... because you haven't demonstrated otherwise.
> The pieces were mounted..... so they must be fairly solid.
The pieces that are mounted are the alleged gun parts, which have a relatively thin coating of some substance that is completely unidentifiable in a photo. The "big piece of concrete (which) has the appearance of igneous rock" is not mounted, it's just sitting there, and again you can't tell from a photo what it is really made of, or how hard it is. It might not even be concrete. But if it is concrete, as I said, it appears to have been crushed and then re-accreted. That doesn't rule out that it was melted back together, but you haven't yet ruled out other possible explanations for what we see in that photo.
> As to Gypsum, it's nearly 80% calcium sulphate which has a melting point of over 1400 celcius so your point is specious. You can't sinter something based upon only 20% material melting at low temps.
Sintering happens at all temperatures, actually -- it just happens faster at higher temperatures -- so my point about sintering is certainly not specious, regardless of the presumed composition. Neither is my point about gypsum's melting point, if your "igneous rock" is only loosely bound together.
> Everthing in these pics speaks to high temps.
Well, there are certainly "high temps" involved in the "official story," too, but you're accepting the claim that the photo shows concrete that was melted and flowed like lava around steel guns. In a previous post, you said "the melting point of sand is higher than steel." So, your interpretation of the photo needs to include an explanation for why the concrete was melted but the guns only look a little bent.
= new reply since forum marked as read
