Merged Molten metal observations

Java Man said:
I'm not claiming all the metal went up in smoke. But clearly a great deal of the thin elements of the aircraft would burn up as we see in many of the pictures. The burn patterns end in irregular edges which look paper like and not molten. Sure other parts of the aircraft would melt. We have the example of the aluminum wheels.

More so. Even if all the aircraft did indeed melt you'd still have to prove show how it could stay in a vertical wall of molten aluminium as I've explained before.

So you have quite a bit going against you. Prove that all the aircraft's aluminum melted into large visible amounts that could be seen pouring. That it managed to flow across the floor without solidifying. That it pooled into a "vertical" crucible and then poured its content out.
Click to expand...

If we buy into your illusory claims I'd agree, but since your claims are basically the musings of an unqualified internet poster, we're not obliged to.

Thus, the burden of proof is actually on you to provide all the evidence, and exclude all else which you claim could not be the cause. You have not done this.

You simply cannot and have not quantified how much molten material could have been present, what the sources might have been, and then explained how they could not be from aircraft components and other materials in the tower.

For example, there was a lot of window material, which in other aircraft fires melts and burns. How can you show that this material was not part of the material seen flowing out?

Because you don't know, you're not in a position to eliminate anything. This leads us back to the problem in truther's insistence on some kind of aluminothermic compound - there's simply no evidence for it.

Even if you did have a vat of the stuff, how would it remain vertical in the tower as the hot spot clearly does? You have the same problem either way, which you have utterly failed to explain.

You've got a lot of nothing, so far. To describe it as unconvincing would be an understatement.
 
Java Man said:
At last we seem to be getting somewhere. Unfortunately your fellow debunker has made the claim that the all mighty office furniture fire is needed to achieve all that you posted. Was there an office building conveniently positioned in the hill side?
Click to expand...

...and your truther buddies insist that all office building collapses are due to airplane crashes.

What's your point?
 
Java Man said:
At last we seem to be getting somewhere. Unfortunately your fellow debunker has made the claim that the all mighty office furniture fire is needed to achieve all that you posted. Was there an office building conveniently positioned in the hill side?
Click to expand...

Here it is, in plain English: Fire = Heat = molten materials

That's all you need to know. Memorize, internalize and apply to 9/11 as well as any other incident involving fire.

ps listen to professional firefighters, if you really care about knowing anything. Too few of you truthers actually pause to learn something from these people.
 
Besides, you've also utterly failed to address a critical aspect of the 9/11 fires: molten metal was also seen below WTC 6, flowing from burning cars, etc.....

It's ironic that a truther is in denial of molten metal!! Never thought I'd see the day, but I guess when you're desperate you'll try anything.. ;)

Here it is, so you can't avoid it:

'Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.

Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html

Oh dear, how is our truther friend going to deny these accounts of molten metal? This should be entertaining!
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
More so. Even if all the aircraft did indeed melt you'd still have to prove show how it could stay in a vertical wall of molten aluminium as I've explained before.
Click to expand...

There wasn't enough steel in that location to present a 'vertical wall of melting steel', even if thermite were attached to it, bearing in mind that we're looking inside beyond the exterior columns, yet a long way out from the core columns.

Your argument makes no sense.
 
GlennB said:
There wasn't enough steel in that location to present a 'vertical wall of melting steel', even if thermite were attached to it, bearing in mind that we're looking inside beyond the exterior columns, yet a long way out from the core columns.

Your argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Really? And you get that bit of data about the amount of steel from? So all those perimeter elements were made of??? Please don't try to my leg. There was plenty of steel there.
 
Just one of those jets had a weight of roughly 164,000 lbs. I wonder how much of that could have contributed to the molten materials that briefly flowed from the tower?

0 %?
5%
10%
20%
etc...

It would be amusing to see Javaman chew on that issue and come up with an engineering-based estimate.
 
alienentity said:
Here it is, in plain English: Fire = Heat = molten materials
Click to expand...

Uh actually Fire = Heat, which in presence of oxygen can lead to burnt materials or molten materials. Depends on how good they burn before reaching their melting point.
 
Java Man said:
Really? And you get that bit of data about the amount of steel from? So all those perimeter elements were made of??? Please don't try to my leg. There was plenty of steel there.
Click to expand...


So you're 100% sure that the dam of material was molten steel? Really?

Upon what hard evidence would you make that claim? Oh, you don't have hard evidence, just another opinion based on your vast experience with therm*te, fire science and engineering, I suppose...:cool:
 
Java Man said:
Uh actually Fire = Heat, which in presence of oxygen can lead to burnt materials or molten materials. Depends on how good they burn before reaching their melting point.
Click to expand...

Ah, so now you admit that heat can in fact produce molten materials.

Thankyou for debunking yourself. It can and does both burn and melt. We already knew that, but were waiting for you to catch up.

Melted metals were a fact in several WTC buildings. This is never going to 'prove' the presence of therm*te, so stop wasting time in an effort to do so.
You will never (because it's not possible) 'prove' that fire couldn't have produced those materials. Not going to happen.

Move on and stop being an anti-intellectual pain.
 
alienentity said:
Thus, the burden of proof is actually on you to provide all the evidence, and exclude all else which you claim could not be the cause. You have not done this.
Click to expand...

Actually I did something better. I took half your crew for a ride in the ludicrous train and they played along wonderfully. That part about the plane fires not being hot enough was just wonderful. I guess there's an office building in every aircraft accident. LOL

Comes to show once again how lax you've become because the burden of proof lays on me and not on you. More so it was proven once again that your crew will fire at anything that moves regardless of the relevance. Because you see, no matter how much aluminium was on those planes and how much could burn and how much could melt. The point is you can't hold aluminium up in a vertical wall and have it stay put. What was the best they could come up with? Oh yea the viscosity thing. Which in turn is countered by triforcharity links to flowing aluminium and once again the all mighty office fires. You see you can't simultaneously claim high viscosity and intense heat. As intense heat liquefies the metal reducing its viscosity.

Once again it is shown that the only way you can get away with any of this is because the burden of proof isn't on you. And even then you don't take enough concern to at least not prove yourself into a loop you can't later get out without using posts like this exempting you of any responsibility from the nonsense your crew has been posting all along.
 
alienentity said:
Ah, so now you admit that heat can in fact produce molten materials.

Thankyou for debunking yourself. It can and does both burn and melt. We already knew that, but were waiting for you to catch up.
Click to expand...

I never claimed otherwise. Nor does it debunk me. As I replied to chewy. Heat will melt carbon. But it will oxidize it a lot earlier in Earth's atmosphere.

Same applies to other materials.
 
Java Man said:
Not much of a dam if its molten right? Are we working up to another stundie there?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was molten. i said it was a dam. YOU said it was molten - so the burden of proof is indeed on you.
Your desperation has defeated your intelligence sir. You are simply boring and childish.

Remember I posted quotes about molten metal in WTC 6. It is clear evidence that you are not going to be able to refute.

Nor can you refute the idea that the jets contributed to the molten materials.

So you've now ricocheted out of serious debate into absurdity. Fine by me, because that's where your thinking belongs. :D

cheers
 
Java Man said:
I never claimed otherwise. Nor does it debunk me. As I replied to chewy. Heat will melt carbon. But it will oxidize it a lot earlier in Earth's atmosphere.

Same applies to other materials.
Click to expand...

You're babbling. Do yourself a favour and stop commenting unless you have something intelligible to post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom