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.

 

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

page: 23
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


You know you can save yourself a hell of a lot of trouble just by showing me how WTC7 could free-fall while it is still "collapsing," meaning the kinetic energy is still (theoretically) doing work. Obviously it wasn't, but that's what you need to explain at any rate.

Free-fall = no kinetic energy loss = no physical work being done by the kinetic energy itself.

So how was the building "collapsing" in on itself without doing work?


Save yourself the trouble of saying it did work before or after that period, too, because it didn't just stop collapsing during that free-fall period. So work still should have been going on by the falling mass. It's ridiculous how this has to be broken down for people who don't understand physics to begin with. You don't understand it going in, you get into an argument, you already think you're right even when you're ignorant so you never learn what you are even talking about.

I only explain this to you now so you don't have to wonder in the future how you could have been so blind to an obvious demolition staring you in the face.



That symmetry you see in that image, that even-ness of the roof line as it sinks straight down into itself, that is physics.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



You know you can save yourself a hell of a lot of trouble just by showing me how WTC7 could free-fall while it is still "collapsing,"


What stops a collapsing structure that has a big open space inside from having a part "free fall" as it is collapsing??? (Nothing.)
Therefore, that structure "free falls" for a brief moment.



Meaning the kinetic energy is still (theoretically) doing work. Obviously it wasn't, but that's what you need to explain at any rate.


I believe that NIST did explain the collapse, and also the free fall portion of it. The problem is when people have already reached a conclusion based on "you tube" partial video evidence of a brief part of the whole process.
As I have mentioned before, all of the collapse took more than 15 sec.
You can´t neglect what was happening to the structure for the first 6 or 7 sec.



Free-fall = no kinetic energy loss = no physical work being done by the kinetic energy itself.


Please elaborate on this...
How did you determine these simple equation???
How did you come up with "no physical work being done by the kinetic energy itself???



So how was the building "collapsing" in on itself without doing work?


Same question as before. Please explain.



I only explain this to you now so you don't have to wonder in the future how you could have been so blind to an obvious demolition staring you in the face.


If demolition was "SO OBVIOUS" we wouldn´t be having this discussion.
A lot of evidence would have been found, that could not be hidden.
It has been explained by experts in the field. Which I dare to say you probably are not.




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
What stops a collapsing structure that has a big open space inside from having a part "free fall" as it is collapsing??? (Nothing.)


No, the structure. You asked what stops a structure from collapsing, the answer is, the structure. By definition, it has not totally collapsed yet. Work still has to be done. There is no avoiding this unpleasant fact.


If demolition was "SO OBVIOUS" we wouldn´t be having this discussion.


How difficult it would be to reword this and turn it on you.

Still waiting for what I asked. An explanation how work can be done when no work is being done.



Just so we're clear, do you know what units work are measured in? And kinetic energy? Are you familiar with this stuff at all?

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just so we're clear, do you know what units work are measured in? And kinetic energy? Are you familiar with this stuff at all?


Yes I know. (Joules.) I´m not a structural engineer or a physicist but what I see is that you just want to go around in circles endlessly like any other 9/11 discussion goes.
You want to quiz me??? What will you achieve???
You want to attack my credibility???

Why don´t you answer my symple question???

Please tell us the OFFICIAL, LEGAL, ACCEPTED limit in structural engineering or building codes, of the MAXIMUM time that part of a stucture is allowed to free fall during the collapse of a skyscraper???

I think you could really put an end to this discussion if you provide this information.
If there exists this limitation, then there´s no need for discussion either.
If the building free fell in excess of the acceptable limits, then there had to be other "forces" at work. RIGHT???

Please enlighten us with your knowledge and expertise.
Thanks.




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Please tell us the OFFICIAL, LEGAL, ACCEPTED limit in structural engineering or building codes, of the MAXIMUM time that part of a stucture is allowed to free fall during the collapse of a skyscraper???


None. Or else the building itself, the falling mass, is not doing the work. It's that simple.


Please enlighten us with your knowledge and expertise.
Thanks.


I already did.

Free-fall = no kinetic energy loss = no work being done = no collapse.

It will even work out mathematically. Which is why I asked you if you even knew what units work or energy are measured in. So you know, you could test it yourself. You can use any numbers you want, just make them all up except for the rate of gravity, it will always work out the same. Falling at the rate of gravity means no kinetic energy is being lost. While the building is supposedly "collapsing." As in, simultaneous. At the same time. Does not compute. Work while doing no work? Nope. But I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you don't actually understand any of this.

Something else, like explosives or bombs or eutectic reactions, did the work. Not the building itself. The free-fall proves it. Even when the building WASN'T free-falling, it was still right on the freaking line. Not even close to a legitimate collapse, and if you want a specific time I'm looking for, it's "greater than the same time it would take to fall through air." Does that not make sense to you either, that a building should collapse into itself to the ground at a rate slower than it would fall through nothing but air? Make any sense at all? No, I didn't think so. This is exactly why people have been calling foul on WTC7's free-fall for 8 years, only to the ignorant, deaf ears of armchair debunkers such as yourself. What good does it do? Not much, but that's your fault. But I will keep saying it because believe it or not some people are actually competent.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
So. If I understand this correctly there´s no official, or legal or accepted limit.
It´s not ZERO as any collapse will have to be studied and investigated and annalyzed, to find ot exactly how it "worked".

So I´ll say it again. But I believe it´s pointless:
WTC had a big hole inside it. It had been remodeled and the structure of the building was supported by a few KEY beams.
One of the main beams gave way and began a chain reaction.
During a part of this reaction, a portion of the structure was falling through
the mentioned space or "hole" in the building.
This is where you can have a momentary "free fall" of the structure which is part of that partial video we can all see in your posts.
Thats only a tiny part of the collapse of WTC 7.



eutectic reactions,


Trying to show off??? I suspect you are in chemistry???
How would this relate to anything???



, only to the ignorant, deaf ears of armchair debunkers such as yourself.


Now I feel insulted. Please let´s keep it civil shall we??



[edit on 18-12-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 18-12-2009 by rush969]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


You are obviously not reading or even trying to comprehend my posts.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Free-fall = no kinetic energy loss = no physical work being done by the kinetic energy itself.


Even if there is a "big hole" inside the building where a massive column should be (which is total BS, but it does not matter anyway), there is still structure remaining. DUHHHHHH. SO YOU CAN'T FREE-FALL THROUGH IT!

Am I getting close to your level yet?

It also doesn't matter if the collapse has already been underway for a second. YOU STILL CAN'T FREE-FALL THROUGH THE REMAINING STRUCTURE.

Which takes more time to fall through: air, or a steel building? HMMM, TOUGH ONE, LET ME "THINK" ABOUT THAT FOR 10 YEARS.


Can you please think? Or just stop pretending like you know physics when you obviously don't? One or the other. No kinetic energy loss, no work done.

Or can someone more competent debate me on this point?



[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You use the term "eutectic reactions" quite a bit, as if this is some sort "smoking gun" or suggestion of EVIL forces, that caused WTC7 and the other towers to collapse. But you know its funny, you really dont know the proper use of it, nor do you use a little something called research and critical thinking.

Yes, NIST mentions eutectic material on some steel samples. Of course, it is there, I do not deny its authenticity. However, you are trying to twist it into some sort of twisted idea that it has SOMETHING to do with therm*te or something planted, etc etc etc, and this is the problem.

I have pointed it out many many many times in the past, hell posted pages of facts, theories, and ideas on what caused it and how it PLAUSIBLY could have come about. Yet, you ignored it every time because it just doesnt jive with your ideas.

The eutectic mixtures found on the steel point to what happened well AFTER the impacts and collapses. You forget the fact (or ignore) that the pile of debris was smoldering for weeks. I have posted countless times the many chemical reactions that would have been present in the pile, including the processes that more than likely contributed to the eutectic mixtures found. Most of it has to do with oxidation, and none of it has to do with magic therm*tes. A little research into oxidation and chemical reactions that can create such effects give a better understanding and explanation as to why some steel pieces showed the "eutectic" materials. Instead of trying to paint this eutectic material as PROOF of something sinister, how about you do the proper thing and explain why no way in hell it can't be anything else more mundane than your standard oxidation process of the steel when its exposed to high temps for a long period of time. Its a little something called the scientific process. First you go through all the most plausible explanations first, then when the plausible ideas and explanations are exhausted THEN you start to dive into the more "out there" ideas when the other plausible ideas dont fit or are just too unbelievable. You have completely ignored the plausible explanations.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
You use the term "eutectic reactions" quite a bit, as if this is some sort "smoking gun" or suggestion of EVIL forces, that caused WTC7 and the other towers to collapse. But you know its funny, you really dont know the proper use of it, nor do you use a little something called research and critical thinking.

Yes, NIST mentions eutectic material on some steel samples. Of course, it is there, I do not deny its authenticity. However, you are trying to twist it into some sort of twisted idea that it has SOMETHING to do with therm*te or something planted, etc etc etc, and this is the problem.

I have pointed it out many many many times in the past, hell posted pages of facts, theories, and ideas on what caused it and how it PLAUSIBLY could have come about. Yet, you ignored it every time because it just doesnt jive with your ideas.


So far I'm 3 full paragraphs in and still waiting for you to get to the damn point of what substance you have to offer.


The eutectic mixtures found on the steel point to what happened well AFTER the impacts and collapses.


According to you only. Neither FEMA nor NIST state this absolutely as if it's a fact. They simply say these are possibilities and were unable to determine the exact cause of corrosion, specifically the corrosion FEMA analyzed in appendix C of their report.

So count that as one reason I don't listen to your gospel. It's not factual.


You forget the fact (or ignore) that the pile of debris was smoldering for weeks. I have posted countless times the many chemical reactions that would have been present in the pile, including the processes that more than likely contributed to the eutectic mixtures found. Most of it has to do with oxidation, and none of it has to do with magic therm*tes.


There is nothing "magic" about adding things like sulfur to iron oxide and aluminum to make it a eutectic mixture. If there is, I'd love to hear what exactly is so "magical" about it. Next you'll be calling the law of conservation of energy "magic."


A little research into oxidation and chemical reactions that can create such effects give a better understanding and explanation as to why some steel pieces showed the "eutectic" materials.


There is no need putting the term in quotes, genius. FEMA used the exact same term. Their exact words were "liquid eutectic," because the iron involved in the reaction was already molten.


Instead of trying to paint this eutectic material as PROOF of something sinister, how about you do the proper thing and explain why no way in hell it can't be anything else more mundane than your standard oxidation process of the steel when its exposed to high temps for a long period of time.


What "high temps" corrode steel in the same way as a eutectic reaction? Will you cite a specific temperature, or admit you're lying?

My guess is that your next step will be to back-pedal on this and try to cover your ass with some other excuse.


Its a little something called the scientific process. First you go through all the most plausible explanations first, then when the plausible ideas and explanations are exhausted THEN you start to dive into the more "out there" ideas when the other plausible ideas dont fit or are just too unbelievable. You have completely ignored the plausible explanations.


You have yet to give a plausible explanation.

Soon you'll be telling me all the sulfur in the mixture came out of the drywall in the buildings without being able to explain why the rest of the drywall wasn't there, or how it got out of the drywall in the first place to enter into the mixture. I have heard all this jibberish before. Like I said, you have yet to give an alternate explanation that is plausible.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

According to you only. Neither FEMA nor NIST state this absolutely as if it's a fact. They simply say these are possibilities and were unable to determine the exact cause of corrosion, specifically the corrosion FEMA analyzed in appendix C of their report.

So count that as one reason I don't listen to your gospel. It's not factual.



Oh I get it, so someone who is giving a more rational explanation for something should be ignored, but a bunch of fantasy BS about magic nano-therm*tes and special explosives should be taken as god's truth.





There is nothing "magic" about adding things like sulfur to iron oxide and aluminum to make it a eutectic mixture. If there is, I'd love to hear what exactly is so "magical" about it. Next you'll be calling the law of conservation of energy "magic."


Well first of all that is exactly how something like that will happen. Addition of sulfur to HEATED steel will cause the melting point of steel to lower significantly. Also oxidation itself also creates heat. Corrosion of steel produces heat. nothing magical about it. One likely reason why NIST and FEMA didn't bother going any deeper into the subject is because it is moot to the overall investigation of what brought down the towers, not what happened to the steel weeks later.





What "high temps" corrode steel in the same way as a eutectic reaction? Will you cite a specific temperature, or admit you're lying?

My guess is that your next step will be to back-pedal on this and try to cover your ass with some other excuse.

i already explained many times how that all works, but yet, it never sunk in i guess. Lordy lordy, I wish I had a nickle for everytime i have posted how this whole thing works. I'll give you the abridged version then: You have heated steel beams. Heated steel beams oxidize more rapidly than cold steel. Oxidizing steel beams also produce heat. In large piles, iron and steel oxidizing can create a lot of heat. Sulfur added to heated steel will lower the steel's melting point. Its a nice chemical reaction that had plenty of time to do so in the pile. Why is this so hard to believe? All the chemistry is there.




You have yet to give a plausible explanation.

Soon you'll be telling me all the sulfur in the mixture came out of the drywall in the buildings without being able to explain why the rest of the drywall wasn't there, or how it got out of the drywall in the first place to enter into the mixture. I have heard all this jibberish before. Like I said, you have yet to give an alternate explanation that is plausible.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]


Oh gee, where the hell else would sulfur (FOUND MOST COMMONLY IN DRYWALL) come from?
It boggles my mind how one can be so ignorant to facts, and cannot use some basic common sense skills and research beyond the conspiracy sites.
Its called decomposition of drywall. All those thousands of pounds drywall getting crushed to powder makes for a really nice set up for quick decomp when wet and heated. When drywall decomposes (usually when exposed to heat and/or water) sulfur is released, usually in the form of sulfur dioxide . What happens when you mix water with sulfur dioxide? You get sulfuric acid. Where does the drywall go? Its decomposed. By the way, gypsum is a major part of drywall. Look up the decomp of gypsum.

answers.google.com...

web.epa.ohio.gov...

I know its all jibberish to you, but then again, I guess simple chemistry can get a little overwhelming when you have zero knowledge of it. I guess to you, sulfur must be added in solid form to be able to do what it did to the steel. That is not true. Sulfur reacts in different forms and is released in different forms. Not my fault you dont understand it.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually, alkaline earth sulfates, at temperatures of 400-500C in the presence of carbonaceous materials will reduce to the sulfides. This could be a source of sulfides that would form the eutectic mixture.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh I get it, so someone who is giving a more rational explanation for something should be ignored, but a bunch of fantasy BS about magic nano-therm*tes and special explosives should be taken as god's truth.


Thanks for admitting that it's not a fact that the eutectic formed magically in the debris.




There is nothing "magic" about adding things like sulfur to iron oxide and aluminum to make it a eutectic mixture. If there is, I'd love to hear what exactly is so "magical" about it. Next you'll be calling the law of conservation of energy "magic."


Well first of all that is exactly how something like that will happen. Addition of sulfur to HEATED steel will cause the melting point of steel to lower significantly. Also oxidation itself also creates heat. Corrosion of steel produces heat. nothing magical about it.


That makes 2 things we are now in agreement about.



One likely reason why NIST and FEMA didn't bother going any deeper into the subject is because it is moot to the overall investigation of what brought down the towers, not what happened to the steel weeks later.


Except you forgot that it still hasn't been proven that this was a magical result of laying in a debris pile. Damn -- that is a SHORT memory. Right after you just agreed with me that it's not a fact, you act like it suddenly is again. No wonder you are still so confused, with an attention span like that!



i already explained many times how that all works, but yet, it never sunk in i guess. Lordy lordy, I wish I had a nickle for everytime i have posted how this whole thing works. I'll give you the abridged version then: You have heated steel beams. Heated steel beams oxidize more rapidly than cold steel. Oxidizing steel beams also produce heat. In large piles, iron and steel oxidizing can create a lot of heat. Sulfur added to heated steel will lower the steel's melting point.


Where did the sulfur come from, and where's your evidence?



Oh gee, where the hell else would sulfur (FOUND MOST COMMONLY IN DRYWALL) come from?
It boggles my mind how one can be so ignorant to facts, and cannot use some basic common sense skills and research beyond the conspiracy sites.


Exactly. Like how you can look at the FEMA analysis in appendix C, and see that the chemical signatures they have don't match drywall dust, yet claim the sulfur was magically removed from the drywall but nothing else from it ended up on the steel, except, oh, a eutectic mixture. And all it takes to make a eutectic mixture is to apparently put a piece of steel in a fire.


And at what temperature does the steel spontaneously go into a thermite/eutectic reaction again? You keep mentioning increased oxidation. So at what temperature does fire magically form a eutectic on the steel? Come on, give me a temperature when this occurs. Ballpark it.

Steel does not spontaneously form a eutectic reaction when you put it in fire. If you suggest it does, you are just making things up.


Its called decomposition of drywall. All those thousands of pounds drywall getting crushed to powder makes for a really nice set up for quick decomp when wet and heated.


Drywall dust is not just sulfur, sorry.



I know its all jibberish to you, but then again, I guess simple chemistry can get a little overwhelming when you have zero knowledge of it. I guess to you, sulfur must be added in solid form to be able to do what it did to the steel. That is not true. Sulfur reacts in different forms and is released in different forms. Not my fault you dont understand it.


You have still done absolutely nothing to prove where the sulfur actually came from, or what state it was in.


At what point did you start confusing your own conjecture for facts again?

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Actually, alkaline earth sulfates, at temperatures of 400-500C in the presence of carbonaceous materials will reduce to the sulfides. This could be a source of sulfides that would form the eutectic mixture.


It could be a source of the sulfides without considering additional information from appendix C of FEMA's report, but it does NOT account for the eutectic mixture. The eutectic was not just sulfur. Nor was it sulfur and steel/iron. It was more specific than that, and also included high amounts of copper and smaller spikes of certain other elements.


And steel does not turn into an instant eutectic or thermite reaction by itself just because you elevate it to a certain temperature. There are still specific conditions that must be met for thermite/eutectic reactions to take place, and just having a hot piece of steel with sulfur on it is not such a condition.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Only until ur president/government "officially" announce it as "inside job" then the sheeple will start to believe regardless of what "fact" are presented, but by then there will be others calling that a lie and create new conspiracy theories, hmmmmm



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It could be a source of the sulfides without considering additional information from appendix C of FEMA's report, but it does NOT account for the eutectic mixture. The eutectic was not just sulfur. Nor was it sulfur and steel/iron. It was more specific than that, and also included high amounts of copper and smaller spikes of certain other elements.
And steel does not turn into an instant eutectic or thermite reaction by itself just because you elevate it to a certain temperature. There are still specific conditions that must be met for thermite/eutectic reactions to take place, and just having a hot piece of steel with sulfur on it is not such a condition.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]


The manganese and copper were in the alloy used in construction. The amounts were small. The elements identified by EDAX were the various iron, copper, manganese, sulfur and oxygen. One sample, location 1 figure C13 also showed a nice Calcium peak, suggesting that CaSO4 may well have been the source of the sulfur.
Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum; there is no elemental iron, or steel, in it at all.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
9/11.......
freemason...
bloodline....
Dajjal Existence.........
The Arrivals 51 episode..........
if u can get this types of video you can make a conclusion of what happening on 9/11......
the symbolic of the number it self........
who make it happen.....
why it is happen.......
4 what it is happen.........

even if u know after that...theres nothing u can do......

just save ur self and your family.....

maybe after this i will be bend 4 saying this thing....



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The manganese and copper were in the alloy used in construction. The amounts were small. The elements identified by EDAX were the various iron, copper, manganese, sulfur and oxygen.


So the only drywall ingredient you have there is the sulfur which we are debating the source of. Even FEMA concluded the corrosion was an unusual event and that there was no clear source of the sulfur in that same appendix. You do NOT have any evidence, only speculation and conjecture, that that's where the sulfur came from.


One sample, location 1 figure C13 also showed a nice Calcium peak, suggesting that CaSO4 may well have been the source of the sulfur.


That peak is still small compared to the sulfur and iron peaks, and calcium does not consistently occur with sulfur in the samples, suggesting it was NOT the source. Calcium is the 5th most abundant element on the Earth's surface, and like I said, there is no relationship between high amounts of sulfur and high amounts of calcium. They don't occur together and the levels aren't consistent, either.


Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum; there is no elemental iron, or steel, in it at all.


I don't know where I ever claimed otherwise, but free iron is produced by the reaction itself. In fact I said specifically that you DON'T get a thermite reaction just by heating up a piece of steel, like Gen was trying to suggest, saying the "fires" were solely responsible for the corrosion (which WAS a eutectic reaction that melted iron below its normal melting point).

[edit on 19-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You do NOT have any evidence, only speculation and conjecture, that that's where the sulfur came from.

That peak [calcium]is still small compared to the sulfur and iron peaks, and calcium does not consistently occur with sulfur in the samples, suggesting it was NOT the source. Calcium is the 5th most abundant element on the Earth's surface, and like I said, there is no relationship between high amounts of sulfur and high amounts of calcium. They don't occur together and the levels aren't consistent, either.

What you meant to say was that calcium does not consistently occur with sulfur in the sample locations analyzed. As we do not know the history of the steel, we cannot say for certain where the calcium came from. But we have an interesting coincidence here. We find calcium, oxygen, and sulfur in addition to the alloy materials. Gypsum is composed of calcium, oxygen and sulfur. It is by far the largest source of sulfur in the buildings. It would seem that, until we find other possible explanations, gypsum is the most likely source of the sulfur.
The apparent mismatch of calcium may be a result of the chemistry that occurred as the material was heated to 1000C for weeks in underground fires in addition to differing response factors in the EDAX analyses.
Note also that some chlorine is present. While chlorine is a common element, in this case it probably came from the water used to extinguish the fires.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You can also note that you have no known mechanism for drywall dust to corrode steel in a eutectic reaction, which is obviously extremely exothermic. That's something else that you are assuming but that is totally speculative.

So far Gen has been trying to suggest that the fire itself could somehow make the steel spontaneously burst into a thermite/eutectic reaction, but I'm still waiting on a response as to how that happens or what temperature is required for steel to spontaneously do that.




top topics



 
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join