Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

[yebiga]

Ok slow down big fella.

Which of the above would you like to talk about? Or do I get to pick?

Any one you like in whatever order you like - present your thoughts

 

[yebiga]

Ok. So can you please articulate how this is connected to the events of 9/11? I assume you're saying that 9/11 was an inside job because prior to 9/11 the above piece was written?

if I may
One of the points Advocates of the O S repeatedly ask is why would anyone in the USA government intelligence military want a 9/11 to occur?
The PNAC document provides an example of a possible motive in the words of highly placed figures within the U S hierarchy.

It doesn't in itself prove anything nor is that the point - it is a minimal claim that hey this could be a motive and the signatories could be involved.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Institutionalized thinkers.
Can't think for themselves.
Half their brains are shut down and just can't accept it.

Are these your own thoughts, or did you find them on the internet?

 

[yebiga]

Are these your own thoughts, or did you find them on the internet?

Does it matter?
Who could tell?

 

[CM86]

Understand the pancake theory
However in the center of the towers are lifts surrounded by steel
Lifts wells by definition are empty air shafts
This is surrounded by steel columns
You can see this in a simple google search on the design and construction of the towers
Ok here is the key point
The concrete floors give way
And for the purposes of discussion do so uniformly - symmetrically

But in the middle of these lift shafts there is nothing to pan cake - the ratio of concrete floor to steel columns is entirely different

Remember the pan cake theory requires the outer perimeter of concrete and the inner outside the center core to give way

Nothing explains the inner core collapse as there is nothing to pull it down

More over we see the top part of the towers disintegrate before the lower part even begins to "pancake"
We see the top part of one tower tilt 40 degrees and correct itself back to a symmetrical descent! This is simply inexplicable absent demolition charges. Once the tower tilts the sheer mass of weight could only further exaggerate the tilt - what could possibly correct it.

Reports of smoldering or molten steel weeks after the collapse are also inexplicable with the O S.

The black color of the smoke and reports by fire fighters that it was manageable together with survivors who pass by the target floors all attest to insufficient heat to effect the steel to such a cataclysmic level.

The speed of the descent itself is inexplicable as the steel only gets thicker the lower it gets. We never see any resistance whatsoever and it's symmetry is quite frankly indefensible.

I could go on and on indefinitely

Just in the theme of one point at a time.
Re the molten steel and heat.

I think a lot of what people thought was molten steel, was actually molten aluminium.
Aluminium has a much lower melting point, and is what the majority of the plane was made of.

And from what I remember reading, the heat retained under the rubble was reasonably explained for the actual length of time.

I think I've discussed this before, but a quick search didn't show me anything.
I used the analogy of standing in a fire pit 12 hours after the fire was put out. The insulation has kept enough heat in the embers under the ash, that you could still burn your foot.

Would you like to discuss this point until we are both satisfied?


A side note, next we could talk about the shaft, as I've not really though about that aspect before.
My initial thought is that because the building didn't collapse uniformly, the upper stories could easily have crashed down on the shaft. But I'm not going to stand by this, as I've not looked into it at all.
Or could it have lost strength due to the heat, and collapsed the same way the rest of the steel supports failed?
Dunno. But I'd be happy to work though that point next.

 

[yebiga]

Just in the theme of one point at a time.
Re the molten steel and heat.

I think a lot of what people thought was molten steel, was actually molten aluminium.
Aluminium has a much lower melting point, and is what the majority of the plane was made of.

And from what I remember reading, the heat retained under the rubble was reasonably explained for the actual length of time.

I think I've discussed this before, but a quick search didn't show me anything.
I used the analogy of standing in a fire pit 12 hours after the fire was put out. The insulation has kept enough heat in the embers under the ash, that you could still burn your foot.

Would you like to discuss this point until we are both satisfied?


A side note, next we could talk about the shaft, as I've not really though about that aspect before.
My initial thought is that because the building didn't collapse uniformly, the upper stories could easily have crashed down on the shaft. But I'm not going to stand by this, as I've not looked into it at all.
Or could it have lost strength due to the heat, and collapsed the same way the rest of the steel supports failed?
Dunno. But I'd be happy to work though that point next.

Aluminium - melting - possibly - unlikely

600 celcius melting point of aluminium is pretty hot
The jet fuel once spilled across the wtc impact levels - ignited simultaneously
We see this with initial explosion

Remember we are told there is a lot of space between floors - so initial explosion and ignition has ample oxygen - see color of smoke is light after a 20-30 minutes it's darker and darker. In other words the fire is burning out.

Whilst the initial explosion of jet fuel could would should generate sufficient heat to melt aluminium because jet fuel can burn at up to 900 Celsius - there is nothing to sustain this for any length of time.

I don't believe flowing aluminium is any other color than silver
What we see at the wtc is not silver - it's orAnge

Or let me reword that - I don't believe that in open air - as we see flows on the side of the tower- outside a foundry or crucible can you get any metal to flow in that color - the heat required is twice what jet fuel burns at.

There simply has to be some other chemically / explosive induced answer.

 

[CM86]

Aluminium - melting - possibly - unlikely

600 celcius melting point of aluminium is pretty hot
The jet fuel once spilled across the wtc impact levels - ignited simultaneously
We see this with initial explosion

Remember we are told there is a lot of space between floors - so initial explosion and ignition has ample oxygen - see color of smoke is light after a 20-30 minutes it's darker and darker. In other words the fire is burning out.

Whilst the initial explosion of jet fuel could would should generate sufficient heat to melt aluminium because jet fuel can burn at up to 900 Celsius - there is nothing to sustain this for any length of time.

I don't believe flowing aluminium is any other color than silver
What we see at the wtc is not silver - it's orAnge

Or let me reword that - I don't believe that in open air - as we see flows on the side of the tower- outside a foundry or crucible can you get any metal to flow in that color - the heat required is twice what jet fuel burns at.

There simply has to be some other chemically / explosive induced answer.

Thank you. I really appreciate your reply.

I would counter with saying that yes the majority of jet fuel would have ignited instantly. But it wasn't the burning jet fuel that did the most damage, it was the ongoing fire.

I'm not sure if there was carpeting. But all of the wood, plastic, paper, desks et al would provide more than enough fuel, that once ignited by the initial jet fuel, would burn at a much higher temperature than the jet fuel alone would. So it would also sustain a higher level of heat for a longer time, than just burning jet fuel would alone.

In regards to the colour, I'd like to counter with the Draper point.
Basically it says that most metal objects will emit a visible light at roughly 525 'C.
To break it down more, all light is radiation (energy). The greater the energy, the higher the frequency.
When enough heat energy is put into aluminium it starts to emit visible light.

As it flows outside of the furnace, it will depend on what the temperature that it left at would be, and the surface area. It will take time for the energy to dissipate, regardless of the material. So as long as it's still above roughly 525 'C, it will still show colour.

 

[BustedWing]

Aluminium - melting - possibly - unlikely

600 celcius melting point of aluminium is pretty hot
The jet fuel once spilled across the wtc impact levels - ignited simultaneously
We see this with initial explosion

Remember we are told there is a lot of space between floors - so initial explosion and ignition has ample oxygen - see color of smoke is light after a 20-30 minutes it's darker and darker. In other words the fire is burning out.

Whilst the initial explosion of jet fuel could would should generate sufficient heat to melt aluminium because jet fuel can burn at up to 900 Celsius - there is nothing to sustain this for any length of time.

I don't believe flowing aluminium is any other color than silver
What we see at the wtc is not silver - it's orAnge

Or let me reword that - I don't believe that in open air - as we see flows on the side of the tower- outside a foundry or crucible can you get any metal to flow in that color - the heat required is twice what jet fuel burns at.

There simply has to be some other chemically / explosive induced answer.

Remember we are told there is a lot of space between floors - so initial explosion and ignition has ample oxygen - see color of smoke is light after a 20-30 minutes it's darker and darker. In other words the fire is burning out.

Remember we are told there is a lot of space between floors - so initial explosion and ignition has ample oxygen - see color of smoke is light after a 20-30 minutes it's darker and darker. In other words the fire is burning out.

Not true. A black smoked fire is not proof of a fire that is oxygen starved...

See this video as an example (apologies, not sure how to embed the video):

the picture below is a shot of a plactics fire. Remember the word PLASTICS, I'll speak to it later.

Does the smoke look similar? I would suggest that the smoke from the plastics fire is darker than the ones on 9/11

Back to Plastics....

What was filling the building? Yup, Office furniture, equipment, and so on. What is the vast majority of office equipment made out of?

I don't believe flowing aluminium is any other color than silver
What we see at the wtc is not silver - it's orAnge

This should clear up this inaccuracy. What temperature were the fires at the WTC?



Here is a pic of the glowing metal flowing from the tower moments before impact...

Nist reported that pockets of fire maxed out at around 1000 degrees C. Or a light yellow colour as indicated above on the Molten Aluminium chart.

There simply has to be some other chemically / explosive induced answer.

Based on the above I just posted, I very much disagree with this statement.

* Most of this info I garnered from a site called Metabunk. I reccomend you take a look. Really informative, if technical at times.

 

[yebiga]

Not true. A black smoked fire is not proof of a fire that is oxygen starved...

See this video as an example (apologies, not sure how to embed the video):

the picture below is a shot of a plactics fire. Remember the word PLASTICS, I'll speak to it later.

Does the smoke look similar? I would suggest that the smoke from the plastics fire is darker than the ones on 9/11

Back to Plastics....

What was filling the building? Yup, Office furniture, equipment, and so on. What is the vast majority of office equipment made out of?



This should clear up this inaccuracy. What temperature were the fires at the WTC?
View attachment 207074


Here is a pic of the glowing metal flowing from the tower moments before impact...

Nist reported that pockets of fire maxed out at around 1000 degrees C. Or a light yellow colour as indicated above on the Molten Aluminium chart.

Based on the above I just posted, I very much disagree with this statement.

* Most of this info I garnered from a site called Metabunk. I reccomend you take a look. Really informative, if technical at times.

I accept your points but the last
The aluminium in a crucible or oven is one thing - aluminium scattered in various sizes across concrete floors is another
We are saying the jet fuel is between 600-900Celcius
The black smoke may have no bearing on the heat of the fire but it does indicate the fire is oxygen starved or depleted as the thickness of the black smoke has to reduce the available oxygen

In short I can imagine isolated aluminium for short periods getting to a melting point but little else because as a fluid it will disperse

The heat for it to get to bright red/orange would be in the range 2000 Celsius and thus inexplicable

Further, are we expecting the sprinklers were working or not

 

[BustedWing]

We are saying the jet fuel is between 600-900Celcius

Sure thats the heat of jet fuel on fire, but what about the fires IGNITED by jet fuel, and then SUSTAINED by all that plastic office furniture etc?

The black smoke may have no bearing on the heat of the fire but it does indicate the fire is oxygen starved or depleted as the thickness of the black smoke has to reduce the available oxygen

Why does it indicate the fire is oxygen starved and depleted? Where did you hear that? Source? I will freely admit that black smoke, for CERTAIN fires, in CERTAIN conditions, MIGHT indicate a lack of oxygen, but I have just shown you multiple examples of black smoke fires that are certainly not depleted, nor oxygen starved. Furthermore one of the examples was a plastics fire, ie fuel that would have been similar to what was readily available on every floor of WTC 1 and 2, and the smoke was black.

I'll be clear. I interpret that what your saying is: black smoke = oxygen starved and depleted fires in WTC 1 and 2 = the fires didnt bring down the towers.
Ive just given you a really clear piece of evidence that the black smoke was from the fuel (plastic office furiture etc) used to sustain the fire. The fuel ignited it, for sure, but everything else sustained it. The black smoke = oxygen starved fire is a non starter.

The aluminium in a crucible or oven is one thing - aluminium scattered in various sizes across concrete floors is another

Im not sure what you mean here. Temerature is temperature, it doesnt matter what vessel it is in, if the metal reaches a certain heat, it will change form and colour.

In short I can imagine isolated aluminium for short periods getting to a melting point but little else because as a fluid it will disperse

We can never know for sure of course, but I would imagine massive chunks of the plane would have been crunched up against the inner wall of the towers, as not much "punched" through the other side on impact. Thats what you see here, the aluminium from the plane (of which there is lots and lots) pushed up against the corner of the tower, heated to around the high 900s Celcius, melting, and dripping out the side of the building.

The heat for it to get to bright red/orange would be in the range 2000 Celsius and thus inexplicable

Disagree - I just showed you a table that shows what colour it should be, depending on temperature. The colour from the WTC pic is light orange. I put it at around 900-ish degrees Celsius, well within what the anticipated temperatures at the crash site. you mention 2000 degrees Celsius...you sure youre not mixing up Fahrenheit there mate? 2000 degrees C is right off the charts...

Further, are we expecting the sprinklers were working or not

I think we can all agree that seeing as a plane sliced through the building, cutting off electricity, snapping elevator cables and so on, I think its safe to say the sprinklers were NOT working.

So, I guess I'm left with this question. Have I changed your mind on the smoke, the concept that the fires were small/oxygen starved, or the temperature at which aluminium could melt, and the colour? Or is what I have presented incorrect?

 

[yebiga]

Sure thats the heat of jet fuel on fire, but what about the fires IGNITED by jet fuel, and then SUSTAINED by all that plastic office furniture etc?


Why does it indicate the fire is oxygen starved and depleted? Where did you hear that? Source? I will freely admit that black smoke, for CERTAIN fires, in CERTAIN conditions, MIGHT indicate a lack of oxygen, but I have just shown you multiple examples of black smoke fires that are certainly not depleted, nor oxygen starved. Furthermore one of the examples was a plastics fire, ie fuel that would have been similar to what was readily available on every floor of WTC 1 and 2, and the smoke was black.

I'll be clear. I interpret that what your saying is: black smoke = oxygen starved and depleted fires in WTC 1 and 2 = the fires didnt bring down the towers.
Ive just given you a really clear piece of evidence that the black smoke was from the fuel (plastic office furiture etc) used to sustain the fire. The fuel ignited it, for sure, but everything else sustained it. The black smoke = oxygen starved fire is a non starter.

Im not sure what you mean here. Temerature is temperature, it doesnt matter what vessel it is in, if the metal reaches a certain heat, it will change form and colour.

We can never know for sure of course, but I would imagine massive chunks of the plane would have been crunched up against the inner wall of the towers, as not much "punched" through the other side on impact. Thats what you see here, the aluminium from the plane (of which there is lots and lots) pushed up against the corner of the tower, heated to around the high 900s Celcius, melting, and dripping out the side of the building.

View attachment 207243

Disagree - I just showed you a table that shows what colour it should be, depending on temperature. The colour from the WTC pic is light orange. I put it at around 900-ish degrees Celsius, well within what the anticipated temperatures at the crash site. you mention 2000 degrees Celsius...you sure youre not mixing up Fahrenheit there mate? 2000 degrees C is right off the charts...
View attachment 207244

I think we can all agree that seeing as a plane sliced through the building, cutting off electricity, snapping elevator cables and so on, I think its safe to say the sprinklers were NOT working.

So, I guess I'm left with this question. Have I changed your mind on the smoke, the concept that the fires were small/oxygen starved, or the temperature at which aluminium could melt, and the colour? Or is what I have presented incorrect?

You haven't convinced me its molten aluminium but your raising valid points and the possibility that it is can not be entirely dismissed.
I mentioned the sprinklers because there is furphy by certain debunkers that explosions were caused by water getting into contact with molten aluminium. I wanted to get that out of the way. My understanding is certain powdered aluminium could can explode on contact with water. But I assume we both agree that this did not occur at the WTC from the pplane's aluminium.

Thick black smoke - within the confines of WTC structure by definition reduces the available oxygen within the structure.
Offices certainly contain plastics - chairs, computers, printers, copiers, and stationary.
Equally the desks are made of various wood compounds, filing cabinets are combination of wood and steel. Cabinets tend to be wood. Partitions generally are plasterboard.
Carpets tend to be composite - wool and synthetics
Loads of paper files.

In other words it's not just plastics

On the flip side, we know the towers to have been riddled with asbestos which is a fire ******ant - melting point around 860 Celsius - similarly non asbestos plaster boards are as a rule fire ******ant - various products newer products with far higher melting points - 1,400 Celsius. I of course don't know what was used at the WTC

I concede at the area around the point of impact would have stripped a lot of the protection exposing in areas the steel to heat but equally this would not be uniform or total - areas would remain protected even on the impact floors.

Employees on higher floors attest to passing the impact zones via a stairwell - which again attests to a non uniformity in the heat and damage on the impact floors. This is significant as humans can not survive anywhere near the kinds of temperatures we are discussing.

Further aluminium is a heat conductor meaning it disperses heat - this is why I mentioned an oven or crucible would be necessary to obtain molten aluminium glowing red. The plane we can agree disintegrated into perhaps a thousand pieces across 1-4 floors. Similarly the jet fuel - which ignites largely simulateaneously

In short, I concede isolated pockets of aluminium may have become molten. However, in a fluid state they must disperse and in that dispersal they cool. Some of it may have still remained molten and may even explain the molten drip from the WTC.

But for that aluminium to be glowing weeks after the collapse is not conceivable. It would require a different metal and one much hotter.

 

[CM86]

Sure thats the heat of jet fuel on fire, but what about the fires IGNITED by jet fuel, and then SUSTAINED by all that plastic office furniture etc?


Why does it indicate the fire is oxygen starved and depleted? Where did you hear that? Source? I will freely admit that black smoke, for CERTAIN fires, in CERTAIN conditions, MIGHT indicate a lack of oxygen, but I have just shown you multiple examples of black smoke fires that are certainly not depleted, nor oxygen starved. Furthermore one of the examples was a plastics fire, ie fuel that would have been similar to what was readily available on every floor of WTC 1 and 2, and the smoke was black.

I'll be clear. I interpret that what your saying is: black smoke = oxygen starved and depleted fires in WTC 1 and 2 = the fires didnt bring down the towers.
Ive just given you a really clear piece of evidence that the black smoke was from the fuel (plastic office furiture etc) used to sustain the fire. The fuel ignited it, for sure, but everything else sustained it. The black smoke = oxygen starved fire is a non starter.

Im not sure what you mean here. Temerature is temperature, it doesnt matter what vessel it is in, if the metal reaches a certain heat, it will change form and colour.

We can never know for sure of course, but I would imagine massive chunks of the plane would have been crunched up against the inner wall of the towers, as not much "punched" through the other side on impact. Thats what you see here, the aluminium from the plane (of which there is lots and lots) pushed up against the corner of the tower, heated to around the high 900s Celcius, melting, and dripping out the side of the building.

View attachment 207243

Disagree - I just showed you a table that shows what colour it should be, depending on temperature. The colour from the WTC pic is light orange. I put it at around 900-ish degrees Celsius, well within what the anticipated temperatures at the crash site. you mention 2000 degrees Celsius...you sure youre not mixing up Fahrenheit there mate? 2000 degrees C is right off the charts...
View attachment 207244

I think we can all agree that seeing as a plane sliced through the building, cutting off electricity, snapping elevator cables and so on, I think its safe to say the sprinklers were NOT working.

So, I guess I'm left with this question. Have I changed your mind on the smoke, the concept that the fires were small/oxygen starved, or the temperature at which aluminium could melt, and the colour? Or is what I have presented incorrect?

I really enjoy your points.
I'll leave it to you, as he doesn't seem to want to talk to me.

But I'd also suggest that even if the sprinklers were working, that they would have had very little effect on the fire.

In regards to the fire being starved of oxygen, I'd also add the density of the air at that height, and the airflow due to the location to the water, and the height.
The fact that the fire wasn't burning in a vacuum with a limited amount of oxygen.
Properties of gasses: They will fill any space available. Or on a deeper level, Gay-Lussac's law and the ideal gas law.

Just expanding a little more;
In simple terms, once the oxygen is oxidised, it doesn't just leave an empty void... more oxygen will fill that void, instantly. Warm air rises, cool air falls.
The carbon monoxide/dioxide is less dense and will displace the cooler and denser oxygen.



Sry, this was just going to be the first two lines, then I got carried away!

 

[Present Not Past]

Interesting and slightly old article on molten aluminium reacting with water - leading to massive explosions.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...s.html&usg=AFQjCNGOkX0MERV85pCooq5dto2A6u2-KA

 

[Present Not Past]

Some more on when molten aluminium hits water.
So that pretty much puts to an end the case for explosives planted in the building. It was a pretty crazy idea to begin with don't you think?
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwijzJvyk7LKAhVCm5QKHa0WApEQFgg8MAU&url=http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/58596-twin-towers-brought-down-by-molten-aluminum-says-scientist&usg=AFQjCNE946ObNlaXXF4aQXXkecjigYaASw

 

[Lebbo73]

Some more on when molten aluminium hits water.
So that pretty much puts to an end the case for explosives planted in the building. It was a pretty crazy idea to begin with don't you think?
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwijzJvyk7LKAhVCm5QKHa0WApEQFgg8MAU&url=http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/58596-twin-towers-brought-down-by-molten-aluminum-says-scientist&usg=AFQjCNE946ObNlaXXF4aQXXkecjigYaASw

Straight from the comments section

Kenneth3 years ago

• It's a good thing that it mixed so properly for a perfectly controlled demolition. There are plenty of pictures on the internet of what a real aluminum explosion looks like(once you get past a million sites trying to sell more bullshit on why these towers fell) and I can post four pics that we got at our safety meetings as I work in a aluminum die casting plant. Whatever though. Believe what you will, but the truth will set you free. Our government had a hand in some of 9-11 and used it to overhaul our nations security and gain power over everyone by using the fear of terrorism to have us give up our constitutional rights. Godbless those who died that day... hopefully it will not go in vain and people will one day wake up. Anyone who questions this, I beg you to look at the pentagon pictures, the plane size, the impact point, and Flight 93's remains(after the missile hit it). I watched the news that day and remember them vividly saying that flight 93 was a possible hijack that was not responding. Soon after that, it crashed. Soon after that, there were rumors of heroes who tried to take the plane. Well, I guess I'd lie to people too if I had to protect the white house and blow a plane out of the sky, put yourself in their shoes. Where is the impact point? Only crash I've ever seen without pieces of plane(bigger that 2 ft) or impact point... instead it's heroes and memorials. Who wants to believe that their government would do that? NOBODY!!! Because they have been so honest with us about everything else. WMD's right... in Iraq? The worlds population is out of control and food will eventually grow short. Why would they care about getting rid of some useless eaters to gain more control? Eh, whatever, I'm done... go read your newspapers, wiki, or watch fox news.
  

 

[Lebbo73]

Or this comment:

"

This is funny, notice how the Alcoa test included rust? Why rust? I'll tell you why. For those with no chemistry knowledge at all, stop reading now. Rust is also known as Iron(III) oxide, aka Fe3O2. Now what happens when you add that to some molten aluminium (yes there IS a second "i" in Aluminium). Fe3O2 + Al = 2Fe + Al2O3 ... It's called THERMITE! The very compound suspected to have been used in the controlled demolition of the towers. I doubt that's gonna put any conspiracy theories at rest..."

 

[Present Not Past]

Or this comment:

"

This is funny, notice how the Alcoa test included rust? Why rust? I'll tell you why. For those with no chemistry knowledge at all, stop reading now. Rust is also known as Iron(III) oxide, aka Fe3O2. Now what happens when you add that to some molten aluminium (yes there IS a second "i" in Aluminium). Fe3O2 + Al = 2Fe + Al2O3 ... It's called THERMITE! The very compound suspected to have been used in the controlled demolition of the towers. I doubt that's gonna put any conspiracy theories at rest..."

Given the age of the Twin Towers there is a strong possibility that the molten aluminium would have come into contact with rust within the buildings' superstructure. However, the molten aluminium reacting with the water is the most likely source of the explosions.

 

[yebiga]

Given the age of the Twin Towers there is a strong possibility that the molten aluminium would have come into contact with rust within the buildings' superstructure. However, the molten aluminium reacting with the water is the most likely source of the explosions.

It's nonsense
Google molten aluminium it's safe to pour in wAter
We covered this it would need to be powdered aluminium or thermite

 

[CM86]

And just like that, it's back to comments from youtube as evidence.

 

[BustedWing]

I really enjoy your points.
I'll leave it to you, as he doesn't seem to want to talk to me.

But I'd also suggest that even if the sprinklers were working, that they would have had very little effect on the fire.

