| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| sulfidation of WTC7 steel questions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 29 2008, 11:29 AM (260 Views) | |
| sizzler | Jan 29 2008, 11:29 AM Post #1 |
|
hello. I'm new to this board. On ae911truth.org Richard Gage lists sulfidation of steel as evidence for the use of therm?te in the buildings collapse. Can someone please explain to me how this is evidece for therm?te considering a therm?te reaction would completely melt the steel, not cause rapid oxidation and sulfidation. also, why wasn't aluminum found in the thinned steel? |
 |
 
|
| sizzler | Jan 29 2008, 11:34 AM Post #2 |
|
In addition, I thought S02, a by-product of a therm?te reaction, could be responsible for the presence of sulfur. However it would have to go through a reduction reaction to free pure sulfur. considering that much more SO2 would have been released from gypsum and deisel fuel, aren't these sources much more likely, and natural in a fire induced collapse? I'm not a debunker of any sort, I just need some answers. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 29 2008, 05:29 PM Post #3 |
|
Hi Sizzler, Sorry but I'm not much of an expert in this area but I have discussed this point with debunkers, so I'll give you what little help I can regarding the use of therm?te and the steel. As you may be well aware, the fires at Ground Zero continued to burn in the rubble piles for over 100 days after the WTC collapsed. Now there has never been any official explanation given as to how or why this occured, NIST do not mention it. However some debunkers think that it was just a mixture of kersoene, office furniture, paper etc etc burning under the rubble similar to a pit fire. So lets check their claims...... The problem is with this argument is that any fire requires oxygen for it to burn at higher temperatures. The fires were under rubble which means there is little oxygen available to create this kind of heat that was being reported. Also I believe the also laws of thermodynamics (2nd law on entropy I believe!) essentially states that nothing can get hotter than the hottest thing in a closed system. So if Kersone is the hottest thing burning, then nothing can get hotter so this wouldn't explain the molten metal! (Or as I say, steel...A point which I'll explain later!) Also pitfires smoulder and according to wikipedia on smouldering.
So we can rule out that it wasn't a pit fire, so what created this? Because what ever creating it is not a oxygen assisted fire. Prof Jones came up with a theory that therm?te was used based on his observations and samples he got from GZ. This would explain the phenomenon and the temperatures seen at GZ, as Therm?te doesn't need any oxygen because its a chemical reaction. Debunkers will argue that no therm?te was found at GZ, which is true but only because they never looked for it. See NIST FAQ's Question 12.
An admission that NIST never looked for it or tested for it, so Prof Jones theory can't be dismissed for the causes of the fire. Now considering that people were reporting molten metal, what was that metal? Again debunkers will argue it's aluminium so lets look at their claims. For a start there are these claim. This article describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping" in Molten Steel Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe said in an Audio Interview "I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat." So there are other quotes and evidence to suggest molten steel, but debunker argue that there is no proof, because they will state that some of these accounts are given 3rd hand, i.e. They hadn't witnessed it, but heard others tell then this. Even when you give them a 1st hand account like GZ Firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." So lets pretend that there is no molten steel, then what do they think it is. Aluminium......and whats there proof?? Well good lucj in trying to get a straight answer, because not a single person as far as I'm aware mentions anything about Molten Aluminium, they just believe it. Again, Jones theory fits of therm?te in with this as the temperature can exceed the melting point of steel. As for the oxidation and sulfidation of the WTC steel that FEMA witnessed in the Metallurgical Examination. Its worth reading these.... The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." as they reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." So FEMA have never observed this phenomenon in a building fire before. FEMA's investigators seem to infer a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." Again this is not consistent with a building fire. Following are excerpts from FEMA Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
So FEMA say that the thinning of the steel is down to high temperature corrosion attacks, which is fine but what causes this?? Remember that FEMA do not know the source of this. Again Jones therm?te theory would explain this high temperature corrosion attack. Gage is only wrong in his wording here, the thermate wouldn't cause the thinning of the steel, but it would cause the temperatures needed for this to occur. Now some debunkers will argue that there may have been therm?te or some kind of reaction which caused all of this and they will try and explain it by suggesting that the sulfur is in the dry walls and other sources, aluminium in the plane, so in other words some sort of nanothermite reaction happened! What they are suggesting is that all the elements to make therm?te were already in the towers, and when they fell it just sort of happened. The problem I find with this argument, is that these things do not just happen. What they are asking us to believe is that you can bake a cake by just by chucking all the ingredients into a bowl. This is laughable but unless I'm misinterpreting what they are saying. Which I'm pretty much sure that I am not. As to why no aluminium wasn't found in the steel, this could be due to the oxidisation of the aluminium in the reaction. I believe that there are pictures of steel with white bits on the end and I believe that Jones proposes that this is evidence of aluminium oxide. I think he also believes that because Aluminium Oxide is a gas, that most of it would have dispersed in the air. To add to this, Jones therm?te bests fits the evidence, if they have a better theory, then please tell them to explain it because they have failed to do so. Also worth considering and talking to his Max Photon, who suggest that Jones is wrong by suggesting that therm?te was used to cut the steel as he believes it was used to "Heat Weaken" the steel. I think Crazy Chainsaw is working on a model which would explain all the phenomenon you have just explained, although he seems to think this could have occurred naturally. I hope this helps you with your answers, I'm not an expert or even a scientist, but I know enough to know when I'm being hoodwinked. Debunkers will say that Proj Jones theory is mad and that he is crazy etc. All they'll start explaining the logisitical problems of carrying therm?te, some will even say things like you need tons and tons of therm?te to bring down the towers, but in an ironic twist, believe that you only needs a plane and some jet fuel to achieve the same things. I would advise you to do your own research, but that's as far as my research as gone into the subject. Jones theory fits, debunkers doesn't. I hope this helps. Stundie Edited by Stundie, Jan 29 2008, 05:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic » |
11:21 AM Nov 25
