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

Molten metal isn't a result of controlled demolition. Anywhere.
What exactly are you arguing?

 

Perhaps he's unaware the radiant heat from just about any 'molten metal' would be harmful to humans

 

exactly how would this be harmful to humans?
heat is heat and unless the molten metal also
out-gassed a lot of harmful stuff..... what was there?

 

Making stuff up yet again?

I looked this up and found references to boots melting after a few hours. NOTHING was mentioned about their boots melting from "glowing molten metal". I suggest you cite where you got this information or retract it.

 

Yes, melting after a few hours of exposure to the pile
one doesn't have to be walking on glowing metal to
have it be hot enough to damage boots. and yes,
the pile was hot enough to be damaging to boots
after a few hours of exposure, and this was happening
weeks after 9/11/2001 ......

 

So what kept the heat up for that long? Thermite burns QUICKLY.

The other point was that it was said the boots melted because of the "glowing molten metal".

 

Where are you quoting that from? Did I ever say "glowing molten metal"?
also, to say that "thermite" doesn't produce the result that was cited, then it could not therefore have been thermite...... what? I am not suck on any one accelerant or incendiary definition, I simply state that there had to have been an additional source of energy available to cause the destruction of the Towers & 7 on that day.

 

Do you have a comprehension problem?! I said "it was said". It was a reference to a post made by Stndown, not you.

I am referencing the point of there being heat in the debris pile two weeks later and that it melted boots. This type of statement is trying to prove that there was thermite or something else used to bring the towers down.

Try and keep up will you.

 

You DO understant that even lead melts at over 600 hundred degrees,right?and to remain 'molten' there has to be a heat source as hot or greater,right?...You know anyone who is comfortable in 600 degree radiant heat?

 

you posted the fact of the heat as if it were an environmental hazard
and quite possibly can be defined as such, however we are talking about a rubble pile that is being heated from below and had the net effect of producing temperatures of maybe 250 deg f. at the surface and in
terms of an environmental hazard, pretty low on the scale, because
people routinely work around heat sources of 250 deg f, even the
pizza oven operates hotter than that and you have a bunch of kids
working in the kitchen of your local pizza joint.... whatever.....

The major point here is that whatever it was, there was sufficient
amount of some incendiary or other material to cause very hot
fires to burn within the rubble pile for weeks after 9/11.
This is significant evidence in proving that this was not simply
a "collapse" event cause strictly by an airliner crash & fire, this
was a totally planned event with the planning being that the building
would be demolished.

 

You truthers can't even decide what metal was supposed to be 'molten',and I spoke of the heat as harmful to HUMANS...not to the enviroment.


Also the tightly packed rubble containing steel would have been an excellent conductor of heat......besides,you know anyone who is comfortable working in 250 degree heat as well?

 

This was never a question of what was comfortable to work in
the environment of ground zero had people working there because
they needed to be there, not that anybody could expect "comfortable".
the work needed to be done and the fact is that workers were having
to replace boots often because of heat damage to their boots.

Take that for whatever you want, but the fact is that some additional
source of energy was brought to bear to cause WTC 1, 2 & 7 to
be demolished as they were.

 

and as we all know
no answer = no answer

or?

 

Molten metal is not a sign of controlled demolition.

 

so by that, one can conclude that Molten Metal = not CD

right?

 

I stand by my statement. Molten metal is not a sign of controlled demolition.

 

So does it make any sort of statement at all?
and if so, what do you think it means?

 

It means: Molten metal is not a sign of controlled demolition.

 

So the sort of heat required to achieve the observed result,
that is either melted metal, or in some cases glowing incandescent,
bits of metal, and this can be totally ruled out as a sign that there
was something else going on in the building, that is another source
of energy that would contribute to the destruction of the building?

This would, by the very nature of the event, not be your
basic mundane building removal by CD ..... there is the
likely-hood that there would be features of the event that
are not exactly like any other CD, but with one exception
and that is the degree of building removal, it is as if somebody
engineered the removal of the twin towers & 7.

Doesn't that strike you as noteworthy?

 

Not a bit. I'm simply pointing out that all the squealing about molten metal does nothing to advance the claim of controlled demolition.

 

and most certainly you are entitled to your opinion
I for one, do not intend to arbitrarily limit the evidence.
Molten Metal is a sign that a LOT of energy was released
by something in the building. Energetic materials used
to demolish the building..... or?

 

Are you telling me that there is no other explanation for slow burning debris buried beneath tons of other debris that would molten metal (possibly aluminum) or glowing metal pieces? Ever stuck a metal fire poker into a camp fire and let it sit? Glows after a while doesn't?

 

exactly what caused all that heat in the first place?
ordinary hydrocarbon fires without any special
"force feed" air, will not burn hot enough to cause
the observed phenomenon. now what?

 

Wrong again, g-bob.

Ever heard of a coal mine fire? (To cite one example)