In regards to the fire being starved of oxygen, I'd also add the density of the air at that height, and the airflow due to the location to the water, and the height.
The fact that the fire wasn't burning in a vacuum with a limited amount of oxygen.
Properties of gasses: They will fill any space available. Or on a deeper level, Gay-Lussac's law and the ideal gas law.

Just expanding a little more;
In simple terms, once the oxygen is oxidised, it doesn't just leave an empty void... more oxygen will fill that void, instantly. Warm air rises, cool air falls.
The carbon monoxide/dioxide is less dense and will displace the cooler and denser oxygen.



Sry, this was just going to be the first two lines, then I got carried away!

I would agree here. The "fire starved of oxygen" theory is a non starter.The only indication of this might have been black smoke, but (a) black smoke isnt an indicator of an oxygen starved fire in all (or even many) cases, and (b) a misunderstanding of physics, chemistry and misquotes (still waiting for someone to bring up the fireman's "I see two pockets of fire" quote).

 

[BustedWing]

It's nonsense
Google molten aluminium it's safe to pour in wAter
We covered this it would need to be powdered aluminium or thermite

There are literally hundreds of possible explanations for the explosions heard/reported at ground zero. Thermite/thermate/nanothermate/superdupermilitarygradesecretthermite are certainly not amongst them.

 

[BustedWing]

You haven't convinced me its molten aluminium but your raising valid points and the possibility that it is can not be entirely dismissed.

Just so I'm clear here - I believe that the flowing metal from the side of the building prior to collapse is most likely aluminium (certainly not steel, nor thermate reaction etc) but in terms of the pools of liquid metal reportedly found in the rubble in the following days/weeks...well, that could be any number of different metals/alloys. No one with any expertise identified it as steel, aluminium or anything else. People made guesses, sure, but thats all they were, guesses. Not sure it matters to be honest. As mentioned before, those buildings were full of all sorts of things, office furniture, supplies, cars in the parking lot, elevator "stuff" like the cables,cabins, kitchens, restaurants and so on and so on and so on. Who KNOWS what was sitting in the rubble, and then was heated to a point of melting.

its no smoking gun, its a red herring.

 

[BustedWing]

I concede at the area around the point of impact would have stripped a lot of the protection exposing in areas the steel to heat but equally this would not be uniform or total - areas would remain protected even on the impact floors.

Absolutely - not sure of your point here.

Employees on higher floors attest to passing the impact zones via a stairwell - which again attests to a non uniformity in the heat and damage on the impact floors. This is significant as humans can not survive anywhere near the kinds of temperatures we are discussing.

One stair shaft in one building was aces sable for a short period of time. But this uniformity you're repeating is something I'm confused about. Why does it need to be uniform for the OS to "stand up"?

But for that aluminium to be glowing weeks after the collapse is not conceivable. It would require a different metal and one much hotter.

I would dispute the "Not Conceivable" but certainly agree with you that it could be many different types of metal. Again, unsure as to how this is an "ah hah!" moment though....

 

[yebiga]

Absolutely - not sure of your point here.

One stair shaft in one building was aces sable for a short period of time. But this uniformity you're repeating is something I'm confused about. Why does it need to be uniform for the OS to "stand up"?

I would dispute the "Not Conceivable" but certainly agree with you that it could be many different types of metal. Again, unsure as to how this is an "ah hah!" moment though....

Not an ahah moment
In fact there is no ahaha

There are loads of unresolvable questions

I'm not fussed either way with the molten aluminium

The O S is a fable - there are bits maybe lots of stuff which are true but the whole remains a fable. Because the OS is itself a fabulous conspiracy.

And it is this reluctance to acknowledge that all versions of 9/11 are incredibly fabulous and that it requires a thorough investigation which consigns ardent adherents of the o story as really annoying.

OS adherents tend to have a very large commitment to the official fabulous version of events.

So shall we move onto some other aspect

 

[yebiga]

Black smoke - thickness - I am only alluding to it physically occupying more space

The non uniformity of the fire aluminium dispersed and the non uniformity of the stripping of asbestos and other ******ants
Should result in a non uniform collapse
- I am getting ahead of myself
And we do see the tower tipping to one side
And then we see a remarkable correction