Sulfur and the WTC.

[hack89]

One of the "mysteries" of the WTC was the source of the sulfur detected in the rubble pile. Many here view it as evidence of the use of thermite. Here is a paper that discussed the many possible sources of sulfur at the WTC. Some interesting stuff here - for example all the burning tires in the WTC garage would release 300 kg of sulfur. For comparison, 4000 kg of thermite would produce 80 kg of sulfur.

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

[mrgerbik]

1. what about thermate? n/t

[hack89]

14. It is specifically discussed in section 4 (i)

my OP was wrong - the 80kg of sulfur was for thermate.

[mirandapriestly]

2. There was sulfur in the slag

from the sample Jones looked at. Do you think a tire fell into it while the iron was molten?

[LARED]

4. In the slag???

Did he test the material or the slag? Big difference. Also, as you may recall steel has small percentage of sulfur in it. Did Jones evey state how much sulfur was found?

[mirandapriestly]

9. He tested the slag

and said he found sulfur "in abundance", and is writing a paper on it. This is from an interview.

[LARED]

10. How interesting

Testing slag (the scum formed by oxidation at the surface of molten metals) is quite pointless. It by definition is the crap formed on the surface of the metal. In other words, given the piles of sulfur laden debris surrounding the fires, the only surprise would be not finding sulfur.

[hack89]

15. I take it you didn't read the article?

Read the section on the mobility of the sulfur. Also take note of the multiple sources of sulfur.

[petgoat]

3. How many burning tires in the WTC7 garage? nt

[Carefulplease]

5. Diesel fuel and gypsum wallboard contain much sulphur.

Both are better sources of sulphur than even thermate is.
19wt.% in the case of gypsum!
Read the paper!

[petgoat]

7. The evaporated steel was studied by a PhD Fire Engineer.

The paper on the study concluded: "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."

http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

An article about the study called "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel" has been
on the WPI website for four years now.

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

Nobody has stepped forward to say: "You idiots, that always happens to steel in
fire in the presence of drywall gypsum." Instead the researchers are forced to
speculate about acid rain.

The only credible explanation for the sulfur is Dr. Jones's thermate hypothesis.

[hack89]

13. But some one did step up ..

the first paragraph of the paper says it is in direct response to the issues raised in Appendix C. So now you have your answer.

If you were to actually to read the article, you will see that there were many potential sources of sulfur ranging from gypsum, to diesel fuel, auto tires (there are many others). Even if there was thermite, the amount of sulfur it produced was so tiny compared to all the other sources, it would be impossible to use sulfur as "proof" of thermite. That rubble pile was awash with sulfur.

[Carefulplease]

18. These samples weren't heated at more than 1000C...

Hence, direct exposure to thermate is probably out. Eutectic induced sulfidation -- a form of corrosion -- is a slow process that could have occurred in the hot spots of the burning rubble piles over many weeks.

Thermite/thermate reactions are completed in a matter of seconds/minutes and produce lots of slags.

Hence thermate is only hypothesized by Dr Jones as a sulfur source no less speculative than any other. The steel was sunken in a deep bath of gypsum/concrete powder. So this sulphur source isn't so very speculative.

Oxidation of steel in hot fires is not uncommon. Fires lasting weeks in huge rubble piles are less common.

(Edited for grammar)

[petgoat]

20. They were heated at temp nearing 1000C.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

[Carefulplease]

23. That's what I said. "Nearing" implies "no more".

That's much cooler than termite/thermate reaction or residue.

[petgoat]

27. You cite no sources for your data.

How careful is that?

Do you have a source for your suggestion that concrete powder contained sulfur?

Do you understand that modern office spaces are cubicles and not drywall enclosed?

[Carefulplease]

29. I made no such suggestion...

I said concrete/gypsum powder.

For the composition of the dust:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004194.html
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

"By far, the most abundant nonfibrous particles in all samples are gypsum and concrete."

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf

Gypsum : 26%-53%
Concrete : 19%-31%

[Jazz2006]

42. That's a very common tactic among CTers, Carefulplease....

Particularly among those who do a reasonably good job at pretending to have expertise or knowledge that they do not actually possess. When they find themselves unable to actually respond meaningfully to your posts, and find their lack of knowledge being illuminated for all to see, they pretend that you've said something you did not say, and then they scurry off to do the chihuahua routine elsewhere in hopes that nobody will notice that they couldn't and didn't respond meaningfully to what you posted.

(Not to mention the distraction brigade of cheerleaders whom are often called upon to do double time duty ... but that's another story).

