Merged Molten metal observations

NoahFence said:
Nothing.

NOTHING flammable would survive the impact of the jet and the resulting fireball. Stop pretending anything on this planet would have.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Java Man said:
I warned you. Now you're the only one being disrespectful here. You're the one who's using this crime to censor someone else's opinion. I'm just questioning the job done by NIST and others in regards to this incident. You on the other hand are using the incident to censor me. By using the emotional line you're a disgrace to the flag, the country, the constitution and all those who fought for liberty and freedom of speech. People have a right to question and investigate and have a counter opinion to the official position. If that is wrong it in no way insults the victims. It's just going an extra step to see if there was no foul play or negligence. But in no way am I ever trying to shut you up using the victims misfortune as you are trying to do with me. You're a true disgrace. If you have the nerve then come here and answer the questions with backup, with proof. Even if by forum rules you don't have to, stand up and do it. Carry the burden of proof truthers have to carry. Don't use their misfortune (the victim's) as a shield to hide from my arguments. Be a man and stand up with your own arguments. That is if you have any. As it is common knowledge here that you come around with statements like these when you have nothing sensible left to say. Coward.
Click to expand...

Nice rant. Did you happen to notice the plank in your eye when pointing out the splinter in someone elses?

And no, we're not trying to censor you. We're trying to get you to stop lying.
 
beachnut said:
C-4 would burn-off, you should check this out before posting opinions. If the C-4 was ejected from the fires it might survive, but otherwise it would be burned up, ineffective, like 911 truth.

Me loose? Not so. The impact would not set off C4, the fires would burn it up, the soldiers in WWII who served with my dad used plastic explosives to heat their food (like C4 now). Thus, the C4 would burn off in the intense fire, rendered harmless, useless, like 911 truth claims.

The heat energy of the jet fuel was equal to 315 tons of TNT, go ahead ignore 315 tons of TNT equivalent heat energy; it is what 911 truth does, ignore reality to make up fantasy theories based on nothing. And you have the office fires, the largest in the world, set with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, burning jet fuel, setting multiple floors on fire at the same time, in seconds. Go ahead ignore the intense heat which forced people to jump because their skin was catching on fire from across the room, jumping to their death, murdered, so you could make up false information and lies about the day they were murdered by 19 terrorists. Why do you have a need to apologize for terrorists? You never used C-4, by dad did, but he used the earlier version. Experience and knowledge, beat your "sorry you loose" ironic ending of not rigidly fastened or securely attached evidence for your post.

How did paratroopers in WWII set the plastic explosives on fire without 66,000 pounds of burning jet fuel to help them, or massive office fires?
Click to expand...


UK version of C-4 is PE4 or DEMEX.
It makes a very good fuel for getting a stove going, the 'hexamine' tablets supplied as fuel for the British Army stove are very smokey and leave soot everywhere. PE4 burns clean and it is hotter, your Tea is ready quicker.
 
Java Man said:
I still don't see the huge slabs of aluminium that should have formed after the aluminium melted and solidified again. All I see are small droplets.
Click to expand...

Please point out an aircraft accident where a large (huge) slab of melted aluminum was found.
 
Java Man said:
I warned you. Now you're the only one being disrespectful here. You're the one who's using this crime to censor someone else's opinion. I'm just questioning the job done by NIST and others in regards to this incident. You on the other hand are using the incident to censor me. By using the emotional line you're a disgrace to the flag, the country, the constitution and all those who fought for liberty and freedom of speech. People have a right to question and investigate and have a counter opinion to the official position. If that is wrong it in no way insults the victims. It's just going an extra step to see if there was no foul play or negligence. But in no way am I ever trying to shut you up using the victims misfortune as you are trying to do with me. You're a true disgrace. If you have the nerve then come here and answer the questions with backup, with proof. Even if by forum rules you don't have to, stand up and do it. Carry the burden of proof truthers have to carry. Don't use their misfortune (the victim's) as a shield to hide from my arguments. Be a man and stand up with your own arguments. That is if you have any. As it is common knowledge here that you come around with statements like these when you have nothing sensible left to say. Coward.
Click to expand...

Gawd wut a freaking hypocrite.....:jaw-dropp

onto ignore u go
 
Java Man said:
Yea yea yea. Always playing your ignorance in your favor. That you can't come up with some compound or are unaware a certain compound doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist and can't be used. You can't rule out molten metal out of your ignorance of agents capable of doing the job.
Click to expand...

Do you know what else could have caused the collapses?

Mothra.

If you can have some super duper magical unknown compound that may or may not exist, then I have just as much proof that MOTHRA did it.
 
Java Man said:
I still don't see the huge slabs of aluminium that should have formed after the aluminium melted and solidified again. All I see are small droplets.
Click to expand...

moving of the goal posts noted and appeal to perfection noted.

YOu were just shown molten and resolidified aluminum... (oh snap)
 
Java Man said:
I still don't see the huge slabs of aluminium that should have formed after the aluminium melted and solidified again. All I see are small droplets.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many Truthers say things like

"I don't see enough steel remains at GZ"
"I don't see enough concrete at GZ"
and (here)
"I don't see enough re-solidified aluminium at the plane crash sites".

