10 story hole in WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry
Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

Quit it with the deductive fallacies... You repeat this ad nauseum hoping that after claiming this a few thousand times it will be taken as fact. On top of that you outright reject any alternative chemical processes dealing with corrosion that are expected conditions of long exposure to an uncontrolled environment.

Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

Fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel but I believe his case in point was that fires DO make steel structural members more vulnerable to failure via plastic creep, and thermal weakening. Therm*te is certainly not required for steel structural members to fail, and there is no evidence that the observed erosion of the samples played any role in collapse, I remind you that these samples were collected a fair amount of time following the collapses...

Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

Of course lest not forget the role of potential structural damage to some critical support columns. While alone structural damage resulting directly from the collapse of the towers may not have resulted in the eventual collapse, you appear oblivious to the fact that it nevertheless weakens the structural integrity, making the structure itself more vulnerable to the fires.

Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

Apparently none of the sources you use have come to the same conclusion as yourself. Do we really need to repeat this [yet again]? Sisson provides what his conclusion, included above.

Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.

Of course it doesn't appear that he is referring to NIST in this case. Or do you prefer making specialized red herrings to cast doubt on the subject?

Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.

You need not look further than your own posts... not that I expect you to read back and take it in... that'd be asking for too much.

In fact you forgot to quote this in your response:

But yet you don't bother to quote that do you Chris? Why is that Chris? It's because you are a con artist. You have no interest in being honest for presenting truth. You are simply cherry picking the information you want and hoping no one notices all the stuff you are intentionally leaving out. This is what makes you a liar Chris.

 

[Norseman]

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

The liquid slag is not "fantasy" it is fact!

You all keep ignoring the liquid slag and try to double talk around it.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

Nonsense. The slag in question was formed on the surface of the piece in question in the presence of a sulphur rich atmosphere, read combustion gases from the fire inside WTC 7 containing sulphur compounds.

Here is some more information about sulfidation, hopefully this will help you to understand

This what the book "Engineering Materials-properties and Applications of Metal and Alloys" says about the process that corroded the steel piece in question:

2.3 How does sulphur induce brittleness?
Ans. Sulphur combines with iron to form iron sulphide (FeS) which is present in the form of a thin film along the grain boundaries. Such condition imparts brittleness in steel.

2.4 What is hot shortness?
Ans. Iron sulphide forms a eutectic with iron that melts at 988^oC. This eutectic gets converted to liquid mass at normal rolling and forging temperatures (1000-1200^oC) for steel. Therefore, on hot working, steel gets either cracked or torned off. This phenomenon is know as hot shortness or red shortness.

Source: Engineering Materials-properties and Applications of Metal and Alloys

This was in relation the negative effects of sulphur impurities in the steel. The sulphur in this case would of course be coal used in the steel making. To remove sulphur manganese is added during the steel making process.

But even though the negative aspects of sulfidation can be avoided in the production stage of steel making, it still well known problem in the process industry. As discussed for instance here:

An example of under deposit attack is shown below. This 1/4” (6.35mm) RA 253 MA plate sample came from a kiln processing ferrous sulfate monohydrate to red iron oxide pigment. The atmosphere was air, plus the SO2 and SO3 driven off in the process, operating temperature 1840°F (1004°C). After about a year the RA 253 MA kiln shell had developed holes roughly 3/4” (20mm) across, some rather long. Previously used RA310 had failed by more uniform thinning, and lasted 2 to 2 1/2 years.

Source: http://www.rolledalloys.fr/trcdocs/heatresist/SULPHIDATION.pdf
The article contains a picture of a steel sample with similar corrosion as the piece found in the FEMA report.

For instance in relation to coal fired power plants:

The eutectic melting point in the FeO-FeS system is of critical importance in slagging process in coal firing plants. The FeO-FeS particles melt and bind the fly ash particles together, leading to the formation of slag deposits. These deposits inhibit heat transfer, cause corrosion,....

Source: Thermal analysis of fly ashes sourced from European non-blended coals

Here is a post I wrote in January that also contains some useful information:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3329908#post3329908

 

[Christopher7]

In Australia there is coal fire that has been burning for 5500 years:


Source: Underground coal fires a looming catastrophe

From a paper on the above fire:

Source: http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM66/AM66_997.pdf

The WTC 7 pile would contain tons and tons of hydrocarbon fuel in layers consisting of paper, computers, furniture, etc.....

