Show me pictures of the glowing pool or the hardened puddle of all this molten metal.
Video would be way cooler but i'll settle for a picture.
The metal would have poured down the building, or down through the rubble pile, and collect in the lowspot of "the bathtub" that the towers were built in...
That puddle of molten metal would have solidified when it cooled.
Where is it? why are there zero pictures of it?
...why can't you find any?
Isn't it at all possible that you are just unintentionally regurgitating something you were told by an idiot or a liar?
The reason people make fun of "truthers" with the "can't melt beams" meme... is because it's so blatantly false on multiple levels.
Aside from the zero evidence that it did happen, there's zero evidence anyone important ever claimed it did. The only people who ever claimed there was molten metal or melting at all are the community of easily psyopped tryhards who regurgitate COINTELPRO well poisoning designed to distract the public from looking into the 4th plane and how it was obviously shot down by the 180th ANG out of toledo ohio (swanton actually).
They inserted dozens of ridiculous claims into the conspiracy forums in the weeks/months even years following the attacks. whenever people started talking about the 4th plane a new theory would emerge to cause fighting within the community, and turn rational people against anyone who discussed any theories that conflict with the official narrative.
Once you can get a group of people to believe something silly, you can use that planted belief to attack all of their other ideas by association.
All the attention was direct at the towers, 7, missiles, "melting beams"...
Remember "nano thermite"? how about the passenger swaps theory?
...At this point you should understand that it's highly possible that a bunch (all) of that is coming from the people who never want to have to sit in front of a microphone and say our military shot down that plane.
Seriously though... how does that convo go? "yeah so like sorry for totally shooting down a plane full of our own citizens but it was headed twords the whitehouse so like we kinda-sorta-had-ta... my bad"
Jet fuel is flammable yes or no?
Assuming yes, next question: when you aerosolize a bunch of fuel by slamming it into a giant metal mesh building at 500-600 mph... does it "burns up real gooder"?
(yep sure does, it's essentially a fuel air bomb at that point).
So just so we are clear... It's not possible that the jet fuel could have melted them at all, because all (lets be nice and say "most") of the fuel was expended in the giant fireball during the impact.
The "official story" is:
The fuel fireball set multiple floors on fire
That fire spread (couldn't fight the fires no sprinkler system)
The longer the fires cooked the more this heated up the structure of the towers causing weaking and loss of structural integrity of the "radically designed" zigzag truss open floors
Truss softening caused the truss/pan/tensioned crete floors to sag
That sagging placed lateral tension on the connections to the exterior walls
As each link in the structure failed this placed an increasing load on the entire system
Eventually this incremental increase of load cycle will cascade and cause a runaway failure (collapse)
Ever wonder why the tower that got hit second fell first?
Thats because the plane struck lower on the tower... meaning the damaged area had to hold more weight... which speed up the process i outlined above.
Nothing had to melt for the towers to fall exactly as they did, and nobody real ever said anything melted.
thank you and yeah i'm expecting a bunch of hollerin from the hoax hogs.
i probably could have been less of a prick about it but i've had it with this shit.
there are plenty of questions about that whole situation, but it has always struck me as odd how inverted the attention needed to attention given ratios are.
all the most useless, fake, and discrediting bullshit is all anyone ever seems to talk about.
pisses me off TBH.
look at the debris pattern in shanksville... thats not a ground impact, that is something breaking apart in the air and raining back down to earth.
"let's roll" is straight out of hollywood, they could make a movie about it...
oh thats right, they did.
good luck getting anyone to attack that sacred cow when there is so much other low hanging poisoned fruit ripe for the picking.
i haven't seen that but lets assume you are correct...
i'm telling you either that is a lie from them, or they were repeating a lie they were told.
don't believe that? cool, so where is the picture montage or video of the removal of the worlds largest hardened T2 puddle?
you'd think it would have been a rather momentous occasion what with it being the very last thing they would have been able to gain access to and crane it out of there. they probably would have made a monument with it and encouraged the public to prostrate to it.
Show me the selfies of people at the 9/11 memorial standing in front of the evidence you claim so obviously exists.
if that were a thing we'd be able to buy commemorative "patriot puddle" coasters and wall clocks (made in china).
You're somewhat mishmashing several things together here, makes it harder to decipher your point.
As far as the molten metal, there were reports and video of debris being lifted out of the pile where they would hit molten material. It ties in well with the thermite, which was analyzed as 'nano-aluminum'. It frustrated me because there are some here that think if you spill iron rust dust on aluminum and add heat that you'll get a thermitic reaction (realistically, you might get spots that react, but it won't be the whole). The smaller the aluminum particles the better surface contact with the iron oxide, which means a better chemical reaction.
The reports of that came from people who had collected dust samples and tested them.
I actually agreed when it came to lasers from space (or whatever Judy Wood was selling) among others as tainting the well.
It really did amaze me how this topic seems to have dropped the whole forum down to reddit tier the past few days. You'd think there could at least be some common ground, where can debate on the evidence of what DID happen, but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story".
As far as the molten metal, there were reports and video of debris being lifted out of the pile where they would hit molten material.
pictures, i can has them?
any pictures or video of things melting during the fire are going to be melting plastic... but i've never seen pictures of molten steel or the resulting pools of solidify molten steel.
ever
It ties in well with the thermite, which was analyzed as 'nano-aluminum'. It frustrated me because there are some here that think if you spill iron rust dust on aluminum and add heat that you'll get a thermitic reaction (realistically, you might get spots that react, but it won't be the whole).
yikes...
so thermite is a 1:3 composition of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder. you get the composition hot enough with a stepped ignition (i like setting a magnesium ribbon on fire with a torch) until you are able to reach temps high enough to cause the aluminum to actually burn. the aluminum burns at a lower temp than the iron oxide but it is able to strip the oxide, using it as an oxidizer thus intensifying the burn and giving you one hell of an exothermic reaction.
the result is molten iron.
we used to use two flower pots, a small one inside a large one, with an insulative layer of perlite between the two. The smaller one acts as a crucible. When the reaction burns it way to the paper plug at the bottom the stream of molten iron flows out the bottom of the pot... it's pretty cool.
The smaller the aluminum particles the better surface contact with the iron oxide, which means a better chemical reaction.
you don't need special aluminum, any old powdered aluminum will work i've even used painters flake but it sputtered a lot...
either way you certainly do not need thermite to cause the towers to fall and you certainly don't have a giant puddle of molten steel to show it was used on that day.
just in case you don't agree... please explain how exactly do you prevent all these magic thermite charges from being initiated when a 600 MPH plane slams into them?
also when those planes hit... what happens to the network of the required control wires needed to initiate ignition of all these devices? i mean they would have either used det cord or blasting wire... and it they used blasting wire we seem to be missing evidence of the giant trunk of wires cascading down the central staircase back to the blasting box where the computer is controlling the ematches/squibs.
see... all these theories are a lot of fun until you're trying to convince a guy who's been working with profession explosives and demolition since he was a kid.
i put on one hell of a fireworks show too couple-tree times a year.
Not to be shitty, I haven't really debated the topic in 10+ years, my archive of photos and videos is probably on a computer I no longer have, and would require some extensive digging to find copies online today.
you don't need special aluminum, any old powdered aluminum will work i've even used painters flake but it sputtered a lot...
Exactly, you don't NEED anything special to generate a reaction, but the finer the aluminum powder the more intense the reaction, with the nano-aluminum powder mix it becomes almost explosive. That's why the tech gets used for tasks like rocket separation.
just in case you don't agree... please explain how exactly do you prevent all these magic thermite charges from being initiated when a 600 MPH plane slams into them?
God I hate that deboonker speak where you use words like "magic" to pretend like the position is stronger than it is.
The answer is speculation; either a) you don't care because any charges started early are in the damaged area where they won't be needed further, or b) knowing the segment that the collision was intended you know it's the opposite side that needs the cuts.
The area that needed to be removed to allow collapse is the core columns and elevator shafts, and even NIST analysis shows that those areas would not be impacted even in their worst case.
Remember, they were renovating the elevators right before 9-11, the crew even set up a light show in the weeks before.
The fact is that it is physically impossible that the top 1/3 of the structure punched through the bottom 2/3 of solid structure while only losing about 20% of gravity. Look up videos of demolition failures to see what would have been a more likely outcome.
without doing a multicut cause this is getting boring and you're getting snarky so this will go to shit fast (lol at REEEE about "magic")
i want to quote one thing in particular:
The fact is that it is physically impossible that the top 1/3 of the structure punched through the bottom 2/3 of solid structure while only losing about 20% of gravity. Look up videos of demolition failures to see what would have been a more likely outcome.
take a model of the building, cut the top 1/3 of it off, remove 3 or 4 floors, drop it back onto the opened top building.
each tower weighed 1,500,000 tons
how hard do you think it is for ANYTHING other than the earth to "catch" 500,000 tons and stop it from moving?
"...but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story"."
Absolutely agreed. It's awfully hard to find the real story when the "evidences" against the "official story" are just plain stupid. Discredits the entire search.
One of the best tools I've found for debunking the official story is to use the NIST and other reports.
Physics knowledge is enough, from various angles, to show the collapses as captured are not physically possible without extra energy input (ie; explosives).
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
Show me pictures of the glowing pool or the hardened puddle of all this molten metal.
Video would be way cooler but i'll settle for a picture.
The metal would have poured down the building, or down through the rubble pile, and collect in the lowspot of "the bathtub" that the towers were built in...
That puddle of molten metal would have solidified when it cooled.
Where is it? why are there zero pictures of it?
...why can't you find any?
Isn't it at all possible that you are just unintentionally regurgitating something you were told by an idiot or a liar?
The reason people make fun of "truthers" with the "can't melt beams" meme... is because it's so blatantly false on multiple levels.
Aside from the zero evidence that it did happen, there's zero evidence anyone important ever claimed it did. The only people who ever claimed there was molten metal or melting at all are the community of easily psyopped tryhards who regurgitate COINTELPRO well poisoning designed to distract the public from looking into the 4th plane and how it was obviously shot down by the 180th ANG out of toledo ohio (swanton actually).
They inserted dozens of ridiculous claims into the conspiracy forums in the weeks/months even years following the attacks. whenever people started talking about the 4th plane a new theory would emerge to cause fighting within the community, and turn rational people against anyone who discussed any theories that conflict with the official narrative.
Once you can get a group of people to believe something silly, you can use that planted belief to attack all of their other ideas by association.
All the attention was direct at the towers, 7, missiles, "melting beams"...
Remember "nano thermite"? how about the passenger swaps theory?
...At this point you should understand that it's highly possible that a bunch (all) of that is coming from the people who never want to have to sit in front of a microphone and say our military shot down that plane.
Seriously though... how does that convo go? "yeah so like sorry for totally shooting down a plane full of our own citizens but it was headed twords the whitehouse so like we kinda-sorta-had-ta... my bad"
Jet fuel is flammable yes or no?
Assuming yes, next question: when you aerosolize a bunch of fuel by slamming it into a giant metal mesh building at 500-600 mph... does it "burns up real gooder"?
(yep sure does, it's essentially a fuel air bomb at that point).
So just so we are clear... It's not possible that the jet fuel could have melted them at all, because all (lets be nice and say "most") of the fuel was expended in the giant fireball during the impact.
The "official story" is:
Ever wonder why the tower that got hit second fell first?
Thats because the plane struck lower on the tower... meaning the damaged area had to hold more weight... which speed up the process i outlined above.
Nothing had to melt for the towers to fall exactly as they did, and nobody real ever said anything melted.
Excellent comment. Now watch the downvotes roll in.
thank you and yeah i'm expecting a bunch of hollerin from the hoax hogs.
i probably could have been less of a prick about it but i've had it with this shit.
there are plenty of questions about that whole situation, but it has always struck me as odd how inverted the attention needed to attention given ratios are.
all the most useless, fake, and discrediting bullshit is all anyone ever seems to talk about.
pisses me off TBH.
look at the debris pattern in shanksville... thats not a ground impact, that is something breaking apart in the air and raining back down to earth.
"let's roll" is straight out of hollywood, they could make a movie about it...
oh thats right, they did.
good luck getting anyone to attack that sacred cow when there is so much other low hanging poisoned fruit ripe for the picking.
Firemen interviewed that day said there was streams of molten metal running down stairwells.
i haven't seen that but lets assume you are correct...
i'm telling you either that is a lie from them, or they were repeating a lie they were told.
don't believe that? cool, so where is the picture montage or video of the removal of the worlds largest hardened T2 puddle?
you'd think it would have been a rather momentous occasion what with it being the very last thing they would have been able to gain access to and crane it out of there. they probably would have made a monument with it and encouraged the public to prostrate to it.
Show me the selfies of people at the 9/11 memorial standing in front of the evidence you claim so obviously exists.
if that were a thing we'd be able to buy commemorative "patriot puddle" coasters and wall clocks (made in china).
