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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, I have pteridine on ignore, and saying you aren't educated enough is a total cop-out. Why don't I just say I'm not educated enough to respond to you at all but I still think my views are more justified than yours anyway? Would you feel like that is a fair way to debate? I might as well start saying that for everything you say to me just to save myself the trouble of thinking.
If you want to say that the sulfur came from the drywall, then show me the chemical analysis that proves it was crushed-up drywall on the columns. Or else explain how the sulfur would be separated out from the drywall in nano-sized particles, and then re-combined with the other elements that made up the eutectic mixture.
Or else, just say, you really honestly have no idea where the sulfur came from. Because you don't.
Originally posted by exponent
So we must be experts in every subject?!
Originally posted by exponent
It is the opinion of professionals in this field, that drywall is the most likely source of sulphur for the above reasons
Originally posted by bsbray11
Omg, you mean you have to actually be able to understand what YOU say to me?!?!?!
Like I said, if you are going to tell me the sulfur "likely" came from drywall, then.... put up or shut up? I don't see the chemical composition of drywall in the analyses, but if you would like to point it out to me, I am all ears.
Or, again, any explanation as to how else it would have gotten there.
Or you can ADMIT that YOU DON'T KNOW.
You don't have to be an expert in ANYTHING to do THAT.
I'd like to add, we both know of professionals who disagree with this, and very vocally and publicly so.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Now go to those graphs, and show me where all the elements present in drywall, are there in the correct proportions that they would be if you are really looking at drywall. That is not so hard, is it? Nor is it unreasonable.
The professionals I am referring to are Jones, Harrit, et. al., and though I'm sure you have come to develop very lovely opinions of these people yourself due to your fair and unbiased nature, opinions are opinions and if you want to talk about PROFESSIONAL opinions you need look no further for dissenting voices to the nameless crowd you are trying to fall back as your only support for the claim that it came from drywall. Show me one peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that the eutectic mixture was derived from drywall.
Or just go to the analysis FEMA already did and show me that you are looking at the chemical make-up of drywall. Maybe you can even acquire some drywall, crush it up, throw it in a fire, and then see if you can melt steel with it. Any of those things would support your assertion. But making references to ghost crowds will not. So did it really come from the drywall or do you even know what in the hell you are talking about my friend?
Originally posted by exponent
it's clear that your attitude is that I must prove this to you, and I must disprove other theories. Somehow the burden is always on me, why is this?
Originally posted by bsbray11
1) If it were drywall, you would see the other chemical components of drywall in the analysis in the FEMA report, in one form or another. Certain elements that ARE present in drywall would NOT be completely absent if drywall dust actually caused this. This is the last time I will explain this, I really do not care that much about you to try to pound something so obvious into your head. If it were drywall, then you will see drywall in the analysis. Duh????? You will sooner find yourself on my ignore list with pteridine, or more likely I will just stop responding because I don't particularly care to keep running in circles and repeating myself 1000 times on the same freaking page when all YOU have to do is THINK about what I am saying.
The darker gray phases in the scale interior appeared to be iron oxides containing high levels of Ca, as well as minor quantities of Cl, Si, and S. The bulk gold-colored phases, as well as the majority of phases in the grain boundaries, were iron sulfides.
2) The Jones, Harrit, et. al. paper is the one claiming to have discovered a nano-composite eutectic compound.
Even the FEMA analysis tells you that the corrosion was so severe because the sulfur was small enough to penetrate the grain boundaries of the steel. Nano-particles.
I find Professor Harrit particularly fair and professional in his views and interpretation of their collective findings, as he has done several interviews in relation to it for various European media.
3) NIST and FEMA did not even touch the questions I am asking you now.
Does FEMA say the sulfur came from the drywall? No. If they did, then all you would have to do is post the relevant quotes from those reports to answer my questions. Make sense? No? I didn't think so. Stop being so dense, you are doing it on purpose now because you are a weasel.
4) For the last time SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE (the burden is YOURS! YOU are making the claim) that this is *LIKELY* from the drywall as opposed to any other source you can think of. Stop saying the equivalent of "because everyone believes it came from drywall," because everyone does NOT. Remember the difference between theories and actual evidence again? No, I don't guess you would, because I don't think you understood it in the first place.
I'm going to bed. If I come back to respond to you tomorrow and find myself repeating these things for the zillionth time, I'm not going to respond at all and you can either think about what I am saying or continue bumbling about your blind way saying this stuff that ate holes through the steel came out of the drywall, a fire-retardant. Seriously, count the number of times I have asked you to consult the FEMA chemical analysis. And you keep weaseling away from it. You know what you are doing. I hope it eats your conscience up, because you are not helping a damned soul on this planet with your intentional ignorance.
Originally posted by mmiichael
'exponent'
You are an incredibly patient and knowledgeable person. But welcome to Conspiracy World. You can never win. You generosity and willingness to educate is turned against you. Just as you think you're making a breakthrough, you're called a liar, a shill for the government, a fool.
...
I appreciate all your efforts, but suggest you utilize your skills and knowledge in places where they'll be better appreciated.
Mike
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
Glad you are still here before I retire mmiichael.
I wanted to tell you, I saw an article the other day where a small group of scientists/engineers overturned a long-standing equation, replacing it with a better one. I thought of you because it's obvious they are wrong, because why didn't the MILLIONS of other scientists/engineers all over the world figure it out first?
Originally posted by exponent
We know from past experience that when the question is posed, many lurkers on JREF have come out and pointed out that the commentary there has helped them to understand the truth, and I hope that is the case here.
Perhaps my posts are worthless, and I am preaching only to the ignorant, but I hope not, and perhaps in the future I will meet someone I have helped directly
it seems to me that those that can be fit into a "side," either "truther" or "debunker", are both radicalized in their positions.