Merged Molten metal observations

[GlennB]

Several holding up? Yes more than one: two.

The trusses ran parallel to the exterior wall in that area. An area that suffered extensive damage from aircraft impact, including two ruptured exterior columns. That it was locally damaged by aircraft impact is unremarkable. That it might be damaged to the point of even local collapse by a thermite charge up against the spandrel is ridiculous.

And no we are not seeing the entire floor being disconnected. Just one device misfiring.

Misfiring? It would have been invisible had it fired properly? This is getting funny. Why would anybody place a thermite charge against the exterior wall anyway?

A dimbulb NWO demolition operator reading the plans upside-down or back-to-front I can comprehend. But suggesting that someone read them inside-out is kinda surreal.

 

[Myriad]

Yes, but like I mentioned none could stand in a vertical position and be filmed at the temperature we see. They would be molten in a pool and not visible from the street as they would be in a horizontal position ( a pool, get it?) The fact that we can see something like that so bright is because it's a metal that hasn't managed to melt into a pool of liquid at that temperature.

So, you're saying the "standing" material is steel (that is heated very hot but not melted because it's still way below the melting point of steel) while the flowing material is a different material with a lower melting point, causing it to be molten at around the same (or a bit lower) temperature?

Well, that makes sense. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

But as much sense as that makes, it's not the only possibility. Perhaps the upper material is also flowing rather than "standing." And there is no way to tell that it is vertical, since the images only show it from one angle with no detail. If that material were flowing down an incline, foreshortened in the direction of the camera view, that would also be consistent with the appearance.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Java Man]

The trusses ran parallel to the exterior wall in that area. An area that suffered extensive damage from aircraft impact, including two ruptured exterior columns.

That is correct and I realized that by looking at this image:

http://www.debunking911.com/2002-1029_NYTimes-DataTrove-08_150.gif

and this one:

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/floor.jpg

I was just curious as to when you'd raise the point. Because you see. Being so well supported as you say it's very hard for it to drop and create the convenient slide for the molten aluminium to flow out (that your camp has been supporting for innumerable posts). Not to mention that if it did fall it would make a slide in the wrong direction required to flow out the window. It would flow along the wall to the other side and not out the window. LOL.

See what I mean by taking responsibility for the burden of proof. At least a tid bit would help you much. LOL

 

[Java Man]

So, you're saying the "standing" material is steel (that is heated very hot but not melted because it's still way below the melting point of steel) while the flowing material is a different material with a lower melting point, causing it to be molten at around the same (or a bit lower) temperature?

No. What I'm saying is that they're both steel. One heated steel not melted yet and the other is melted steel from a place closer to the incendiary device. Basically the device fires, it starts the reaction which heats and melts steel progressively outwards from the devices position.

Very clever way for you to word that paragraph. I applaud you in your attempt to lay the works to get me. Close, but no cigar.

 

[dafydd]

It's doing fine and yes it is quite overdue isn't it?

Troll.

 

[dafydd]

OH I have...

Bill Smith is a perfect example of one.

Bill was a troll. Java too,methinks. Nobody could be this dumb.

 

[TjW]

If the place your supposed thermite charge is at is under no load, isn't that a pretty silly place to put it?
To make the building fall down, I would want to weaken the places that were under the most load.

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes, but like I mentioned none could stand in a vertical position and be filmed at the temperature we see. They would be molten in a pool and not visible from the street as they would be in a horizontal position ( a pool, get it?) The fact that we can see something like that so bright is because it's a metal that hasn't managed to melt into a pool of liquid at that temperature.

And as was explained to you repeatedly

1. there was a UPS system directly above where the fire was. Lead batteries would melt and flow

2. beams in a room on fire might just appear to be "glowing" while a molten material poured out which was NOT steel.

How hard is that to figure out? Oh wait... magic substance that did it. MOTHRA

 

[triforcharity]

One plausable explanation is this: The incendiary elements are placed at the floor panel truss connections to the wall. Thus they are blocked by the metal that supports the floor( http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/wtcn.jpg ).

In other words there is a big piece of thick metal between them and the outside of the building. So I fire on the inside can't be seen from the outside because of metal's tendency to not be transparent.

Ok, so I have hilited the area where you think this incendiary was placed. They are the horizontal yellow lines.

Correct?

Perfect.

Now, I have painted green lines in the windows that would show this incredible bright white light.

It wouldn't matter which area you were to view it from. From the ground or above, or left or right. It would still be visable.

