Merged Molten metal observations

TruthersLie said:
moving of the goal posts noted and appeal to perfection noted.

YOu were just shown molten and resolidified aluminum... (oh snap)
Click to expand...

LOL, I could move the goal posts all the way outside the stadium and you'd wouldn't even be half way there. Even if the amount of metal calculations tipped in favor of your theory. Which so far seem not to. You'd still be up against the issue of the wall of incandescent material which can't be molten aluminium or lead or other low melting point metal or alloy. Because it couldn't stand up in a vertical position. On the other hand heated steel fits in perfectly with what we see.
 
Java Man said:
This thread is about the molten metal. Feel free to open a new one on this topic and we'll discuss it there.
Click to expand...

Did you not note that that part of my post was a direct reaction to your post(which I quoted)

You have a short memory. Harkens back to you claiming that in a post which I quoted you did not say "molten steel".

Thats twice now that you demonstrate either a very bad memory or an attempt to rewrite history.
Not good for your credibility JM
 
Java Man said:
LOL, I could move the goal posts all the way outside the stadium and you'd wouldn't even be half way there. Even if the amount of metal calculations tipped in favor of your theory. Which so far seem not to. You'd still be up against the issue of the wall of incandescent material which can't be molten aluminium or lead or other low melting point metal or alloy. Because it couldn't stand up in a vertical position. On the other hand heated steel fits in perfectly with what we see.
Click to expand...

Post 636
 
jaydeehess said:
NO!
The point is that YOU cannot state any evidence whatsoever that the molten material is steel.

OTOH I just gave you a senario in which a steel member would be red hot at the same time that molten metals of other elements would be present in a proximate location and you refuse to even address the point of my post. Instead you attempt AGAIN to brush it off and ignore it.
Click to expand...

But that can't be the case in the video. There are no flames engulfing the incandescent elements. Even the ones with flames all around them are not incandescent (right on the corner). So you're claiming invisible flame heat source?

Your scenario looks convincing at first, but after a little scrutiny it fails. The melting occurs below the fires seen in the building. There is no clear fire visible in close proximity of the beam (aka touching it). No other element is seen that hot even when flames are right by it. You theory doesn't even match what's seen on the same frame. Go back to the drawing board.
 
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal remarks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Java Man said:
There is no clear fire visible in close proximity of the beam (aka touching it).
Click to expand...

I have addressed this point already.

There were no beams in the outer walls of WTC1+2.

You're making yourself look foolish. Why not stop?
 
Sunstealer said:
No, I asked you how you know what the temperature is - not "what is the temperature of the liquid material observed?"
Click to expand...

The temperature of the liquid metal observed is higher as it is clearly yellowish white.
 
Java Man said:
The temperature of the liquid metal observed is higher as it is clearly yellowish white.
Click to expand...

You're dancing away, with nonsense I might add, from the debunker's premise that the molten metal was created and pooled to another area that kept it molten hot till it spilled from the building.
 
Clayton Moore said:
You're dancing away, with nonsense I might add, from the debunker's premise that the molten metal was created and pooled to another area that kept it molten hot till it spilled from the building.
Click to expand...

Actually my claim was that it was created on spot by some melting agent. The melting taking place as the video is being taken.
 
GlennB said:
Lower than the melting point of steel.

eta: and there were no beams there.
Click to expand...

Sunstealer said:
this should be interesting :popcorn1
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
Actually my claim was that it was created on spot by some melting agent. The melting taking place as the video is being taken.
Click to expand...

Ummm ... for the fourth time ... there are no beams there. So what is being melted ?

And what is it that's running (according to you) at between 850 and 1000°C ? If it's the 'falling stuff' why is is lighter in colour than the 'burning stuff' in WTC2? Surely that would indicate that it's hotter? Therefore the whole caboodle (according to you) never got to the melting point of steel, whichever way you look at it?
 
Java Man said:
Well I don't know if we are using the same name or what. But there is a big piece of metal right there were the floor panel is bolted to.
Click to expand...

I've already explained to you what that is, and it ain't a 'beam'. If you would care to check the many documents on the subject you might educate yourself and not have to resort to guessing.

And cutting one of those would have no effect on the vertical load-bearing capacity of the building whatsoever. Which brings us back to another question of mine you have side-stepped. Why? Why zap that, there, with an incendiary device for no useful purpose?

While you're here, perhaps you could also address my previous point about how you have the temperatures of the source and falling stuff organised in such a way that neither can be up to the melting point of steel, thus destroying the point you're trying to make.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom