Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 7, 2016.
no one here has ever claimed that heat caused that to happen.
Logic fail. -1
unless we know who exactly claimed it was caused by heat, we don't know the context of what we are responding to.
now, show us who claimed this was caused by heat.
Not doing own research. -1
Don't worry, I got ya:
The PBS documentary "Relics from the Rubble"...
The leader of the Ground Zero artifact recovery, architect Bart Voorsanger, describes the object, which must have weighed several tons, as "fused element of steel ... molten steel and concrete and all of these things ... all fused by the heat."
glad you finally decided to support your own claim.
I'm glad you're glad. Now back to the question:
What temperature would you say would be needed to do this?
which floors are we looking at?
That was a joke answer right?
ok fine, let's assume these are floors 55, 56, and 57.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out what caused this phenomenon.
its called mass, gravity, movement, compaction and heat.
The question related to temperature and you have stumbled around for a page or two trying to say that instead of just answering the simple question.
Q: What is the melting point of concrete?
A: Concrete does not actually have a melting point, but it decomposes into various components due to the makeup of concrete, which is mostly sand and gravel with Portland cement added. A temperature of thousands of degrees Fahrenheit is needed to decompose concrete.
show us your evidence that any of this concrete "melted".
room temperature would probably be sufficient.
It is an assumption exploited by the museum at ground zero. It is actually a sedimentary artefact and not created from heat. Pressure & water contributed to the formation of this object. It actually contains sheets of paper so the heat story is a little incredible.
like i said, room temperature would be adequate.
Yep. Have any of them demonstrated their flawed premise yet? That is molten steel = CD. Until that is done this argument is stupid.
It was posted for you in the middle of your morning meltdown. This was just this morning. You even thanked me for posting it.
can anyone explain the what appears to be a 1/4 copper tube sticking out of the mass and is clearly not melted? ...
you posted no such evidence.
now, where's your evidence that the concrete in tha photo "melted".
- - - Updated - - -
so no melted concrete?
just like I thought.
Apparently you missed the point.
The molten metal found LATER was not caused by jet fuel or office furniture.
It was caused by the fires burning under the rubble for days which trapped the heat and made it grow hot enough to melt steel.
Yet another epic fail and no challenge to the fact that jet airliners brought down the towers
none of the molten metal was tested to see its composition.
we know that the WTC towers had a lot of aluminum, which has a much lower melting point than steel
So I asked you to post a link to any eyewitness who said he saw molten aluminum. Where is it?
kindly tell us what molten aluminum and steel look like.
Sorry that's not a link to an eyewitness who said he saw molten aluminum. Read the post again so you can actually understand what I asked you. Do you need a dictionary?
molten aluminum and molten steel look pretty damn similar, huh?
That's not it either, I guess English is not your primary language. Let me ask the question again:
Can YOU (ID = Ronstar) post (as in copy and paste) a link (also known as a URL or Uniform Resource Locator) to any eyewitness (noun - a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it) claim (verb - to state that something is true or is a fact) that they saw (viewed with their eyes) molten (liquefied by heat) aluminum (an element in the boron group with symbol Al and atomic number 13)?
I'm not sure if I can make myself any clearer. If you still don't understand the question, just say "I don't understand", thanks.
Separate names with a comma.