What's so hard to understand...

[wildbilln864]

about the phrase "high temperature sulfidation" for some here?
Please look it up, learn what it means and how it occurs and then get back to me.

[Carefulplease]

1. It is a form of corrosion...

It is sulfidation occuring at high temperature, which increases the rate of the reaction.

It is something that can happen when hot steel is exposed to SO2, SO3, H2S or other such sulfur compounds found in abundance in the chemical soup of the burning WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 debris piles.

What next?

[LARED]

2. Tell you what Willbill

You explain to me how high temperature sulfidation of steel effects steel and it's relationship to the eutectic point of a steel mixture and I'll tell you if you know what you're talking about.

Let the lesson begin. :)

[petgoat]

3. high temperature sulfidation of steel effects [sic] steel by

evaporating it. No fire engineering expert anywhere (only frantic OCT supporters) has
suggested that sulfidative erosion is a normal occurrance in fires due to sulfur from drywall,
burning tires, rugs, shower curtains, or human flesh.

The eutectic point is a real simple concept. Impurities in metals lower their melting point.

So there you go again waving your scary diction to try to discredit a very simple and very
well-documented (FEMA Appendix C) occurrance.

[hack89]

4. So how does it prove thermate?

what is the chemistry that proves it can only be thermate? That's what I don't understand - thermate is only 2 percent sulfur so I don't understand why it could be the only source of the sulfidation.

[Make7]

5. Doesn't thermate usually include significant amounts of barium nitrate?

Did Professor Jones find any barium compounds in his WTC metal samples?

- Make7

[petgoat]

9. Did Professor Jones find any barium compounds

Watch the C-Span video. I think he discusses it there. (Haven't had time to
watch it myself.)

[Make7]

11. I do not remember him mentioning barium, just iron and sulfur.

Would you happen to know where I might find the results of the testing that was done on the WTC samples?

- Make7

[LARED]

13. Good luck nt

[LARED]

12. You're close

Sufidation does not vaporize steel, it can form sulfide eutectics that degrade the steels strength and melting points, causing significantly faster than normal corrosion rates and/or plastic deformation. At lower temperatures sulfides in steel can be desirable or unwanted depending on the application.

Here is a rather good article about high temperature sulfidation.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392004000100010

The eutectic point is not really related to impurities. It is the lowest melting point temperature when you have mixed together different materials. It is true that impurities can locally lower melting points via or potentially caused by intergranular corrosion, but there is no magic about this occurring at the WTC. The fact that sulfur caused this in not overly interesting in my view, as there were abundant sources for sulfur compounds to contact the steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic

The FEMA report states ( http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxC.pdf )

C.5 Summary for Sample 2
1. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.
2. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
3. The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries of the corroded regions of the steel
occurred due to copper diffusing from the HSLA steel combining with iron and sulfur, making
both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries.
C.6 Suggestions for Future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear
explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is
possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It
is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel
structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if
any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


It is unclear to me why the 9/11 CT'ers take those words as something to hang their hats on. FEMA explains what they found. They state they have not explained where the sulfur came from. They do not seem baffled that sulfur was present only they were not able to identify the source. And they raised some legitimate concerns about the potential that this corrosion occurred before the collapse. Meaning high temperature significantly increases sulfidation corrosion rates in a weeks long underground fire, but they recognize that this corrosion may have occurred over a twenty year period.

[petgoat]

14. The characterization of the WTC steel as "evaporated" came from

Dr. Jonathan Barnett, the PhD fire engineer on the WPI team that did the FEMA
Appendix C report.

It is unclear to me why the 9/11 CT'ers take those words as something to hang their
hats on.

Because the FEMA report says it's an unusual event, and it's consistent with the use of
explosives or thermate. Because the very non-CT website of WPI wrote an article entitled
"The Deep Mystery of the melted Steel."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

[LARED]

15. Can you provide a link where Dr Barnett

characterizes the steel as evaporated?

If I understand you an article with "Deep Mystery" in the title is cause to don a tin-foil hat? The article you linked to is titled "The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel" then in the first paragraph says, hey, guess what, there was no melted steel. The article points out the importance of this "novel phenomena" in terms of potential problems in still standing buildings. It give no indication the corroded steel found in the debris is a deep mystery.

[petgoat]

16. Google "evaporated" and "Barnett" and "steel"

Maybe if you learned to google, your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar.

The article you linked...in the first paragraph says, hey, guess what, there was
no melted steel.

It says: "etallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel
phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular
melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

That's melted steel.

[LARED]

17. Understandable confusion

Intergranular melting is often referred to as corrosion in the world of metallurgists. I tend to view it that way because intergranular melting occurs at the microscopic level. Similar to corrosion processes.

Also I googled and found no reference to Dr Barnett associating steel vaporizing with the sulfidation.

[petgoat]

18. "I googled and found no reference "

I guess you didn't read what you googled.

Are you claiming that in referring to steel "evaporated" by extraordinarily
high temperatures, Dr. Barnett was referring to something other than the
samples discussed in FEMA Appendix C that suffered high temperature eutectic
corrosion?

http://prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.html

Salting your posts with tech-speak does not make them any less bogus.

[LARED]

19. Dr. Barnett does not

say what steel specimen he is referring to. It could very possibly be the corroded steel he did for the FEMA report, or it could be other steel.

BTW, I'm not salting my posts with tech-speak, It's call salting my posts with technical knowledge.

[hack89]

20. So when the good Dr learned about all the possible sources of sulfur...

the mystery was solved. Because if you read your link, there is no doubt where he thinks the high temperatures came from.

[petgoat]

23. There is plenty of doubt where the sulfur came from. They're

throwing out ideas right and left. Sea salt. Acid rain.

Where do you see a conclusion and what do you think it is?

[Carefulplease]

28. This is an interesting question, indeed...

But when a reasonable answer is proposed as to the mysterious source (post #22) you dismiss the issue as irrelevant!

[John Q. Citizen]

30. CarefulPlease Did you hear? WP is reporting a massive cover-up

and conspiracy by the Pentagon and Norad about 9/11

Check it out over in LBN. They are discussing 9/11 in LBN. 46 votes last iI saw. Whoo Hee. What can you say?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2429785&mesg_id=2429785

[Carefulplease]

32. What can I say? Surely, that proves the thermate hypothesis. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

33. If you say it does then of course it does. If you say it doesn't than

then of course it doesn't.

Why wouldn't I believe you?

And why wouldn't you believe the 9/11 commision?

[petgoat]

36. There was no reasonable answer in 22. There was a laundry.

list of possibilities. There is no evidence to support any one of them over any of the
others, and no studies have been done to support the idea.

But you say I am rejecting an answer staring me in the face.

[Carefulplease]

39. You are acknowledging that there is no evidence for thermate.

"There was a laundry list of possibilities. There is no evidence to support any one of them over any of the others,(...)"

And thermate is an item of this laundry list.

[Bryan Sacks]

41. no evidence?

Carefulplease, do you mean "no conclusive evidence"? But there's no conclusive evidence for any theory, which is petgoat's point.

[petgoat]

42. We were talking about the link in post 22. Thermate is not

mentioned in that laundry list.

You are multitasking beyond your bandwidth limitations. You owe your readers
more respect.

[Make7]

44. Could you please post the evidence that thermate is the source? ( n/t )

[petgoat]

45. Asked and answered.

Have you read Jones?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Have you watched the Scholars' C-Span video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1639681774213710451&q=9%2F11+scholars

I haven't watched it yet, but I believe Jones discusses his thermate analysis there.

[Make7]

46. I have read Jones and I did watch the C-Span program. Neither proves it.

Although I haven't read Professor Jones' paper in a while, the last time I read it the case for thermate had not been proven. Perhaps he has updated it recently with the results of his WTC metal testing, but judging by the remarks he made during the C-Span show I do not believe that to be the case. When I get a chance I will double check.

- Make7

[Carefulplease]

51. Yes it is.

No mention at all?

The problem isn't my multitasking. It seems to be you non-tasking.

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

There are no less than 16 mentions of thermate in this 11 pages paper.

The summary "laundry list" on page 7 lists six items. One of them is "Thermite/Thermate in 'Cutter Charges'".

[petgoat]

52. OK, sorry. nt

[mhatrw]

21. Did you even read what you posted?

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear
explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

It's not up to 9/11 official story skeptics to explain this. It's up to the "nothing to see here folks" to tell us what the explanation is.

A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if
any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Yes. So where is this study?

[hack89]

22. Well, the sources of sulfur were studied

in direct response to this very question.

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

So at least we have that issue resolved.

[petgoat]

24. Ah, right. "Case Closed".... NOT!

Dr. Greening has done an excellent job of convincing the gullible that
the sulfur ubiquitous in buildings commonly evaporates steel.

This is not the case. As FEMA Appendix C points out, the sulfidation
attack is very unusual.

The issue could have been resolved had the WPI researchers been permitted to
continue their work and burn some steel in the presence of drywall, rubber
tyres, human corpses, and what have you. That they were not permitted to
continue their work speaks volumes.

[Carefulplease]

25. Sulphur was not unusual; the long lasting fires were. n/t

[petgoat]

26. So why didn't they allow an investigation? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Pet goat, did you hear the news? The war is over and we won. WP is

reporting a conspiracy and massive coverup by the Pentagon, and Norad

Check it out in LBN

Edited on Tue Aug-01-06 10:44 PM by Phoebe Loosinhouse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03


Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

[LARED]

34. Who says they did not allow an investigation?

YOu don't know if there is a pending investigation, or if one is already in-progress. Your implecation that someone is preventing further investigation is pure spin.

[petgoat]

35. There has been no investigation. You are now driven to the

point of asserting that you get to assume whatever you want despite a complete
lack of evidence for it.

The fact is, the FEMA Appendix C report called for further studies. None have
been reported, and the NIST report pretends that the FEMA Appendix C report
doesn't even exist.

Give it up, LARED. Like John Q. said, you've lost.

[LARED]

37. How ironic

you accuse me of assuming whatever I want. You are the one assuming no investigation has been allowed. Just because you know of none does not mean none have been allowed. For all you know there are experiments ongoing as I type.

We do not live in a world of infinite resources, nor did FEMA state they were planning on doing an investigation. Not everyone that finds an unusual occurrence get funding to figure it out because the said in their conclusion it should be further investigated.

Of course there is another alternative, you work for the government and know no investigation is being allowed. How else could you be so sure?

[petgoat]

38. There is no evidence of the studies you assume.

From the lack of evidence of such studies, I hypothesize that no studies have been done.

We do not live in a world of infinite resources, nor did FEMA state they were planning
on doing an investigation. Not everyone that finds an unusual occurrence get funding to
figure it out

All right which is it? First you attack me for supposing that "no evidence of studies"
means "no studies." Now you're rationalizing the failure to perform studies.

You're melting, LARED. Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead!

[Carefulplease]

40. He clearly did not assume anything. You did.

To question the grounds for your claims is not the same as assuming the opposite.

[petgoat]

43. From the lack of evidence of any studies, I hypothesize that

there were none.

LARED's disputing of this hypothesis is an implicit hypothesis that there
are secret ongoing investigations of which we are unaware.

LARED's position is completely without evidence. My position is consistent
with the existing evidence.

[LARED]

57. Secret Investigation?

I never said that. You do realize that outside the internet there exist a world unknown to you? Perhaps someone is doing research about oxidation/sulfidation corrosion as this very moment.

