I noticed no one acknowledged the findings of "unexplained sulfur" in the NIST report. I guess that evidence is too solid for the anti-conspiracy theorists.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I noticed no one acknowledged the findings of "unexplained sulfur" in the NIST report. I guess that evidence is too solid for the anti-conspiracy theorists.
Right, because the only possible source of sulfur is explosives planted by the U.S. government.
Right, because the only possible source of sulfur is explosives planted by the U.S. government.
Well, maybe it's purely coincidental that a sulfur attack was found at the failure points. Just like everything else on 9-11, NORAD games, insider traiding, warnings, etc... all purely coincidental.
Can you offer another explation for exactly how a sulfur corrosion attack would have occured on the steel only at failure points?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I noticed no one acknowledged the findings of "unexplained sulfur" in the NIST report. I guess that evidence is too solid for the anti-conspiracy theorists.
I think this was explained to you before, after which you then took a jump to another piece of "solid evidence". Anyway, try reading this:
In case you're thinking that the sulfur was the result of a thermate burn, go ahead and try finding some Barium. Thermate uses 10-20 times the amount of barium as sulfur. No barium oxide was measured in that steel.
Well, maybe it's purely coincidental that a sulfur attack was found at the failure points. Just like everything else on 9-11, NORAD games, insider traiding, warnings, etc... all purely coincidental.
Can you offer another explation for exactly how a sulfur corrosion attack would have occured on the steel only at failure points?
Sulfur, present in most grades of steel, was extruded from the metal where it broke? Due to the heat and pressure?
Admittedly, I am no structural engineer.
In case you're thinking that the sulfur was the result of a thermate burn, go ahead and try finding some Barium. Thermate uses 10-20 times the amount of barium as sulfur. No barium oxide was measured in that steel.
I didn't say thermate was used, sulfur is pretty abundant in many things.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What ever happened to the 10-12 Israeli men caught videotaping and cheering when the buildings fell down from atop of van...and before anyone labels me I heard this time and time again on THE DAY of 9/11 and their taking into custody that day....however heard nothing about it later...wondering what happened to them...just curious.....
Can you offer another explation for exactly how a sulfur corrosion attack would have occured on the steel only at failure points?
Such an explanation is completely unnecessary since the underlying claim is fraudulent. Sulfur was not "only found at failure points". Sulfur was found on FEMA samples 1 and 2. Read the FEMA reports.
Sulfur, present in most grades of steel, was extruded from the metal where it broke? Due to the heat and pressure?
Admittedly, I am no structural engineer.
That's right, in the process of making steel they remove the sulfur to meet specifications. NIST stated that the steel met specifications of 0.02 mg/whatever and Underwriter Laboratories, that certified the steel, said the same thing.
NIST states that the sulfur attacked the steel in solid-state diffusion. Which implies that sulfur entered the steel by filling voids, which ultimately implies the steel was deffective, but they can't prove it was solid-state diffusion, that's just what they "think" happened. They also "think" this happened after the collapse, and it's just coincidental that it happened at failure points.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's right, in the process of making steel they remove the sulfur to meet specifications. NIST stated that the steel met specifications of 0.02 mg/whatever and Underwriter Laboratories, that certified the steel, said the same thing.
NIST states that the sulfur attacked the steel in solid-state diffusion. Which implies that sulfur entered the steel by filling voids, which ultimately implies the steel was deffective, but they can't prove it was solid-state diffusion, that's just what they "think" happened. They also "think" this happened after the collapse, and it's just coincidental that it happened at failure points.
Well, its no more conjectural than your theory of deliberate etching of the metal with sulpur by American bogeymen. In fact, I would argue less so.
Such an explanation is completely unnecessary since the underlying claim is fraudulent. Sulfur was not "only found at failure points". Sulfur was found on FEMA samples 1 and 2. Read the FEMA reports.
Well obviously, when you use an incendiary like thermite it's going to get around. The point is "typically" it's at failure points and the majority of the steel met specifications.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well obviously, when you use an incendiary like thermite it's going to get around.
Ok. Then where's the Barium oxide? That's going to "get around" at a rate 10-20 times that of the sulfur.
The point is "typically" it's at failure points and the majority of the steel met specifications.
It is not "typically" at failure points. Sulfur was measured in two steel samples. The first piece is of unknown origin. The second is at a point that could potentially have been a failure point, but certainly not the only failure point. Other samples from failure points measured without any levels of sulfur.
Ok. Then where's the Barium oxide? That's going to "get around" at a rate 10-20 times that of the sulfur.
There is no Barium in thermite as far as I know. They add Barium nitrate to thermite to make thermate.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's right, in the process of making steel they remove the sulfur to meet specifications. NIST stated that the steel met specifications of 0.02 mg/whatever and Underwriter Laboratories, that certified the steel, said the same thing.
NIST states that the sulfur attacked the steel in solid-state diffusion. Which implies that sulfur entered the steel by filling voids, which ultimately implies the steel was deffective, but they can't prove it was solid-state diffusion, that's just what they "think" happened. They also "think" this happened after the collapse, and it's just coincidental that it happened at failure points.
sulfur is used in the production of many metals; but is also present in jet a fuel. considering the tons of jet fuel that ran down stairwells and elevator shafts; i would expect to find sulfur.
Yes. About 10-20 times the amount of sulfur they add.
That is true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
sulfur is used in the production of many metals; but is also present in jet a fuel. considering the tons of jet fuel that ran down stairwells and elevator shafts; i would expect to find sulfur.
That's all speculated. There is no evidence to support the idea that 10,000 gallons of jet fuel made it to the basement in both buildings, and also caused solid-state diffusion where sulfur was found. That seems like a stretch.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's all speculated. There is no evidence to support the idea that 10,000 gallons of jet fuel made it to the basement in both buildings, and also caused solid-state diffusion where sulfur was found. That seems like a stretch.
did it float up? the burn evidence proved it not only ran down the building but also flowed into cracks like any liquid would. if you question the amount of sulfur in fuels; where does sulfur dioxide in emmissions come from?
Are you sure? You seem to have concluded that the official explanation "doesn't add up". Yet it's the only the official explanation that you seem to question.
Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall. But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall. But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.
I am probably too right-brained, but some of this post is true ... I have trouble with discussions of topics where there is only speculation and circumstantial evidence in the first place. It basically just becomes an exercise in speculation, which can be fun. What irks me sometimes is when people take the speculation as fact.
I am probably too right-brained, but some of this post is true ... I have trouble with discussions of topics where there is only speculation and circumstantial evidence in the first place. It basically just becomes an exercise in speculation, which can be fun. What irks me sometimes is when people take the speculation as fact.
Dude, the official theory is speculation. That's why the questions. Or are you saying you question the official theory?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
did it float up? the burn evidence proved it not only ran down the building but also flowed into cracks like any liquid would. if you question the amount of sulfur in fuels; where does sulfur dioxide in emmissions come from?
I'm not questioning sulfur in fuel. I'm questioning the dynamics of the liquid in a burning building.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I hope you aren't taken in by these guys. What they've posted isn't information. It's the fevered imaginings of paranoid conspiracy buffs obsessed with the belief that our own government is the root of all evil.
i'm not easily swayed by bits and pieces of information...or anecdotal evidence. thanks for the concern though.
ds
And no one sings me lullabyes
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall. But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.
maybe you should seek out the evidence available and look at it in a cause and effect forum. you can follow a path of science and logic while examining the footage and it clearly unwinds.
I'm not questioning sulfur in fuel. I'm questioning the dynamics of the liquid in a burning building.
look at other events. there has been enough implosions and enough bombing to make an educated conclusion. why didn't the federal building in oklahoma city act differently besides the obvious? if you pour burning liquid fuel into/onto a doll house or other building model; what happens? have you seen a skyscraper before the flooring and cielings are installed? there are expansion cracks all over. where sulfur was found were spots where the fuel would pool. limiting air to the area and causing higher readings. there's a scientific explaination to everything. the problem is most people are not schooled in science so it's hard for them to comprehend.
look at other events. there has been enough implosions and enough bombing to make an educated conclusion. why didn't the federal building in oklahoma city act differently besides the obvious? if you pour burning liquid fuel into/onto a doll house or other building model; what happens? have you seen a skyscraper before the flooring and cielings are installed? there are expansion cracks all over. where sulfur was found were spots where the fuel would pool. limiting air to the area and causing higher readings. there's a scientific explaination to everything. the problem is most people are not schooled in science so it's hard for them to comprehend.
I suppose you have a degree in structural engineering?
I've actually watched the video of the WTC being built. So yes, I've seen buildings being built. And I understand very well how the phsyics work. *cough* windsor building *cough*
When I was a kid I played around a lot with gasoline and homemade explosives. I know how this stuff acts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I noticed no one acknowledged the findings of "unexplained sulfur" in the NIST report. I guess that evidence is too solid for the anti-conspiracy theorists.
