sci.energy.hydrogen

wrote in message
news: @ ...
> On Sep 23, 9:32 am, EskWI...@ wrote:
>> > > So King DUMMY where does buckets full of molten iron come from FOUR
>> > > WEEKS after a building collapse?
>>
>> Was there any analysis of the allegedly molten metal?
>
> Watch this:
> /watch?v=HZ2vAupmooU
> And as many of the other Steven Jones videos as you need.
>
>>Was it tested and
>> shown to be iron?
>
> Yes.
>

Nonsense. Viewing a video of some sparks blowing out of the burning tower,
and then *weeks* later finding steel at the bottom of the basement that was
melted are two different pieces of data. There is no way that the sparks
flying out the window ended up in the sub-sub basement.

The melted steel in the basement wasn't 'molten' when it landed in the
basement. It melted after it arrived there.

>>It would make sense to me that there would be
>> quantities of hot (maybe molten) aluminum, which originated either as the
>> skin and frame of the airliner (tons would be available) or melted office
>> furniture (tons would be available).
>>
> 4 to 6 weeks after the collapse?
> Molten aluminum is not red hot. It remains silver in color.

But *burning* aluminum gives a nice flame. So does burning paper and other
carbon-based materials. And yes, aluminum burns. Much easier than steel.

Unless there is a spectral analysis of the 'sparks', there is no way to
prove they are from iron. The so-called 'expert' is connecting two pieces
of data with a faulty conclusion. He knows of metal found in the basement
that was melted at some point, and he sees pretty sparks from some debris
flying out a broken window. He then concludes that molten steel / thermite
is the *only* possible explanation?? Just plain nonsense.

By the way, how long did the fires burn in the debris after the collapse?
How hot did those fires get?

>
>> Who proved that it is iron? Why were quantities of iron even available
>> in
>> the WTC?
>>
>
> Watch the videos.
> /watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k&mode=related&search=
>> > > How does a building that "pancakes" turn completely into dust leaving
>> > > a ground level scar with no large rubble pile?
>>
>> Huh? Did the structural steel turn completely ito dust? Are you sure?
>>
>
> I am talking about millions of toms of concrete slab that turned into
> pyroclastic flows of dust.
> Why wasn't there 15 or 20 floors of "pancakes," if that is what
> happened?

Why should there be? If you look at the photos after the collapse, many
large masses of concrete are visible. But don't let these facts interfere
with your pet theories.

daestrom