so if then, you are so knowledgeable on this subject perhaps you can explain why they ALL can operate at temperatures in excess of the combustion temp of the fuel? exactly how is that done?
The origin of this tangent was because of an analog with the conditions in the rubble pile at ground zero, to a Kiln. therefore I asked if it could be expected to have temperatures above the combustion temperature of the fuel in use, inside a Kiln, because the argument was apparently that because conditions in the rubble pile at ground zero were so much like a Kiln, that metal could be melted in these conditions. ... however, there is so much that simply doesn't work about that argument, there are a lot of what ifs here and a lot of conditions that would have to be exactly right for things to just happen to create conditions that would heat metal to incandesence. The whole thing is so very problematic in that for the official story to work, so many things would have to come together and work like somebody rolling snake-eyes 1,000,000 times in a row.
No it is not such fires are common throughout the world. Your opinion is uninformed and your lame attempt to use probability is based on false hood you made no calculation of the odds of it happening. It happened and that is that no evidence suggests it was caused by anything other than aircraft impact and resulting fires. This is why you consistently obfuscate and refuse to produce evidence but only a opinion supported by vague feelings
So were is the DOCUMENTATION of underground fires that can melt steel or iron? Please enlighten me, where is it?
Now we are off on to a "valcanoe" tangent, This is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is about the burning of hydrocarbon fuel and producing temperatures that are capable of melting steel or iron.
Open request to management Please close this thread, we need to start over, this one has gone too far into tangent-land.
WHO is it that dragged in the concept of a Volcano? is your goal seeking clarity on this issue or to simply muddy the waters?
I did based on YOUR request for an example which it clearly answered. Who is constantly asked for evidence and consistently evades? YOU
Your "example" is out-of-line because a Volcano has a heat source that is NOT a hydrocarbon fire, we were discussing the features of the melted metal found at ground zero, and the only source of fuel would be either jet fuel, or office contents, unless there was something else involved, and I hesitate to speculate about the exact nature of whatever was used except to say that there had to have been an additional source of energy involved in the "collapse" of the tower(s) & 7. + there was intent on the part of somebody to have the tower(s) & 7 completely destroyed.
My example is in line and spot on you asked for an undergound fire which can melt steel or iron you did not specify what type. You implied none what soever can exist and you were proven wrong with one example. You hesitate to say because EVERYTHING you say is fantasy without a shred of evidence. Yes the hijackers intended to destroy their targets as much as possible and they succeeded. No other source of energy was needed as the facts show and which you have consistently failed to challenge
Really Soupnazi what is your goal here? what are you really trying to do? if your goal is seeking truth, you are making a very poor job of it. The facts of the "collapse" event for WTC7 point to controlled demolition. if you really can not see the facts here, that is not my problem, I invite the lurkers on this board to read and digest the information available and make up their own minds.
Just in the energy required to pulverize mass quantities of material and blast it all over Manhattan, the energy sink is already over-budget, and that does not include energy to cause the "collapse" of the tower. There could only have been an additional source of energy to accomplish what was observed.
you allege "no evidence" have you actually examined what this guy has to say? This is your tactic here, you are shown evidence and then you say "That is not evidence" right, & I'm the Easter Bunny....... whatever ........