jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Totally wrong. Accumulation in one corner of the structure means just that accumulation. You can not conclude that more thermite was applied there. You can only conclude that accumulation occurred there. Thermite could have been equally applied to other areas, but molten material just didn't accumulate there. Or maybe it did, but just flowed in another direction when the "dam" broke. Namely away from the perimeter walls and was not caught by the cameras.
Once again debunker logic at its best.
Point is no one, including you, has come up with a mechanism by which widely separted thermite burns could accumulate molten steel in this one spot. Nor why it occured only in this particular spot, nor how enough thermite to produce such a large pool of supposed molten steel could be placed in this particular location.
GIVEN that this occured only in the one spot and GIVEN that only thermite is deemed hot enough to melt steel then one certainly CAN suppose that IF this is molten steel generated by thermite burning then it REQUIRES that more thermite be in this location than in any other since no other location saw such a phenomena.
Molten aluminum, or other lower temp(than steel) molten materials such as copper or glass, could flow to a partially collapsed floor section in the corner and be kept molten by the office fire heat. As the structure tilts further the pool then is also tilted and this allows a stream to escape the tower.
Molten steel , IF it did flow to a partially collapsed floor area COULD NOT be kept molten by the office fire heat alone(certainly not according to any 911 conspiracist since the office fires were not hot enough to melt steel).
Last edited:
