Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: 9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1. You claim 'melted' steel.
2. You show photos of eutectic corrosion/eroded beams. Heat and water vapor are quite capable of that, moreso if you add sulfites, which are available in the rubble by way of heated gypsum board of various types over various decades of production from various manufacturers. It does not require unexpectedly high temps in the rubble to explain this.
3. You point to people who claimed to see steel running, molten, down channel rails.
3.a You do not show any evidence to support those claims. No thermal analysis of the liquid metals, no samples. No indication that the people who claimed it even attempted to establish what kind of molten metal they allegedly saw.
4. You point to a person who claimed to see a steel stalagmite.
4.a You assume this person did something that they never claimed themselves, to establish that the observed metal was steel. (You hypothesize scratching it with a car key or some other test, something even the person who allegedly observed it never claimed to do) In assuming the claim was true, you assume beams of steel ended up molten, even though none of your linked photos from Astaneh or others show beams that could produce a stream of molten steel. Erosion isn't slag. When steel runs, the source leaves 'tells' in the form of slag, running, dripping, etc.
5. The 'formerly molten ingot' claim. A piece of alleged metal possessed by a clown. Never assayed. Never independently reviewed. Just like the same clown's supposed thermite chips. A ridiculous source with a ridiculous claim.
You have never shown how steel could have formed a river of molten metal running down a channel rail. You never show how steel could have dripped and formed a stalagmite, let alone that the alleged stalagmite WAS steel.
Basically you talk in a big, broken, disjointed circle.
Do not come at me with "phony specification.". You show a claim, you back it up with a photo that has nothing to do with it. That's worth challenging. If you want to back up allegations from a couple eyewitnesses that claimed to have seen steel running freely, you don't show a beam with erosion damage to back it up. You show a beam that was slagged. That became molten in some place, and ran/dripped. Not a beam that was eaten away by heat, steam, and possibly sulfur erosion. They are not the same thing. One does not produce the other.
You have shown zero potential sources of molten steel, running freely.