[petgoat]

59. If someone is doing it, it's a secret. even to you. nt

[LARED]

47. You're wrong

I pointed out that you stated no investigation was allowed, clearly something you have know way of knowing. (unless you work for a government agency)

[petgoat]

48. The WPI team asked to do further studies. They got no funds. nt

[LARED]

50. Really? Care to provide a link? (n/t0

[petgoat]

53. Read FEMA Appendix C. It says more study is needed.

No study was done.

[LARED]

56. You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person

so why all the semantics? Have you ever written a technical report about an investigation? When you conclude in your report that additional investigation is needed to answer some unknown or inadequately understood issues, funding does not fall from the sky. It does not mean no investigation is allowed.

Again let me point out you have no clue if there is an on-going investigation. They did not request to do more investigation they stated more was needed. Unless you have evidence that someone is preventing additional research you're just spinning.

[petgoat]

58. You're continued insistence that invisible jewish elves are

somewhere busily doing the research to determine how realistic is the
proposition that burning tires caused the sulfidative erosion of the
WTC samples is irrational.

The WPI scientists said further investigation was needed. They didn't do it.
Nobody did it. NIST had $20 million and didn't do it. Since the NYT referred
to the matter as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”
the fact that the mystery has not been solved five years later leads to the
reasonable hypothesis that the investigation is being squelched from the top.

[LARED]

63. Actually based on the FEMA report it is unlikely anyone is

doing the research to determine how realistic is the proposition that burning tires caused the sulfidation erosion of the
WTC samples. That's is not the concern raised in the report.

The main concern was oxidation/sulfidation corrosion occurring due to what would be described as environmental factors. The concern is that buildings may be subject to unknown damaging corrosion during it normal life from impurities found everywhere.

You see at high temperatures the corrosion found in the steel samples is greatly accelerated. They would like to know if corrosion at ambient temp can negatively affect the steel.

the fact that the mystery has not been solved five years later leads to the reasonable hypothesis that the investigation is being squelched from the top.

That guess that is one possible reason, but in reality (regardless of how the NYT categorized it) this discovery is 1. likely not very important for building safety (it could be), and 2. is quite difficult to model and test making it a low priority in the search for funds. I know you are fixated on its importance, and you will not be swayed from your dark weaved reality that the sulfur is proof positive Thermate was planted, but if you will stop to clear your head and ask someone that has experience with these things you will find I am not far off base.

[petgoat]

64. The eutectic sulfidation attack was an unusual event, not an

everyday one. Your suggestion that it is regarded as proof positive is not appreciated.
It is consistent with thermate, and none of the other suggested sulfur sources have been
satisfactory.

[hack89]

67. Yes, but sulfur is sulfur.

what is so unique about sulfur from thermite that it and only it could cause the sulfidation? Or do you completely deny that there were other sources of sulfur?

By definition, large high rises burning and collapsing are unique events.

The only unusual thing about ground zero was a massive rubble pile that burned for months. It may have been the first time in history that such a thing has happened - can you show a similar event ever happening before?

[LARED]

83. Very interesting

First, I in no way suggested eutectic sulfidation attack was an everyday event. I've seen it on a somewhat regular basis in the industry where I work. but it is not something one would expect to see everyday. But far more interesting is your view that it is consistent with thermate verse the many other substances that could provide sulfur in the collapse aftermath. Also in what way is thermate a more satisfactory source than others?

You seem quite convinced of this, so you must have thunked real hard. Please share.

[petgoat]

87. Thermate is a more satisfactory source because the sulfur

is delivered reliably to the heart of the high-temperature exothermic reaction.
Other proposed mechanisms require delivery in smoke, or in gaseous compounds,
or through heating of steel-plastic or steel-drywall sandwiches. The efficiency
of such reactions is questionable, but the efficiency of the thermate mechanism
is not. It appears that the sulfur is added to thermite to make thermate precisely
for the purpose of providing the eutectic mixture to hasten the destruction of
steel.

Any government worthy of our trust would have spent a few hundred thousand to
cook steel with rugs and drywall and tyres and demonstrate that such conditions
can produce the observed phenominon.

I would like to know where and when the WPI team got their WTC samples. How long
were they cooked before they were recovered?

[hack89]

89. Take a piece of hot steel, sprinkle it with powered gypsum ,,,

and bake in the rubble pile. No need for thermite.

Since thermate is only 2 percent sulfur and most of that would be consumed in the reaction, why do you assume that thermate can even produce widespread sulfidation?

[petgoat]

90. I'd ask spooked to do it, but since it would only get him

riducule, he probably wouldn't.

why do you assume that thermate can even produce widespread sulfidation?

I assume that's what the sulfur is there for; that's how it improves the steel-cutting
ability of thermite.

[hack89]

91. No - the sulfur is for increased incendiary effects

Because of the difficulty in igniting standard iron-thermite, plus the fact that it burns with practically no flame and has a small radius of action, standard thermite is rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. It is more usually employed with other ingredients added to enhance its incendiary effects. Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature. Although the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 is as an incendiary, it will also weld metal surfaces together.

Note that one use of thermate is to weld metal together - now why would you want a weld that would be destroyed by sulfidation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

[petgoat]

92. The paragraph you cite is about the military uses of thermite

to destroy equipment. Barium nitrate enhances the thermal effects. The welding they are
talking about in this context is destructive, not constructive, welding.

Dr. Jones says "Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will
accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed
observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C
of the FEMA report."

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[hack89]

93. No - thermite is used to weld constructively

its first commercial application was welding railroad tracks

Thermite reactions have many uses. It was originally used for repair welding in-place such things as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. Thermite can also be used for quickly cutting or welding metal such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment.

Dr. Goldschmidt was originally interested in producing very pure metals by avoiding the use of carbon in smelting, but he soon realized the value in welding. The first commercial application was the welding of tram tracks in Essen, in 1899. Degussa, a corporate descendant of Goldschmidt's firm, is still today one of the world's largest producers of welding thermite.

And where does it ever mention that the sulfur is added specifically to enhance sulfidation? Not making things up, are you?

[petgoat]

94. It's your cite. The paragraph is about the military uses of

thermite for destruction. Thermite's use for constructive welding is not mentioned.
The second half of the paragraph is about the destructive uses of thermate, and
mentions that thermate can weld.

A second paragraph then describes the uses of thermite for destructive welding.

[LARED]

99. A few questions, if you don't mind

Your response is quite confusing, so if you provide additional information maybe I could provide a response.

1. Do you believe the corroded steel was damaged by the Thermate reaction, or as a result of a Thermite residue acting on the steel during a period while buried?

2. On what basis do you believe the sulfur is added to Thermate to provide a eutectic mixture, and how does that hasten the destruction of said steel

[LARED]

100. What happened to you? n/t

[Carefulplease]

97. "NIST had $20 million and didn't do it"

They did it. See chapter six of the second document. Search for "sulfidation".

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

In addition to their detailed analysis of sulfidation, you will find their analysis of fire induced damage to structural components of particular interest.

[mrgerbik]

65. How much

was the NIST investigation alloted again?

And FEMA?

[petgoat]

68. NIST got $20 million; FEMA got $650 k nt

[mrgerbik]

72. chump change n/t

[petgoat]

86. 9CR initially got something like $3 million; ultimately $15 mill nt

[mrgerbik]

95. as a reference to how much this really is

the Columibia (rightfully) got a 50 Million investigation.

[mirandapriestly]

27. "911 myths" is bogus.eom

[greyl]

70. Care to provide any evidence or reasonable argument to support that?

[mirandapriestly]

75. It is a straw man extravaganza

which has been pointed out many times. It takes one small part of a made claim which is not even one that is necessarily made by many people and refutes it under the guise of refuting the whole issue. ie:" The bin Ladin family were rushed out of the US after 9/11", then PM will proceed to claim they weren't really "rushed", but it still leaves the whole issue of how they were allowed to leave.

[greyl]

76. Hardly. It deals with actual claims, not made up ones.

Check the definition of straw argument again.

Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.
www.911myths.com/

You haven't provided any evidence to support your accusation that the site is bogus.

[mirandapriestly]

79. Anyone can find a "claim" on "the internets" & "debunk" it

You guys use "911 myths" as a catch all clearing house to "debunk" claims that it doesn't even really deal with.
You are quoting THEM to explain their OWN validity, don't you understand what's wrong with that? Now you're going to go on and on and on , you will say anything just to get the last word.
That site gives the illusion of debunking the major 911 issues by choosing sub-arguments within larger arguments and going after those. It's very deceptive and a marketing company is probably behind it like marketing companies are behind a lot of 911 disinfo in fact 9-11 was probably a marketing creation, at least partially.

[greyl]

82. You haven't provided any evidence to support your accusation

that the site is bogus.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Do they have anything up at that site to refute the WP story yet?

Well why the hell not. i don't got all night for you to tell me this isn't a cover-up and a conspiracy, dang it!

[greyl]

69. I doubt that they will. Why would they?

Don't believe the "poisoning the well" bullshit you hear without checking it out yourself.
Or are you one of those trying to smear the site with no real argument to back you up?

[wildbilln864]

7. Let the lesson begin?

Now that IS funny!
You guys are so entertaining, Thanks.

[LARED]

8. Aren't you insterested in learning something? (n/t)

[FourScore]

6. Wouldn't it be great

to compare the steel from the raging Madrid highrise fire to the the steel at the WTC? THAT would be interesting.

[wildbilln864]

10. Yes...

That would be great!

[quickesst]

49. The class is over...

I think petgoat has just taken some people to school. Thanks.
quickesst

[wildbilln864]

54. By george I think you're right quickesst.

Let them stay in that 51st state though. They'll be more comfortable there.

[mirandapriestly]

55. Petgoat is like one of those karate action stars

Single handedly battling a room full of thugs and defeating them all.

[petgoat]

60. You're too kind and will give me a swole head.

shucks :blush:

Careful caught me in a sloppy wrong claim about the contents of that 911myths pdf about
the sulfur, and Ka hrnt has forced me into some contortions in defending Rick Siegel.

[Carefulplease]

66. No more hiding Petgoat. Your cover is blown.

[mirandapriestly]

73. Where did u get that goat graphic?

how funny. The date on it is 9-11- twilight zone music...

[Carefulplease]

74. I could tell you but then I would have to kill you. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

81. Just as I thought, aha! ;)eom

[LARED]

85. Put mouse over image; right click

go to properties, left click mouse, and viola you get the URL.

[LARED]

61. Thanks for the laugh

Now I have visions of Superhero PetGoat single hoofedly taking on evil

:yourock:

[quickesst]

62. I call em'....

like I see em'. Last bell.:toast: Thanks.
quickesst

[greyl]

71. Uh, you're confusing yourself with another identity here.

LARED replied to #55.

[Jazz2006]

77. ROTFLMAO

that was *almost* the funniest post on this entire forum to date....

but CarefulPlease's post outdid it, obviously :)

[quickesst]

78. I almost....

feel sorry for you. Almost.:nopity: Thanks, whoever.
quickesst

[mirandapriestly]

80. You're too kind, quick.eom

[Jazz2006]

98. Looks like you misplaced your sympathies....

or, at minimum, posted in the wrong place, since your post makes no sense whatsoever in this context.

Save the violins for your pals who need them.

[LARED]

84. I realize folks like to cheer for

their team and all, but do you seriously believe our resident superhero PetGoat took anybody to school?

Seriously?

[quickesst]

88. Not as much ......

in this thread as in about a hundred more I can think of. Seriously. Thanks.
quickesst

[Jazz2006]

96. Not a chance.

They were just finally showing a semblance of a shadow of a hint of a rumour of a sense of humour :)

Nobody can seriously believe that goat took anybody to school here as s/he was clearly out of her/his depth.