Merged Molten metal observations

[Java Man]

If.
What are these elements?

Lets start with sulfur.

 

[Oystein]

Lets start with sulfur.

Okay. Sulfur was abundand in the debris pile: From building materials to office contents to fuels to the rain that fell on it. I once calculated the mass of sulfur contained in the dead bodies of the poor people who died in the towers - that alone was about a ton.

Surely, sulfur was available in many forms, and by the truckloads.

 

[Java Man]

Okay. Sulfur was abundand in the debris pile: From building materials to office contents to fuels to the rain that fell on it. I once calculated the mass of sulfur contained in the dead bodies of the poor people who died in the towers - that alone was about a ton.

Surely, sulfur was available in many forms, and by the truckloads.

Yea, it exists as CaSO4 in drywalls, but that doesn't mean it's free to react. If that were the case you could fill a divers tank with CO2. Why not? There's oxygen there isn't there? Or ground iron oxide and save up on the belt weight? Wow even better than that, fill his lungs with H2O and save on the diving gear altogether. There's oxygen in H2O.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Sulfur? Good God... between all the CRT monitors present (remember, this was 2001), whatever amount would've been in other various plastics, fabrics, etc. (small, tiny even, but it all adds up), exposure to acid rain, exposure to 70's and 80's era diesel emissions, and the like, there are tons of sources of sulfur.

And that's ignoring the paramount one: Gypsum in drywall. We're already talking about that in another thread. Despite the difficulty in extracting sulfur from gypsum, the fact remains that there was such a sheer abundance of drywall, and such a large fire with a veritable cocktail/stew of gasses and chemicals being produced by combustion that it's impossible to ignore that source. Greening covered this in his "Sulfur" paper.

 

[Oystein]

Yea, it exists as CaSO4 in drywalls, but that doesn't mean it's free to react. If that were the case you could fill a divers tank with CO2. Why not? There's oxygen there isn't there? Or ground iron oxide and save up on the belt weight? Wow even better than that, fill his lungs with H2O and save on the diving gear altogether. There's oxygen in H2O.

Heat has a way of cracking molecules, as does fire.
No free sulfur needed. It's called "chemistry".
You see, even Jonathan Barnett, member of the team that studied the specimen we are talking about, didn't have problems with the idea that sulfur could come from any of a hodgepodge of potential sources, including drywall, fuels and acid rain.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And because the kneejerk reaction to the "drywall" is in it's difficulty in extraction, remember what Greening wrote:

Chemists have investigated the thermal decomposition of gypsum, CaSO4.2H2O or anhydrite, CaSO4, since the early 1900s because of its potential for making sulfuric acid by the liberation of SO2 or SO3 from a plentiful and inexpensive starting material. It was known at this time that the direct reaction: CaSO4 -> CaO + SO3 + ‚ O2 (followed by: SO3 + H2O -> H2SO4), only proceeds at an acceptable rate at temperatures ~ 1400^oC. However, early research showed that the above reaction could be accelerated by additives such as clay and, more importantly, the reduction of CaSO4 to CaO and SO2 by reaction with solid carbon or gaseous carbon monoxide was found to be possible at temperatures well below 1000^oC. In these cases CaSO4 was decomposed by two novel reactions: 2CaSO4 + C -> 2CaO + CO2 + 2SO2 and, CaSO4 + CO -> CaO + CO2 + SO2


... thermal decomposition of calcium sulfate in carbon monoxide/nitrogen mixtures and note that in 10 - 20 % CO/ N2, calcium sulfide, CaS, and carbon dioxide are formed at temperatures in the range 780 - 850^oC, while at CO concentrations below 10 %, calcium oxide, CaO, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are formed above 900^oC. Kuusik et al. also note that the presence of impurities such as SiO2 in the calcium sulfate lower the decomposition temperatures by up to 100oC. Published data /11/ on the kinetics of the reduction

It is obvious that it's difficult to extract sulfur from the gypsum in drywall. That right there is probably why so few pieces were corroded. But we've been over this multiple times already: The extraction of the sulfur is possible in the environment created by the rubble pile fires. You have without question CO and CO₂, SiO₂ can be found in the anticorrosion paint on the steel, you can get chlorine species from the PVC (that's mentioned in another part of Greening's paper I didn't quote here) that add to the corrosion attack of the steel, even if it doesn't directly aid the sulfidation of it... the point is that, as I've said before, there'd be a chemical stew produced by the fires. You don't need to extract a lot of sulfur for the noted corrosion - and again, recall that there were only 2 to 4 pieces that displayed that - you just need enough to conduct that sulfidation attack on the steel.