YouTube truthers have to see things for them to be valid. It's sad really.
 
GlennB said:
It's amazing how many Truthers say things like

"I don't see enough steel remains at GZ"
"I don't see enough concrete at GZ"
and (here)
"I don't see enough re-solidified aluminium at the plane crash sites".

YouTube truthers have to see things for them to be valid. It's sad really.
Click to expand...

Above and beyond that, they're selective. Nobody saw any cooled, reharded pools of iron from the supposedly molten steel either, but it doesn't stop them from making the claim.
 
ProBonoShill said:
why don't you visit the nearest FDNY station and share your thoughts with them, let's see how brave you really are tough guy.
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
Oh you mean the FDNY with the guys who became ill for being on ground zero and are not getting any benefits for being heroes? We could start a whole new thread just on that matter.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY those guys. Go and tell THOSE GUYS your thoughts on the actions of the NYFD on that day.

Tell them that the buildings were brought down by thermite. Tell them that their own brass is partially to blame because they knew that the buildings were being demolished.

Fact is JM, the nasty, ugly, reprehensible way that the FFs have been treated POST collapse by gov't and insurance co's has NOTHING WHATSOEVER, nada, zip, zilch, to do with how the buildings collapsed in the first place and YOU are using their misfortune to attempt avery round about way of scoreing points for your arguement.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Above and beyond that, they're selective. Nobody saw any cooled, reharded pools of iron from the supposedly molten steel either, but it doesn't stop them from making the claim.
Click to expand...

Above and beyond that they are delusional. There was no use of thermXte which is the only reason they introduce the lies about steel.

And none of them has ever said how thermXte could be used to make that quantity of molten iron/steel at that location at that time.

As I said previously for the benefit of this current troll there are about a dozen reasons each of which says "no thermXte". Try a couple or three as samples:

1 ThermXte used to initiate collapse would need to cut multiple columns or beams across the floor space creating lots of little bits of molten crap.
A) How do those little bits get transported to form one pool at the discharge point;
B) If you have cut the beams/columns to give you the little bits of molten stuff which you then carry somehow to the one point in the corner - how come the tower is still standing AFTER you cut the columns?
C) Carrying all the stuff to one corner could be by hand carried ladles - used by a team of fire proof suited and invisible suicide workers OR by gravity flow channels with reheat to keep the stuff molten. Said gravity flow channels with reheat would have to be installed after the aircraft crash because if installed before the crash they would be broken up and join the heap of burning material in the corner. So another mandatory requirement for fire suited suicide volunteers. etc etc

Neither Trolls nor truthers ever think through the consequences of their silly claims do they?

No truther has ever suggested how thermXte could be used to assist the collapse of either Twin Tower or WTC7. Its no surprise why they cannot - the whole idea is ridiculous.

So the whole discussion about "was it steel?" is a diversion - it wasn't.

As is the whole discussion about thermXte - whether it was there or not it wasn't used. It would not matter if a 100 tonne stockpile of any breed of thermXte was found on ground zero it wasn't used.
 
Java Man said:
Wrong, those metals don't behave like we see in the video at red, orange or yellow hot. They would be melted long ago and could not stand vertical and be seen shining. The would have pooled into a horizontal pool of incandescent metal rather than a vertical wall. Such pool would not be visible from the street so many stories below. The only way for metal to be that hot and in a vertical position is for it to be a high temperature melting point metal. AKA steel.

.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this once before and you brushed it off so let me try again, reworded.

If a fire is hot enough to create pools of red hot, low melting point metal(s), then what would it do to the steel structural members in the same or proximate location?

Answer it will heat the steel to the same temp as the molten material and give off light of very similar wavelength (given that emmission is related to temp rather than material). If the molten pool is directly above the red hot steel and the floor then tilts it may well preferentially tilt towards the weakest column(s) (surprise ,,, a red hot column would fit that description) AND the molten material would then flow onto/over the red hot steel member.
 
jaydeehess said:
I mentioned this once before and you brushed it off so let me try again, reworded.

If a fire is hot enough to create pools of red hot, low melting point metal(s), then what would it do to the steel structural members in the same or proximate location?
Click to expand...

The point is that the office fires did not melt the steel another source did.
 
jaydeehess said:
Fact is JM, the nasty, ugly, reprehensible way that the FFs have been treated POST collapse by gov't and insurance co's has NOTHING WHATSOEVER, nada, zip, zilch, to do with how the buildings collapsed in the first place and YOU are using their misfortune to attempt avery round about way of scoreing points for your arguement.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the molten metal. Feel free to open a new one on this topic and we'll discuss it there.
 
Java Man said:
The point is that the office fires did not melt the steel another source did.
Click to expand...

NO!
The point is that YOU cannot state any evidence whatsoever that the molten material is steel.

OTOH I just gave you a senario in which a steel member would be red hot at the same time that molten metals of other elements would be present in a proximate location and you refuse to even address the point of my post. Instead you attempt AGAIN to brush it off and ignore it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom