Was a poison released?

>>622

>Was a poison released?
No.

>>623
Does this mystery require a knowledge of chemistry beyond things melting?

>>624

>Does this mystery require a knowledge of chemistry beyond things melting?
Maybe.

>>625
Did his skin melt?

>>626

>Did his skin melt?
No.

>>627
Did some part of him melt?

>>628

>Did some part of him melt?
Irrelevant. Maybe.

>>629
Did he suffocate?

>>630

>Did he suffocate?
No.

>>631
Was there any mechanical device involved?

>>633

>Was there any mechanical device involved?
No.

>>634
Did he drown?

>>635

>Did he drown?
No.

>>636
Was he dehydrated?

>>637

>Was he dehydrated?
No.

>>638
Was he burned? Were his pores clogged up?

>>639

>Was he burned?
Maybe.

>Were his pores clogged up?
No.

>>640
Was he exposed to extreme heat? To fire? To acid?

>>641

>Was he exposed to extreme heat? To fire? To acid?
No, no, no.

Was the thing that melted hotter than 100°C when it melted?
Did it melt solely because it was hotter than its melting point?
Did it come into direct contact with him before the moment of his death?

>>644

>Was the thing that melted hotter than 100°C when it melted?
No.

>Did it melt solely because it was hotter than its melting point?
No.

>Did it come into direct contact with him before the moment of his death?
Yes.

Was it inside him when it melted?
Would it melt due to mixing with something normally found in the human body?
Was he a human being?

>>646

>Was it inside him when it melted?
No.

>Would it melt due to mixing with something normally found in the human body?
No.

>Was he a human being?
Yes.

Was it a part of a larger man-made structure?
Is it something that melts in its everyday usage?
Did he know it might melt?
Did he know it was there at all?

>>650

>Was it a part of a larger man-made structure?
No.

>Is it something that melts in its everyday usage?
Yes.

>Did he know it might melt?
No.

>Did he know it was there at all?
No.

>>651
Was it some kind of sodium compound?

>>652

>Was it some kind of sodium compound?
No.

Is it something that is usually solid?
Is it something that is usually fatal to a person who touches it, whether melted or not?
Is it something that, when melted, is usually fatal to a person who touches?

>>654

>Is it something that is usually solid?
Yes.

>Is it something that is usually fatal to a person who touches it, whether melted or not?
No.

>Is it something that, when melted, is usually fatal to a person who touches?
No.

>>653
Did the person explode?

>>656

>Did the person explode?
No.

Was the direct contact between `him` and `it` part of the cause of his death?
Was there some property `it` possessed, that not everything of its kind possesses, which made it inherently more dangerous?

>>659

>Was the direct contact between `him` and `it` part of the cause of his death?
Maybe.

>Was there some property `it` possessed, that not everything of its kind possesses, which made it inherently more dangerous?
No.

If it had not made contact with him, would he still have died?

>>662

>If it had not made contact with him, would he still have died?
No.

was the thing that melted part of his food? or his drinks?
like a dangerous ice in his drink.......

>>665

>was the thing that melted part of his food?
No.

>or his drinks?
No.

>>666

>666
I see so no satanic cubes...~~~~

It is a person?

Did he choke on an ice cube?

>>667

>It is a person?
No.

>>668

>Did he choke on an ice cube?
No.

>>669
Did "it" induce a fire when it melted?

>>670

>Did "it" induce a fire when it melted?
No.

>>671
Did "He" pick "it" up with his hand before he died?

Did you kill him?

>>672

>Did "He" pick "it" up with his hand before he died?
Yes.

>Did you kill him?
No.

>>673
Did "he" put "it" into his mouth before he died?
Is "it" an element?
Is "it" a compound?
Is "it" a mixture?

Did it melt after he made contact with it?
Did his contact with it cause it to melt?

>>674

>Did "he" put "it" into his mouth before he died?
No.

>Is "it" an element?
No.

>Is "it" a compound?
Yes.

>Is "it" a mixture?
Yes.

>>675

>Did it melt after he made contact with it?
Yes.

>Did his contact with it cause it to melt?
No.

>>678
Is "it" H20?

>>679

>Is "it" H20?
Nope.

>>680
Is "it" a mixture/compound of two elements?

>>685

>Is "it" a mixture/compound of two elements?
No.

>>686
Is "it" easily found in any household?

>>688

>Is "it" easily found in any household?
Maybe.

>>689
"It" can be found in your kitchen.
"It" can be found in my kitchen.
"It" can be consumed in it's solid form.

>>690

>"It" can be found in your kitchen.
Yes.

>"It" can be found in my kitchen.
Maybe.

>"It" can be consumed in it's solid form.
Yes. But almost anything can be consumed in its solid form.

>>691
"It" is a drug which used to be in pill form.

>>692

>"It" is a drug which used to be in pill form.
No.

>>693
Did he cut himself?
Did he stab himself?
Does "it" melting have anything to do with his death?

>>694

>Did he cut himself?
No.

>Did he stab himself?
No.

>Does "it" melting have anything to do with his death?
Yes.

>>695
'It' was ingested.

>>696

>'It' was ingested.
No.

>>695
"It" melted and entered his bloodstream through osmosis.
He died of infection.
He died from an external wound.
The only part of his body that came into contact with "it" was his hand.

>>698

>"It" melted and entered his bloodstream through osmosis.
No.

>He died of infection.
No.

>He died from an external wound.
Yes.

>The only part of his body that came into contact with "it" was his hand.
No.

>>699
'It' was also used in combination with a weapon.

>>700

>'It' was also used in combination with a weapon.
Yes.

"It" did not melt after coming into contact with him, someone heated "it" till it melted.

Small pieces of "It" remained on his wounds.

These small pieces of "It" melted.

>>702

>"It" did not melt after coming into contact with him, someone heated "it" till it melted.
Yes.

>Small pieces of "It" remained on his wounds.
No.

>These small pieces of "It" melted.
No.

>>704
"He" died when "it" melted, however the culprit X aka someone did not die.

There were no traces of "it" inside or outside on his body after he came into contact with it.

"It" was brown in color as a solid.

'It' was injected by some means.

>>705

>"He" died when "it" melted, however the culprit X aka someone did not die.
Yes.

>There were no traces of "it" inside or outside on his body after he came into contact with it.
Yes.

>"It" was brown in color as a solid.
Irrelevant. It can be any color.

>>706

>'It' was injected by some means.
No.

"He" was murdered by someone who heated "it" aka X.

"He" was allergic to "it".

>>709

>"He" was murdered by someone who heated "it" aka X.
No.

>"He" was allergic to "it".
No.

Any further questions will be answered at my earliest convenience.

"It" was melted in the same room as "him".

After melting "it", "he" came into contact with "it" again.

The moment "it" melted, "he" died.

Is "it" edible on it's own?

Is "it" used frequently in cooking?

The wound(s) on "his" body were made by a knife.

"It" came into contact with "his" entire body before he died.

"It" came into contact with "his" entire body before he received the wound(s).

"It" is soap.

The wound(s) "he" received were bruises.

A second substance was involved in "his" death.

"It" has volatile properties.

"It" has a pungent smell.

"It" is colorless in it's solid and liquid form.

Is "it" used for cleaning purposes?

>>712

>"It" was melted in the same room as "him".
Yes.

>After melting "it", "he" came into contact with "it" again.
No.

>The moment "it" melted, "he" died.
Yes.

>Is "it" edible on it's own?
Yes.

>Is "it" used frequently in cooking?
Yes.

>The wound(s) on "his" body were made by a knife.
No.

>"It" came into contact with "his" entire body before he died.
No.

>"It" came into contact with "his" entire body before he received the wound(s).
No.

>"It" is soap.
No.

>The wound(s) "he" received were bruises.
No.

>A second substance was involved in "his" death.
Yes.

>"It" has volatile properties.
No.

>"It" has a pungent smell.
Yes

>"It" is colorless in it's solid and liquid form.
No.

>Is "it" used for cleaning purposes?
Yes.

>>713
"It" is alcohol.

"It" is a condiment.

"It" is a common household substance.

"It" is usually kept in the refrigerator.

Do I have to guess the second substance?

Only "his" wounds(s) came into contact with "it".

Other parts of "his" body came into contact with "it" when "it" was still solid.

"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body before he died.

"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body before he received the wound(s).

"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body after he died.

"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body after he received the wound(s).

The weapon was a baguette.

>>714

>"It" is alcohol.
No.

>"It" is a condiment.
No.

>"It" is a common household substance.
Maybe.

>"It" is usually kept in the refrigerator.
No.

>Do I have to guess the second substance?
No.

>Only "his" wounds(s) came into contact with "it".
No.

>Other parts of "his" body came into contact with "it" when "it" was still solid.
Yes.

>"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body before he died.
Yes.

>"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body before he received the wound(s).
Yes.

>"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body after he died.
No.

>"It" came into contact with parts of "his" body after he received the wound(s).
No.

>The weapon was a baguette.
No.

>>715
The temperature of "it" is below room temperature as a solid.

The temperature of "it" is above room temperature as a solid.

The temperature of "it" is above zero degrees Celsius as a liquid.

The temperature of "it" is below zero degrees Celsius as a liquid.

The wounds(s) were not fatal.

"He" died from hypothermia.

"He" did not have any burn wounds.

Hydrogen peroxide was not involved in "his" death.

I am still confus.

>>716
Perhaps I should remind you that "it" did not simply melt from being heated past its melting point. Presumably there was some other chemical reaction that occurred.

Don't have time to read back through the answers just now, so expect my questions to be delayed too.

"It" can be usually consumed without any harmful health repercusion.
"It" was not influenced by other substances a second before melting.
He died because of the temperature difference with the melting substance.

>>716

>The temperature of "it" is below room temperature as a solid.
Irrelevant. Yes.

>The temperature of "it" is above room temperature as a solid.
Irrelevant. Yes.

>The temperature of "it" is above zero degrees Celsius as a liquid.
Yes.

>The temperature of "it" is below zero degrees Celsius as a liquid.
No.

>The wounds(s) were not fatal.
No.

>"He" died from hypothermia.
No.

>"He" did not have any burn wounds.
No.

>Hydrogen peroxide was not involved in "his" death.
Yes.

>>719

>"It" can be usually consumed without any harmful health repercusion.
Yes.

>"It" was not influenced by other substances a second before melting.
No.

>He died because of the temperature difference with the melting substance.
No.

Was it an ice cube?

>>725
No!

>>726

Good, was it butter?

>>727
No.

>>728

Was it chocolate?

>>729
Nope.

>>730

Was it George?!

Was it marshmallow?

>>731
No and no.

>>732

Was it food?

>>733
No!

It was probably just some fuck this, I'm going to see some mythbusters until I get an idea

>>734

Was it a dissolvable pill?

>>735
Have fun.

>>736
Nope. Too easy.

>>737

Never hurts to try, since I've been the first person to mention it and all.

>>738

Oh, and was it Alka-Seltzer?

>>738
Ryuga mentioned a pill, actually.

>>739
I can think of a couple ways to murder with Alka-Seltzer but no.

Was he swimming at the time of his death?

>>740

I really do need to read these kinds of threads. I just jumped right into it and then skimmed over it all...

>>741

Ah, but it wasn't murder. Well at least what melted wasn't what killed him.

Was it The Wicked Witch of the West?

>>742

>Was he swimming at the time of his death?
No.

Haha, was he cleaning at the time of his death?

Ah, how dumb of me not to realize it. Was it a candle? As in, he was hit over the head with a candlestick?

>>743
Find out, then!

No.

>>745

>Haha, was he cleaning at the time of his death?
Yes.

>>746

>Was it a candle? As in, he was hit over the head with a candlestick?
No.

>>748

Dammit, it fit all the information too.

A fireplace? Was fire involved?

>>749

>A fireplace? Was fire involved?
No.

Was he cleaning a drain or sink?

Or even better, was he cleaning in the Kitchen?

Was a bathtub involved?

>>751

Was it...A woman's heart?

>>752

>Was he cleaning a drain or sink?
No.

>Or even better, was he cleaning in the Kitchen?
No.

Was he killed while cleaning a Toilet or bathroom then?

>>753

>Was a bathtub involved?
No.

>>754

>Was it...A woman's heart?
No.

>>757

>Was he killed while cleaning a Toilet or bathroom then?
No.

>>758

Is it something used in a normal, everyday routine?

>>759

>Is it something used in a normal, everyday routine?
No.

>>760

Is it a metal(Considered a metal from the periodic list of elements)?

>>761

>Is it a metal(Considered a metal from the periodic list of elements)?
Nope.

>>762
Is the substance not normally found in a solid state?

>>762

Hmm...That rules out quite a few things. Has most normal people encountered such a thing that was the melted thing in question at least once in their life?

>>758
Was he Cleaning machinery?

Was he cleaning an object or place specifically made to hold/use/store the thing that killed him?

"It" is a non-metal.

"It" is a Halogen.

"It" is not a Noble Gas.

>>763

>Is the substance not normally found in a solid state?
No, that is, yes it is normally found in a solid state.

>>764

>Has most normal people encountered such a thing that was the melted thing in question at least once in their life?
Yes.

>>765

>Was he Cleaning machinery?
No.

>Was he cleaning an object or place specifically made to hold/use/store the thing that killed him?
No.

>>766

>"It" is a non-metal.
Yes.

>"It" is a Halogen.
No.

>"It" is not a Noble Gas.
Yes.

>>767

Was it rubber?

"It" can be found in the periodic table.

>>768

>Was it rubber?
No.

>>769

>"It" can be found in the periodic table.
No.

>>770

Does it a look like a man?

>>772

>Does it a look like a man?
No.

Was anywhere near water at the time?

Or somewhere that usually has water?

>>775

>Was anywhere near water at the time?
Yes.

>Or somewhere that usually has water?
Yes.

>>774

Does it look like a bitch? I couldn't resist this one.

>>777

>Does it look like a bitch?
No.

He wasn't cleaning a pool was he?

>>779

>He wasn't cleaning a pool was he?
No.

>>778

Was it an ice-cold heart?

>>781

>Was it an ice-cold heart?
No!

>>782

Was it a sponge?

>>783

>Was it a sponge?
No.

>>784

Was it soap?

>>784
Does "it" naturally appear in the presence of water?

Is "it" an artificial product?

Is "it" found in dirty places?

Is "it" a Noble Phantasm?

Is "it" algae?

Was he washing his car?

Was he cleaning the laundry?

Was he cleaning something people normally clean on a regular basis?

>>785
Do they?

>Was it soap?
No.

>>786

>Does "it" naturally appear in the presence of water?
No.

>Is "it" an artificial product?
Yes and No.

>Is "it" found in dirty places?
Yes and No.

>Is "it" a Noble Phantasm?
No!

>Is "it" algae?
No.

>>787

>Was he washing his car?
No.

>>788

>Was he cleaning the laundry?
No.

>Was he cleaning something people normally clean on a regular basis?
Yes.

Could it be he was cleaing dish?

Or even better was he cleaning his self?

spelling errors everywhere!

>>789

Darling, anything melts.

Did he slip on what was melted?

>>789
Was he brushing his teeth? Or otherwise cleaning himself?

>>790

>Could it be he was cleaing dish?
No.

>Or even better was he cleaning his self?
Yes.

>>792
I suppose it "melts" in the same way paper does.

>Did he slip on what was melted?
No.

>>793

>Was he brushing his teeth?
No.

>Or otherwise cleaning himself?
Yes.

>>794

Indeed it does. Anyway I'll let Ozaki get it. It's his answer.

Was he talking a bath when some bath salts melted?

Was he talking a shower when something in the shower head melted?

>>796
Huh? Finished already?

>>797

>Was he talking a bath when some bath salts melted?
No.

>Was he talking a shower when something in the shower head melted?
No.

>>794
Was he cleaning his mouth? Was he cleaning his breath?

>>799

>Was he cleaning his mouth?
No.

>Was he cleaning his breath?
No.

>>798

It's uncouth to steal away the answer when it was derived by someone else.

>>800
Was he trying to remove dead skin cells? Was friction involved?

Was he at least covered in water or touching some when he died?

>>801
I don't think Ozaki is quite there yet.

>>802

>Was he trying to remove dead skin cells?
Irrelevant. Yes.

>Was friction involved?
Maybe.

>>803

>Was he at least covered in water or touching some when he died?
Yes.

Here is much of what we know about "it" thus far:
1) It came into contact with him, and if he had not been touching it he would not have died.
2) It melted, but not strictly due to being heated. However, it was heated until it melted.
3) It normally melts in everyday usage, and is not normally dangerous, whether melted or not.
4) He picked it up with his hands, but this isn't what caused it to melt. He didn't ingest it. It melted after he picked it up.
5) He didn't know it might melt, or even that it was there at all.
6) It's considered a "compound" and a "mixture", but not an element.
7) It can be found in some peoples' kitchens (including that of the Game Master). It is edible and used in cooking. It has a pungent smell and is used for cleaning.
8) It was used in combination with a weapon, and was heated until it melted.
9) It is not soap, alcohol, metal, or ice/water.
10) He died the moment it melted.