[petgoat]

46. My apologies

When you said "The steel was sunken in a deep bath of gypsum/concrete powder" I supposed
that "/" meant "and/or." I'll suppose you meant "gypsum/concrete" to mean a mixture.

In any case, samples of the explosively expelled dust are hardly indicative of the
environment the steel experienced. Since researchers were excluded from the Ground
Zero site, presumably they could not get samples of the actual debris-pile dust.

Unfortunately, we don't know when the FEMA Appendix C samples were taken.

What we do know is that the WPI researchers were completely baffled as to the source
of the sulfur. Either they failed to imagine a drywall/concrete source or they
considered that scenario implausible.

Of course the issue could have been decided by cooking some steel with some powdered
gypsum, but for some reason the feds failed to fund these studies and NIST pretends
that the FEMA samples don't exist.

[hack89]

12. I take it you didn't read the article? nt

[petgoat]

16. I haven't read it yet. Can you provide instructions for

finding it?

I am very reluctant to follow links from this forum to web sites that might collect
my IP information. I am also reluctant to click a download link (such as a pdf) from
a questionable site.

[hack89]

17. Google

Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster by F. R. Greening

[petgoat]

22. Thanks, hack, for

1. the info

and
2. not ridiculing my internet paranoia. :hide: :tinfoilhat:

[hack89]

35. There is a time and a place for paranoia ..

and the internet is as good a place as any.:)

[petgoat]

36. I agree. The risk/reward ratio is well to keep in mind. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. I think the thermite theory is another red herring

It is a distraction from so we don't look at what really brought down 3 major steel skyscrapers. Give the length of time, the duration and intensity of the fires and the construction of the buildings, the only thing that could do what we saw on 9-11 are WMD's.

I'm putting my money on some kind of thermobaric bomb.


Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

[mirandapriestly]

8. I have wondered why Jones

has not been "hushed Up" by BYU. But he also brings up "superthermite" and nanotechnologies which do require nuclear power of some sort. But I see your point because of the extremity of the "collapse". Also, the apparent dissolving of concrete and steel.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. According to the article

they are using this weapon in Occupied Iraq.


MARINES QUIET ABOUT BRUTAL NEW WEAPONWar is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much.

This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: "SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms."


http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html


Nice weapon. Sounds like what happened on 9-11. What if it comes out that the dark players within the US government used WMD's on their own people?

[vincent_vega_lives]

34. Thermobaric does NOT use thermite

nevermind, I thought you were refering to Thermite.

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. No it doesn't

One of the side benefits of thermobaric weapons is that they don't leave much behind that is any different then what you would expect to find in a normal fire.

[mrgerbik]

19. the video

which shows the yellow-hot metal pouring out of the corner of WTC2 personally has always been the kicker for me. Aluminum just dosen't seem to cut it for an explination.

The funny thing is that if it IS aluminum melting at those tempuratures (yellow-hot), it would throw a curveball at the OCT, because everyone agrees at this point (I think) that the fires couldn't have reached those tempuratures.

[petgoat]

21. Aluminum turns red if you heat it in a crucible to 1000 degrees,

way over the 600 degree melting point.

So if that firefall stream is aluminum, you have to wonder what crucible contained it
while it was heated from 600 to 1000 degrees.

[Carefulplease]

24. Sagging steel pans licked by flames from below. n/t

[petgoat]

28. So your theory is that under the fuselage strike zone, fires

of sufficient magnitude developed to sag the floors and create crucibles to superheat
aluminum.

I guess you'll have to show some pictures to show these fires.

Maybe you should sign the Scholars for 9/11 Truth's petition for the release
of the 7000 photos and 7000 videos NIST has.

[Carefulplease]

30. The relevant pictures are published in the NIST report.

There are enough pictures there to prove the case. Many, if not most, are from media sources. If you believe these are doctored, asking for more from the same source will not help you.

[petgoat]

31. I see. We have a general reference to a report

that is severely flawed. But in your mind it is sufficient to "prove the case."

If you have photos, cite them please.

[Carefulplease]

38. You mean, you never looked at it?

Is it you opinion that the pictures of the fires
are also faked and that the smoke is produced by
smoke machines?





Very good pictures have been published in this part of the NIST report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf

If you have doubts about the authenticity of these pictures you can contact the listed copyright holders.

[petgoat]

40. I've never before seen those photos.

Are you claiming that flames we see are originating from the floor under the fuselage?


The first photo is very peculiar. What happened to the top of the tower?

[Carefulplease]

45. The first picture is WTC1. The second is what you asked for.

The second picture shows fires on the North-East corner of WTC2 at floors 80 and above. It also shows fires on the North face below the 80th floor. The whole east side is ablaze but the fires have migrated away from the windows, as they logically should.

At 9:03 that morning a Boeing 767 hit the North face of WTC2 with a pronounced bank and much of the wreckage traveled all the way through to the North wall and the North-East corner. The nose of the aircraft hit precisely at the level of 81th floor slab. The right engine and landing gear exited the tower through that North-East corner. Fuel was sprayed on floors 77-85 and set them all ablaze. The bulk of some 50 tons of aluminium were deposited on floors 80-81 close to that corner together with some 15 tons of additional solid combustible and various other light metal alloys that burn at very high temperatures. Nearly 500 windows broke and let in oxygen to fan the fires. Multiple floors slabs are seen sagging through the North face broken windows. There are spills of molten metal at that level in that corner and not anywhere else around the building or at any other level. What could that be?

Jones claims that it must be a flow of molten steel (1500C +) the exterior of which instantly cools to below 1000C in a matter of seconds. Yet this stuff is also supposed to stay molten over 1500C in the rubble pile for over six weeks after the collapse of the towers according to him.

My guess: this is some molten aluminium mixed with other metals (and with various other debris) overflowing while more trusses disconnect from perimeter columns and slabs shift around. I have no proof for this but neither has Jones provided any for his much wilder hypothesis.

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. Please back up your claims

blanket statements are meaningless.

[Carefulplease]

39. Please do your homeworks.

I do not have to provide "proof" of everything that I assert when such "proof" consists in material that is widely known, circulated and discussed already. If you have specific objections to the claim that there were fires in these locations, state them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. I've done plenty of homework

but since you refuse to back up you claims, then I will assume your claims are baseless.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. For how long

and at what temperature?

[Jazz2006]

43. But what happens when it's not a controlled environment?

You are relying upon controlled environment photos to ascertain the colour of melting aluminum; sure, pure aluminum being melted in a controlled environment and without any contaminants may burn X, Y, or Z at different temperatures, but the fires at the WTC were not an experiment in melting aluminum in a controlled environment.

What happens to the colour when it is not uncontaminated aluminum burning on its own but when it is contaminated with various and sundry other materials whether plastics, metals, or other combustibles burning in the same spot at the same time in an uncontrolled environment?

Unless you know that, and unless you know the properties of all of those contaminants, the assertion that it ought to have been one colour or another is not compelling at all.

[petgoat]

44. Sez the defence att'y for the OCT. nt

[mrgerbik]

47. molten metal

is colored according to heat. It is heat energy being released as light. The lighter the color, the hotter the metal. Plain and simple. We are talking about yellow-hot molten metal here... not about plastics and debris which would burn up quickly. Besides, plastics and debris do not fall under the same category as metals in regards to light emittance when heated.

The heating of the aluminum (even if coupled with debris) to a yellow-hot color means just that: the metal was yellow-hot (1000-1200C). Period. What difference does it make if it were in a controlled environment or not? It's the temperature that is in question.

Petgoat is trying to point out that to heat the aluminum metal to this temperature would require it to "sit still" somewhere long enough for the fire to heat the metal to these temperatures-- then continue to fall out all at once.
Even if it were merely heated to the melting point (some 600C), it would pour out a silvery/grey (because of reflectivity at lower temperatures and in daylight) and pour out at roughly the same rate as the materials consumption.

The theory of melting aluminum raises one basic question: Did the fires last long enough and produce enough heat to accomplish this?
The answer in my mind is no.

The appearance of a "hot" fire that had the capacity to accomplish this had greatly diminished over time in both towers:

- A thick dark sooty smoke was pouring out of WTC2 early on-- indicative of a fire starved of fuel. The same was observed to a
lesser degree and later on in WTC1. *This raises the question as to why WTC2 would fall first. Maybe they needed to quickly
cover up the appearance of an element of the plan that wasn't supposed to be seen - a thermate reaction*
- A few people were seen and photographed standing in the impact sites. If this fire was so intense as to heat aluminum to 1000C or
more, how could a person possibly survive and be seen standing mostly unscathed in the hole?
- No red hot steel was seen glowing in the gaping holes, as would be expected from a fire that could produce yellow-hot metal.
- No huge raging fires were visible after the initial fireballs and it didn't spread significantly across other
floors, as observed in other building fires.
- The fires were not hot enough to produce significant window breakage in either tower.
- At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash
zone. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone.
- Firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out
the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the tower was destroyed.

