The embedded material can’t be fully examined one way or another if it was molten or not, unless you broke open the object. Did you do that? It sounds unhinged that you assume the revolver is fine and usable. Is that your unhinged estimate? I would start by calling a doctor and get a brain scan first thing tomorrow morning.
Basically what you are doing creating your own straw-men arguments and then letting logic go in the wind by your own doing. i.e its the unhinged defense.
Basically what you are doing creating your own straw-men arguments and then letting logic go in the wind by your own doing. i.e its the unhinged defense.
I hope you’re not going to use each new word as a means to avoid the topic of high temperatures. So far you using concrete to avoid the high temperatures issue then what will you use next?
Lets give you more ammo and more words to avoid with.
Scientist also talked about “new chemicals” (hmmm will he talk about chemicals now?)
Will “new chemicals” be the next chapter of avoidance scheme of off topic dribble? Chances are YES!
9-11 Debunker, Steven Dutch said So why wasn't there a huge puddle of molten concrete at Ground Zero?
Well the scientists who said
beyond 2,000 degrees fahrenhet were looking at
“huge puddle of concrete” looks like more people using “smart phones” to me!
“So we’ve moved the goal posts from melted steel to melted concrete?” Nope that’s just you avoiding..
We can see the results of high temperatures and the effects it has on sidewalks.
The end product after 2,000 C is not going to still be concrete, so no one here talking about concrete but that was the language used and its assumed the heat transform these object into something more like a “rock”.
“but not the revolver and casings were not melted” ??? what ?
Nope wrong again.
Not only are there subtractions but also additions i.e bumps on a once smooth object.
Nope wrong again.
Not only are there subtractions but also additions i.e bumps on a once smooth object.
Nope clearly molten steel.. “the Mn/Fe ratio for these particles is consistent with WTC structural steel. “ “Molten at the time of their formation. “ Frank Greening Study! Six percent of the dust was covered in MN/Fe particles.
Museums and individuals know what a material is by its weight. So its not firefighters saying what it is which they do on video and its NOT just photos. The public has NEVER questioned the displays at museums and these objects have been tested and the results were made public.
“"The museum hired specialists to perform forensic testing and analysis of two large composites and several smaller pieces that had broken off. ... Scientists determined that, at heat levels in excess of two thousand degrees Fahrenheit,"
The guns at NYPD museum also has evidence of melting on display!
The scientists said beyond 2,000 degrees fahrenhet.
your link covers nothing 1. no Dr. Astaneh-Asl on video says “melting” before he is attacked by a reporter on PBS.
What museum? The photo has labels. NYPD 9/11 Museum has molten guns on display for example and stories of lava traveling down the street. Look at photo I supplied.
What specialists? Ask the author. Elizabeth Greenspan
Elizabeth Greenspan - 2013
Frank Greening wrote a report "the Mn/Fe ratio for these particles is consistent with WTC structural steel"
Characterization of a World Trade Center Dust Sample
What analysis? EDX
Again look at what I posted or look at the summary link and stop using a phone to do research. Put the phone down!
Clear evidence of molten steel at the World Trade Center site
Clear evidence of molten steel at the World Trade Center site
No comments:
Post a Comment