When used in cooking, is it generally liquid?
When used in cooking, is it generally solid?
When used in cooking, is it generally either liquid or solid?
Same questions, but when used in cleaning.

Does it have a use in cooking apart from its use in cleaning?

>>804

Eh. I'll leave it to him, I was never too good at these types of riddles anyway.

Is there exactly one "it" in this puzzle?

>>805
Welcome back Audra. I was wondering when someone would compile the relevant information. I was thinking of doing it myself if this mystery made it to a second thread.

>When used in cooking, is it generally either liquid or solid?
Yes.

>When used in cleaning, is it generally either liquid or solid?
Yes.

>Does it have a use in cooking apart from its use in cleaning?
Maybe.

>>806
Well, have fun with your own game then. I actually considered making one of those Red/Blue games but was too lazy to write a proper scenario.

You can read the solution later, if you are so inclined.

>>807

>Is there exactly one "it" in this puzzle?
Yes.

>>808

Well. I will say this. He was cooking something and the boiling water splashed on him, he proceeded to walk over to the sink and put water on the burn. Then, X melts, perhaps it explodes from the fire after it boiling over. He then proceeds to slam his head against the sink/nozzle and die.

Would it be strange to use `it` as a cooking ingredient?

>>809

By "slam his head against the sink" I mean the force of the explosion forced his head to slam against the sink.

Was his death an accident?
Was he touching it when it melted?

>>816

Oh well. I know what part is relevant though, half of it was just following a line of reasoning.

>>809
>>811

Well, I can't comment on that in fear of giving away the solution, but that's wrong. Thanks for trying.

>>810

>Would it be strange to use `it` as a cooking ingredient?
No.

>>813

>Was his death an accident?
No.

>Was he touching it when it melted?
Yes.

>>819
I'd tell you to stay in good health too, but you probably won't.

>>821

In that case, why don't you just nurse me back to perfect health then?

Was there an explosion?

>>822
I'm not good with kids.

>>824

>Was there an explosion?
Yes.

>>825
Was baking soda involved? Was vinegar involved?

>>826

>Was baking soda involved?
No.

>Was vinegar involved?
No.

>>825

Ouch! That hurts my pride you know!

Was the explosion caused by the weapon in >>700 and >>701?
Is `it` normally explosive?

>>828
Sorry.

>>829
>Was the explosion caused by the weapon in >>700 and >>701?
Yes.

>Is `it` normally explosive?
No.

>>830

It's ok Auntie, my pride isn't that easily killed.

>>830
Was the weapon a knife?

>>832
>knife caused an explosion?!

This is taking too long.

Is the thing that melts flammable?

>>831
You're too old for that.

>>832

>Was the weapon a knife?
No.

>>833
Lol'd.

>>834

>Is the thing that melts flammable?
No.

Was it something that could be worn?

>>836

>Was it something that could be worn?
Yes.

>>835

Don't be so cold Auntie, skin-ship is needed to sustain a loving platonic relationship.

Was it a glove?

>>837
"It"is a towel?!

>>837
Was it a glove? And if so, was it made of something other than cloth?

>>837
Was he underwater at the time?

>>838
Maybe you're just intimidated by me.

>Was it a glove?
No.

>>839

>"It"is a towel?!
No?!

>>841

>Was he underwater at the time?
No.

>>842
Was it something to cover the head?

>>842

Nothing can scare me!
Except ghosts, they scare the shit out of me.

Was it an apron?

>>843

>Was it something to cover the head?
No.

>>844

>Was it an apron?
No.

>>845

Was it a mask?

>>846

>Was it a mask?
Nope.

Did "it" melt because of a reaction with something on "him?"

Did "it" melting cause the weapon to explode?

>>847
Was it his skin?

>>848

>Did "it" melt because of a reaction with something on "him?"
No.

>Did "it" melting cause the weapon to explode?
Yes.

>>847

Was it something on his wrist?

>>849

>>626
>>627

>>851

>Was it something on his wrist?
No.

>>852
Haha, I'm an idiot.

Was it something in his hand?

>>854

>Was it something in his hand?
No.

>>853

Was it something inside of him?

Did "it" melt because it was moved?

Did "it" melting trigger a chemical reaction between "it" and the weapon?

>>858