So if a underground oxygen restricted coal fire can reach temperatures in excess of 1000^oC, why shouldn't the fires in the WTC 7 pile be able to do the same?

You are comparing a coalmine fire with a smoldering debris pile. Coal is concentrated carbon and the mine has been burning for thousands of years. The fire started at the surface and therefore has an air supply.
To burn at 1000°C, a fire needs full ventilation as is evidenced in the NISTIR 7213 test:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

The layers of hydrocarbon fuel in WTC 7 was crushed between 40 + concrete slabs and airflow was restricted.

Do you have any scientific data to back up your personal belief that smoldering fires in a rubble pile, consisting primarily of non combustible materials, can burn as hot as a coal seam?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are comparing a coalmine fire with a smoldering debris pile. Coal is concentrated carbon and the mine has been burning for thousands of years. The fire started at the surface and therefore has an air supply.
To burn at 1000°C, a fire needs full ventilation as is evidenced... <snip>

Underground coal fire in Australia
Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams, Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, in northeastern New South Wales. The burning coal seam extends from the main coalfields of the Hunter Valley.

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

The seam was once exposed to the surface, so it is possible a bushfire may have ignited it, scientists say. Sulphurous smoke comes from fissures in the ground, and sulphur is known to be capable of spontaneous combustion if it is heated.

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground. But the land above is also heated, and at the firefront reaches 350°C. The intense heat on the surface kills off vegetation, leaving a carpet of white sinter, alum and sulphur deposited on the surface through the condensation of the highly acidic gases

Apparently the rule you have established does not apply to the Australian fire... Oxygen is sparse leading to an extremely slow rate of combustion, though according to the article the temperatures are nevertheless quite high.

 

[bio]

I would like to say C7 and you "debunkers" here.
I really get the point:

1. The steel piece was eroded. This could have happened in the debris pile with 1000 C heat.
2. ... but this piece was eroded by a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen
.
The question is: Is a liquid containing iron proof for molten steel? If yes, then: How could steel melt in the debris pile or in the office-fire and then cause the steel to erode?

Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute,is talking about the steel piece and not about the liquid:

"It was a surprise to me, because it was so eroded and deformed, and so... uhm... we took it for analysis in the lab." "All it was attacked by, what we determined, was a liquid's like. When we did the analysis, we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen." - "You can see, what it does is, it attacks the grain boundaries, and this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect." (49:22)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry

And yet you cannot provide a single example of this happening. And neither can anyone else. Not in the way it did in the buildings, if it even did happen in teh buildings. Why is that Chris? it's because you are being dishonest again and trying to mislead people into thinking that thermate can explain what you think happened in WTC 7. And that would be a lie Chris. You are lying.

Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

No, not wrong kiddo. This has been discussed and addressed to death here already. Please stop putting up a fake front by asking me to repost the evidence that has already been presented repeatedly here too many times. While I am sure your goal is to mislead new readers into thinking that this has not already been addressed, it should be noted that you are simply being a con artist here. You know very well examples have most certainly already been provided to you here. So for you to sit here and pretend examples which you have personally responded to have never been presented just shows that youa re once again LYING.

Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only know explanation for the liquid slag.

Once again Chris STOP LYING. That statement you made is again a 100% complete utter lie. No it is NOT impossible for office fires to reach temperatures to melt steel. it's just not common. And the fact that the debris was underground is what makes it hotter, not it being open and exposed to air. This is how fires burn underground for centuries. Your absurdly false notion that fires need air to get oxygen is another example o your fraud. Try to prey on people who do not understand that there are other means of feeding fire than fresh air. STOP LYING.

Likewise never in the history of man has thermate ever been able to cause steel to melt and remain melted. Yet you claim it is the only explanation.

*********YOU ARE LYING ***********

You aren't simply misinformed for uneducated, you are KNOWINGLY lying here because you know this claim is untrue and yet you make it knowing it to be a lie.

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

That is CORRECT. You should read it. It does not say melted steel caused the collapse does it? No it doesn't. It was caused by a local failure NOT THERMATE. Which brings us to another point, which is that even if it was shown that there was melted steel (which is still in question despite your LIES), it still does not support your LIE that Thermate is the only explanation.

Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

I already have. Are you going to post your sources that the only explanation is thermate? No, you're not going to Chirs, because your re flat out LYING. And it's important that readers know you are LYING.

Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.

Chris, I know you are a fraud, but no one is going to buy your playing dumb act.

Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.

They have been posted Chris, please stop with the con artist antics. You can't play dumb here.

[FONT=&quot]A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot] beams[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to human remains...." [/FONT](source)

Chris, we have been over this already. Unless you have some kind o evidence, 2d had witnessing is inadmissible. It's already been pointed out in your attempts to defraud people by pretending that many statements were made proving moletn steel turned out to be false and were simply 2nd hand information that originated from people who like yourself would have no understanding of the material they saw melted and simply ASSUMED it was steel.

The fact that you are trying to use people who have no expertise in metalergy making assumptions on a material makeup as being proof of molten steel just further proves YOU ARE LYING. You should be ashamed of yourself and the world doesn't need any more Con artist. So please do the world a favor and start being honest.

[FONT=&quot]As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot]." [/FONT](source)

Once again Chris, please stop being dishonest. Can you please prove to us that it was actually molten steel and not someone simply assuming it was molten steel? How do you know the person did not simply assume it was steel? The majority of people would would see a melted metal would instantly assume it to be steel. So how to you determine which witnesses are actually seeing steel when even an expert cannot make such a determination without testing?

Come on Chris, you know the answer to that one. You CAN'T. And you KNOW you can't. But because you are dishonest, you won't bother to admit that since it would expose you as the fraud you are.

It's time to stop the lying. It might have been acceptable in the first 50 pages or so, but at this point with months and months of endless lying on your part and complete dishonesty enough is enough.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You are comparing a coalmine fire with a smoldering debris pile. Coal is concentrated carbon and the mine has been burning for thousands of years. The fire started at the surface and therefore has an air supply.
To burn at 1000°C, a fire needs full ventilation as is evidenced in the NISTIR 7213 test:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

The layers of hydrocarbon fuel in WTC 7 was crushed between 40 + concrete slabs and airflow was restricted.

Do you have any scientific data to back up your personal belief that smoldering fires in a rubble pile, consisting primarily of non combustible materials, can burn as hot as a coal seam?

Again with the endless dishonesty Chris. So now you are basically claiming that if a fire starts above ground, it needs air and therefore can't burn in a pile. Of course this is 100% absolute nonsense on your part.

But more importantly is the irony of your post where you ask for evidence of a common phenominon. Yet what evidence to you present to show that thermate could do this? You finally have been forced to admit that never has it ever happened, yet you claim it's the only explanation and the amoun o proof you offer for the claim:

0 (ZERO!!!)

Once again, you are a fraud and this is simply an example of why you are a fraud. This isn't about facts or truth, this is simply a game where you see how much data you can manipulate and how much you can distort presentations to mislead people with false and incomplete information along with hypocritical logic.

This is why on a scientific level you are laughed and an not taken seriously. Because when it comes down to real scientific findings all you can do is take pot shots at others and can't back up any of your claims at all. As soon as someone asks you to, your response is simply to try and turn the subject around on others in hopes that no one notices that in 100s of pages of this thread, you have offered not one single piece of physical evidence to back your absurd claims.

The best you have done is simply blurting out that something is a fact, and claiming that the lack of evidence is the evidence.

 

[bio]

You are claiming, that C7 is a lier - without any proof and on the basic of assumptions like:

"No it is NOT impossible for office fires to reach temperatures to melt steel."
"And the fact that the debris was underground is what makes it hotter, not it being open and exposed to air."
In the case of WTC-7? Please provide a reference, that this is real world.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You are claiming, that C7 is a lier - without any proof and on the basic of assumptions like:

"No it is NOT impossible for office fires to reach temperatures to melt steel."
"And the fact that the debris was underground is what makes it hotter, not it being open and exposed to air."
In the case of WTC-7? Please provide a reference, that this is real world.

It's only basica assumptions like that to you bio because you haven't been bothering to actually read the thread other than the parts you want to hear. If you read my detailed explanations of exactly why he is a liar that I have repeated many times, then you would understand. But until you stop reading only what you want to hear, you aren't much different. The key here is knowing the facts and intentionally misrepresenting them with the intent to mislead people.

