sci.energy.hydrogen

Gee, another poster who thinks stating simple truths displaying common sense
and describing reality is going to change the mind of the VILLAGE IDIOT OF
MORON TOWN (knews4u).

"daestrom" wrote in message
news:46f83627$0$24277$4c368faf@ ...
>
> wrote in message
> news:fd8b8o$7ns$1@ ...
>> In daestrom wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> This seems to be analysis of dust. Was there any analysis of the buckets
>> full of molten metal?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Is there any analysis which proves or disproves these viewpoints?
>>
>
> One simple thought that comes to mind is that since the re-solidified
> steel was in pools, then it didn't fall through the air a great distance
> as molten steel. Simple aerodynamics would have split the molten material
> up into globules/ droplets and spread them over a wide area. Much like
> water going over a falls, the air would break up the stream into a spray.
> The conspiracy folks are quick to point at the 'sparks' flying out of a
> window and claim it is molten metal, but ignore that such molten metal
> wouldn't reach the ground and form 'pools'. Falling through air for
> several hundred feet would have cooled some of them while still shaped
> like droplets. AFAIK, no such solidified globules were found, only simple
> pools formed by steel melting and flowing smoothly into a low spot (such
> as could be expected of a long-burning, buried fire around the already
> fallen steel).
>
>
>>> >>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.
>>
>> So is there any analysis of the buckets of molten meatal found six weeks
>> after the colapse?
>>
>>
>>> But *burning* aluminum gives a nice flame. So does burning paper and
>>> other
>>> carbon-based materials. And yes, aluminum burns. Much easier than
>>> steel.
>>
>> OK. So what?
>>
>
> So these (burning carbon-based material or burning aluminum) could easily
> explain the bright 'sparks' flying out of windows seen in the videos.
> This seems infinitely more plausible than thermite reactions from
> explosives placed by some 'black-op' team.
>
> Occum's razor. If the simplest explanation is that the sparks are from
> burning debris from the fire such as paper, carpet, or aluminum; then why
> assume some more extravagent explanation such as a particular type of
> incindiary and clandestine operations?

Please, when knews4u, the VILLAGE IDIOT OF MORON TOWN, is spewing his
conspiracies, simple explanations just won't do. Simplistic gobblygook, on
the other hand, is what's called for.

>
>>
>>> > 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?
>>
>> I have no idea. Do you have any answers, or just questions? Do you have
>> real, live structural engineers who have studied the other fire-related
>> collapses of high rise buildings? What do they say?
>>
>
> Those weren't my comments, but yes I've read the interviews with 'real,
> live structural engineers' and am satisfied that their explanations fit
> the facts.

But don't you realize that since their explanation shows just how idiotic
knews4u's explanation, he just won't accept them as knowing anything?