It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A strong foundation for any 9/11 argument is Building 7.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
How many FEMA or OEM or members of Giuliani's office died that day?


How many should have? Those folks don't have the same role in disasters as the police and firemen do.


Originally posted by bsbray11
it contradicts "official" accounts. An based only on that point you reject it.


If that's your logic, then why dismiss the official accounts only based on hers? Also, her confusion was another point for me not to trust her. Here's a quote from Indira Singh:


What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running.


Source

Note these parts:
"Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down."

"I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down"

In that part, she doesn't even mention a firefighter, she just says "I heard". Have you ever played that game where you say something into somebody's ear and that person passes the message along until the last person gets it and totally screws it up? Add a hectic environment to that game, and people will hear all kinds of things.

Also, if you believe that a firefighter was telling her that they were going to take the building down themselves, then you do consider them part of the conspiracy.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There is video of unidentified people walking away from WTC7, with bolt cutters, hard hats, and face masks saying something along the lines of, "You hear that? That building's coming down soon," as you hear things exploding in the background.


You mean this video?
Are you considering them unidentified because they are wearing hardhats instead of the "normal" helmets?











As for bolt cutters, why would they not have any cutting tools during a rescue involving piles of rubble? How would those point to an inside job? Ever hear of the Jaws of Life? Are you suggesting that they went inside WTC7 and started snipping around until the building became too weak?

The "explosions" were most likey falling debris.

As for the face masks, why not? Why would you not want to wear a facemask at ground zero?

I've also already been through how the officials were expecting the building to fall.

As for your explanations as to why the freefall thing is important to you, I'd like to get back into that, but first, I need to ask you this question:

Do you believe that all the columns went out at once?




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

Originally posted by bsbray11
How many FEMA or OEM or members of Giuliani's office died that day?


How many should have? Those folks don't have the same role in disasters as the police and firemen do.


That's beside the point, remember? You said you doubted any of them had anything to do with it because many of them died that day. You meant firemen, etc., not THESE people, which I am referring to. If you kept track of what we were talking about, I wouldn't have to remind you of this.



Originally posted by bsbray11
it contradicts "official" accounts. An based only on that point you reject it.


If that's your logic, then why dismiss the official accounts only based on hers?


I don't dismiss anything out of hand simply because I believe or don't believe something else. That's the point, and more than you can say, because you dismiss what she says simply because you don't agree with it. Furthermore you TRY to find problems with what she says for that reason.


Note these parts:
"Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down."

"I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down"

In that part, she doesn't even mention a firefighter, she just says "I heard".


You know, she was actually there that day. Where does she say that a firefighter is the one that told her, as opposed to some other official? I don't even remember reading that.

You don't think it's possible that her confusion results from her inability to understand how they could just drop such a large building on such short notice, considering that IS what she says she was told? I happen to know for a fact a building can't collapse under its own weight and simultaneously accelerate at free-fall, for example, but we've already had this discussion. So her confusion is perfectly justified to me. It's a confusion that you have yet to face because you haven't got to that stage yet, you are still in denial.


You mean this video?


Yes.


Are you considering them unidentified because they are wearing hardhats instead of the "normal" helmets?


No, but because I cannot identify them. ...

They were not part of the clean-up, because the buildings had yet to collapse, it was in the evening, etc., so none of the pictures you posted apply. They were also walking away from WTC7 and saying it was going to come down soon as explosions can be heard in the background. I don't particularly care who they were though, so there is no need for me to argue about it.


The "explosions" were most likey falling debris.


Come on. They registered on FEMA's seismographs and reporters were even talking about "secondary explosions" coming out of that building all evening before it fell. It was more like your denial exploding in there.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's beside the point, remember? You said you doubted any of them had anything to do with it because many of them died that day. You meant firemen, etc., not THESE people, which I am referring to. If you kept track of what we were talking about, I wouldn't have to remind you of this.


You're right, I wasn't referring to those people that you mentioned, but I have been keeping track. The question still stands. I was pointing out how the firemen and police had a more dangerous job.


Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't dismiss anything out of hand simply because I believe or don't believe something else. That's the point, and more than you can say, because you dismiss what she says simply because you don't agree with it. Furthermore you TRY to find problems with what she says for that reason.


No, I dismiss her because she doesn't sound too sure of herself, and her statement doesn't match up with many other accounts. I've already pointed that out. I also didn't have to try to see her confusion. It's right there in her statements.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Where does she say that a firefighter is the one that told her, as opposed to some other official?


Firefighter or other official, it's all the same.


Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't think it's possible that her confusion results from her inability to understand how they could just drop such a large building on such short notice, considering that IS what she says she was told


Why would her confusion over that have any impact on what was told to her?

Besides, if it were a firefighter or a policeman that told her that they were going to bring it down, then that means they were in on it. If it was one of the "evil" officials, then why in the hell would they tell her?


Originally posted by bsbray11
They were not part of the clean-up, because the buildings had yet to collapse, it was in the evening, etc., so none of the pictures you posted apply.


So everybody just packed up and went home before that building collapsed?
Do you not remember how long the rescue efforts went on for?
edit - Looking back, I 'm a little confused at what bsbray was saying there.


Originally posted by bsbray11
explosions can be heard in the background.


Again, that was most likely debris. There were also cars exploding that day, although I don't remember if there were any exploding at that time.


Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't particularly care who they were though, so there is no need for me to argue about it.


Then you shouldn't have brought them up as evidence.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Come on. They registered on FEMA's seismographs and reporters were even talking about "secondary explosions" coming out of that building all evening before it fell.


Why couldn't falling debris do that?

I'm going to ask this question again:

Do you believe that all the columns went out at once?

edit - stated confusion over earlier statement

[edit on 5/19/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Not to mention the pay phone video where the obvious explosion is caught on tape. With the Fire fighter screaming at them to get out of there b/c wtc7 was exploding.

You don't seriously believe that that explosion that was recorded was a piece of falling debris do you?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


I've seen that video, and yes, I believe that it was debris, or possibly an exploding car.

Falling debris can be loud, especially if it's a big piece. Why is that so hard to believe?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Why would her confusion over that have any impact on what was told to her?


I was just saying her confusion could have been a result of what she was told. So if you don't think she is straight-up lying, why do you think she would say someone told her the building was going to be brought down?


If it was one of the "evil" officials, then why in the hell would they tell her?


I never used the word "evil." I think the situation was more complex than that. A select few people knew more about what was going on, than the vast majority of the rest of them. That doesn't mean anyone knew the whole picture, etc.



Originally posted by bsbray11
explosions can be heard in the background.


Again, that was most likely debris.


"Most likely" based on what evidence, exactly? The fact that it also created seismograph readings and was reported throughout the evening as "secondary explosions"? Is that the evidence you're looking at?


Why couldn't falling debris do that?


There was a NYPD officer named Craig Bartmer who was interviewed, he was there when WTC7 started collapsing, and he said there were definitely explosions ripping out of the bottom of the building when it started "collapsing." There's a "clue," we'll call it clue #1. Clue #2 is that there is no precedent for steel buildings ever falling apart in massive chunks and going "booom" simply because they are on fire (and if I were to calculate the amount of energy required to produce the seismic signals, I'm sure you would see, yes, they would have to be quite massive). Clue #3, WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. That's unfortunately what it's always going to come back to for me, because that is the single piece of irrefutable evidence that there was additional energy in the system.


Do you believe that all the columns went out at once?


Yes and no. To fall symmetrically, straight down, everything has to go at the same time, or at least in a similarly symmetrical pattern. But I believe the building was definitely pre-weakened during the evening, up to immediately before the global collapse.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was just saying her confusion could have been a result of what she was told.