And the fact that these issues have been backed up with references and the BOTH of you continue to pretend they haven't just drives the point home even further. Bio, your dishonesty may not be intentional, but Chris's dishonesty certainly is. You may have just skipped over things by accident, but there is no way that after the year or so this thread has been up that Chris has skipped over so many things by accident. There is no way he misquotes and misrepresents quotes by accidents. There is no way he accidentally uses eyewitness testimony to make scientific claims and doing so even though some of his own witnesses who made the quotes have confessed to being wrong an those letters have been posted here.

Now Bio, if you continue to be dishonest, it will now be intentional and not accidental. I suggest you read more than just what you want to believe. 123 pages where this has been covered and you continue to pretend it hasn't been referenced, when it has been referenced 100s of times already with many MANY examples from many sources. But with out you learning to read beyond only what you want to hear, you're never going to see them and we're not going to keep reposting the same things over and over again just because you are going to pretend they don't exist as you guys conveniently somehow managed to "accidentally" skip every post that provides the information you pretend doesn't exist. While at the same time you guys continually repeat the same claims that have been show to be wrong in those posts that you guys "accidentally" seem to keep missing.

 

[bio]

I read the last pages and the only one, who brings references is C7. Your response are insults. Why you cannot bring your references once again like C7?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I read the last pages and the only one, who brings references is C7. Your response are insults. Why you cannot bring your references once again like C7?

I rest my case. Thank you very much!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Source?

Your own source says this.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.
However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says: "I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."

Sulphur from the wallboard, heat from the fires, oxygen from the atmosphere. This is the source of the liquid slag. What Sisson is describing here is eutectic melting.

I did answer that, or rather Prof. Sisson did.
[FONT=&quot]"You can see what it [liquid slag] does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."

[/FONT]

Your lying is getting a little more clever, I must admit. Sisson is claiming that the liquid slag is eroding the steel, and explains the origin of the liquid slag elsewhere. Thermate will produce liquid iron at a temperature far above the melting point of steel. For the effect you're claiming as evidence, the temperature has to be well below the melting point of steel. Thermate simply burns too hot to do what you're claiming. Therefore, you're claiming that thermate is a necessary condition for the effects seen, when it isn't even a sufficient condition.

Dave

 

[bio]

Your own source says this.

Sulphur from the wallboard, heat from the fires, oxygen from the atmosphere. This is the source of the liquid slag. What Sisson is describing here is eutectic melting.

Dave

... essentially you are saying, that sulfur from the wallboard, heat from the fire (1000 degree C) and oxygen can melt steel. If correct, please provide reference.
For all:
We are talking about the slag of iron, sulfur and oxygen, which eroded the steel piece, we are not talking about the eroded steel piece itself!

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

Basic slag

Basic slag is a byproduct of steelmaking by the basic version of the Bessemer process or the Linz-Donawitz process. It is largely limestone or dolomite which has absorbed phosphate from the iron ore being smelted.

 

[Dave Rogers]

... essentially you are saying, that sulfur from the wallboard, heat from the fire (1000 degree C) and oxygen can melt steel. If correct, please provide reference.

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

The original claim was that the erosion of the steel required temperatures in excess of 1500ºC, and that these are not achieved in an office contents fire. The above reference states that erosion of the steel appears to have taken place at below 1000ºC (note the significance of the word "approached"), within the range of temperatures of an office contents fire. The "eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide" referred to above is the "liquid slag" mentioned elsewhere in this thread, from which it is clear that the presence of this liquid slag does not imply the presence of molten steel. The original claim is therefore rejected.

Note, also, that the description of "basic slag" as produced by the Bessemer process is a specific type of slag; the usage of the word by Sisson is much looser, and from its context it clearly is not intended to suggest that the composition is anything other than some iron oxide/iron sulfide mixture.

