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: 25
7
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bsbray, it still quite stunning how it is so hard for you to grasp the chemistry that I am practically spoon feeding you.

The chemistry is there, hell I gave you practically the whole reaction set up. You have two hands and ten fingers, two eyes and a brain that functions, rather than ignore and hand wave away facts that can be readily checked and confirmed, (also using a little something called critical thinking and common sense) you will see how this eutectic material formed. I gave you on a golden platter the whole set up! But I guess you need someone to tell you with a PhD in advanced mathematics, that 1 + 1 = 2. You are not interested in facts at all.

For the last time, the sulfur dioxide that formed from the decomposition of gypsum reacted with the heated steel beams, lowering the melting point of the steel and at the same time creating more heat. More heat means more oxidation. More oxidation means more heat. Adding more water on heated beams also can cause more oxidation. Water mixes with the sulfur dioxide to create sulfuric acids, which also react directly with the oxidizing steel. Its a caustic environment the steel found itself in. Heat from the fires, plus from the oxidation all combined together. It is widely known that sulfur dioxide is corrosive to steel and iron. Read up on blacksmiths and the art of blacksmithing and read about how sulfur dioxide reactions with heated steel LOWERS the melting point of steel. Iron oxide reacts with iron sulfides. How did the sulfides form? From the sulfur dioxide/iron reactions. Iron sulfide then reacts with the iron oxide, which lowers the melting point of the said steel. When that happens, the eutectic material is created.

I also hope you at least know what exactly is meant by "eutectic".

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron.

www.wpi.edu...

And your silly simplified statement of "Show me similar statements from an independent website, that sulfur dioxide can result in a spontaneous eutectic reaction on steel," just shows me how little you can comprehend the chemistry or how too much it would be for you to even go on your own and do a little actual research and combine it all to make it make sense.


bsbray11
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?


Oxidation was only a MINOR component? MINOR??
Now I cant even take you seriously with that statement! Its was explained how when steel (especially in large piles) begins to rust it creates heat itself. (Notice I said LARGE piles, not something like a car or nail rusting. I would prefer to cut off your incredulity right there.) Heated steel oxidizes (rusts) more rapidly. What is rust again? Iron oxide. What happens when you add iron oxides with iron sulfides and heated? You get a lowered melting point of the steel. Rust was a BIG BIG part of the corrosion.

a little more insite into a little something called pyrophoric iron oxidation:
www.cheresources.com...




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Dude, I don't have trouble understanding what you are saying. You have an immense amount of trouble realizing there is absolutely no evidence behind all the crap you are speculating happened.

There is as much going for what you are saying, as there is thermite theories at this point. Minus a couple of published papers for thermite, and none that I'm aware of showing evidence of the sulfur coming from the drywall, and not even NIST or FEMA suggesting that as a possibility.


And yes, the oxygen was a SMALL part of the over-all reaction. It wasn't rust (oxidation) that caused the corrosion.


[edit on 20-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have an immense amount of trouble realizing there is absolutely no evidence behind all the crap you are speculating happened.

There is as much going for what you are saying, as there is thermite theories at this point. Minus a couple of published papers for thermite, and none that I'm aware of showing evidence of the sulfur coming from the drywall, and not even NIST or FEMA suggesting that as a possibility.


As the exact circumstances cannot be recreated for test purposes,
retro-engineering chemical reactions that took place in the wake of the WTC collapses is a forensic analysis process.

The conclusion corrosion causing sulfur came primarily ftom gypsum drywall material is not only a reasonable assumption, there is no indication this is not the case. With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct.

The majority of legal decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence. An overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence as we have here is considered legal proof.


en.wikipedia.org...

Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that each piece corroborates the other pieces (the pieces then become corroborating evidence). Together they support more strongly the inference that the assertion is true.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. The two areas in which circumstantial evidence is of most importance are civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Truthers kick and scream "where's your proof" because they don't like their pet alternate theories demolished.

The existence of tons of sulfur in gypsum drywall has been determined beyond question. The default assumption is that it contributed to steel corrosion.

There is no direct or inferred evidence of any proposed alternative explanations - hypothetical super thermite or other manufactured explosives - except in the imagination of some.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

That may be so, but it seems they could have put this guy on the case:

wtc.nist.gov...

He does seem to have quite an impressive resume in chemistry. But perhaps there was a misallocation of resources.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The conclusion corrosion causing sulfur came primarily ftom gypsum drywall material is not only a reasonable assumption, there is no indication this is not the case. With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct.


Sorry but that's nowhere near how real science works. Prove me wrong, or else I'm right. Nope. By that logic, thermite also brought down the towers. And so did Christians, and every other religion of the world, simultaneously.


[edit on 20-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
So the question becomes, in case of future fires in steel framed buildings, if firemen need to penetrate drywall for some reason, and this penetration will result in an expedited process of decomposition into a sulphuric gas which may attack the structural members of the building which will only get worse when sprayed with water, will this process rapidly increase the danger of fire fighting in steel structures? Are the things fire fighters doing today only creating more of a "death trap" in steel buildings? Are there other safer methods to be found?

Regardless of whether this happened through deliberate means or not, this is why I think NIST should have studied this corrosion more and come to stronger conclusions. Even if this instance did absolutely occur in the debris pile, is it possible it could happen in a non collapse situation? Should firemen be more aware of this phenomenon in the future?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry but that's nowhere near how real science works. Prove me wrong, or else I'm right. Nope. By that logic, thermite also brought down the towers. And so did Christians, and every other religion of the world


You were supplied with a legal working definition of proof.

Most don't realize that preponderance of circumstantial evidence is recognized as proof. Otherwise there could be no justice system, history, arcgheology, other disciplines - as there would always be claims of insufficient proof. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

With the specifics here, sulfur emanating from gypsum drywall is a scientific reasonable assumption not requiring a giant leap of faith.

We know what happened at the WTC. Deduction is a tool of science.

Planes hit buildings. Extensive damage, trauma, uncontrolled fires. Buildings collapse.

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck - it's a duck.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
The conclusion corrosion causing sulfur came primarily ftom gypsum drywall material is not only a reasonable assumption, there is no indication this is not the case. With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct.


Sorry but that's nowhere near how real science works. Prove me wrong, or else I'm right. Nope. By that logic, thermite also brought down the towers. And so did Christians, and every other religion of the world, simultaneously.


[edit on 20-12-2009 by bsbray11]


Actually it kind of is.

You might find this article interesting.

www.stephenjaygould.org...



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Actually it kind of is.


No. Not really.


You might find this article interesting.

www.stephenjaygould.org...


One paper that spends most of its time refuting Astrology is somehow proof to you that science does indeed work by just postulating any theory you want and then it is somehow true until someone else proves it wrong? Can you show us some real scientific principles based on this. Basically you are saying that I can claim that thunder really is bowling angels and I am scientifically correct until someone goes and proves it. (example, I am aware we know how weather works.) That is what you just said though. Science does indeed work that way. Anything I say is true until someone else proves it is wrong. That is not how real science works.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Actually it kind of is.


No. Not really.


You might find this article interesting.

www.stephenjaygould.org...


One paper that spends most of its time refuting Astrology is somehow proof to you that science does indeed work by just postulating any theory you want and then it is somehow true until someone else proves it wrong? Can you show us some real scientific principles based on this. Basically you are saying that I can claim that thunder really is bowling angels and I am scientifically correct until someone goes and proves it. (example, I am aware we know how weather works.) That is what you just said though. Science does indeed work that way. Anything I say is true until someone else proves it is wrong. That is not how real science works.


Oh dear. Do you know who Karl Popper is Lily?

He's probably the most important philosopher of science of the twentieth century. His ideas form the basis of significant parts of modern scientific method.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Prove me wrong or else im right
This made me laugh

No one can force someone to believe something in fact that will push one away
their are a lot of questions unanswered
My question is why are they not being answered



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Oh dear. Do you know who Karl Popper is Lily?

He's probably the most important philosopher of science of the twentieth century. His ideas form the basis of significant parts of modern scientific method.


Goody, I cannot wait for my lesson. Which part of the scientific method involves, any crazy ass thing I want to say becomes true until someone else proves it wrong. Please educate me. Want a whole thread for this?


p.s. it does not matte WHO wrote it. It is still one paper basically refuting Astrology. It is not anything that proves what you are trying to claim. Einstein wrote about the existence of God but his name on those papers did not make them relevant to anything else either.

[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Oh dear. Do you know who Karl Popper is Lily?

He's probably the most important philosopher of science of the twentieth century. His ideas form the basis of significant parts of modern scientific method.


Goody, I cannot wait for my lesson. Which part of the scientific method involves, any crazy ass thing I want to say becomes true until someone else proves it wrong. Please educate me. Want a whole thread for this?


p.s. it does not matte WHO wrote it. It is still one paper basically refuting Astrology. It is not anything that proves what you are trying to claim. Einstein wrote about the existence of God but his name on those papers did not make them relevant to anything else either.

[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]



So Karl Popper's wrong.

Oooookay.


[Popper held] that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications.

He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.


Which bit of that do you disagree with?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Oh dear. Do you know who Karl Popper is Lily?

He's probably the most important philosopher of science of the twentieth century. His ideas form the basis of significant parts of modern scientific method.


Goody, I cannot wait for my lesson. Which part of the scientific method involves, any crazy ass thing I want to say becomes true until someone else proves it wrong. Please educate me. Want a whole thread for this?


p.s. it does not matte WHO wrote it. It is still one paper basically refuting Astrology. It is not anything that proves what you are trying to claim. Einstein wrote about the existence of God but his name on those papers did not make them relevant to anything else either.

[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]



So Karl Popper's wrong.

Oooookay.



No, you are. Maybe you cannot read. Either way, this is off topic. If you really care to school me on it, come here



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have an immense amount of trouble realizing there is absolutely no evidence behind all the crap you are speculating happened.

There is as much going for what you are saying, as there is thermite theories at this point. Minus a couple of published papers for thermite, and none that I'm aware of showing evidence of the sulfur coming from the drywall, and not even NIST or FEMA suggesting that as a possibility.


As the exact circumstances cannot be recreated for test purposes,
retro-engineering chemical reactions that took place in the wake of the WTC collapses is a forensic analysis process.

The conclusion corrosion causing sulfur came primarily ftom gypsum drywall material is not only a reasonable assumption, there is no indication this is not the case. With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct.

The majority of legal decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence. An overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence as we have here is considered legal proof.


en.wikipedia.org...Big tower, big fire, no collapse
Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that each piece corroborates the other pieces (the pieces then become corroborating evidence). Together they support more strongly the inference that the assertion is true.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. The two areas in which circumstantial evidence is of most importance are civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Truthers kick and scream "where's your proof" because they don't like their pet alternate theories demolished.

The existence of tons of sulfur in gypsum drywall has been determined beyond question. The default assumption is that it contributed to steel corrosion.

There is no direct or inferred evidence of any proposed alternative explanations - hypothetical super thermite or other manufactured explosives - except in the imagination of some.
[edit on 20-12-2009 by mmiichael]


No alternative explanation?? Your ignoring the elephant in the room.

Your whole point rests upon ignoring science. Why? There is no direct evidence? Huh? You ignore the Bentham Open paper. Why? Has there been a scientific rebuttal to the paper? Never mind, we all know the answer.

All you need to do now is provide a melted steel with holes in it from a normal office fire. Surely the Beijing fire would be a nice starting point. Big tower, big fire, no collapseFind the melted steel in that fire from the gypsum wall board chemical reaction. Unless of course you don't think they used gypsum in that construction.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Firemen are aware of pyrolysis products in a fire which is why they have breathing apparati. Long before the SO2 becomes a problem, the HCN from decomposing polyurethane and styrene from decomposing polystyrene are major problems, as is lack of oxygen and just plain heat.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.


If your theory is true, shouldn't there be more than one piece of steel displaying this swiss cheese like appearance or do you think they ignored 99% of the evidence?

And if it were just 'drywall' why would it have been a 'mystery' to the FEMA specialists?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11
 

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.


[edit on 12/19/2009 by GenRadek]


At what point did the fire reach the temperatures of 1450C/2642 F for gypsum to decompose into oxides of sulfur or corrosive calcium oxide?

WTC 7 was a normal office fire, right? So at what point did it reach that temperature?

Because according to this material safety data sheetGypsum Material Data Sheet, those are the temperatures that gypsum MAY decompose at. Water from fighting fires would make it even more difficult to decompose, correct, as it would cool the temperatures.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
At what point did the fire reach the temperatures of 1450C/2642 F for gypsum to decompose into oxides of sulfur or corrosive calcium oxide?


I invite you to my thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it, I show 2 revelations pertaining to this very topic.

1. I show a video of a man using powdered aluminum and plaster (gypsum) to start a thermitic reaction. No iron oxide added.

2. I show another video where a man uses 2 steel balls and aluminum foil banged together to create sparks and what looks like the beginings of a slight thermitic reaction shooting off of it.

The second video might explain the above question. The force of the building falling may have started a similar reaction from the aluminum facade and steel.

And then a second reaction took place with the aluminum and plaster started by the above reaction.

I am a "truther" (for lack of a better term) myself. I have been screeming for this evidence for so long it's not even funny.

I believe I have found it. The ironic thing is it took a "truther" to find such evidence (except the gentlemen in the videos of course....they did all the work).


[edit on 21-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
release every single pentagon security tape confiscated, no questions asked, and that will prove or disprove wether 9/11 had any fishy things goin on



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join