No it most certainly does NOT. Sulphidation is proof that a) the temperature was high enough for sulphidation to occur and b) that the atmosphere the steel was subjected to contained Sulphur (most likely in the for SO2 and possibly H2S and H2SO4).
Could a thermate reaction possibly produce a swiss-cheese effect on structural steel. Thats a yes or no?
All you have to do is examine the literature that covers Sulphidation, there is a staggering amount. This literature will provide you with lots and lots of instances where Sulphidation occurs in steels due to industrial processes such as waste incineration, power generation, etc.
I dont doubt you.
All you need for Sulphidation to occur is sufficiently high temperatures and a source for Sulphur. Rubber, cellophane, plastics. Why don't you find out about all the things that Sulphur is used in and see if they correspond with what was in the WTC? SO2 is gas that is commonly found in house fires so why wouldn't it be common in the WTC?
You have made many possible sources for the sulfur, the next step is to test those hypothesis under controlled conditions to prove whether they can actually produce holes in structural steel. Would you object to Richard D. Sisson Jr’s approach post#498 in answering the question “when” was the steel evaporated (i.e. in the office fires or within the rubble pile)? If the latter can be ruled out and we know that the wtc 7 fires were not feed by diesel fuel do you think the that a normal office people in addition to all the sources you mentioned above could melt holes in structural steel?
No I wouldn't agree because I don't consider there to be a state of ambiguity. It's very plain.
I will give you the same answer as TAM “We are all in a state of empirical ambiguity, or uncertainty, until hypothesis x, y, or z in relation to what caused the "hot corrosion attack on the steel" and “swiss-cheese effect” has been proven true or false.”
The fact you continually come up with different sources that have not be proven only serves to affirm the above statement.
SO2 is a commonly produced gas in fires because there are plenty of common sources where the Sulphur can be liberated. High temperatures will allow Sulphidation. This takes time (due to diffusion rates) and so the majority if not all of erosion seen occurred in the rubble pile. It doesn't surprise me that temperatures around 1000°C were present and it doesn't surprise me that these temperatures would keep burning tons of material and that some of this material released SO2.
There you go again, drawing conclusions based on unproven assumptions. We do not know whether it occured in the rubble pile or during the wtc 7 fire. We do not know because no hypothesis has been empirically proven. That is why i would like to see further investiagtion on this particular issue. Wouldnt you? please re read Richard D. Sisson Jr’s approach post#498 to the question, that is how good science is conducted.
Firstly there never has been any evidence for liquid or molten steel. It's a red herring to claim that molten steel possibly shows evidence of "exotic accelerants". First prove that steel was liquid. No-one can.
I agree, testimony is not conclusive evidence though it is evidence non-the-less.
Secondly the presence of SO2 is exactly what one would expect to find due to the burning of a building so how is it going to show exotic accelerants? The only "exotic accelerants" on 9/11 were two airliners, full of fuel that were slammed into the buildings.
Wtc 7 was not hit by an airliner.
I'n not familiar with NFPA but please link to or reproduce where they make claims with regard to liquid steel, SO2 "exotic accelerants" as my googling only turns up truther sites and I'd rather not lower my IQ. I suspect what you are doing is trying to read across from a NFPA manual when it's not valid to do so.
I cited the source in a post to TAM. Why are the NFPA guidelines not found in debunekr sites? It doesnt take i high IQ to figure that one out.
peace