Right, because the only possible source of sulfur is explosives planted by the U.S. government.
Well, maybe it's purely coincidental that a sulfur attack was found at the failure points. Just like everything else on 9-11, NORAD games, insider traiding, warnings, etc... all purely coincidental.
Can you offer another explation for exactly how a sulfur corrosion attack would have occured on the steel only at failure points?
I think this was explained to you before, after which you then took a jump to another piece of "solid evidence". Anyway, try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur#Biological_role
In case you're thinking that the sulfur was the result of a thermate burn, go ahead and try finding some Barium. Thermate uses 10-20 times the amount of barium as sulfur. No barium oxide was measured in that steel.
Sulfur, present in most grades of steel, was extruded from the metal where it broke? Due to the heat and pressure?
Admittedly, I am no structural engineer.
I didn't say thermate was used, sulfur is pretty abundant in many things.
Such an explanation is completely unnecessary since the underlying claim is fraudulent. Sulfur was not "only found at failure points". Sulfur was found on FEMA samples 1 and 2. Read the FEMA reports.
That's right, in the process of making steel they remove the sulfur to meet specifications. NIST stated that the steel met specifications of 0.02 mg/whatever and Underwriter Laboratories, that certified the steel, said the same thing.
NIST states that the sulfur attacked the steel in solid-state diffusion. Which implies that sulfur entered the steel by filling voids, which ultimately implies the steel was deffective, but they can't prove it was solid-state diffusion, that's just what they "think" happened. They also "think" this happened after the collapse, and it's just coincidental that it happened at failure points.
Well, its no more conjectural than your theory of deliberate etching of the metal with sulpur by American bogeymen. In fact, I would argue less so.
Well obviously, when you use an incendiary like thermite it's going to get around. The point is "typically" it's at failure points and the majority of the steel met specifications.
Ok. Then where's the Barium oxide? That's going to "get around" at a rate 10-20 times that of the sulfur.
It is not "typically" at failure points. Sulfur was measured in two steel samples. The first piece is of unknown origin. The second is at a point that could potentially have been a failure point, but certainly not the only failure point. Other samples from failure points measured without any levels of sulfur.
There is no Barium in thermite as far as I know. They add Barium nitrate to thermite to make thermate.
Correct. There is also no sulfur.
Yes. About 10-20 times the amount of sulfur they add.
sulfur is used in the production of many metals; but is also present in jet a fuel. considering the tons of jet fuel that ran down stairwells and elevator shafts; i would expect to find sulfur.
That is true.
That's all speculated. There is no evidence to support the idea that 10,000 gallons of jet fuel made it to the basement in both buildings, and also caused solid-state diffusion where sulfur was found. That seems like a stretch.
did it float up? the burn evidence proved it not only ran down the building but also flowed into cracks like any liquid would. if you question the amount of sulfur in fuels; where does sulfur dioxide in emmissions come from?
Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall. But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I am probably too right-brained, but some of this post is true ... I have trouble with discussions of topics where there is only speculation and circumstantial evidence in the first place. It basically just becomes an exercise in speculation, which can be fun. What irks me sometimes is when people take the speculation as fact.
i'm not certain of what you are referring to...but glad i could help.
ds
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
Dude, the official theory is speculation. That's why the questions. Or are you saying you question the official theory?
I'm not questioning sulfur in fuel. I'm questioning the dynamics of the liquid in a burning building.
i'm not easily swayed by bits and pieces of information...or anecdotal evidence. thanks for the concern though.
ds
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
maybe you should seek out the evidence available and look at it in a cause and effect forum. you can follow a path of science and logic while examining the footage and it clearly unwinds.
look at other events. there has been enough implosions and enough bombing to make an educated conclusion. why didn't the federal building in oklahoma city act differently besides the obvious? if you pour burning liquid fuel into/onto a doll house or other building model; what happens? have you seen a skyscraper before the flooring and cielings are installed? there are expansion cracks all over. where sulfur was found were spots where the fuel would pool. limiting air to the area and causing higher readings. there's a scientific explaination to everything. the problem is most people are not schooled in science so it's hard for them to comprehend.
I suppose you have a degree in structural engineering?
I've actually watched the video of the WTC being built. So yes, I've seen buildings being built. And I understand very well how the phsyics work. *cough* windsor building *cough*
When I was a kid I played around a lot with gasoline and homemade explosives. I know how this stuff acts.