1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down

reply to post by pteridine


Sulfates? IIRC there were indeed sulfates in unexplained proportions found in 9/11 dust.

I'd have to double check that before betting the farm on it, but I'm pretty sure that is indeed the case.

reply to post by cogburn


Plaster board is calcium sulfate. There should have been tremendous amounts of sulfate found in the wreckage.

reply to post by pteridine


Initially you state that no sulfates were found. Then you state there's a significant amount of material in the building that is comprised of sulfates when your statement is proven potentially incorrect.

If you were attempting to conceal a crime, would it not be to your advantage to have the evidence of such crime appear to be a natural part of the sequence of events and not directly related to your crime? If you accept that statement as true, would not then thermate or a similar compound that leaves a residue chemically similar to other "normal" materials be appropriate?

You're not having an open, intellectually honest conversation. You're pushing a point of view... just like a twoofer.

I stated something which you ignored completely which may demonstrate your ignorance of chemistry and/or modern forensics. Barium nitrate does indeed burn without leaving a residue and combines easily with other compounds, which is why it's used commercially in both explosives and forensic analysis. It is well known that testing for barium particles is not a valid test for explosives or gunshot residue because of its common appearance in commercial applications and does not produce particulate matter that could decisively be identified as such.

However given your previous statement and what accepted forensic science knows to be true, there is nothing within your argument that refutes the chemical possibility of the use of thermate.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


You said:"Initially you state that no sulfates were found. Then you state there's a significant amount of material in the building that is comprised of sulfates when your statement is proven potentially incorrect"

I did not say that. I provided a mechanism wherein some of the sulfate present in drywall coud be converted to sulfide ion or elemental sulfur. I also pointed out that there was sulfur in the fuel. This was in response to those who wondered where the sulfur purportedly found in the steel could possible come from. As I understand it, they wanted to use this as evidence for thermate. I pointed out that vastly more sulfur would be available from building materials that any amount of thermate used.
When metallic nitrate salts decompose, the counter ion, in this case barium, has to end up somewhere. Barium Nitrate would be found only if charges did not ignite and survived the fires.
I am prepared to discuss chemistry with you at any time.

The building was chopped at the side... it would have only distroyed half of the buldings support structres

The thing should have toppled over... both of them should have... nothing in nature pancakes... not even a house of cards.

reply to post by pteridine

Posting leading and incomplete statements to see if the other picks up on it is redundant at this point. I think we can agree to move on.

There is one fact from my previous post that still remains, however. Because of the accepted wide use of barium in commercial applications it, or its resultant compounds from reaction, cannot be used as a determining factor for use of explosives in forensic science.

Quite simply, barium from the heat-treating process of the steel in the building's structure would easily conceal the chemical fingerprints of a barium nitrate reaction.

It's a non-argument from a forensic point of view. If I were posing an argument for the use of thermate I would avoid barium as a proof altogether as well. It demonstrates a knowledge of what is accepted within forensic science, not ignoring "valid" evidence.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


I agree. There is no way to determine the existence of a boosted thermite of any sort without discovery of an unignited charge.

reply to post by pteridine
... chemically. To state it specifically, resultant chemicals indicative for a thermate reaction are present, but inconclusive due to the dictates of accepted forensic science. Further supporting facts are required for the theory to be conclusive.

For what it's worth, I'm quite enjoying this. Most conversations in this board are not so well thought out. I'm not pushing a point of view other than that intellectual honesty be practiced by all sides.

Care to address the ~10 second collapse rate? It was a fact that was refuted by a false argument in the anti-AE911 PDF posted earlier in this thread and no one has yet to address it.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Wertdagf
The building was chopped at the side... it would have only distroyed half of the buldings support structres

The thing should have toppled over... both of them should have...

Argument from personal belief

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Wertdagfnothing in nature pancakes... not even a house of cards.

Skyscrapers are man-made...they don't occur "in nature".

I suppose it's about time i reveal the truth...

As a professional lumberjack, I can tell you that this is perfectly normal. I often take one swing at a tree when it suddenly explodes and settles into a small, tidy pile of finely ground sawdust.

This entire thread was an elaborate hoax of mine to see who the true believers are.

I owe all of my fellow truthers an apology.

I hope you can all find room in your hearts to forgive me for my trespasses... but believe me there was no other way for me to get at the "truth".

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91eb0bca8227.gif[/atsimg]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]