Now you claim it should be visible from other windows. Which? The once across the building? Hard to believe. There's this thing called the core.

And it wouldn't be in the way from the direct opposite side. Now the ones on the other side of the corner.

Then there's the smoke and add to that the floor itself. Yes the floor.

Smoke doesn't obstruct that kind of incredible light. You're grasping.

The floor would block it from being visable in the windows above it. Correct. But, not below.

You see the more you move to other windows the more the point of view (from the ground) hinders your ability to see that point. So the best hope you have is to look at it from below just from were we see it.

And yet, the intense bright white light, is not seen.

In regards to the white smoke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g Look at second 43. Nice white smoke getting blown to the right from the area were the metal is dripping.

Too small amount of smoke. Not to mention the 3-4 other things in the building that would be giving off white smoke, paper and wood being the most common.

Can we rule them out?

Here let me help you a bit:

[qimg]http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4535/whitesmoke.png[/qimg]

So you see it all matches. The incendiary devices meant to cut the supports and release the floor panels.

Which would do what?

The location of the molten metal.

Ok.

The white smoke.

Cannot be ruled out as coming from another source.

And then theres this thing about the molten beam with the holes on it. Remember?

Well, considering there are no beams in that area, yeah, you're kinda like, 0-5 so far.

Wanna keep swinging wildly at that ball there champ?

 

[Jono]

Yes, but like I mentioned none could stand in a vertical position and be filmed at the temperature we see.

Wait wait wait, are we seeing this molting steel standing? Or something else? Where is it standing? What picture are you referring to? Fill me in. I tried to backtrack through the posts but haven't found anything of relevant note yet.

 

[Java Man]

Now, I have painted green lines in the windows that would show this incredible bright white light.

It wouldn't matter which area you were to view it from. From the ground or above, or left or right. It would still be visable.

I see the green markings. Now please indicate to us the bodies that would be reflecting the light back out. As light traveling from the points you indicated can not turn a bend and go out the green markings without something to reflect it. Secondly the roof was not bare bones as that picture depicts it. And thirdly there is lots of smoke inside the building. Which even buying your idea that it isn't thick enough, it still isn't reflective enough to reflect the flash back out(as if any smoke ever was!! LOL).

 

[Java Man]

Well, considering there are no beams in that area, yeah, you're kinda like, 0-5 so far.

Oh sorry. I apologize for not being clear enough. That beam was recovered from WTC-7, but we can keep that for another thread if it confuses you too much. You've got your hands full with this and you're not doing to well right now.

 

[Java Man]

1. there was a UPS system directly above where the fire was. Lead batteries would melt and flow

Yes, way before getting red hot. So they would have flowed away long before that video was filmed. Sorry, no luck with your theory.

 

[Myriad]

No. What I'm saying is that they're both steel. One heated steel not melted yet and the other is melted steel from a place closer to the incendiary device. Basically the device fires, it starts the reaction which heats and melts steel progressively outwards from the devices position.

Oh, so you're just guessing that they're the same substance.

Because if they're not, your argument falls apart. As it does if the upper material is flowing (spilling over an edge or down an incline) rather than stationary.

Like I said before, neither material looks incandescent enough to be steel near or beyond its melting point. That's my observation, which carries as much weight as yours. Stalemate. What's next?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Java Man]

Like I said before, neither material looks incandescent enough to be steel near or beyond its melting point. That's my observation, which carries as much weight as yours. Stalemate. What's next?

Yes it does. It's bright yellow to white. It's coherent with other pictures of molten steel in broad daylight.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes it does. It's bright yellow to white. It's coherent with other pictures of molten steel in broad daylight.

Let's see some, posted side-by-side.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Let's see some, posted side-by-side.

Dave

I've already posted some way back. Please refer to them and put attention this time around so you don't have to be reading the thread over and over again.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've already posted some way back. Please refer to them and put attention this time around so you don't have to be reading the thread over and over again.

A post number would be helpful.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes, way before getting red hot. So they would have flowed away long before that video was filmed. Sorry, no luck with your theory.

You keep making the same simple mistake.

You cannot tell what a molten material is by sight alone. Unless you know the temperature of the material you do not have enough data to determine what it is.

Again and again I point out Oy has a great 8 picture test for truthers. Why do you keep on ignoring it?

By sight alone you should be able to tell us what those molten materials are... go for it champ.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

A mission patch was recovered from the wreckage of the Columbia Shuttle. How did that survive the heat?