Thanks for telling me - it saves me guessing. So again what are you alleging? Yes it is a bright flaring light. Yes thermite is one possible source of such a light. Have you eliminated other sources? If you cannot eliminate others how do you include thermite as the sole option?
So let's assume it was thermite for purposes of discussion. IF it was thermite what relevance is there to 9/11? You are aware that no chemical analysis of material from ground zero has shown thermite. The Harrit fraud is rebutted and the extant hypothesis for his material is that his own data proves it was not thermite. So - even if we assume it was thermite what does it prove? The only relevance of thermite to WTC claims are:
1) As a possible incendiary used to cause collapse. The status of that debate is clear. No incendiary was needed and no truther has ever proved either that CD "Help" was needed or that it was performed with thermite or any other material even tho not needed.
AND
2) As a suggested source of heat to maintain molten steel in the ground zero basement debris heap. The status of that debate - no proof of molten steel and again no proof of thermite.
The goal of 9/11 trolls is to distract away from the evidence so that everyone starts thinking wrongly and starts asking the wrong set of questions and that would only cause wrong ideas, which in turn can only lead to wrong answers.. Mick West would have you burn red paint to create molten steel and skip the foundry and go right to molten steel.
Google "how to melt steel at home" and they keep subtracting "steel" and replace steel with "(any) metal" which could be lead!! Holy smokes folks. Its official. They think we are stupid!
Mick West Says red paint does cause molten steel! (this is great news! No need for thermite or foundry after all. Dear Arsonist, you have been using the wrong fuel after all. Simple red paint is all you need!)
Apparently Mick West is a paint advocate and is offended by our ignorance of all the wonders of paint and now friction too!
Mick West completely forgot the World Trade Center was moving OUT and away just like the expanding universe theory, so much so that many different groups of people managed to go untouched. The explosion(s) created a virtual protective umbrella, knocking out witnesses just long enough to create the stairwell B "miracle 16" 9/11 myth! Are miracles real?
structural engineer Jon Magnusson as saying that “These structures look massive, but they’re mostly air. They are air, punctuated with thin layers of concrete and steel” (pg. 30) Popular Mechanics
"“I never saw a file cabinet, never saw a desk, a chair, never saw a telephone, never saw any type of
office furniture. There is no glass. It just disappeared and has become part of this fluffy white or gray
dust.” David Shayt, September 11 Collecting Curator and Museum Specialist
Was it pulverized into dust or was it a magic pancake theory or was it mostly air or maybe a empty hollow core witt nothing but groups of magic people? OR the truth?
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT. ... 5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE.i
What other possible source recreates the sequence in the video above?
You failed to name any and yes all things are considered.
You failed to even play the video. Why would YOU do that?
Heaps of debris does NOT cause molten steel, nor does it keep the molten steel alive, nor does it create nano-sized elements causing metals to aerosol themselves post Sept 11, 2001. So the heat maps are a complete lie. Everything you believe in is a lie.
UC Davis DRUM Data From 1.8 KM North North East of Ground Zero Shows Silicon, Aluminum, Iron in the air
Thermite was reported as "rocket fuel" WSJ in arson cases, so the secret would not get out that thermite was the fuel source. The secret is out now..
The "British steel fire test" used bare truss floors. Show me a study or an example computer model NIST used that included all of the trade center floor elements together with exact floor truss configuration / arrangement and the show me that ALL the elements sagged together and could pull in the sprandrel plus the perimeter columns. You can't and you don't even bother because you are Troll!
"no proof of molten steel" Here is more video! see below!
"Probably true but irrelevant" Everything that happened is relevant. All the activities to study the problem with the heat, the maps, the lava and ALL the studies are ALL relevant you fucking jerk . Type in "9/11 heat maps" you retard! in google. For fuck sake man. WTF
I said "Show me a computer model" You failed to do that. physics? Show the computer model, fuck your stupid physics reply. Follow directions for a change.
Which doesn't prove "molten steel" Are you saying a grown ass man does not know what he's holding in his hands from 9/11? Fuck you fella! fuck you.
I put all your "issues" online so others can learn what the 9/11 thermite looks like. What the tests show and have proven . Etc Your other issue seems unhinged. So I not going to answer
9/11 Troll Avoids Thermite, Arson and Extreme Heat
The Deep Mystery 9/11 Molten Steel now being Censored on YouTube
I just got a "hate speech" then it turned into "Community Guideline strike" and now its a "Terms and policies". How long will this go on for? I keep appealing.
Terms and policies
Inappropriate content . This video has been removed. How is it "Inappropriate"?
Steel doesn't need to melt, it also doesn't need to be covered up. 9/11 Molten Steel Arson Evidence Review and Cover Up Steel doesn't need to melt, it also doesn't need to be covered up! Steel doesn't need to melt but why does it need to be covered up? Hate speech Appeal submitted Jan 6, 2021. I just appealed three times for one video.
Thanks for telling me - it saves me guessing. So again what are you alleging? Yes it is a bright flaring light. Yes thermite is one possible source of such a light. Have you eliminated other sources? If you cannot eliminate others how do you include thermite as the sole option?So let's assume it was thermite for purposes of discussion. IF it was thermite what relevance is there to 9/11? You are aware that no chemical analysis of material from ground zero has shown thermite. The Harrit fraud is rebutted and the extant hypothesis for his material is that his own data proves it was not thermite. So - even if we assume it was thermite what does it prove? The only relevance of thermite to WTC claims are:1) As a possible incendiary used to cause collapse. The status of that debate is clear. No incendiary was needed and no truther has ever proved either that CD "Help" was needed or that it was performed with thermite or any other material even tho not needed.AND2) As a suggested source of heat to maintain molten steel in the ground zero basement debris heap. The status of that debate - no proof of molten steel and again no proof of thermite.So what claim do you want to discuss?
friction
