yourself in the enemies boots in the military.

Cut the lower chords of the floor joists looked like the point of vulnerability.

There are many ways that you could collapse the towers. The tricky part is if you want it to look like an aeroplane damage plus fire damage scenario - any "assistance" you give has to disappear behind the overall aeroplane plus fire setting.

The real trick with the cut the floor joists approach remains the same two problems which face all truther claims:
1) How to achieve it technically;
2) Without getting caught before, during or after the event.

(Strictly speaking that last one is too loose - it should be "without getting found out.")
 
Java Man said:
LOL. Empty claim in the hopes of having some argument at all. You know very well that things such as C4 can survive such things. Not that I'm claiming C4 was used. Just to clarify that things can survive such impacts.
Click to expand...
C-4 would burn-off, you should check this out before posting opinions. If the C-4 was ejected from the fires it might survive, but otherwise it would be burned up, ineffective, like 911 truth.

Java Man said:
We've been over this in another thread. The fireball doesn't have the heat nor the shockwave velocity to set off C4. Sorry you loose.
Click to expand...
Me loose? Not so. The impact would not set off C4, the fires would burn it up, the soldiers in WWII who served with my dad used plastic explosives to heat their food (like C4 now). Thus, the C4 would burn off in the intense fire, rendered harmless, useless, like 911 truth claims.

Java Man said:
... The fireball doesn't have the heat nor the shockwave velocity to set off C4. Sorry you loose.
Click to expand...
The heat energy of the jet fuel was equal to 315 tons of TNT, go ahead ignore 315 tons of TNT equivalent heat energy; it is what 911 truth does, ignore reality to make up fantasy theories based on nothing. And you have the office fires, the largest in the world, set with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, burning jet fuel, setting multiple floors on fire at the same time, in seconds. Go ahead ignore the intense heat which forced people to jump because their skin was catching on fire from across the room, jumping to their death, murdered, so you could make up false information and lies about the day they were murdered by 19 terrorists. Why do you have a need to apologize for terrorists? You never used C-4, by dad did, but he used the earlier version. Experience and knowledge, beat your "sorry you loose" ironic ending of not rigidly fastened or securely attached evidence for your post.

How did paratroopers in WWII set the plastic explosives on fire without 66,000 pounds of burning jet fuel to help them, or massive office fires?
 
Java Man said:
I beg you pardon? You're half an inch from crossing the don't cross line. Don't insult.
Click to expand...

Gee Java Man, you're averaging over 100 posts a month, yet haven't found the time to post that theory you promised?

You said it would only require a few days, what happened?
 
Java Man said:
I beg you pardon? You're half an inch from crossing the don't cross line. Don't insult.
Click to expand...

Oh my, then you'd better pray to God that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, because it would be about the worst insult you can give to all those innocent people you are implying are mass murderers.
 
ProBonoShill said:
Gee Java Man, you're averaging over 100 posts a month, yet haven't found the time to post that theory you promised?

You said it would only require a few days, what happened?
Click to expand...

You folks keep coming up with all this great stuff that keeps simplifying my theory. When I think I have something pinned down you suggest an even simpler model.
 
Java Man said:
I beg you pardon? You're half an inch from crossing the don't cross line. Don't insult.
Click to expand...
Why do you post false information on 911? Is that insulting yourself and those who died on 911? Did you crossed the line when you made up false information and fail to check your facts? Have you looked up C-4, tried to fix your false information?

Java Man said:
You folks keep coming up with all this great stuff that keeps simplifying my theory. When I think I have something pinned down you suggest an even simpler model.
Click to expand...

You mean 19 terrorists did 911? This plot of 19 taking 4 planes and crashing into large buildings was much too complex for 911 truth to grasp so they made up delusions of explosives and more nonsense.

The model too simple for 911 truth, 19 terrorists taking 4 planes and crashing into 3 of 4 large buildings. Essentially failing after the rules were figured out. Something 911 truth can't do; figure out 911 given the answers. Took minutes for Flight 93 passengers to figure out 911, when will we catch up?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Why do you post false information on 911? Is that insulting yourself and those who died on 911? Did you crossed the line when you made up false information and fail to check your facts? Have you looked up C-4, tried to fix your false information?
Click to expand...

I warned you. Now you're the only one being disrespectful here. You're the one who's using this crime to censor someone else's opinion. I'm just questioning the job done by NIST and others in regards to this incident. You on the other hand are using the incident to censor me. By using the emotional line you're a disgrace to the flag, the country, the constitution and all those who fought for liberty and freedom of speech. People have a right to question and investigate and have a counter opinion to the official position. If that is wrong it in no way insults the victims. It's just going an extra step to see if there was no foul play or negligence. But in no way am I ever trying to shut you up using the victims misfortune as you are trying to do with me. You're a true disgrace. If you have the nerve then come here and answer the questions with backup, with proof. Even if by forum rules you don't have to, stand up and do it. Carry the burden of proof truthers have to carry. Don't use their misfortune (the victim's) as a shield to hide from my arguments. Be a man and stand up with your own arguments. That is if you have any. As it is common knowledge here that you come around with statements like these when you have nothing sensible left to say. Coward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom