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?
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.
"...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.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
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.
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.
"...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.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
That said, I agree, thanks for clarifying.