You're somewhat mishmashing several things together here, makes it harder to decipher your point.
As far as the molten metal, there were reports and video of debris being lifted out of the pile where they would hit molten material. It ties in well with the thermite, which was analyzed as 'nano-aluminum'. It frustrated me because there are some here that think if you spill iron rust dust on aluminum and add heat that you'll get a thermitic reaction (realistically, you might get spots that react, but it won't be the whole). The smaller the aluminum particles the better surface contact with the iron oxide, which means a better chemical reaction.
The reports of that came from people who had collected dust samples and tested them.
I actually agreed when it came to lasers from space (or whatever Judy Wood was selling) among others as tainting the well.
It really did amaze me how this topic seems to have dropped the whole forum down to reddit tier the past few days. You'd think there could at least be some common ground, where can debate on the evidence of what DID happen, but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story".
pictures, i can has them?
any pictures or video of things melting during the fire are going to be melting plastic... but i've never seen pictures of molten steel or the resulting pools of solidify molten steel.
ever
yikes...
so thermite is a 1:3 composition of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder. you get the composition hot enough with a stepped ignition (i like setting a magnesium ribbon on fire with a torch) until you are able to reach temps high enough to cause the aluminum to actually burn. the aluminum burns at a lower temp than the iron oxide but it is able to strip the oxide, using it as an oxidizer thus intensifying the burn and giving you one hell of an exothermic reaction.
the result is molten iron.
we used to use two flower pots, a small one inside a large one, with an insulative layer of perlite between the two. The smaller one acts as a crucible. When the reaction burns it way to the paper plug at the bottom the stream of molten iron flows out the bottom of the pot... it's pretty cool.
you don't need special aluminum, any old powdered aluminum will work i've even used painters flake but it sputtered a lot...
either way you certainly do not need thermite to cause the towers to fall and you certainly don't have a giant puddle of molten steel to show it was used on that day.
just in case you don't agree... please explain how exactly do you prevent all these magic thermite charges from being initiated when a 600 MPH plane slams into them?
also when those planes hit... what happens to the network of the required control wires needed to initiate ignition of all these devices? i mean they would have either used det cord or blasting wire... and it they used blasting wire we seem to be missing evidence of the giant trunk of wires cascading down the central staircase back to the blasting box where the computer is controlling the ematches/squibs.
see... all these theories are a lot of fun until you're trying to convince a guy who's been working with profession explosives and demolition since he was a kid.
i put on one hell of a fireworks show too couple-tree times a year.
Not to be shitty, I haven't really debated the topic in 10+ years, my archive of photos and videos is probably on a computer I no longer have, and would require some extensive digging to find copies online today.
Exactly, you don't NEED anything special to generate a reaction, but the finer the aluminum powder the more intense the reaction, with the nano-aluminum powder mix it becomes almost explosive. That's why the tech gets used for tasks like rocket separation.
God I hate that deboonker speak where you use words like "magic" to pretend like the position is stronger than it is.
The answer is speculation; either a) you don't care because any charges started early are in the damaged area where they won't be needed further, or b) knowing the segment that the collision was intended you know it's the opposite side that needs the cuts.
The area that needed to be removed to allow collapse is the core columns and elevator shafts, and even NIST analysis shows that those areas would not be impacted even in their worst case.
Remember, they were renovating the elevators right before 9-11, the crew even set up a light show in the weeks before.
The fact is that it is physically impossible that the top 1/3 of the structure punched through the bottom 2/3 of solid structure while only losing about 20% of gravity. Look up videos of demolition failures to see what would have been a more likely outcome.
without doing a multicut cause this is getting boring and you're getting snarky so this will go to shit fast (lol at REEEE about "magic")
i want to quote one thing in particular:
take a model of the building, cut the top 1/3 of it off, remove 3 or 4 floors, drop it back onto the opened top building.
each tower weighed 1,500,000 tons
how hard do you think it is for ANYTHING other than the earth to "catch" 500,000 tons and stop it from moving?
other than that...
where is the giant puddle monument?
show it to me.
"...but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story"."
Absolutely agreed. It's awfully hard to find the real story when the "evidences" against the "official story" are just plain stupid. Discredits the entire search.
How do you mean?
One of the best tools I've found for debunking the official story is to use the NIST and other reports.
Physics knowledge is enough, from various angles, to show the collapses as captured are not physically possible without extra energy input (ie; explosives).
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.