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.
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".
"...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.
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".
"...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.