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: 24
7
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
The $20 bill shows it all.




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


its been explained. A few times.


A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure ... Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid ...."


www.tms.org...

And going back to the sulfur source, THAT came from the decomposition of the gypsum in the drywall, which produced sulfur dioxide.

Also some more info here on the copper and calcium:
www.eurekalert.org...


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. Copper and zinc are also common components of building materials.


I guess we have to have another chemistry lesson in order for you to understand what caused the observed oxidation and eutectic material.

What is gypsum and how does it decompose?

www.gp.com...

What does it release?

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...


Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide dissolves in water or steam to form sulfurous acid. Liquid sulfur dioxide corrodes iron, brass, copper, and some forms of plastic and rubber. Many metals, including zinc, aluminum, cesium, and iron, incandesce and/or ignite in unheated sulfur dioxide.


SO2 behaves as both a reducing and oxidizing agent. I hope you understand what that means.


Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, released from burning organic materials, and/or from decomposing Gypsum, in the burning piles will spontaneously combine (react) with cold or hot iron, adding more heat to the iron, and adding "sulfides" to the steel and thus lowering its effective melting temperature.


Iron Burns!

And given the fact that the piles were under these conditions for weeks should be obvious how it happened and why. The combo of heated steel, sulfur dioxide, water, and time all combined in creating this eutectic mixture. (amongst other oxidation reactions and sulfides released in the pile as the gypsum decomposed, and burned and mixed in the pile.)

EDIT to add:

more on what oxidation is and how IT works:


it is important to understand that general rule in chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher temperatures. This is especially true of iron oxidation. This means, that the hotter iron metal in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn). For example, it is a familiar sight at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams. This hot rust usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between iron and rust). Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue). It will just thin away (and turn into rust), as illustrated by this photo of burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC tower........................


Iron Burns!


Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."


www.highlightskids.com...

They even teach kids about what oxidation is! If they can be taught..... well...

[edit on 12/19/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Was there sulfur dioxide at Ground Zero? Oh yes! Was there sulfuric acid at Ground Zero? Plenty!

landofpuregold.com...


One of the America's top air-quality scientists test the air around Ground Zero and tells NBC's Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Team he was shocked to find alarming levels of sulfuric acid and fine particles more than three weeks after the attack. (MSNBC, October 29, 2003)


Where did the sulfuric acid come from? gee, maybe from that large pile of decomposing gypsum which is combining with water and steam?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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


I invite your thoughts in my thread here.

"Plaster Thermitic Reaction"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
If it's so obvious this came from gypsum board I wonder why NIST no where mentions gypsumboard, drywall, sheet rock, wall board, or any variation thereof:

From NCSTAR 1-3C page 281 of 336


"As sulfur was not readily available in large amounts in the steel (0.02 weight percent max.), an external source must have supplied this specie (e.g., plastic, rubber)."

Why no mention of drywall? Something like "e.g. drywall" would have been nice since it's so obvious. Maybe NIST didn't realize there was drywall in the building?

Then the claim:

"Therefore, it was unknown what specific items (e.g., office furniture, office supplies, carpeting) were the sources of the corroding elements found in the scale, how long this process occurred, or at what temperature."

Again..... Why no "e.g. drywall" listed? Maybe NIST really didn't realize there was drywall in the building. Those dummies! It's so obvious! They probably wouldn't have realized it if a piece of drywall corroded their nose!

Inquiring minds would like to know.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


The purpose of NIST was to investigate what brought DOWN the WTC, not what happened to the debris weeks and months later.

Did you happen to catch the part on page 283 of 336 of NCSTAR 1-3C?

"Finally, as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53rd floor of the building, this degradation phenomenon had no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building (Finding #7)"

So in effect, this happened after the collapses, and not before. So, once again, the eutectic material argument is pointless in suggesting that SOMETHING attacked the steel (some sort of special therm*te) prior to collapse, and it shows it all happened well after the collapse.

After carefully studying and using some basic chemistry understanding, the explanation of how the steel sulfidized and knowing that gypsum decomposes into sulfur dioxide, AND there was plenty of it there, its not that hard to figure out how and what happened in the pile. Just because NIST missed it or didn't bother looking further into this doesn't mean it didn't happened or is wrong: it just means NIST was not very interested in what happened to the steel weeks later, since it does not help them in figuring out what happened prior to collapse. They wanted to know what caused the collapses.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Yes, I read that quote and that's a very convenient phrasing for them to make short shrift of the whole matter.

I don't see how being below floor 53 is in anyway a point against it happening before collapse. What does that mean? Are they implying that it couldn't have been affected by fire below floor 53?

If I remember right there were reports of fire on floor 22 and burning jet fuel on floor 51. Not sure what buildings. But did they look into these? Did they model these? There was certainly heat available below floor 53, so that part means nothing to me.

As for the prone position, I'd like to see more about what they are talking about. Their arguments about the amount of corrosion on the inner and outer webs and the flanges is not convincing unless they are willing to show pictures of what they are talking about. I see gaping holes on both side in their figure 6-20 (and I see where the coupon was removed by FEMA) Were these gaping holes all due to corrosion?

But anyway that's besides the point as my point in my previous post was your certainty of the gypsum board being responsible.

Why do you think NIST is not as certain as you are that it was caused by gypsum board?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exactly
The $20 bill shows it all.


Interesting...Care to elaborate a little??
What would the "theory" be in this case??
Our ancestors left "clues" on the bills, of what was going to happen, because in fact they are not our anestors but our descendants who traveled in time to go back and live the clues??

Please, I´d like to seriously know what your theory is.

Thanks.




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11
 


its been explained. A few times.


A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure ... Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid ...."


www.tms.org...

And going back to the sulfur source, THAT came from the decomposition of the gypsum in the drywall, which produced sulfur dioxide.

Also some more info here on the copper and calcium:
www.eurekalert.org...



1) You still haven't explained how heat alone makes steel break out into a reaction like this.

2) It's not a fact that the sulfur came from the drywall, it's speculation and not even NIST and FEMA say it definitely came from any particular source.


SO2 behaves as both a reducing and oxidizing agent. I hope you understand what that means.


I hope you understand the difference between a theory and a fact, or even evidence.


Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, released from burning organic materials, and/or from decomposing Gypsum, in the burning piles will spontaneously combine (react) with cold or hot iron, adding more heat to the iron, and adding "sulfides" to the steel and thus lowering its effective melting temperature.


"Debunking911.com" is not a reliable source for this information. If you posted it from a chemistry website, that would be one thing, but the guy who runs debunking911.com is a JREF troll, an armchair debunker, much like yourself, and I have seen him make up all kinds of crap.

Show me similar statements from an independent website, that sulfur dioxide can result in a spontaneous eutectic reaction on steel.


more on what oxidation is and how IT works:


You can save all this irrelevant BS in your posts, it distracts from you actually answering what I'm saying. Oxidation was only a minor (albeit necessary) component of the reaction. Oxidation alone results in nothing. Sulfur dioxide may be corrosive, but I'd like to see you come up with a legitimate chemical source stating that it will spontaneously cause a eutectic reaction. The guy who runs debunking911.com is no more an expert in chemistry as you or me, so why should I take his word for it?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
The purpose of NIST was to investigate what brought DOWN the WTC, not what happened to the debris weeks and months later.


And they didn't even do that, did they?

They only theorized what could initiate some kind of "collapse."

In their 3D computer models, all they show from the result of their whole study is the building starting to lean over slightly. Then it stops, no more studying after that. Only an elementary energy calculation that makes huge assumptions and is not based on any physical mechanisms (which absorb energy) at all.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's not a fact that the sulfur came from the drywall, it's speculation and not even NIST and FEMA say it definitely came from any particular source.

I hope you understand the difference between a theory and a fact, or even evidence.

"Debunking911.com" is not a reliable source for this information. If you posted it from a chemistry website, that would be one thing, but the guy who runs debunking911.com is a JREF troll, an armchair debunker, much like yourself, and I have seen him make up all kinds of crap.

Show me similar statements from an independent website, that sulfur dioxide can result in a spontaneous eutectic reaction on steel.

Oxidation was only a minor (albeit necessary) component of the reaction. Oxidation alone results in nothing. Sulfur dioxide may be corrosive, but I'd like to see you come up with a legitimate chemical source stating that it will spontaneously cause a eutectic reaction.

The guy who runs debunking911.com is no more an expert in chemistry as you or me, so why should I take his word for it?


A chemical reaction will take place when materials are together under certain conditions - temperature, durations, etc.

Whether or not NIST or FEMA were definite about, the guy who runs debunking911.com is a JREF troll, and am armchair debunker,
will not affect it.

Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering said one can only infer actual circumstances at Ground Zero given that it is impossible to recreate the exact conditions and variable ever again.

But his opinion was that the 3 main sources were the combination of gypsum wallboard dust, Acid Rain, and substantial quantities of leaking No. 6 heating oil.

Why should the opinion of a non chemical expert conspiracy site troll be better?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The most compelling evidence for US government involvement in 9/11 is the FACT that the CIA brought those responsible into the country and trained them.

Their application for visas into the US was denied by the consulate officials but overruled by the CIA.

www.democraticunderground.com...

What other evidence do you need other than direct absolute PROOF that the US government was involved in 911 beyond the FACT that they ORDERED the terrorists be allowed INTO THE COUNTRY.

Thats NOT speculation - thats a stone cold fact - case closed.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas
The most compelling evidence for US government involvement in 9/11 is the FACT that the CIA brought those responsible into the country and trained them.

Their application for visas into the US was denied by the consulate officials but overruled by the CIA.

What other evidence do you need other than direct absolute PROOF that the US government was involved in 911 beyond the FACT that they ORDERED the terrorists be allowed INTO THE COUNTRY.

Thats NOT speculation - thats a stone cold fact - case closed.


Yes, this has always has been the smoking gun for the forged linkage of the US admin with the Saudis royals and the bin Laden family. Elaborated in a number of books and articles that Saudi royal banker Khalid bin Mahfouz has successfully managed to suppress distribution on. Titles like "House of Bush:House of Saud" "Alms for Jihad" "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed"

Notably conspiracists never discuss the co-ordination the 9/11 attacks by Pakistan's ISI who maintain a direct input on US Asian affairs.

Pakistan's chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in the US on the September 4th, conferred with his CIA counterparts, and had meetings at the State Department after the attacks

One almost suspects the forced focus on whack job theories like controlled demolition (really necessary for already destroyed building?) are part of a large scale deflection from the true facilitators of 9/11.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
A chemical reaction will take place when materials are together under certain conditions - temperature, durations, etc.


And no one has demonstrated those things as far as drywall causing a eutectic reaction that melts the steel.


Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering said one can only infer actual circumstances at Ground Zero given that it is impossible to recreate the exact conditions and variable ever again.


Sounds like a good reason to stop saying it came from the drywall like it's a fact, when it obviously isn't, huh?

Especially when you have "explosive paint" that is also in the dust. But forget it, you're smarter than a former Los Alamos nuclear research scientist, too.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


I would accept some inside jobbers explaining how and why they did it. Physical evidence of the "how." So far there is none. There is much speculation and many questions, but no real evidence, no complete story, no detailed proposal backed by anything.




Yep, that does describe the OS quite well. That would be the problem.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
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.


I really hate to nitpick and all but where is this chain reaction? Can you show it in the footage? A computer model? Anything but fantasy -just believe me because it is what I believe- type tales? There is obviously no chain reaction as each side of the building begins to fall simultaneously. Was it an instantaneous chain reaction? Can you demonstrate that in ANY WAY?

oh and by the way

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


Did you read that after you wrote it? Do you see the irony in what you said?

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Especially when you have "explosive paint" that is also in the dust. But forget it, you're smarter than a former Los Alamos nuclear research scientist, too.


No explosive paint ever found in the debris. No magic super therm*te in primer paint chips analyzed by Jones et al. Just some roundly disproven self-serving quasi-science. No evidence of explosives use to bring down the WTC. None, zip, nada. About as 'proven' as are Dr Judy Wood's "death rays" the "mini-nuke' and other Truther delusions.

The nature of Truther information is that anything proven false just never ever goes away. 8 years later there are still clowns trying to show no plane hit the Pentagon. Some not too bright people take it seriously.

Others strenuously try to prove WTC buildings destroyed by fuel laden planes flying into them like gigantic bombs and the subsequent fallout were also control demolished by government agencies for dramatic effects.

There's 9/11 that happened in 2001 and there's Fantasy 9/11. We now know what happned in 2001. Online Fantasy 9/11 is still hotly debated.






[edit on 20-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is no "explosive paint." Jones' own data disprove his theory. He did promise another paper but has been quiet for a while. Maybe he has revised his theory, as it didn't make much sense to begin with.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Well maybe if the questions being asked were answered this whole thing would be dropped
But they arent which is a big problem
when they are its answered with no comment



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


The people doing the analysis were structural and mechanical engineers and are not generally known for their chemical expertise. This should not detract from the likelihood that the tons of sulfur available in the form of gypsum drywall is a likely source of the sulfur in the corroded steel.

[edit on 12/20/2009 by pteridine]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join