Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

Originally posted by mmiichael
No one back then asked for reports on the corrosion of metal in the underwater battle ships, or questioned how fast the ships actually sunk.

No, but they questioned whether or not the navy knew in advance that the ships were coming, and there are still a lot of people who think they did. They did send most of their aircraft carriers out on exercise that morning to avoid being destroyed. And they also intercepted messages about Pearl Harbor a year before the event, and supposedly it would have taken 6 months to decipher the messages. FDR wanted to go to war immediately, most people were reluctant after getting involved in WW1, etc. There's at least one History Channel special giving both sides of the arguments. It was another fishy strategic event, yeah, but not directly related or a direct comparison to 9/11.

The USS Maine was another event that started a war. It was originally reported as being sunk by Spanish, who denied it, and it took until the 1970's that someone proved it was an accidental internal explosion that sunk it, despite being "proven" hit by a torpedo or mine 3 or 4 times when it was still a recent event. Go figure, right? Went to war over nothing but vehement corporate media hype.

It has nothing to do with a "sub-culture." It has to do with emotional energy associated with the events dying off with the people who experienced it, and fresh eyes looking on the same events and realizing that there was more going on than people originally thought. It has to do with propaganda; ever heard of it? Why would such a word like "propaganda" even exist in this country? Surely the US would never do anything underhanded, or God forbid put any lives at risk.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Solomons
So why exactly isn't this being shown to the courts or start a legal battle which if this report is true proves conclusively that 9/11 was an inside job?

Instead of just talking why does no one ever take action?..

Because it's a crock of you-know-what. Everytime I hear people talk about how the Mossad did it, the US did it, the Saudi Royal Family did it, hell, Sacco and Vanzetti did, there is *ZERO* evidence and it smacks of people attempting to form an alternative viewpoint just because they don't agree with the actual findings, it doesn't fit their agenda, etc. When there is cold, hard evidence that points incontrovertibly to a verifiable plot by some other party than the several parties that current evidence points *DIRECTLY AT*, then I'll buy into it. I find that many times, when people want to push forward a specific agenda, and it usually has to do with Palestinians somehow, this is the drivel that gets trotted out. It's crap and has been proven to be just that many times over. Bin Laden isn't in league with the CIA (assuming he's alive), the Mossad didn't do it to... hell, I have no idea why they'd do it- *EVERYTHING* substantive points right at the people who were implicated to begin with. It's easy to armchair with no facts to back it up, and no vested interest in the situation, but, ultimately, it makes the person doing so look a fool.

reply to post by Warbaby


Rants like that are a dime a dozen but every time I ask for all the evidence everybody always thinks exists, nothing comes back. Are you going to repeat the pattern or break the mold and show me what's conclusive that you've seen and what exactly is it conclusive of?

Relating to the OP, look at this WTC sample FEMA obtained:



That's one of the pieces of debris that showed that the steel had been eaten through by a eutectic reaction that had taken place on the surface of the column.

Does that look like something someone would miss if it were some sort of common occurrence? The steel was corroded to the point of becoming useless, potentially within seconds by a very energetic reaction. That it was able to eat through the steel, whatever it was, can't be doubted, no matter how much of the material had been applied.

It worked.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Rants like that are a dime a dozen but every time I ask for all the evidence everybody always thinks exists, nothing comes back. Are you going to repeat the pattern or break the mold and show me what's conclusive that you've seen and what exactly is it conclusive of?

It's really no one's duty to supply information that will provide you with an opportunity to shoot it down with scientific jargon or accusations of brainwashing.

Mount St. Helens erupted. No one has to supply analysis of lava samples and photographs as evidence.

If you have a conflicting claim the onus is on you to provide tangible proof.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
It's really no one's duty to supply information that will provide you with an opportunity to shoot it down with scientific jargon or accusations of brainwashing.

That's fine with me, but for every person that feels free to post such a rant, I am free to respond in such a challenging way.

I don't see you posting any evidence yourself. Nothing else to say about that sample we were talking about earlier? Even if you were too afraid to open the FEMA pdf at least now you know what it looks like anyway. Still think it was acid rain? Ever seen that happen to any other steel exposed to acid rain? Any more proof or evidence that you'd specifically like to talk about at all?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
It's really no one's duty to supply information that will provide you with an opportunity to shoot it down with scientific jargon or accusations of brainwashing.

That's fine with me, but for every person that feels free to post such a rant, I am free to respond in such a challenging way.

I don't see you posting any evidence yourself. Nothing else to say about that sample we were talking about earlier? Even if you were too afraid to open the FEMA pdf at least now you know what it looks like anyway. Still think it was acid rain? Ever seen that happen to any other steel exposed to acid rain? Any more proof or evidence that you'd specifically like to talk about at all?

I'm not a multidisciplinary scientist and do not devote my full time to 9/11 investigations. I rely on those who fit that description.

I have provided some links to the cumulative works of people who have done the homework.

They will be dismissed as covering up for the government or supplying insufficient data. And this just becomes circuitous.

I think this thread has run it's course.

Somewhere near the beginning it was about the Jones paper and the therma/ite claim.



Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm not a multidisciplinary scientist and do not devote my full time to 9/11 investigations. I rely on those who fit that description.

That's fine too but if you're not even going to form your own opinions by looking at the evidence yourself, then please don't argue things you don't even understand on other people's behalf, at least to me. It's worse than arguing with the "experts" themselves, because while they may realize things they've overlooked, etc., you don't even know any better and continue to take their word anyway because it's all you know. I agree that your contributions here have about run their course.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does that look like something someone would miss if it were some sort of common occurrence? The steel was corroded to the point of becoming useless, potentially within seconds by a very energetic reaction. That it was able to eat through the steel, whatever it was, can't be doubted, no matter how much of the material had been applied.

It worked.

You have no evidence of how long the corrosion took; "Potentially within months" is equally valid. You have no evidence that any material was "applied" which insinuates a planned event. What worked?

The action of eating through the steel and rendering it structurally unfit "worked." If it could happen with no human help whatsoever, then obviously making a eutectic "stick" to a column is a non-issue.

The definition of "eutectic" precludes where you're trying to go pretty quickly:

A eutectic or eutectic mixture is a mixture at such proportions that the melting point is as low as possible, and that furthermore all the constituents crystallize simultaneously at this temperature from molten liquid solution. Such a simultaneous crystallization of a eutectic mixture is known as a eutectic reaction, the temperature at which it takes place is the eutectic temperature, and the composition and temperature at which it takes place is called the eutectic point.

en.wikipedia.org...


So what kind of corrosion has the steel in a molten state for months? Are you sure you even want to imply that this happened in the first place?

Maybe *SOME* kind of corrosion could do that over long periods of time, but not a eutectic reaction.

Edit to clarify: It WAS a eutectic reaction that FEMA identified.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Given that the steel was heated from fires within the rubble over a long period of time, you cannot conclude that the corrosion happened within seconds. The time and mechanism are in doubt but the presence of large amounts of sulfur containing compounds and reducing conditions in the fires could produce the sulfides necessary for sulfidation and eutectic formation.

Eutectic reactions that melt the steel do not occur over periods of months, unless the steel is also molten for a period of months. But most importantly they just don't happen over periods of months. Maybe other reactions, like rusting, but not a eutectic that melts steel due to extreme heat that is immediately present. Make sense yet? Of course not. You apparently think FEMA incorrectly identified the reaction as eutectic or else you don't know what you're talking about but type something anyway.

I know you just memorized a mantra for dealing with similar (but different) information early on in your "debunking" experience and you're just repeating it now when it doesn't even apply. I know this because you can't tell the difference and you avoid directly addressing the facts I state. I had you on ignore, I think that was in my better judgment, I'll save responses to you from now on.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm not a multidisciplinary scientist and do not devote my full time to 9/11 investigations. I rely on those who fit that description.

That's fine too but if you're not even going to form your own opinions by looking at the evidence yourself, then please don't argue things you don't even understand on other people's behalf, at least to me. It's worse than arguing with the "experts" themselves, because while they may realize things they've overlooked, etc., you don't even know any better and continue to take their word anyway because it's all you know. I agree that your contributions here have about run their course.

I don't get the impression you're an expert on every one of the sciences and disciplines involved in a comprehensive understanding of an event of this complexity.

So far I've seen your arguments on advanced corrosion of steel and an attempt to discredit by imference FEMA and other consensus sources for not providing explanations to your satisfaction.

I have taken in the cumulative analysis of many recognized experts, who readily admit when they lack immediate answers to outstanding questions.

On a discussion forum I read the postings of an anonymous individual who selectively accepts or rejects data and sources based on whether certain findings or their lack can be used to forwards a popularized controlled demolition theory.

My opinion is formed.

I only acknowledge insults from those who have earned my respect.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't get the impression you're an expert on every one of the sciences and disciplines involved in a comprehensive understanding of an event of this complexity.

You wouldn't. I would wager you don't have the confidence to approach these subjects yourself so you project your lack of confidence onto other people at will. I have no insecurities about approaching a technical subject, I'm sure I've already told you I'm an engineering major. Do you know what kind of a pain in the ass it is to analyze a complicated series-parallel circuit with capacitance and inductance transients? Pages of number-crunching. Enough to make somebody realize why so many technical types appear so lifeless and boring, but that's the bread and butter of my major. In so many words, "You don't know me."

Ever read this quote?:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

elise.com...

Either way, now you have, and now you know how I feel about it.

For added fun, compare how my attitude enables me to figure out these kinds of things while yours does not. I at least try, I guess that's what makes the difference. Take it even further and divide "truthers" and "debunkers" along these lines (self-dependent vs. dependent upon others) and see what kind of parallels you can find?

So far I've seen your arguments on advanced corrosion of steel and an attempt to discredit by imference FEMA and other consensus sources for not providing explanations to your satisfaction.

No explanation at all, not just one that wasn't to my liking. They even stated it was a eutectic reaction specifically and no other form of corrosion. Eutectic reactions are ALL about something melting, if there is no melting then there is no eutectic reaction. For the love of god, you only have to read a few paragraphs of a technical source to learn as much.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You assume that all components are immediately present. If sulfides were formed over time, then reaction would happen over time as the sulfides were formed.
"Make sense yet?"

Originally posted by bsbray11

I would wager you don't have the confidence to approach these subjects yourself so you project your lack of confidence onto other people at will. I have no insecurities about approaching a technical subject, I'm sure I've already told you I'm an engineering major. Do you know what kind of a pain in the ass it is to analyze a complicated series-parallel circuit with capacitance and inductance transients? Pages of number-crunching. Enough to make somebody realize why so many technical types appear so lifeless and boring, but that's the bread and butter of my major. In so many words, "You don't know me."

Ever read this quote?:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Either way, now you have, and now you know how I feel about it.

For added fun, compare how my attitude enables me to figure out these kinds of things while yours does not. I at least try, I guess that's what makes the difference. Take it even further and divide "truthers" and "debunkers" along these lines (self-dependent vs. dependent upon others) and see what kind of parallels you can find?

No explanation at all, not just one that wasn't to my liking. They even stated it was a eutectic reaction specifically and no other form of corrosion. Eutectic reactions are ALL about something melting, if there is no melting then there is no eutectic reaction. For the love of god, you only have to read a few paragraphs of a technical source to learn as much.

Between changing diapers and planning invasions Robert Heinlein also wrote:

"Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion – in the long run, these are the only people who count."

Ah yes, self-delusion ...

Truthers actually are the most dependent people in the world. On the other Truthers. I'm wrong about them being a sub-culture, or even cult. More like a support group.

