Sulfidated and evaporated steel

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"?

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

i know it's not 'really' my business, but it's been bothering me like a bee in my bonnet, and i couldn't figure out why.
until just now.

really, this is an important topic, and spam-ish, personal attack, off topic posts are just irritating.

the states of the metal post-collapse are a huge LITERALLY SMOKING gun.

why do you think some scientist would be trying to come up with a "coincidental thermite reaction' scenario if NIST and FEMA and BRAZANT/ZHOU have already nailed all the mechanics of the collapse? not weird? no spidey sense going off?

why has NIST not been able to even give a LAME excuse for the collapse of tower seven(you know, the tower that the media COMPLETELY IGNORES?).

have you seen the thermal signatures of the site from weeks later that show huge areas of EXTREMELY HOT temperatures?

tower seven fell in 0.5 seconds more than the time it would take to freefall in a vacuum?
that's kind of like hitting the gas pedal on your car(a chevette) and instantly going one hundred miles an hour. there is simply NO WAY IN HELL that can happen without removing ALL support from the building instantly, by say, MELTING/CUTTING the steel with explosives and/or (timed) corrosives.

just another day in 'the biz'.

aftermath of extreme heat blasts....

external image

external image

external image

hmmmm? that's 'the biz'.



[edit on 12-3-2006 by billybob]

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.

Another plausible explanation might be the pyroclastic flows.



[edit]

This was supposed to follow up on the burnt cars...

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

Sure, is there anything pointing towards the contrary? I'm just not into obfuscation by distorting/misrepresenting quotes.






[edit on 12-3-2006 by Lumos]

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.

Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).

This is confirmed by the US Department of Energy:

QUOTE
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at[the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.

Now, if you remember Chernobyl and the fire that ensued afterwards, creating the now infamous "Elephant's foot", the following will sound familiar:
QUOTE 4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)
Jet fuel burns at around 800 degrees C, whereas, the melting point of steel is above 1500 degrees C. The fires caused by the jet fuel were also out within the structure.

Here is a statement from Time magazine on the Chernobyl fire:

QUOTE Fueled by the white-hot graphite core of one of Chernobyl's four reactors, the runaway blaze burned at temperatures of up to 5000 degrees , or twice that of molten steel. The crippled reactor itself was unapproachable--too hot from the fire ravaging it, too dangerous radioactively. ''No one knows how to stop it,'' said one U.S. expert. ''It could take weeks to burn itself out.''

source

tritium is produced during fusion reactions.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by billybob]

found one. not the one i saw before, though it may be a different angle of the same parking lot.

The Trouble With Tritium

Originally posted by billybob
tritium is produced during fusion reactions.

Tritium is also used for such things as exit signs, gun sights and radioluminescent indicator dials in some applications. It is also found in some wristwatches.

The following study covers the issue of tritium found at the WTC in great detail:

Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (pdf)

Here's an excerpt:

Tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC.

Excluding the gun sights and any tritium sources that may have existed in the buildings themselves, 34 curies of tritium in the 767 exit signs is a very significant amount, especially since the quantities of tritium measured at the WTC were on the order of nanocuries (i.e., billionths of a curie) per liter of water sampled.

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.

Kinda sidetracking my own thread here, but I sincerely believe the burnt cars can be explained by pyroclastic flows, which by themselves constitute another massive smoking gun.

Video of a PF at Mount Pinatubo, I think it's abundantly clear that the "dust cloud" was just that.

Source
Pyroclastic flows can be very hot. In fact, pyroclastic flows from Mount Pelee had temperatures as high as 1075 degrees C (Bryant, 1991)!

[...]

Pyroclastic flows and lahars are the greatest volcanic hazards. More people have died due to these hazards than any other volcanic hazard (Chester, 1993). Pyroclastic flows can incinerate, burn, and asphyxiate people.

Back on topic, I personally believe the evaporated steel might be explained by thermite or possibly superthermite, which essentially is just exceptionally well grinded thermite.

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.

Steel Breeze

Originally posted by Lumos
Back on topic, I personally believe the evaporated steel might be explained by thermite or possibly superthermite, which essentially is just exceptionally well grinded thermite.

I'm trying to get a clearer understanding of the "evaporated steel" claim, and have been googling around, but am having some difficulty pinning things down.

Do you have any other links you can provide that can establish the pedigree for the "evaporated steel" claim?




P.S. I need links that don't require money, because I'm not giving any out.