Dave

 

[bio]

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

The original claim was that the erosion of the steel required temperatures in excess of 1500ºC, and that these are not achieved in an office contents fire. The above reference states that erosion of the steel appears to have taken place at below 1000ºC (note the significance of the word "approached"), within the range of temperatures of an office contents fire. The "eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide" referred to above is the "liquid slag" mentioned elsewhere in this thread, from which it is clear that the presence of this liquid slag does not imply the presence of molten steel. The original claim is therefore rejected.
Note, also, that the description of "basic slag" as produced by the Bessemer process is a specific type of slag; the usage of the word by Sisson is much looser, and from its context it clearly is not intended to suggest that the composition is anything other than some iron oxide/iron sulfide mixture.
Dave

Why are you talking about the eroded steel piece, if we are talking about the slag, which caused the eroding? Please provide reference for above claim (bold).
How is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen" basically different from molten steel?

I would ask you politely to answer my question of post 4884. You find it in this page.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen" basically different from molten steel?

Asked and answered, multiple times. From the above reference, "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel." What was present, therefore, was a eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide, which at temperatures approaching 1000ºC is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen". This is basically different from molten steel in that it has a different chemical composition and a different melting point. Since the whole argument was that temperatures were above the melting point of this liquid, the conclusion is that temperatures approached 1000ºC but need not have been as high as 1500ºC.

The idea that iron oxide and iron sulfide are basically different from pure iron is one that I was taught, and verified for myself experimentally, when I was eleven years old, in a first-year high school chemistry lesson. The inductive conclusion that they are also basically different from molten steel should not be a difficult one.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can you prove an alternative, science based reason, why there was no calcium in the XEDS plots?

I'm not a chemist, but I would imagine it goes something like this:

Calcium sulphate, in the presence of water and heat, will dissociate partially to form calcium oxide and sulphuric acid. The calcium oxide is insoluble and melts at over 2500ºC, so it will stay where the reaction occurs, whereas the sulphuric acid will be vapourised and will diffuse away from the reaction zone. The sulphuric acid will attack the steel elsewhere, in the presence of oxygen, resulting in an iron oxide/iron sulphide eutectic containing no calcium.

On the other hand, if an agent were present that produced temperatures in excess of the melting point of calcium oxide - for example, thermite - we might see some incorporation of calcium into the slag. Therefore, the absence of calcium may possibly be evidence for the absence of thermite.

Dave

 

[bio]

Asked and answered, multiple times. From the above reference, "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel." What was present, therefore, was a eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide, which at temperatures approaching 1000ºC is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen". This is basically different from molten steel in that it has a different chemical composition and a different melting point. Since the whole argument was that temperatures were above the melting point of this liquid, the conclusion is that temperatures approached 1000ºC but need not have been as high as 1500ºC.

The idea that iron oxide and iron sulfide are basically different from pure iron is one that I was taught, and verified for myself experimentally, when I was eleven years old, in a first-year high school chemistry lesson. The inductive conclusion that they are also basically different from molten steel should not be a difficult one.

Dave

good for you, that you are an expert! Feel free to answer or not. Thank you.

From where did the iron oxid and iron sulfide come from? From the steel, which was liquefied?

 

[bio]

I'm not a chemist, but I would imagine it goes something like this:

Calcium sulphate, in the presence of water and heat, will dissociate partially to form calcium oxide and sulphuric acid. The calcium oxide is insoluble and melts at over 2500ºC, so it will stay where the reaction occurs, whereas the sulphuric acid will be vapourised and will diffuse away from the reaction zone. The sulphuric acid will attack the steel elsewhere, in the presence of oxygen, resulting in an iron oxide/iron sulphide eutectic containing no calcium.

On the other hand, if an agent were present that produced temperatures in excess of the melting point of calcium oxide - for example, thermite - we might see some incorporation of calcium into the slag. Therefore, the absence of calcium may possibly be evidence for the absence of thermite.

Dave

okay - but Dr. Jones says, that the sulfur itself showed no concomitant calcium.

 

[Dave Rogers]

From where did the iron oxid and iron sulfide come from? From the steel, which was liquefied?

There was no need for the steel to be liquefied. Normal corrosion of steel in an oxygen-containing atmosphere produces iron oxide in the form of rust, and this will accelerate at higher temperatures. Sulphuric acid and heat acting on steel will (I assume, my chemistry runs out somewhere around here) produce iron sulphate, which degrades thermally to iron sulphide. Both can be produced without the temperature getting high enough to liquefy the steel.

Dave