So far all I've seen is a lot of dancing around the fact that there has never been any solid evidence of a WTC controlled demolition.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
"Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion – in the long run, these are the only people who count."

Ah yes, self-delusion ...

Well damn, if I made it that far down the paragraph I'd say that's still a better shot at accurate knowledge than someone who won't even assess a public report himself. Who did you think he was talking about the whole first half of that quote?

Truthers actually are the most dependent people in the world. On the other Truthers.

Sorry but I could stand alone and do this all day if I wanted, just give me access to science books. I wasn't sold on conspiracy until I watched WTC7 fall for the first time. That's different than following what a bunch of people say on a forum. It was something personal. And I won't even comment on me being a dependent person otherwise. Let's just put it this way, if the grocery store stopped getting supplies tomorrow, I wouldn't lose any weight.

So far all I've seen is a lot of dancing around the fact that there has never been any solid evidence of a WTC controlled demolition.

I'm not trying to argue that there IS solid evidence of a controlled demolition. I'm arguing that there's NOT evidence for what you think happened, and nobody even looked for anything else that might have happened, especially a controlled demolition. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can stop complaining about me not doing your government's work for you. Your taxes don't go to me.

PS -- Before you start saying we KNOW it wasn't this, this or this, your ideas of what must constitute a "controlled demolition" are limited, too. I agree -- no high explosives, no conventional charges at all. I don't know WHAT was used. But I know there was something in there eating holes in columns for one thing, and melting concrete and steel together in big blocks like the "meteorite" for another thing.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by bsbray11]

Come on Mikey, be a good sport and jump over to this side of the fence would ya

It's gotten to the point where it is like you have your hands over your ears saying "lalalalalalalalalalala"

Do some independent research on this very important but sadly divisive topic.

The 'experts' are quite often wrong and you have to admit that IF the govt was responsible for 911, they would damn sure be trying to cover it up BIG TIME

B4 you run off and find the truth could you please tell me what you think about the PUT options and the confiscated tapes of the Pentagon attack???

Solid posting by the way bsbray..... cheers boys

[edit on 1/5/09 by vehemes terra eternus]

Look, I don't engage in 9/11 pissing contests.

It's almost a running joke for me in these environs. I am portrayed as the straight guy who is blinded by the mass media and government stories and my opponents think of themselves as the heroic champions of justice and independent thinking. This antagonistic stance prevents productive discussion.

Given motivation, I can make a phone call and get sent a gig of photos and videos of WTC 7 gradual deterioration. A close friend and thousands of others have looked over the evidence available and come to the same inevitable conclusions. And I'm talking about people who would love to have a feather in their cap and a juicy story to sell.

My friend puts it his way - maybe 30-40 unexplained aspects of WTC 7 that might be suggestive, but 100s of pieces of evidence and testimony conforming to the accepted version of events. Errors for sure on all sides of the slate, but a verdict is clear.

There are loads of WTC debunking sites out there and literature. Many impartial scientists and serious writers, impressive in their rigorousness. Their concern is fighting the pandemic of disinformation - an uphill battle.

I've seen firsthand law trials, medical malpractice disputes, even a political conspiracy in South America. Always, always, disputed data, conflicting testimony, uncertainties, undetermined actions, unanswered questions.
It ends up falling to who has weight of evidence and credibility of sources. Each side claims the other is lying, withholding evidence, etc.

The building collapses appears to be a goldmine for the conspiracy minded. But after so many hunting for it for so many years and coming up empty-handed, it just has to be admitted there may be a few pieces of brass, but there ain't no gold there.


Mike


[edit on 1-5-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
I am portrayed as the straight guy who believes the mass media and my opponents think of themselves as the heroic champion of justice and independent thinking.

I doubt it....

Do you have some quotes that would substantiate this claim?

Or are you just speculating on the mindset of your "opponents"?

*I await the posting of pertinent quotes.

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Exuberant1]