Motlen metal pouring from the sides of the towers 7 minutes to collapse

So, what exactly is this molten metal that pours from the sides of the buildings? My thoughts are that is molten steel, and if that's so, how hot would this have to have been to flow like that? I'd love to hear somebody defend this as not relevant. Anybody?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...se-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

 

Defend your opinion: 1) why do you assume it's metal 2) why do you assume steel?

 

There's a ton of other proof that 9/11 was an inside job so this topic isn't about whether the government did it. It's about how the government did it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867

I was googling around looking for stuff on the molten metal issue and found this.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.co...ter-rubble-could-not-have-come-from-jet-fuel/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------
Thermite devices could have been wrapped around the steel girders diagonally to cut through them. They could have contributed, along with the explosives, to bringing the structure down. When ignited, thermite can reach temperatures of 4,500F in less than two seconds.

One of the by-products of the use of thermite is molten steel. Another is aluminum oxide, which shows itself as a fine white smoke. What did we have in the wake of the towers’ collapse? Molten steel and fine white “smoke.” There was so much of this smoke that it could be seen from the International Space Station.
------------------------------------------------------------

There's a lot of info on this on the internet.
https://www.google.es/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=NhLFU967LIPT8gff94DgBw&gws_rd=ssl#q=9/11+molten+metal+towers


Here's another.
http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/ameri...led-demolition-twin-towers-nano-thermite.html

 

I would like to know as well.

 

Aluminum, plenty of it in the building. It's melting point was at the temp determined the fires attained. It poured out when the floors started sagging. The fires did not get hot enough to melt steel, only weaken it tremendously.

 

Yes. And it's hard to visually tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel.

 

Don't you think that if the destruction of the twin towers was really an inside job, the libs would be screaming bloody murder!! How happy would they be to have such a thing to hold over republicans? They would be wetting their pants daily and holding senate hearings every hour on the hour.

Really,... this continuous barrage smacks of Grassy Knoll syndrome.

Do you have any pictures of Quasimodo pouring the molten substance?

 

who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) "what" it is, its the temperature the "stuff" is at that counts which is very easily proven and has been proven.

- - - Updated - - -

but you are cheating, its in a crucible, lets see your yellow molten aluminum laying on the ground or are you trying to get us to believe OBL was operating a foundry up there?

 

Of course you'd say that. It destroys your argument. Aluminum melts at 1221 F and Steel at 2750. Office fires can reach temperatures to melt Aluminum.

I don't care what you say. You can't tell what a molten substance is by sight alone. Especially when there are contaminants present in the molten substance.

 

You underestimate the power of the propaganda machine.
this whole scene is first & foremost PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!

 

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

 

you should care what I say, since it proves the foolishness of what you posted.

You destroy your own argument through your lack of physics knowledge.

Thats right alum melts and runs off long before it luminesces. In laymans terms to help you understand that means while it is still silver. As usual you are completely misapplying literally everything to paint a picture that is ultimately horse(*)(*)(*)(*).

Luckily I just happened to stop in and take the time to explain proper application to you and what you are looking at.

- - - Updated - - -

so what?

you want me to read the whole public library now is that it?

If you even have a point be my guest and make it.

 

Oh, I wouldn't expect you to read anything. Unlike us, you depend on your logical fallacies instead of actual science and physics.

 

ok suffice to say you had no point make and I am sure you think posting the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing library supports the point you failed to make.

great strategy! good luck with that.

 

Well, it only fails in your mind because you refuse to even read anything and prefer fiction to fact. You are quickly proving that truther mentality must be some kind of mental condition.

 

I have nothing to read until you make a point. I dont read minds.

Why dont you simply face the fact that this is over your head and you cant formulate an argument to refute mine LOL

 

Problem is you don't read literature by Phd's either. Not my problem.

One paper and...

"you want me to read the whole public library now is that it?" ~ Koko

LOL

 

There is a huge problem here,
the fact is that it really doesn't take a PHD to
understand what is going on, the attack of 9/11/2001
was a FRAUD, we were told suicidal Arabs hijacked
airliners and crashed them into buildings resulting in
the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 and a pattern of damage
to the Pentagon that was completely uncharacteristic of
an airliner crash.

Fact is WTC1,2 & 7 were blown up, and the whole fake
hijacked airliners fiasco was a device to usher in more
control freak bits like the TSA.

 

Yep, you are right, it doesn't take someone smart to come up with that.

 

If the towers were 'blown up',then why not just do that outright,and blame it on the terrorists?....After all,it HAD happened before,why even bother with the planes?

 

Like I said, it doesn't take someone smart to come up with a truther story. Logic does not come into play nor do physics, math, reading, etc..

 

you hand me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing library without making a point. I have better things to do than read a library simply because you post damn link.

I keep telling you to make your point but you dont understand the (*)(*)(*)(*) you give me to read and all you have done is prove you arent even capable of making a point in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

still waiting on your point, since debunkers have all that smartz you would think they could at least make point..

 

I see, so one paper is now a library eh? You would think that truthers could at least be able to read.

 

it was clearly Adamantium.

why? cause its what I say.

 

the point is here that you cant even tell me WHY I should read it or what part if anything at all I should read. YOu cant even make a damn point