Merged Molten metal observations

Java Man said:
The point is that the office fires did not melt the steel another source did.
Click to expand...
The point is there was no melted steel. You think there was, there was not. Feel free to post the photos of the melted steel, it has been over 9 years. How long have you had the false claims of melted steel, or is that an opinion? What did you base your opinion on? Photos? A piece of steel? Got a source, or a reference? Where is the melted steel?
 
George152 said:
Then there would be a -very- bright light in the same area which there is not..
Next rubbish claim......
Click to expand...

No. If you place the charge on this side:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/FloorTrusses-Construction.jpg

And you're looking from this side:

http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/images/wtc-construction-hires-photos/wtc11.jpg

You can't see the bright light from this side:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/FloorTrusses-Construction.jpg

only the effects of the heating and the metal that drips out.
 
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.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/FloorTrusses-Construction.jpg

So a thermite or other device placed to blow out the truss supports would heat that metal and pour straight down and out.
Click to expand...

You mean the spandrel between columns?

If so then OK that is sometimes referred to as the spandrel beam but if you refer to a vertical member then for future reference beams run horizontally, columns are vertical.

ETA: however cutting a portion of a corner spandrel is not going to affect the load carrying capacity of the wall by much so you must be refering to a column.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
No. If you place the charge on this side:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/FloorTrusses-Construction.jpg

And you're looking from this side:

http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/images/wtc-construction-hires-photos/wtc11.jpg

You can't see the bright light from this side:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/FloorTrusses-Construction.jpg

only the effects of the heating and the metal that drips out.
Click to expand...

According to you there is no fire anywhere near this area. So if thermite is burning on the core facing side of whatever it is you say it as attached to, what is keeping it from being completly invisible?
It cannot be actually inside the beam or column as this would require that it be cutting through to the outside as well as the inside face of the member, and we do not see this happening.
If it is simply on the inward facing side of the member then it will be sparking and spewing quite heavily(after all it goes on for a relatively long - for thermite- time) and supposedly works on the member long enough to make the entire thickness at least red hot. There is also no white smoke which is commonplace for a thermite burn.

One also does not see any effect on this member due to load. It is red hot and thus at 50% of its cold strength. Add to that your contention that parts of it are actually severed/melted away and its easily well below 50% of its cold strength. This member could be expected to be twisting quite significantly and visibly as over time, but it didn't.
 
jaydeehess said:
One also does not see any effect on this member due to load. It is red hot and thus at 50% of its cold strength. Add to that your contention that parts of it are actually severed/melted away and its easily well below 50% of its cold strength. This member could be expected to be twisting quite significantly and visibly as over time, but it didn't.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it's not carrying any load? Or any significant load that is.
 
Java Man said:
Maybe because it's not carrying any load? Or any significant load that is.
Click to expand...

So its NOT a column then? Its what?

ETA: I note that you ignored the rest of my post.
to refresh your memory its;
According to you there is no fire anywhere near this area. So if thermite is burning on the core facing side of whatever it is you say it as attached to, what is keeping it from being completly invisible?
It cannot be actually inside the beam or column as this would require that it be cutting through to the outside as well as the inside face of the member, and we do not see this happening.
If it is simply on the inward facing side of the member then it will be sparking and spewing quite heavily(after all it goes on for a relatively long - for thermite- time) and supposedly works on the member long enough to make the entire thickness at least red hot. There is also no white smoke which is commonplace for a thermite burn.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
So its NOT a column then? Its what?

ETA: I note that you ignored the rest of my post.
to refresh your memory its;
Click to expand...

Look at the video and see how the columns are severed on top of the area. There columns are bowing outward and there is fire showing in the gaps. Clearly there is considerably less load on that piece.

And no I haven't ignored the rest of the post. I just answered one part. The one I considered most important to respond.
 
Java Man said:
I'd say between 850 and 1000 ºC
Click to expand...

What training have you had to be able to say that with confidence? If you have no training it is just an uniformed guess. You will have to do better in your draft. How is it coming along?
 
triforcharity said:
Well, actually, that's not entirely true. There was tons of paper seen falling from the towers after impact.

But, I understand what you're saying. Not many things would have survived the incredible fires that ensued. Especially not C-4 and the likes.
Click to expand...

The paper that flew out no doubt was the result of the pressure wave created by the impact, and the window's getting blown out. It's his theory that something rigid, something attached to the columns would have survived inside the fireball....
 
dafydd said:
What training have you had to be able to say that with confidence? If you have no training it is just an uniformed guess. You will have to do better in your draft. How is it coming along?
Click to expand...

Actually he agrees with the NIST that the maximum temperature attained during any point during the event was 1000oC due to the fires burning inside the building. This means he can finally put his thermite fears to rest since even the evidence he cites supports the fire initiated collapse. Nothing left to argue with for thermite
 
NoahFence said:
The paper that flew out no doubt was the result of the pressure wave created by the impact, and the window's getting blown out. It's his theory that something rigid, something attached to the columns would have survived inside the fireball....
Click to expand...

Lets see. A passport on the luggage or clothing of a terrorist. Inside the airplane. Made out of paper. And it survives. Kinda undermines your majestic fireball theory.
 
Java Man said:
Lets see. A passport on the luggage or clothing of a terrorist. Inside the airplane. Made out of paper. And it survives.
Click to expand...
PSA 1771, suicide note survived a 700 mile per hour, nearly vertical plane impact with a rocky hill, with the gun, with usable fingerprints to identify the culprit.
 
Java Man said:
Lets see. A passport on the luggage or clothing of a terrorist. Inside the airplane. Made out of paper. And it survives. Kinda undermines your majestic fireball theory.
Click to expand...

Most truthers think that was planted and never had to/couldn't survive the fireball...
 
jaydeehess said:
Perhaps JM could post a picture of specifically the area he is referring to as the vertical piece that is red hot and spewing molten material
Click to expand...
Careful, the truth may play havoc with your conscience.


http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html

00000788.jpg

To summarize, I assert with conviction that the recorded phenomenon of brightly glowing molten metal flowing from WTC2 in the moments before its collapse constitutes as simple, undeniable and irrefutable proof of malfeasance on the part of someone who had sufficiently unimpeded access to WTC2 prior to the attacks allowing them to place in the building a large amount of some kind of extremely exothermic incendiary material which produced the observed phenomena.[6] Any professional physicists who denies this without producing experimental procedures to reliably replicate the recorded phenomenon without resorting to the use of some intentionally place incendiary material is unsuited to his or her position. Any physicist who looks at this evidence while having these facts pointed out to him or her, and does not aggressively seek definitive answers is shirking the moral and ethical responsibility implicit in the role society has entrusted him or her with.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom