A strong foundation for any 9/11 argument is Building 7.

Originally posted by bsbray11
you don't describe exactly how the sulfur is singled out and ends up on the columns.

I thought I did.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you see how disproportionate the sulfur is? It happened to be in just the right proportion to copper and iron also in the eutectic mixture to lower the melting point of the steel

Maybe I'm stupid about eutectic mixtures, but does that really matter? If you pour salt onto ice, the ice is going to start melting, no matter what the proportions are. If I'm misunderstanding something, please explain.

Originally posted by bsbray11
what else can you show in higher concentrations that would have been in drywall dust, that should therefore have been on these samples?

Are you implying that there should have been more calcium than sulfur?

Originally posted by bsbray11
So even though they don't say where the pressure would be coming from, they say there IS evidence for it because of how far into the steel the sulfides were wedged.

What's so suspicious about pressure?

Anyway, you asked for my scenario, and I gave it to you. So, what's yours?
How exactly was this building rigged with thermite explosives?

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

Originally posted by bsbray11
you don't describe exactly how the sulfur is singled out and ends up on the columns.

I thought I did.

What I mean is, take the composition of drywall. It consists of a lot of elements, sulfur is only one of them.

If you are saying gypsum dust is distributed over the columns and lit up, where are the other elements common to drywall in the analysis? Or is there something else that's going on that would explain why only the sulfur was extracted and ended up on the surface of the columns, and not all the other elements in similarly high concentrations?

You don't have any response to the fact that you are claiming drywall dust is more corrosive to steel when lit, than conventional thermite? It would be a quick and easy way to put your theory to the test, wouldn't it?

Maybe I'm stupid about eutectic mixtures, but does that really matter? If you pour salt onto ice, the ice is going to start melting, no matter what the proportions are.

This reaction actually involves more than one ingredient, and they DO have to be in a certain proportion to each other. In conventional thermite it's iron oxide and aluminum and they would ideally be in a 50/50 ratio if I'm not mistaken. In this case I think FEMA says it was iron and copper sulfides that had formed and greatly reduced the melting temperature.

The particle size also makes a huge difference, and certain sizes are not possible from certain sources. So you assume sulfur from gypsum would come in such tiny particles that could penetrate the steel's grain boundaries, but no one has shown this to be possible, or what form of sulfur exactly would come out of drywall and how. The reason conventional thermite doesn't do much to steel, is because the particles are relatively large, so a relatively small amount of surface area is exposed between the reactants, and there is not as much energy release as with smaller particles that have more surface area touching. It took military production to produce nano-energetics, which is a very real and legitimate of new technology, and it's all about reducing particles to very small sizes that are not otherwise possible.

What's so suspicious about pressure?

You really don't know? Come on, you have to think about this yourself, because if I just came out and told you, you'd just accuse me of being biased or something. What exerts both heat (from a eutectic reaction), and pressure? In other words, what both generates a lot of heat, and can "explode"? I'm not going to give the answer away, like I said.

Anyway, you asked for my scenario, and I gave it to you.

That doesn't mean it makes any sense now does it?

How exactly was this building rigged with thermite explosives?

You can just stop with the "people would have seen it" jazz before you even start, because I am not convinced of that at all. People must have put it there, that's all that matters to me, because I have no doubts it could be done. I started a thread a while back on how 200 or 300 metal plates were welded all over a skyscraper during nights, and hardly anyone even noticed it, and they weren't even trying to hide it. I see people doing things in buildings all the time, and I don't go up and get in their business. So it requires somebody to come in with a permit or something, under the guise of doing legitimate work. That's bread and butter of intelligence work. Anyway, falling back on the old line of "somebody would have seen it and told us all about it" doesn't hold water. It's not like a law of physics; it can be circumvented by taking advantage of people not paying attention (people don't).

[edit on 26-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


I was going to address your last post, but looking back, I want to ask you this now:

Did you just accidentally debunk the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory?


If this so called solid-state diffusion happened when the eutectic mixture was doing it's thing, wouldn't the pressure have had to have been the weight of the pile considering the amount of time that it takes?

another interesting aspect of Building 7 is the question of "why?". Why would they plan to have Building 7 just fall into it's own footprint without any possible cover story like the towers had? Who would come up with that plan?

The answer is Flight 93.

willyloman.wordpress.com...

"9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t"

Here's a link I think others might find interesting:

books.google.com... 148,M1

It reads mostly like the Russian language to me, but what I'm getting from it is that many industries have to consider temperature and corrosion by sulfur, but what's striking to me is the actual rate of corrosion. I believe I believe the pertinent part starts on page 148 and though I've read it 5 times and haven't much a clue on what the details are, I do like graphs and Fig 5 on page 149 is telling me that the normal corrosion rate is 1 millimeter a year or less. Then if I take Fig 7 on that same page I can safely double it to 2 millimeters per year.

So is this saying that it would take at least a decade to see what we see in the WTC 7 steel under normal conditions? Or am I way off base here?

Anyway, I thought this might be relevant... or maybe not...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic

 

The towers didn't take down WTC7. WTC7 wasn't even close to being damaged enough to remotely collapse:

[images removed by Finalized]

To sum things up, WTC7 sustained minor damage, mostly cosmetic and it "collapsed", but WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 sustained heavy to severe damage and still stood? Nuff said.

Wow BoneZ, THANK YOU for the images of WTC4, 5 and 6. WTC7 is what woke me up, but I had never seen the images of the other WTC buildings that sustained heavy damage, very eye opening. Star for you!

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Finalized]

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
If this so called solid-state diffusion happened when the eutectic mixture was doing it's thing, wouldn't the pressure have had to have been the weight of the pile considering the amount of time that it takes?

The direction of the force was directly into the grain boundaries in the steel, all over the surfaces of these samples. That's why I was saying the pressure wasn't a result of bearing weight, and neither did FEMA, and in fact that would be a much easier thing to suggest than an undefined "solid state diffusion mechanism." If the relevant pressure was from bearing weight, then that pressure would only be applied in a single direction through the member from a point of contact, for every point of contact, and the only area where the deep penetration would even theoretically occur would be the point of contact itself. Not straight into the steel itself from all directions where the corrosion attack took place.



For example, do you really think the entire corroded surface of this sample was making consistent mechanical contact? There's not many shapes that would conform to that surface, are there? Especially the paper-thin edges that curl around the top, that were obviously also severely corroded but wouldn't be able to carry any weight at all.


Are you going to try to light a bunch of drywall dust on some steel for us and see what happens? Because it's actually designed to be flame retardant, I'd like to see how your theory works out. You can try some conventional thermite at the same time and compare and contrast, you know?

Originally posted by NIcon
So is this saying that it would take at least a decade to see what we see in the WTC 7 steel under normal conditions? Or am I way off base here?

There is definitely no precedent for the corrosion of the steel recovered from WTC7 and WTC2. I would say the corrosion isn't even the same because a eutectic reaction is involved here in addition to the sulfidation. An environment exposure to sulfur is one thing, but it looks more like someone put the right substances directly on the surface of the columns, because of how much higher the concentration of sulfur was in the eutectic compared to everything else besides iron molecules. That's not even looking at particle sizes, which may be another indicator that this stuff was engineered and didn't just come out of drywall, or float in through the air or wherever else sulfur can naturally be found. It takes technology to make a mass of tiny, tiny particles, and this is what would make the reaction so devastating more than anything imo. Large, coarse particles are not going to penetrate deeply into the steel's molecular bonds. Not just talking about the sulfur but all reactants involved.

Here's a pdf of a tech magazine from the DoD about nanoenergetics: ammtiac.alionscience.com...

[edit on 27-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Aw man, why'd I ever get involved in this thread? Now there's too much to address, and I just don't have the expertise, time, and energy. Maybe a skeptic who knows more about chemistry and physics can take my place.

I'll address a few things before I go, so it doesn't look like I'm copping out.

I never said that drywall dust is more corrosive than thermite. It's all about the sulfur from the drywall and the reactions that it went through.

When we were talking about proportions, I guess I was assuming that the oxides and the eutectic mixture would automatically match up into those proportions, like when you throw hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Every 2 hydrogen atoms would automatically bond to an oxygen atom. Like I said, I haven't touched chemistry in years, so maybe I'm just being stupid.

The particle size thing is something I would have to know more about to know if I should be suspicious of it or not.

I'm still not sure how solid-state diffusion points towards thermite explosives considering the time it takes. Maybe I'm missing something.

As for the drywall expirement, I know from my drywall research that "fireproof" drywall is really only temporary. I think I remember reading that the highest rated drywall will last about 2 hours in a fire before it disintegrates. You can see pictures of "burnt" drywall by searching in google images.

When I was asking about your scenario, I was actually more interested on where you thought the thermite was placed. I wasn't trying to get into the "people would have seen it argument". (Although honestly, I may have brought it up, but I was more interested in the location of the thermite explosives.)

Maybe it was pointless for me to get into a 9/11 thread because in the end, I want 9/11 to be reinvestigated too. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the reason for it to be reinvestigated.

Peace Out.

Heres a great video just posted in another thread.

[edit on 5/31/2009 by csulli456]

[edit on 5/31/2009 by csulli456]

[edit on 5/31/2009 by csulli456]

I hope everyone gets to see this.