And finally as 9-11 Research states:

As an exercise let's set aside all of the evidence about the actual severity of the Twin Towers' fires, and imagine that the fires were incredibly intense and widespread. Let's imagine that the jets were full tankers and spilled 80,000 gallons of fuel into each tower. Let's imagine that there was a strong wind giving the fires plenty of air. Let's imagine that the the fires engulfed over 10 floors in each tower, saturating the capacity of the steel buildings to draw away the heat. Let's imagine the fires burned intensely for hours, completely gutting several stories of each tower. Would that cause them to collapse? Not according to people who have studied steel structures subjected to such stresses. The following passage is from Appendix A of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500-1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments)."

At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

- High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme
conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.
- If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area
that experienced the high temperatures.
- The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised
by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple.
However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and
heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

In my mind, the OCT still doesn't seem to explain how temperatures in those fires could have possibly heated aluminum to yellow-hot color then pour out as seen in that video. They just didn't last long enough and have the required heat to accomplish this.

[Carefulplease]

48. Yellow-hot metal...

the metal was yellow-hot (1000-1200C). Period.

So it coudn't possibly have been a flow of molten steel or molten iron, right?

[mrgerbik]

49. No.

I think it is molten iron. A thermate reaction produces molten iron.

You may be asking that the molten metal observed couldn't have been from thermate because the temperature would be much too low, considering that the actual reaction can reach up to 2500C.
Well the observed metal is the byproduct and not the reaction itself. It will be cooler, as it is falling away from the reaction and heat. Also consider that as soon as the molten metal hits the air, it cools considerably. Cut a thick piece of steel with a cutting torch and watch how fast the steel will revert from white back to a dark red.

[Carefulplease]

50. The melting point of iron is 1538C

You are saying that this is molten iron at 1000-1200C that just happens to be 340C to 540C below the melting point of iron? Yet it is still molten and it is flowing in cascades?

It cools instantly? Do you also believe with many thermite theorists that this metal will remain flowing in pools at more than 1538C six weeks after the collapse?

[mrgerbik]

51. thank for pointing this out

I was sloppy.

You are saying that this is molten iron at 1000-1200C that just happens to be 340C to 540C below the melting point of iron? Yet it is still molten and it is flowing in cascades?

I still believe it most likely molten iron. As to the exact temperature, I am probably mistaken. In my previous post I wasn't attempting to pin an exact number of the temperature. I was simply trying to point out that it didn't make a difference as to the debris mixed into the molten metal, as the color indicated the general temperature ... regardless of sundry materials involvement - it really doesn't change anything. It was still yellow in color.

This still doesn't rule out iron thou, as it could possibly be semi-molten. Or the camera couldn't capture the exact color. Checking on this I came across this page:
http://www.infraredtraining.com/community/boards/thread/1426/

So the real question here is what is the temperature of that metal seen "pouring" from that corner. It has to be at least 1000c > because of the "basic" color. Does this seem reasonable to you? Maybe we can come to some sort of consensus.


It cools instantly? Do you also believe with many thermite theorists that this metal will remain flowing in pools at more than 1538C six weeks after the collapse?

It doesn't cool instantly.. it cools quickly. Why would you argue this? Use your common sense and please don't put words into my mouth.

As to the molten metal in pools after the collapse, i'll postulate that the X number of reactions occurring in the building could cause enough molten metal to appear and somewhat coalesce after the collapse into pools among the debris. Now insulated and heating the surrounding debris where it sat, the pool would be somewhat enlarged. Also the observed stream was exposed to outside air, the reactions taking place inside were more or less better insulated.

I'm curious as to your theory regarding the hot temperatures in the rubble pile afterwords.

[Carefulplease]

52. No time right now...

I'll be away four days to that strange country north of mine. I'll probably tour ground zero while I'm there. Others will probably take up from here.

[Henny Penny]

26. Would you care to elaborate??? n/t

[Henny Penny]

25. Thermite theory's looking good to me!

Your post on the other hand....

:crazy:

[mhatrw]

53. Here's the joke. This type of rank speculation passes for

"scientific skepticism."

Here is what the best science (and only detailed metallurgical study of any WTC metal) on this to date says:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

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.

But I guess if a retired Canadian nuclear scientist speculates that the sulfur could have come from the tires in the WTC garages, then why in world would we ever need to bother with actually examining the actual physical evidence? Mystery solved!