Merged Molten metal observations

DGM said:
Why did you ignore the rest of his post?
Click to expand...

Because I believe the thin fuselage skin can oxidize very quickly and not melt. He believes otherwise. I err in his favor asking for a much smaller surface area for him to identify than is really needed. He can't do that. What's the point of following up on the remainder of his post? Let him show me the molten area and be done with it. But he can't. Even when I err in his favor.
 
Java Man said:
Because I believe the thin fuselage skin can oxidize very quickly and not melt. He believes otherwise. I err in his favor asking for a much smaller surface area for him to identify than is really needed. He can't do that. What's the point of following up on the remainder of his post? Let him show me the molten area and be done with it. But he can't. Even when I err in his favor.
Click to expand...
Fine.

What was the point of this whole discussion again? You do agree this flow could not be iron (or steel), right?


:confused:
 
DGM said:
Fine.

What was the point of this whole discussion again? You do agree this flow could not be iron (or steel), right?


:confused:
Click to expand...

I'm more and more convinced that it is steel. It's more understandable that what we see is steel under the effect of a burning agent like thermite than molten aluminium or glass that somehow manages to stay vertical and radiate that yellowish hue out.
 
Java Man said:
I'm more and more convinced that it is steel. It's more understandable that what we see is steel under the effect of a burning agent like thermite than molten aluminium or glass that somehow manages to stay vertical and radiate that yellowish hue out.
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem. There's zero evidence that it is thermite. None. Nada. Ziltch.

Even though you say it, it doesn't make it any more true.

How do you suppose thermite would stay vertical, and not aluminum, glass, lead, copper or any of the other LIKELY suspects? Why do you even say it's vertical at all? And FFS, would you please answer this:

HOW DID THIS 'AGENT' SURVIVE THE IMPACT AND FIREBALL??????


lemme guess. you don't know. You're just asking questions.
 
Java Man said:
I'm more and more convinced that it is steel. It's more understandable that what we see is steel under the effect of a burning agent like thermite than molten aluminium or glass that somehow manages to stay vertical and radiate that yellowish hue out.
Click to expand...
Then you need to prove that steel will cool and behave like what is seen as it falls. Somehow I think you've missed (or willfully ignored) all the reasons what was seen could not be steel. Spending countless post trying to eliminate every know material is pointless (and counter productive), wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Why's that? You're claiming this as some sort of proof of suspicious activity, are you not?


:confused:
Click to expand...

No. I simply don't have to prove what you're erroneously assuming. That the steel was molten and cooled off as it dropped.
 
Java Man said:
because thermite is extremely stable!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

....and the columns it was supposed to be attached to?

....and the plastic twist ties used to attach this device?


Tell me, did you actually see the impact like the millions and millions of the rest of us?

(Thermite is not so stable as to survive that impact. To think that is really very, very stupid)
 
Java Man said:
No. I simply don't have to prove what you're erroneously assuming. That the steel was molten and cooled off as it dropped.
Click to expand...
You're right, you don't. I'm not going to pretend to understand the rest of your post. What exactly don't I understand about what is seen?
 
Last edited:
It's not steel it's the wrong colour. The fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. there was no evidence of steel having been melted or cut by thermite.
Java knows this and he is just trolling.

I am finished with this stupid thread.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It's not steel it's the wrong colour. The fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. there was no evidence of steel having been melted or cut by thermite.
Java knows this and he is just trolling.

I am finished with this stupid thread.
Click to expand...

You're wrongly assuming it's the fire that melted it. But if thermite or some other agent was used a hot enough fire isn't needed.

Take a look at this picture for color reference:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/58031
 
Java Man said:
You're wrongly assuming it's the fire that melted it. But if thermite or some other agent was used a hot enough fire isn't needed.

Take a look at this picture for color reference:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/58031
Click to expand...
Yet the steel would have to be the right color to be molten and flow (not to mention the behavior of the flow). Sorry you lose.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Yet the steel would have to be the right color to be molten and flow (not to mention the behavior of the flow). Sorry you lose.
Click to expand...

No I don't. The molten steel seen dropping has the right color even if the background doesn't. Which makes perfect sense. The background is very hot steel that isn't melted, but some is and it is seen pouring out of the holes.

Sorry, YOU, lose.
 
Java Man said:
No I don't. The molten steel seen dropping has the right color even if the background doesn't. Which makes perfect sense. The background is very hot steel that isn't melted, but some is and it is seen pouring out of the holes.

Sorry, YOU, lose.
Click to expand...
(not to mention the behavior of the flow).


;)


If only you knew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom