Creative Speculation

... and I've been a frequent visitor to this board and other 9/11 forums for many years. Whatsamattah, you can't find them now? I think I know why that is.

And nope, I don't assert that there are "no mysteries." I assert that "mystery" does not equal "conspiracy," and I assert that "truthers" have found absolutely no credible evidence that "9/11 was an inside job," and I assert that controlled demolition and "no plane" theories are not only unsupported, they are perfectly idiotic.

> I can't prove a negative. That's ridiculous.

That's a common misconception, but in fact there are many cases where it's possible to prove a negative by simply disproving the affirmative. For example, I can prove that New York City is not in Idaho and that I don't have an elephant in my pocket. On the other hand, I can't prove that God or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster don't exist because I can't disprove that they do, but you can't generalize those cases to say it's always impossible to prove a negative. In the case of the eutectic reaction, it is at least theoretically possible that some forensic evidence could indicate whether the reaction happened before or after the collapse. Given the rubble heap and its fires, the principle of parsimony says that it most probably happened after the collapse, whether or not the source of the sulfidation has been identified -- sulfur being a rather common element. But you would like to claim that it happened before the collapse for the sole purpose of implying that it was part of some kind of controlled demolition -- which, I notice, you don't seem to want to elaborate (and I don't blame you). The question remains, why would you have us believe the less plausible scenario?