Giving Me The Business

Originally posted by billybob
may i?

Actually, I would prefer that Lumos answer this question, which is why I asked Lumos.

In exchange, I will be happy to explain myself.

I know this may seem like an off-topic point to pursue, but I consider it relevant to this thread in particular and related threads in general. I may well be wrong to persist with this question, but now that it's been asked, it would be best to simply answer it.

To the extent I'm coming across as accusatory (as above), I apologize, because that's not my intent here. I am not claiming nor do I have evidence suggesting that Lumos is "gaming" ATS for profit or, in fact, doing anything wrong at all.

My outburst above was borne of frustration with something else I've been observing on ATS lately and will comment on elsewhere.

It was actually a non sequitur in the framework of this discussion, and again, I'm sorry about that. The word "biz" used in this context piqued my curiosity, and that's one of the reasons I'm seeking clarification on the issue.

My goal in asking this question is to try to understand something that puzzles me, which is why I'm asking it, and why I'm asking it again.

Lumos, what do you mean by "the biz"?

Supply And Demand

Originally posted by billybob
say, majic. i've an idea. why don't you stop derailing this thread with your 'demands' of lumos and U2U him?

1. I'm not making any demands. I'm asking a question. To the best of my knowledge and belief, asking questions is not only legal on AboveTopSecret.com, but encouraged.

2. The question I asked is relevant to this thread because it relates directly to comments made by a fellow member in this thread. Particularly because...

3. The member who started this thread is the one who brought it up, apparently as a qualifier for participating in this discussion:

Originally posted by Lumos
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?

The emphasis is mine, because this question jumped out at me.

As you can infer from my posts above, it led me to make what might well be false assumptions. Rather than maintain these false assumptions, I would prefer to have the matter clarified.

If Lumos is willing to publicly ask this question of a fellow member, I see no reason whatsoever why Lumos can't publicly clarify the meaning and intent of the question. Why the suggestion that secrecy is needed?

If knowledge of the "biz" is a qualification for discussion of a subject on ATS, then I'm sure I'm not the only ATSer who would like to know exactly what what the nature of this "biz" is.

As for "derailing" this thread, members are free to discuss sulfidated and evaporated steel to their heart's content, and I have no intention whatsoever of interfering with that.

If you want to insist trying to hand-wave over my question and attempt to interfere with the exchange between myself and Lumos, you are free to do so, but it makes your charge that I'm derailing the thread ring hollow, and will not discourage me from seeking to understand something which puzzles me.

I simply want an honest answer to an honest question.

Lumos, what do you mean by "the biz"?

Majic, to quote Shakespeare, you are tedious.

BillyBob, where are those pics from? And by that I mean where were they taken? If those are from Ground Zero, then that is some incredible evidence of high explosives, almost unbelievably so (and thus I ask, are those from Ground Zero?).

[edit on 12-3-2006 by bsbray11]

The debunking biz.

Can we get back on track now please?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Majic, to quote Shakespeare, you are tedious.

BillyBob, where are those pics from? And by that I mean where were they taken? If those are from Ground Zero, then that is some incredible evidence of high explosives, almost unbelievably so (and thus I ask, are those from Ground Zero?).

yeah. from ground zero. i've seen others, too. one pic shows a whole parking lot(ground level) full of burnt out cars.
the soot all over the surrounding buildings is a pretty good clue, too, that there was serious heat. what is strange, is that cars were reported, by multiple witnesses(some emergency personnel, even), to be exploding in the streets all by themselves.
this makes me wonder if there wasn't some high-tech exotic weaponry being used. much the same as when you put a cup of fat, and a cup of water in the microwave. the fat spatters and boils quickly, while the water takes a long time to heat. the microwave energy has a greater effect on substances with higher energy content.
i say this, because some trees in the area still had leaves on them.
the other possibility i can think of, is that hot balls of thermite, or whatever was used, were randomly raining down, landing on cars.

Business Is Business

Originally posted by Lumos
The debunking biz.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

On The Rails

Originally posted by Lumos
Can we get back on track now please?

What track is that?

Just kidding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the "track" consists of finding answers to these questions:

Originally posted by Lumos
How could steel evaporate from fires? Second, What caused sulfidation? Third, why weren't these highly intriguing questions not investigated any further?

I'll take the liberty of restating them like this:

1. How could steel evaporate from fires?

2. What caused sulfidation?

3. Why weren't these highly intriguing questions not investigated any further?

Reasonable questions, in my opinion. I would like to add a fourth:

4. Are you willing to consider or at least permit the discussion of different theories that might answer these questions?

There seems to be a problem with #4 these days, which is why I continue to encourage all ATSers to keep an open mind, tolerate differing points of view and discuss them in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

To the extent I may fail to do this myself, I apologize.

Originally posted by Majic

1. I'm not making any demands. I'm asking a question.

whatever, buddy.

what do you think of the melted steel? just an honest question.

do you think it's important?

relevent?

any ideas besides polluting this thread with trivium? (sorry, i don't believe your flowery reprisal)

oops! i said 'flowery reprisal', and i don't even know if that makes sense!!?!?!?!

release the hounds.

Steely Resolve

Originally posted by billybob
what do you think of the melted steel? just an honest question.

do you think it's important?

relevent?

Possibly, although that depends on how the steel got that way, and why.

As far as I know, the questions surrounding the steel have not been definitively answered, which is why they persist.

In the absence of facts, there seem to be a lot of assumptions made to take their place, but I find that unsatisfying.

I'm interested in the truth, and in the absence of that, I'm willing to settle for not knowing -- at least until the truth comes out, if ever.

I'm also interested in what my fellow members have to say, and by that I mean every fellow member who has something to say on the matter, not just a few.

Understand this, and you'll understand my position much better.

So, what are the answers to the questions Lumos has asked? I've seen a few possibilities, but would like to see more.

I will be following this thread with interest.

Originally posted by billybob
yeah. from ground zero. i've seen others, too. one pic shows a whole parking lot(ground level) full of burnt out cars.

That's some pretty f'ed up stuff, man.

this makes me wonder if there wasn't some high-tech exotic weaponry being used. much the same as when you put a cup of fat, and a cup of water in the microwave. the fat spatters and boils quickly, while the water takes a long time to heat. the microwave energy has a greater effect on substances with higher energy content.
i say this, because some trees in the area still had leaves on them.

I wish I knew more about what the military might have in these regards. As soon as I saw those, I was suspecting mini-nukes. Energy can released from those detonations that will cause some materials great amounts of damage while others remain intact because of a stronger make-up, or at least from a certain distance this is the case.

For example, for concrete with rebar, an energy wave from a nuke detonation, from a certain distance, can totally disintegrate the concrete into fine powder, while the steel rebar is left perfectly intact. I forget the terms here, but there are technical names for the energy wave I'm talking about, and the property of materials that determines whether or not the material can withstand certain levels of this energy blast. If no one else knows what I'm talking about then I can probably go dig them up.

The heat that would be given off by such an explosive would obviously also be very great, which could explain a number of heat-related oddities. I've also been curious as to whether any eletronic devices around Ground Zero kept working after the collapses within the immediate area of the collapses. I would suspect electronics failures if there were small plutonium bombs, but I doubt anyone went around trying to start those f'ed up cars or anything like that in the first place, let alone trying to figure out why exactly they wouldn't start.

the other possibility i can think of, is that hot balls of thermite, or whatever was used, were randomly raining down, landing on cars.

I don't think this one is very plausible given the damage seen in those pics. If this was the case, I'd be expecting to see something more like clean holes eaten through various parts of the vehicles, you know? I'm more inclined to believe more unconventional explosives.

1. How could steel evaporate from fires?

only a chemical reaction or extreme heat. a gravity driven collapse does not explain it.

2. What caused sulfidation?

a chemical reaction. chemistry's not my strong point, but i do know that metal COINCIDENTALLY evaporating from a complex chemical reaction is nearly impossible.

3. Why weren't these highly intriguing questions not investigated any further?

probably the most revealing question. i think it speaks for itself. maybe not. so...
because there is a huge government/media cover-up of crimes against humanity.

by majic.....

Reasonable questions, in my opinion. I would like to add a fourth:

4. Are you willing to consider or at least permit the discussion of different theories that might answer these questions?

of COURSE! it's a discussion board.

so. whose got 'em?

[edit on 12-3-2006 by billybob]

oops. double post.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by billybob]

Originally posted by bsbray11

the other possibility i can think of, is that hot balls of thermite, or whatever was used, were randomly raining down, landing on cars.

I don't think this one is very plausible given the damage seen in those pics. If this was the case, I'd be expecting to see something more like clean holes eaten through various parts of the vehicles, you know? I'm more inclined to believe more unconventional explosives.

yeah. i agree. it's unlikely.
it's just that once you get into exotic, unknown weapons, the cred factor starts to plummet(even if exotic secret weapons are the truth of the matter. until you can 'prove' it, it's just whacky tinfoil hat stuff, sadly. despite the fact that there is NO viable explanation)
there is the possibility of a fusion bomb being discussed, as well. i'm going to look more into that.

Originally posted by Majic
The Trouble With Tritium

Originally posted by billybob
tritium is produced during fusion reactions.

While this does not preclude the possibility of some sort of nuclear device being involved in the destruction of the WTC, it does provide a plausible explanation for the presence of minute amounts of tritium at Ground Zero.

much better, majic.

i'm still looking into it. this (^) is a serious consideration.
i simply don't know enough about half-lives and distributions of natural radiation levels.

i DO know that the gravitational energy of the towers would not be able to do all the work it did, and the excess heat, including the energy to pulverise the vast majority of the building's contents into dust) was not even ADDRESSED by NIST.

so, the problem with vapourised metal(i hope airplane exit signs don't do that!), molten metal and exploding cars remain.