Visible explosions in WTC7.The video you did not know exists...

They ALL do

 

so if then, you are so knowledgeable on this subject
perhaps you can explain why they ALL can operate
at temperatures in excess of the combustion temp of the fuel?
exactly how is that done?

 

first off,what sort of kiln are you rattling about?

 

the one that is supposed to be exactly like the conditions
in the rubble pile at ground zero.

 

I'll ask the question again what sort of kiln are you talking about?

 

The origin of this tangent was because of an analog with
the conditions in the rubble pile at ground zero, to a Kiln.
therefore I asked if it could be expected to have temperatures
above the combustion temperature of the fuel in use, inside
a Kiln, because the argument was apparently that because
conditions in the rubble pile at ground zero were so much
like a Kiln, that metal could be melted in these conditions.
... however, there is so much that simply doesn't work about
that argument, there are a lot of what ifs here and a lot of
conditions that would have to be exactly right for things
to just happen to create conditions that would heat metal
to incandesence. The whole thing is so very problematic
in that for the official story to work, so many things would
have to come together and work like somebody rolling
snake-eyes 1,000,000 times in a row.

 

No it is not such fires are common throughout the world.

Your opinion is uninformed and your lame attempt to use probability is based on false hood you made no calculation of the odds of it happening.

It happened and that is that no evidence suggests it was caused by anything other than aircraft impact and resulting fires.

This is why you consistently obfuscate and refuse to produce evidence but only a opinion supported by vague feelings

 

So were is the DOCUMENTATION of underground fires that can melt steel or iron? Please enlighten me, where is it?

 

I guess you missed some of the examples given.

Look up what a volcanoe does

 

For the THIRD time,what kind of kiln are we talking about?

 

Now we are off on to a "valcanoe" tangent,
This is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand.
The discussion at hand is about the burning of
hydrocarbon fuel and producing temperatures
that are capable of melting steel or iron.

 

Exactly like a volcano or a kiln.
You've been provided with links.

 

No steel or iron was melted on 9/11

 

Open request to management
Please close this thread, we need to start over,
this one has gone too far into tangent-land.

 

WHO is it that dragged in the concept of a Volcano?
is your goal seeking clarity on this issue or to simply
muddy the waters?

 

I did based on YOUR request for an example which it clearly answered.

Who is constantly asked for evidence and consistently evades? YOU

 

Your "example" is out-of-line
because a Volcano has a heat source that is NOT
a hydrocarbon fire, we were discussing the features
of the melted metal found at ground zero, and the
only source of fuel would be either jet fuel, or office
contents, unless there was something else involved,
and I hesitate to speculate about the exact nature of
whatever was used except to say that there had to have
been an additional source of energy involved in the "collapse"
of the tower(s) & 7. + there was intent on the part of somebody
to have the tower(s) & 7 completely destroyed.

 

My example is in line and spot on you asked for an undergound fire which can melt steel or iron you did not specify what type.

You implied none what soever can exist and you were proven wrong with one example.

You hesitate to say because EVERYTHING you say is fantasy without a shred of evidence.

Yes the hijackers intended to destroy their targets as much as possible and they succeeded.

No other source of energy was needed as the facts show and which you have consistently failed to challenge

 

Really Soupnazi what is your goal here?
what are you really trying to do?
if your goal is seeking truth, you are making a very poor job of it.
The facts of the "collapse" event for WTC7 point to controlled demolition.
if you really can not see the facts here, that is not my problem, I invite the
lurkers on this board to read and digest the information available and make up their own minds.

 

Wrong. In fact they point to just the opposite, despite your incredulity.

 

Just in the energy required to pulverize mass quantities of material
and blast it all over Manhattan, the energy sink is already over-budget, and that does not include energy to cause the "collapse" of the tower.
There could only have been an additional source of energy to accomplish what was observed.

 

No it is not over budget. No other energy was needed

 

Have you a rebuttal to this
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev4.html

 

It is only your same opinion with no evidence

 

you allege "no evidence" have you actually examined what
this guy has to say? This is your tactic here, you are shown
evidence and then you say "That is not evidence"
right, & I'm the Easter Bunny.......
whatever ........