You're just going to get an answer from Roark saying that the sulfidation was from the gypsum board (drywall) in the buildings. Which may be possible at very high temperatures. Not at normal fire temperatures because gypsum is actually used for fireproofing. So, IMO that is NOT where it comes from. Anyone else want to try?

Yeah, I'm expecting some pretty far-fetched theories explaining the sulfidation, but even more than that, I'm looking forward to explanations for evaporated steel and thus >3000°C temperatures.

Looks like this won't even be touched by hardcore debunkers. It's just too hot, figuratively and literally.



I'm somewhat disappointed...was hoping for some laughs.

It disappeared cause in the laws of government science Steel is like water, it tends to just go away.. Kinda like the WHOLE airplane at the pentagon and PA crashes.

There has to be no real reasoning behind why it happens it just does.. you know like how NO STEEL BUILDING in human history has ever fell due to fire except on that weird day when the Government decided to make its own science class were all normal science was rushed out the window and theirs was king for a day.

Prehaps many have pointed Jones errors out before, but when Jones quotes Barnett "Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated"
And then states "5,000+ F needed to “evaporate” steel", he (Jones) fails to notice that the same steel Barnett is talking about is mentioned elsewhere in Jones own paper. This is under section 2 right before Jones starts misquoting Eagar.

The sulfur as I'm sure many here know, can come from gyp wallboard dust, heating oil and acid rain.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

So, as you see it, Jones reference to this evaporated steel, stemming from Barnett, is in error? How?

Besides, I'd still like to hear a conventional explanation for evaporation.

Originally posted by Lumos
So, as you see it, Jones reference to this evaporated steel, stemming from Barnett, is in error? How?

Besides, I'd still like to hear a conventional explanation for evaporation.

Its simply dishonest. Or very sloppy.

Here's Jones quote:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.

But its not since we know what Barnett is talking about didn't get nearly that hot.
Its a false dilemma.

For more detail I would suggest reading the articles or contacting those who are working on it (like those in the articles) or Barnett. I doubt anyone who believes against this theory will be convinced by some anonymous internet poster.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

No, you're being dishonest or sloppy.

But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

So you put up an unrelated quote from Barnett and proceed to claim Jones' reference regarding evaporated steel, stemming directly from the above quote from Barnett, was "a false dilemma". New to the biz?



PS: I doubt anyone will be convinced of the falsity of the above quote by the New York Times through contrary statements by some anonymous internet poster posing as Superman.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Lumos]

Originally posted by Lumos
No, you're being dishonest or sloppy.

But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

So you put up an unrelated quote from Barnett and proceed to claim Jones' reference regarding evaporated steel, stemming directly from the above quote from Barnett, was "a false dilemma". New to the biz?



PS: I doubt anyone will be convinced of the falsity of the above quote by the New York Times through contrary statements by some anonymous internet poster posing as Superman.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Lumos]

I think it was spelled out perfectly. Jones put up the quote

Jones quote:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.

But since we know the piece didn't get that hot Jones is incorrect.
How hard is that to understand

Your quote was from Barnett. I don't have a problem with it

Also see the link was posted above.
So its a false dilemma.

I even asked Barnett if it was the same steel. Its really that easy.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

The Nature Of The Biz

Originally posted by Lumos
New to the biz?

What "biz" would that be? The most common "biz" I see going on around here these days is people using ATS threads to promote commercial websites that push all sorts of outlandish theories about 9-11 and other "alternative topics" for profit.

As for this particular thread, the agenda seems to be posting a question, then bagging on anyone who tries to answer it honestly.

Maybe good for "some laughs", but utterly irrelevant to Denying Ignorance.

It's reasonable to have doubts and ask questions about 9-11. I know I have plenty myself.

But it is unreasonable to derogate others for having different opinions, and I recommend getting used to the idea that someone can disagree with you and not necessarily be wrong.

Oh, another one.

Do I promote a commercial website? No, unless the NYT and FEMA qualify.

Do I bag on anyone who tries to honestly answer questions? No. In fact, Clark_Kent was making false claims, intentional or not, which I pointed out. Is there anything wrong with that? Is that derogatory? Is that contrary to "denying ignorance"?

No, it's clearly not. So spare me your unfounded accusations, please.

Superman

But since we know the piece didn't get that hot Jones is incorrect.

"We know"? How? For that to be true, Barnett's quote regarding evaporated steel must be false, so show me it is. Right now your claim rests on the assumption that if there was some steel only reaching 1000°C, there couldn't have been some steel reaching 3000°C, which obviously is not convincing.

How hard is that to understand?

Unfoundering

Originally posted by Lumos
No, it's clearly not. So spare me your unfounded accusations, please.

Perhaps I am misreading the thread.

What is the "biz" you referred to above?

This is classified information for reasons of forum security.



C'mon, you can figure it out yourself...

Forum Security

Originally posted by Lumos
C'mon, you can figure it out yourself...

That's what I'm trying to do, but I'm obviously having difficulty doing so.

Hence my reliance on you for assistance.

What do you mean by "the biz"?

Originally posted by Majic
Forum Security

Originally posted by Lumos
C'mon, you can figure it out yourself...

That's what I'm trying to do, but I'm obviously having difficulty doing so.

Hence my reliance on you for assistance.

What do you mean by "the biz"?

may i?

'the biz' is the discussion of conspiracy theory on forums.

it's really not rocket science to figure that out, majic. it kinda looks like you're making a mountain out of 'mole'hill.

and, besides that, isn't the reality of evaporated metal much more important to mankind, justice, truth, and plain good manners(ie. not murdering innocents in a vast powerplay)?