Degenerative Feedback
Originally posted by bsbray11
Pants On Fire
Who exactly are you suggesting is lying here? Btw, what is up with these things anyway? 
You posted this:
Originally posted by bsbray11
This is a lie and you know it.
That's what I was referring to. It's right there in the quote of what
you posted, a mere three lines below the subheading. I'm surprised you
missed it.
HowardRoark may be wrong, just as you, me and anyone else can be wrong, but you have presented no proof that he is lying.
If you're sensitive about being called a liar, then you may want to consider that other people might be as well.
Please note that I haven't called you a liar at any point in this thread. Assumptions to the contrary are false.
As for my posting style, it's not exactly a recent development. For a better understanding of what that's all about, I have made
over 4500 posts to ATS
that are available for your review.
To the extent you read them, your questions will be answered.
Giving Lie To The Truth
Originally posted by billybob
it's magically debasing!
say, majic, you seem to be off the mccarthyistic witch hunt, and onto a selective science bent, complete with ridicule of opposing views.
QUESTION FOUR:
would you be willing to except alternative interpretations or views without calling your opponents liars?
You may want to ask
bsbray11 that question in light of the fact that he's the only person who has actually called someone a liar in this
thread.
I haven't done so, and don't plan to unless someone proves it to me. So my answer to your question #4 is "yes", and my posts to this thread are
the proof of it.
Yes I'm out of line, and came into this thread with a chip on my shoulder due to my disgust over the way topics like these get hijacked by people
pushing agendas and measuring "truth" on the basis of who can shout the loudest.
That bugs the hell out of me, particularly because it seems to bring out the worst in me as well -- which is why I usually try to steer clear of this
forum, the War on Terrorism forum and other "hot spots" with low signal-to-noise ratios.
But the way meaningful discussion of some of the most important topics we can address gets shut down because of all the name-calling and general
trollery is heartbreaking to me, because I really love ATS.
So every now and then, when something that truly interests me pops up in one of the "mudpit" forums, I dive in.
Hanging Together Or Hanging Separately
And sure enough, when I do, I usually end up exemplifying the very traits I despise. Irony abounds.
To the extent I have gone off-topic or joined in the ad hominem mud-slinging which famously drives honest researchers away from discussions such as
these, I'm sorry. Really.
I'll try to do better.
I ask that you and other ATSers do the same, and hope that maybe, after having witnessed so much obfuscation and nonsense covering the tracks of the
mass murderers who killed almost 3000 of my countrymen over four-and-a-half years ago, I might somehow finally make some sense out of an event that
still leaves me with more questions than answers.
We can do this together, we can do it individually, or we can sequester ourselves into little cliques of people who agree with each other, right or
wrong.
I would prefer that we cooperate and share ideas, regardless of what our individual opinions or prejudices might be, because doing so reduces the
chance of a clue or an error going unnoticed.
We don't have to agree on everything, or even anything, but we can try to keep each other honest.
For my part, I'll try to avoid the hissy fits and sarcastic sniping (I ask for some slack on this due to my status as a disabled veteran of alt.flame
whose sense of propriety was permanently injured in online combat) offer what insights I can and -- most important and difficult of all -- try to stay
on topic.
I may fail, but at least I'm going to try.
Drifting Back On Topic
So far, the questions
Lumos asked in the first post to this thread remain unanswered. I don't have definitive answers for them, but here's
what my opinions are so far:
1. How could steel evaporate from fires?
It's not clear that steel actually evaporated.
Dr. Barnett's quote from November 29, 2001, is the only original source I have seen for this claim (all the others seem to depend on this single
sentence), and even Dr. Barnett himself does not seem to have mentioned evaporation at all in his subsequent work.
That suggests to me that the "evaporation" he was referring to was actually what he later described as the effects of "hot corrosion", which
occurred at temperatures well below the vapor point of steel.
Establishing that WTC steel evaporated requires more evidence than a single comment from a single person (whose later work doesn't mention it) for me
to consider it credible.
Other sources capable of corroborating this claim are necessary. Heck, even a statement from Dr. Barnett that he still believes steel evaporated would
be better than nothing.
2. What caused sulfidation?
According to
Dr. Barnett, et al and
Dr.
Biederman, et al, "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a
eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."
In the case of WTC 7, which was damaged by fires that were apparently bolstered by diesel fuel stored within and under the building, it seems possible
to me that temperatures could have approached 1000C where the conditions were suitable.
The nature of the fires and in particular the circumstances under which WTC 7 collapsed are still highly suspicious, in my opinion, and not
necessarily explained by fire alone.
As for WTC 1 & 2, it seems possible to me that the hot corrosion observed by Barnett, et al, could have occurred either at the time of the original
fires prior to, during or subsequent to collapse.
As shown in the photographs provided by
billybob and
Lumos above, a lot of heat was associated with the collapse of the towers, and in
such a turbulent environment, all sorts of things could have happened.
Debris fires burned for weeks after the towers collapsed, and there are many photographs of recovery efforts which suggest that some parts of the
degree pile got very hot indeed. Hot enough to cause hot corrosion? I don't know, but I consider it possible.
Where did the sulfur and other materials necessary for sulfidation of the steel come from? I don't know, but since sulfur is found in most organic
substances (including diesel and jet fuel), there are many reasonable possibilities.
Dr. Beiderman's paper indicated that:
A thermodynamic analysis of the Fe-S-O system is currently underway to determine the atmosphere that would form these sulfidation/oxidation
products. In addition, these microstructural observations will be compared with results from steels in various furnace and petrochemical processes.
But I haven't found any results of such a study.
This is another case where more information would be helpful.
3. Why weren't these highly intriguing questions not investigated any further?
I'm curious about this as well. Despite what seems to be universal agreement on the part of all the researchers whose reports I've read that more
study was necessary, I'm not sure what additional study has actually been conducted.
However, just because more information hasn't been published on the Internet doesn't mean research isn't being performed. But in light of the
strong public interest in terms of building and fire safety, if nothing else, more visibility for this kind of research seems warranted.
If anyone has information about such studies, I'm sure I'm not the only ATSer would would like to see it.
Tentative Conclusions
Those are my current answers to the questions
Lumos asked at the beginning of this thread. I could be wrong about any or all of them. Where I
am wrong, I ask that my fellow members explain how and share the sources of information used to determine where I'm in error.
I don't think the evidence proves that steel evaporated at the WTC on 9-11-2001, or in the weeks after. Rather, the consensus of the research I've
seen is that portions of some steel members melted at temperatures below 1000C due to a eutectic reaction.
The details as to how and why that reaction took place are still sketchy to me, and apparently to researchers as well. It is a curious enough and
important enough phenomenon that I would like to see more information about it.
A lack of such information in and of itself does not indicate anything sinister. However, it also doesn't rule it out.
And in a climate where so much fear, uncertainty and doubt exists about something so important to the safety and well-being of the American public, I
think we deserve to know more than we are being told.
To the extent our public officials and elected representatives don't help us with this, we must find out for ourselves, and I encourage anyone and
everyone who has doubts about what really happened on 9-11 to keep an open mind, keep comparing notes, keep talking about it and keep asking
questions.
Sooner or later, we're bound to find answers, unless we stop looking for them -- either because we grow weary of the search or because we settle for
comfortable lies instead of uncomfortable truths.
Brutal honesty is better than gentle deception.
