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.

 

Scientists, Military Officers, and Actors are among new 9/11 research organizations

page: 15
121
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Explain the straw-man. I have links ready to illustrate what a straw-man really is. Good luck.

Where do you get the idea that I deny that any steel melted through these methods? Pretty sure I explained to you explicitly how I am not opposed to this theory.


You said that the corrosion had nothing to do with melting, but that's not what this says:


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting


www.fema.gov...




If you have a problem with my post please feel free to take it up with a mod. I'm just tired of being accused of all sorts when in reality I take issue with incorrect technical issues and don't involve myself in silly 'smoking gun' type proofs.


I'm also tired of being accused of all sorts when in reality I take issue with incorrect technical issues and don't involve myself in silly "debunking" escapades. I never used the phrase "smoking gun"... oops, looks like you just used another straw-man.

And I agree with stewie that your post in question was either just an emotional outburst from yourself or else an attempt to bait me, considering it had no substance in it whatsoever.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You said that the corrosion had nothing to do with melting, but that's not what this says:

Under my post, click 'posts', then locate this thread and click 'thread posts'. Read the first post I made in this thread, the first response to your question. What did I say?


And I agree with stewie that your post in question was either just an emotional outburst from yourself or else an attempt to bait me, considering it had no substance in it whatsoever.

Then report it to the mods, I am not trying to bait you, I'm trying to point out that you're arguing with me over nothing at the moment it would seem.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


That's the exact response I was expecting to get as that is the predictable and programmed response of the skeptic crowd.

However, that theory of which you postulate has been put to the test:






Any questions?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
You said that the corrosion had nothing to do with melting, but that's not what this says:

Under my post, click 'posts', then locate this thread and click 'thread posts'. Read the first post I made in this thread, the first response to your question. What did I say?


You asserted that FEMA's own summary of appendix C was inaccurate despite the fact that they actually do go on to show everything they describe there. I already responded to that post. Maybe you missed it?

Let me guess, you just want to start this whole discussion over again? Sorry, I'd rather go forward for a change.


Exponent:


Originally posted by exponent
Melting is the breaking of bonds due to thermal energy. Corrosion is a chemical bonding process generally involving oxidation.

They are in no sense comparable.


FEMA:



Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting


www.fema.gov...



Then report it to the mods, I am not trying to bait you, I'm trying to point out that you're arguing with me over nothing at the moment it would seem.


I figured you were just having a genuine emotional outburst which is why I didn't report it as trying to bait me. If you think we're arguing over "nothing" then you are free to "walk away."



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Oh dear. How can you follow such simple instructions and still fail to notice that I have not been disagreeing with this claim in any sense at any point in this thread. The only thing I've done is to try and correct you that 'iron-rich' does not mean pure-iron, and that this claim does not lend any validation to the controlled demolition theory.

I mean really, you've managed to start an argument with me over something I never disagreed with, and stated explicitly right at the start of the thread.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Thanks for that video. Like Popular Mechanics, the NIST has destroyed their own credibility.
What they should be doing is joining the fight for truth.
(I see Pterry is still around, I wonder what happened to Hoop? Got fired or transferred?)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Oh dear. How can you follow such simple instructions and still fail to notice that I have not been disagreeing with this claim in any sense at any point in this thread.


That's not the impression I'm getting from how antagonistic you are being towards what the FEMA report simply states.


The only thing I've done is to try and correct you that 'iron-rich' does not mean pure-iron, and that this claim does not lend any validation to the controlled demolition theory.


Oh wow, so now you have been reduced to pteridine's own trivial argument that no "pure iron" was melted. In case you missed it, I already acknowledged this, because it means nothing. There was no pure iron at the WTC as far as I'm aware.


I mean really, you've managed to start an argument with me over something I never disagreed with, and stated explicitly right at the start of the thread.


If you don't disagree then are you going to stop arguing with me now?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you don't disagree then are you going to stop arguing with me now?

I've been trying! Why do you think I asked you to re read my posts.

I'm more than happy to accept that this mechanism may have resulted in some iron compounds melting. That's what everyone involved in evaluating it, from FEMA to NIST to independent chemists seem to think. But none of them seem to think that it's indicative of any sort of conspiracy theory, as it does not require extreme chemistry or temperatures.

Incidentally, alloys are not compounds, so I just though I'd point that out in case this argument doesn't end here.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I watched the video. I would have thought that it was a satire if you hadn't linked to it. At least Johnny Cole burned all of his brush and some scrap. Unfortunately, he did not run his experiment under conditions found at the WTC site. He needs the underground fires, high in CO, to decompose the anhydrite. Reductive decomposition produces the sulfur compounds needed. He also used rainwater, for some reason, instead of brackish harbor water. There is also the question of a one day burn but, as he met none of the other criteria, being a few weeks shy won't matter.

He further assumed that Jones had proved thermite, which he had not, and then came up with thermate as his reason for the presence of sulfur. Oops, Jones analysis said no sulfur containing thermate was present, which is why he had to invoke nano thermite. So much for linking Stevie to the sulfur source.

Finally, Cole assumed that residual therm*te would burn for weeks and that the heat of the fires was the result of this slow burning therm*te. Great demolition material; it takes three weeks to go off. Did he calculate how many tons of unburned therm*te would be necessary to do a slow burn to produce the heat? I'd bet not. I'd also bet his PE is in Civ E or Mech E.

This was a poorly executed experiment that proves only that the true believers have just enough knowledge of science and engineering to convince themselves of demolition when they want to and to show that home made experiments often lead to faulty conclusions.


edit on 9/15/2010 by pteridine because: spelling



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I'm more than happy to accept that this mechanism may have resulted in some iron compounds melting. That's what everyone involved in evaluating it, from FEMA to NIST to independent chemists seem to think. But none of them seem to think that it's indicative of any sort of conspiracy theory, as it does not require extreme chemistry or temperatures.


With all of the difficulty and feet-dragging it took for you to even admit this, it's little wonder FEMA didn't take it any farther than just to describe what happened.


it does not require extreme chemistry


I'm not sure what the technical definition of "extreme chemistry" is, but can you even prove what caused this reaction in the first place? Because FEMA couldn't.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Don't think because you have stopped responding to me that I have forgotten where you left off.




Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting


www.fema.gov...


Do you see this, pteridine?

Can you debunk this sentence?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Do you know the difference between corrosion and melting? Do you believe that a molten intragranular eutectic will cause lumps of beam to fall off? If melting occurred, why are the margins so sharp in the photomicrographs, BS?

This must be too technical for you.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I didn't ask you for a bunch of irrelevant questions followed by an insult.

I asked you...

Can you debunk this sentence?


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting


www.fema.gov...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That is what the report said. It is your interpretation that is incorrect.

I know you cannot explain your interpretation other than to keep harping on the formation of a high sulfur, intergranular melt. The melt is not molten steel, it is an iron-oxide-sulfide. Corrosion was the cause of the eroded beam and your reference said so. Are you planning on debunking your own reference? With limited diffusion, you have no mechanism for bulk melting. You are in a box and the only thing you can do is to be aggressive.

Your previous posts show that you do not understand the mechanism. In one you claimed that the elements came from within the steel; the iron did, the sulfur and oxygen did not. Then you said that melting was a form of corrosion. It is not.

It seems that the point of your arguments is leading back to the video posted by bonez which contends that any melted metal is proof of sulfur containing demolition materials and long term heat is proof of therm*te which is burning slowly, for some reason. The "experiment", like the Jones paper, was amateurish and would only serve to reinforce an opinion based solely on a desire for such a conspiracy.

I invite you to display your talents and explain what you think your reference means.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
That is what the report said. It is your interpretation that is incorrect.

I know you cannot explain your interpretation other than to keep harping on the formation of a high sulfur, intergranular melt.


Let me stop your condescending rant right here.

Is my interpretation incorrect, or can I not explain it?

The two are mutually exclusive. Three sentences into your post and you've already contradicted yourself hilariously.


This is what FEMA says, again:


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting


www.fema.gov...


My "interpretation," as I explained above, is exactly what it says:

There was a "high temperature corrosion attack on the steel," which INCLUDED "oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting."


You claim that is an incorrect interpretation? It is a literal restatement of FEMA. It is very simple. It does not need further "interpretation."

Your problem is that you REFUSE to admit that the corrosive attack included the "subsequent intragranular melting." You want to throw that out the window completely, and say it was the oxidation and sulfidation that caused all the corrosion, and not the melting. When it's obvious to anyone who knows what "melting" is that it is in fact VERY "corrosive" to whatever substance it is happening to.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Stop your own rants.
Intergranular formation of a melt increased the rate of corrosion by speeding the oxidation of the iron. The phenomenon was limited to near surface reaction; consider it a film of slag on the surface of corroding material. Describing it as molten iron is wrong.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Speaking of FEMA, check out these pictures from Fema.gov:

1. www.fema.gov...

2. www.fema.gov...

Weird how the basements are not filled with steel and concrete, especially considering the thousands and thousands of tons of debris that should have fallen into them, isn't it?



Amazing that tons and tons of steel and concrete turned to dust and floated high up into our atmosphere, isn't it?



I sure think so...


In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


Explain the physics behind steel turning to dust. One sure way is a grinder; shock waves, mini-nukes, and collapses don't do it.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Intergranular formation of a melt increased the rate of corrosion by speeding the oxidation of the iron.


So in other words it played a significant role in the destruction of the steel.


The phenomenon was limited to near surface reaction


You've said this before. It is irrelevant. The integrity was still destroyed. That was the point.


Describing it as molten iron is wrong.


Describing it as "pure iron" is your trivial argument, remember? To say no iron was melted is intellectually dishonest. The iron was rendered to liquid form, and in fact FEMA even alludes to the steel itself being melted, which it was, when they say it normally requires higher temperatures to melt it. Even FEMA is above your pettiness.



Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting


www.fema.gov...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Keep dancing. There was no liquid steel proved by your reference. The erosion was not due to steel melting as you claimed, it was due to hot corrosion.



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join