I was implying that she was confused about what she was told. She used the word "or" when she was mentioning what was said by an official. She couldn't even remember it enough to quote him, so she just summed up what he said as she remembered it.


Originally posted by bsbray11
So if you don't think she is straight-up lying, why do you think she would say someone told her the building was going to be brought down?


I wouldn't rule out lying as a possibility. People will do that now and then for attention. Have you heard about that lady that lied about being in one of the towers during the attacks and claimed that her husband/fiance died in the other tower?


Originally posted by bsbray11
I never used the word "evil." I think the situation was more complex than that. A select few people knew more about what was going on, than the vast majority of the rest of them. That doesn't mean anyone knew the whole picture, etc.


Fair enough, but why would one of the select few tell her?


Originally posted by bsbray11
"Most likely" based on what evidence, exactly?


Considering the fact that planted explosives haven't been proven, considering the fact that there was a huge and recently wrecked building on fire, and considering the fact that a conspiracy hasn't been proven, it seems like the more likely explanation.

Going back to explosives I see.



Originally posted by bsbray11
The fact that it also created seismograph readings and was reported throughout the evening as "secondary explosions"? Is that the evidence you're looking at?


Possibly, but I'll have to see these graphs and reports before I can comment further.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There was a NYPD officer named Craig Bartmer who was interviewed, he was there when WTC7 started collapsing, and he said there were definitely explosions ripping out of the bottom of the building when it started "collapsing."


I highlighted the part that pretty much explains that.


Originally posted by bsbray11
there is no precedent for steel buildings ever falling apart in massive chunks and going "booom" simply because they are on fire


Remember, we don't know exactly how damaged that building was. That sucker also burned for a long time, and the building wasn't the strongest to begin with.


Originally posted by bsbray11
if I were to calculate the amount of energy required to produce the seismic signals, I'm sure you would see, yes, they would have to be quite massive.


I never said they weren't massive, but I'll take a look at those when you're done.


Originally posted by bsbray11
To fall symmetrically, straight down, everything has to go at the same time


Do you mean every column in the building, or just the columns that are left?

edit - clarification



[edit on 5/20/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


I've seen that video, and yes, I believe that it was debris, or possibly an exploding car.

Falling debris can be loud, especially if it's a big piece. Why is that so hard to believe?


Not sure exactly what your referring to as far as what would be so hard for me to believe.

I have a hard time believing someone believes that falling debris makes the kind of sound that you hear in that video, no matter what it was. You can even clearly hear in the close up of the south tower collapse video when the debris begins to impact the ground. I was actually surprised how quiet it was(if the audio hasn't been tampered with).

As far as it being a car gas tank explosion, it would not be hard for me to understand how someone could / would believe thats thats what that explosion was on the video. I personally don't believe it was that to me it sounds like something releasing a lot more pressure and energy than a gas tank explosion. If analysis is correct it happened at 1010am after the south tower collapsed but before the north tower. So I don't think it was falling debris.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Most likely" based on what evidence, exactly?


Considering the fact that planted explosives haven't been proven,


In no way does that indicate large debris falling.


considering the fact that there was a huge and recently wrecked building on fire,


You and I apparently have very different definitions for the word "wrecked."


and considering the fact that a conspiracy hasn't been proven,


That also does not indicate heavy debris falling.



Originally posted by bsbray11
The fact that it also created seismograph readings and was reported throughout the evening as "secondary explosions"? Is that the evidence you're looking at?


Possibly, but I'll have to see these graphs and reports before I can comment further.


They're in the FEMA report where all the other seismic graphs are. And no, I'm not actually going to go calculate how heavy the object that you allege fell was.



Originally posted by bsbray11
There was a NYPD officer named Craig Bartmer who was interviewed, he was there when WTC7 started collapsing, and he said there were definitely explosions ripping out of the bottom of the building when it started "collapsing."


I highlighted the part that pretty much explains that.


Mr. Bartmer actually made it explicit in his interview that it was a bomb and that he knows what a bomb going off in front of him looks like when he sees and hears one. But you can find the interview, track him down and argue with him yourself.



Originally posted by bsbray11
To fall symmetrically, straight down, everything has to go at the same time


Do you mean every column in the building, or just the columns that are left?


This question makes no sense. What are you getting at, anyway? Something to do with the Penthouse? I promise you, anything you think that happened on its own to contribute to collapse, I am going to say was a coordinated effort. The building was an obvious demolition. It fell symmetrically, straight down, with a kink in the middle to control where the building leaned on that particular axis, and with an acceleration equal to the rate of gravity. Everything beforehand was a lead up to that point, because things like that don't just happen on their own. The symmetry, etc. is redundant information; all you need to know is that it fell at the rate of gravity. None of this other crap is anything but a waste of both of our time.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


I was replying based on my memory of the video. After watching it again, you're probably right about it not being debris. I'm going to go with my second guess, a vehicle explosion.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Mr. Bartmer actually made it explicit in his interview that it was a bomb and that he knows what a bomb going off in front of him looks like when he sees and hears one.


Unless he saw the actual physical bomb, that only means that what he witnessed was an explosion. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bomb.

Aside from the debris and the car explosions, I overlooked other things that could explain the explosions that people heard. There were transformers in the building. I remember a transformer going off once, and it was one of the loudest things I've ever heard. I even remember thinking that it was a bomb. Add the echo of the downtown area to that, and it's very reasonable to assume that those could explain some of those accounts.

Some people suggest that bolts popping out from the heat could also account for some of the explosions, but I don't know how loud those would be. Although, even if those aren't too loud, It's possible that some people heard those and then exaggerated about how loud they were.

Also, could some of those explosions have been backdraft?
Watch around 2:54 on this one:



Around :38 here:




Originally posted by bsbray11
It fell symmetrically, straight down


No, it didn't. Have you seen the damage that it caused?



That's one sloppy "straight down demolition". It even leaned a little to the south, and that building was on the north. The destruction was not as smooth as folks like Alex Jones would like people to believe.

The reason I was asking you about the columns is because the whole argument about the freefall being proof of an inside job relies upon believing that everything went at once.

If you believe that the mixture took out all the columns at once, then that would imply that this is some kind of pre-programmed super-goo. If that's what you believe then you need to explain how that's even close to being possible.

If you believe that the mixture didn't have to take out all the columns at once, but took them out over time, then you are admitting that the building fell based on damage. If it fell because of damage, then why is the mixture even necessary? There's no building you can point to that had the same damage, that was built the same way and height, and had fires burning for the same amount of time as WTC7, so don't bother trying to compare this building to others in order to prove that the damage alone couldn't bring this building down without something being added.

Anyway, that was for back when you were saying that there were no bombs, so I guess arguing over the mixture is pointless now.

If you want to go back to believing the bomb theory, I suggest you watch this documentary, if you haven't already:

Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower

Of course, some will say that documentary is dis-info.


Originally posted by bsbray11
I promise you, anything you think that happened on its own to contribute to collapse, I am going to say was a coordinated effort.


That's pretty revealing, although I was already aware of that when you went back to the bomb theory. That's also why I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. I should have stopped earlier, because this is pointless.

You've expressed your points, and I've expressed mine. You haven't convinced me, and I haven't convinced you. I've made my case, and now I'm outta here.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Unless he saw the actual physical bomb, that only means that what he witnessed was an explosion. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bomb.


Ok, so he witnessed an explosion rip out of the base of WTC7 at the same instant it began free-falling to the ground. Better?


Aside from the debris and the car explosions, I overlooked other things that could explain the explosions that people heard. There were transformers in the building.


I've heard it all before, every time it makes no sense. I've watched plenty of safety videos relating to this stuff since electronics is my major and I know what it takes to make a transformer explode and what it looks like. Do you know what kind of huge coincidence it would have to be for a transformer to explode at the same instant WTC7 begins free-falling to the ground?? Because an exploding transformer is NOT going to fail columns, etc. As in, do you know what exactly is required to make a transformer explode the way you're thinking? A massive current overload. Putting it in a fire, dropping something heavy on it, NEITHER of those things will cause a transformer to explode, because what it's made of is not actually explosive. So what severely overloaded the current? Now you have to assume yet another variable to make your theory work. I could invoke Occam's Razor here.




Originally posted by bsbray11
It fell symmetrically, straight down


No, it didn't. Have you seen the damage that it caused?


Yes, it landed in all 4 surrounding streets, with its center of gravity (mass) still obviously within its footprint. Don't split hairs with me, I'm not talking 100.0000% accuracy when I say it fell symmetrically and straight down, no engineer ever is about any subject. I'm saying compared to how an inherently chaotic system SHOULD behave. Symmetry is a characteristic of ordered systems, not systems in mechanical chaos from asymmetric damage and fire. Demolished buildings fall straight down; buildings that fall of their own accord typically try to lean like WTC2 did before its fulcrum was destroyed, or WTC7 tried to do before its fulcrum was also destroyed at the base.

To make things simple, if you represented WTC7's acceleration as a vector in either 2 or 3 dimensions, what is usually the "y" axis is going to have a much larger component of acceleration than whatever the other component turns out to be (the one representing the tilting). That is how you tell the leaning is insignificant compared to the free-falling downward motion you're downplaying from your "armchair."


The reason I was asking you about the columns is because the whole argument about the freefall being proof of an inside job relies upon believing that everything went at once.


What didn't? Seriously, mathematically, show me where you can even fit air resistance into a 9.8m/s^2 acceleration, and still show me ANY resistance whatsoever from the structure. This is the most basic physics, and in the future, people will scratch their heads wondering why in the HELL no one realized what happened to WTC7 simply by looking at this one measurement. NIST can't explain it, FEMA didn't even try, no one else has tried, and the reason all these people don't "get it" is because they're still in over-all collective denial about what they are looking at.


If you believe that the mixture took out all the columns at once, then that would imply that this is some kind of pre-programmed super-goo. If that's what you believe then you need to explain how that's even close to being possible.

If you believe that the mixture didn't have to take out all the columns at once, but took them out over time, then you are admitting that the building fell based on damage.


This is all semantics and means nothing. If they pre-weakened the building, THEN blew out whatever needed to be taken out at the last minute, that is STILL a demolition. I don't give a damn what the sequence was or even what exactly they used. I see nothing to suggest it was simply structural failure happening on its own due to fire. The impact damages were over and done with, missed anything significant by and large, and even NIST admits it would have been insignificant to the collapse sequence. There were explosions heard coming from the building sporadically and producing seismic signals even after WTC1 and WTC2 had already collapsed. There's your pre-weakening, along with eutectics or anything else they needed. There's no way for me to know what the guy's name was who set it there, and I couldn't care less really.


Anyway, that was for back when you were saying that there were no bombs, so I guess arguing over the mixture is pointless now.

If you want to go back to believing the bomb theory,


You really over-simplify what I believe when you read and interpret it. That's all I have to say.

I am referring to specific evidence right now, from a NYPD officer, and he is testifying that there was an explosion right in front of him erupting from the lobby of WTC7 at the same instant it began free-falling to the ground. I never said what was used, I probably said something along the lines of I don't think conventional high explosives were used, or any type of "explosive" (TNT, C4, RDX, etc.), because that IS what I believe. Nano-energetics are not technically explosives, though they can behave as explosives do depending on how they're constructed. "Bomb" has a distinctly military connotation and is definitely not a conventional explosive. Etc. Don't read things into my words that aren't there!! You people are killing me with that, as if you EXPECT every other thing I say to be literally retarded so you actively try to interpret and recall my words that way.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I probably said something along the lines of I don't think conventional high explosives were used, or any type of "explosive" (TNT, C4, RDX, etc)


My bad, I misunderstood your theory.
I was wondering why you put quotes around the word "bomb".
, now I know.

Since you weren't flip-flopping, I guess I can't leave just yet.
I'll be back later.


Until then, here's something to ponder over:



Now I know why we can't find good footage or pictures of the lower south side.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Doh!
Nevermind the above picture, that's not WTC7.
Not the one with the WTC1 rubble on it, anyway. I can't believe I didn't notice that when I posted it. Now I'm an idiot.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All that says is that a eutectic mixture ate holes through the steel. Thermate is a eutectic mixture.


I meant to look more into that earlier, but I kept getting sidetracked. Now that I have I can see that the source of the eutectic mixture has been identified.

Steven Jones has been telling you that the sulfur found in the mixture is evidence of thermate, but the National Science Foundation (call me crazy, but I'm going to trust them more) has concluded that the sulfur came from the drywall.


The high levels of calcium, strontium, and sulfur concentrations found in the near-surface sediments of the cores, are consistent with presence of gypsum as a parent material. Gypsum is extensively used as drywall in building construction.


Source

It even mentions that at the end of the documentary I posted. I just overlooked that before.

By the way, I wasn't married to the transformer idea, it was just a suggestion for a possible explanation for the explosions that people heard. I also didn't suggest that what Mr. Bartmer heard was a transformer. The explosion he witnessed was most likely related to the collapse that happened before the main collapse.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Steven Jones has been telling you that the sulfur found in the mixture is evidence of thermate, but the National Science Foundation (call me crazy, but I'm going to trust them more) has concluded that the sulfur came from the drywall.


Can you show me how they figured that out?

They're just speculating, and it's not like I haven't heard it before. I guess they would say the other metals in the compound were some sort of dust formed off of the columns themselves? Or do they even talk about that? Because drywall can't make a powerful eutectic reaction all by itself. In other words this is not scientific. They didn't even have access to the samples did they?

This is no different than NIST saying the molten material dripping out of WTC2 was molten aluminum and "burning organics" in an FAQ (no supporting citations or anything, how professional, and of course this was never in their reports) only to be proven wrong by Jones with a physical experiment showing what those two look like when combined: they don't even mix, and the aluminum remains silvery, like it always does in such environments. Maybe they get the newbies to answer some of these questions on their website?

If you really DO like blind faith, then by all means believe what they tell you.

I'll be waiting for proof that these mixtures readily form on columns in the presence of drywall, which should be big news if true because this material is supposed to help compartmentalize fires. Until then this is really no different than saying the explosions were all transformers blowing up or FEMA being in WTC7 the night before was a coincidence or any other convenient nonsense people will say to stop further thought, none of it proven.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'll be waiting for proof that these mixtures readily form on columns in the presence of drywall, which should be big news if true because this material is supposed to help compartmentalize fires.


I'm not too sure that fire was even necessary for the sulfur.
Remember the hoses that were spraying the rubble pile?


The biggest environmental hazard occurs when gypsum drywall gets wet or dissolves to form hydrogen sulfide.

Source

All hydrogen sulfide needs to be converted into sulfur is oxidation.

Oxidation of hydrogen sulfide produces elemental sulfur

Source

edit - clarification

[edit on 5/25/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


Ok, so what?

When you can translate all that into some specific theory that explains how so much surface area on those steel columns was melted and eaten through, I'm all ears. Something besides someone putting it there intentionally I guess.

Are you saying the drywall disintegrated when they were spraying it, got onto the columns in such a fine mixture with just the right proportions of the other compounds, and then was ignited, or what? Because all that coincidental formation stuff really sounds ridiculous to me when you can place conventional thermite directly onto the columns intentionally and it STILL wouldn't affect the steel as badly as what FEMA recovered, also resulting from a eutectic reaction. We're talking about a fine mixture of specifically distributed particles, not just a big mash of junk that was lit on fire and suddenly started melting things.

As a matter of fact, if I remember right the FEMA report says the reason the sulfidation was so drastic and corrosive was because the particles of sulfur were so small that they penetrated the molecular structure of the steel and allowed the eutectic reaction itself to penetrate further into it. It's in the same part of the report so I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to verify that and read even more about it first hand.

Something to sleep on I guess.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well, I'm no chemist, so I may need to be fact checked on this, but here it goes:

I was implying that the mixture possibly formed after the collapse. I'm sure that when the building fell, it pretty much pulverized the drywall, spreading it all over the place like dust. The fires went on for weeks, and the rubble was getting sprayed with a lot of water. The water could have leaked out the hydrogen sulfide from the gypsum, which should have been
everywhere, forming sulfur on the beams. As long as this occurred while the fires were still hot enough, All that's left is for the sulfur and oxygen to react with the iron in the steel. This reaction may have only happened in the hotter spots, but I don't recall any claims that all the steel looked this way, so maybe it didn't have to happen all over.

There's something else I want to point out from the article I put in my last post:

Burning gypsum drywall creates a similar toxic gas, sulfur dioxide.

Source

I didn't quote that last time because I was a little confused about it since most sites I've visited, such as this one state that drywall doesn't burn, it just crumbles after the water from the gypsum evaporates, although maybe that's what that other site is talking about when they say "burn".

If that is what they mean, then the fires themselves may actually have contributed to the release of sulfur dioxide, which can oxidate into acid rain in the presence of water (hoses again):

Sulfur dioxide can.....or oxidized to sulfate in the atmosphere as sulfuric acid

Source


sulfuric acid is a constituent of acid rain, which is formed by atmospheric oxidation of sulfur dioxide in the presence of water

Source

It's kind of funny, because acid rain was suggested before, although back then, it looks like they thought the sulfur dioxide just came from pollution:


"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Source

I guess it could be possible that both the fire and the water were pumping out sulfuric gases from the drywall.

I haven't touched chemistry in years, so somebody please correct me if I did something stupid. My interpretations of how this all works could be flawed, but I thought I'd give it a try.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


I'm no chemist, either, but one thing I notice off the top of my head is that you don't describe exactly how the sulfur is singled out and ends up on the columns.

This is what their analysis showed was present in the samples:



Do you see how disproportionate the sulfur is? It happened to be in just the right proportion to copper and iron also in the eutectic mixture to lower the melting point of the steel several hundred degrees, estimated between 700 and 800 C by FEMA, as opposed to the usual melting point of about 1370 C. Gypsum board itself has a much lower proportion of sulfur and a lot of other things in it, so what else can you show in higher concentrations that would have been in drywall dust, that should therefore have been on these samples? I guess you also realize you are basically saying, that gypsum board dust can form a more powerful eutectic reaction than conventional thermite does.

This gives an idea of the size of the particles and how discrete they were:



The reference in the last image is 10 micrometers and the corrosive elements are still tiny discrete dots in the material.

I was just re-reading appendix C and really noticed this for the first time:


It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer.


This is what I learned about "solid state diffusion":


Solid State diffusion bonding is obtained by applying heat, well below the melting temperature of the metals, a static pressure which does not cause a macroscopic plastic deformation in the material, and a time required to form a metallurgical bond with atomic diffusion process.


cat.inist.fr...


Solid-state diffusion bonding is a process by which two nominally flat interfaces can be joined at an elevated temperature (about 50%-90% of the absolute melting point of the parent material) using an applied pressure for a time ranging from a few minutes to a few hours.


www.msm.cam.ac.uk...

So they are talking about pressure being applied to the eutectic reaction!

The pressure isn't along the line of force, where the force would be transferred through the members, either:



So even though they don't say where the pressure would be coming from, they say there IS evidence for it because of how far into the steel the sulfides were wedged.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join