Remember: The sulfidation didn't occur in isolation from all other gasses and chemicals released by the fires.

110 storey skyscraper, each floor containing God knows how much drywall. But just a small handfull of steel pieces corroded. Yes, that sounds about right considering the difficulty of extracting sulfur from gypsum. Someone else can work it out more rigorously, but there's simply no contradiction there on a conceptual level.

 

[Java Man]

And that's ignoring the paramount one: Gypsum in drywall. We're already talking about that in another thread. Despite the difficulty in extracting sulfur from gypsum, the fact remains that there was such a sheer abundance of drywall, and such a large fire with a veritable cocktail/stew of gasses and chemicals being produced by combustion that it's impossible to ignore that source. Greening covered this in his "Sulfur" paper.

Yea and they all landed in highly concentrated amounts on that beam! LOL, give me a break!

 

[Oystein]

Yea and they all landed in highly concentrated amounts on that beam! LOL, give me a break!

Argument from incredulity noted.

Strawman noted: No-one claims that highly concentrated amounts would be necessary. Trace amounts of SO2 would quite suffice. Corrosion is a slow and microscopic process. It had days and weeks to produce the result.

 

[Java Man]

You see, even Jonathan Barnett, member of the team that studied the specimen we are talking about, didn't have problems with the idea that sulfur could come from any of a hodgepodge of potential sources, including drywall, fuels and acid rain.

Neither do I. I have an issue with the concentration and the severe deterioration the beam has. If the beam were corroded on the surface, in other words, stained. Well yes it would seem plausible. But give me a break! The amount of damage requires liters and liters of sulfuric acid (not that I'm saying acid did it, but it comes to show the amount of SO4 required). Now all the vapor and byproducts just converged on that one beam in sufficient amounts equivalent to 5mol/L battery acid. Not to mention that the process to extract S from CaSO4 requires some pretty contradictory scenarios. Like dehydrated gypsum and lots of water to bring that to the steel beam. Now water can be as steam. But how is it going to condense on a hot beam? And if its pouring down, how is the gypsum dehydrated. Unless the gypsum is far away, but then how do you get high concentrations nearby?

Like a said, in theory it sounds good. But once you try to fit the pieces into place "in context" it gets flaky.

 

[Java Man]

Argument from incredulity noted.

Strawman noted: No-one claims that highly concentrated amounts would be necessary. Trace amounts of SO2 would quite suffice. Corrosion is a slow and microscopic process. It had days and weeks to produce the result.

Yea, trace amounts can cause a reaction. But to the level we see there? Hardly so. You see the less concentrated the amount the less damage it would do. The less damage being done, the more time it takes. The more time it takes the less probable you'll have fuel to fire the "heat" you need to get the S releasing process going. So your argument once again backfires.

 

[Java Man]

110 storey skyscraper, each floor containing God knows how much drywall. But just a small handfull of steel pieces corroded. Yes, that sounds about right considering the difficulty of extracting sulfur from gypsum. Someone else can work it out more rigorously, but there's simply no contradiction there on a conceptual level.

Never heard about WTC 7 having 110 stories. Did you?

 

[Oystein]

Neither do I. I have an issue with the concentration and the severe deterioration the beam has.

That's your personal problem then. Apparently, Barnett doesn't have this problem, either.

If the beam were corroded on the surface, in other words, stained. Well yes it would seem plausible. But give me a break! The amount of damage requires liters and liters of sulfuric acid (not that I'm saying acid did it, but it comes to show the amount of SO4 required). Now all the vapor and byproducts just converged on that one beam in sufficient amounts equivalent to 5mol/L battery acid. Not to mention that the process to extract S from CaSO4 requires some pretty contradictory scenarios. Like dehydrated gypsum and lots of water to bring that to the steel beam. Now water can be as steam. But how is it going to condense on a hot beam?

It isn't going to condense. Why do you think this is required? The hotter the gas, the quicker the molecules will diffuse between the steel grains.

And if its pouring down, how is the gypsum dehydrated. Unless the gypsum is far away, but then how do you get high concentrations nearby?

You can bet on many locations in the pile to have high concentrations of gypsum. If you also have sources for C or CO nearby, you are nearly set. The resulting molecules are gasses. If our steel piece is near and above a hot spot that features gypsum and C, it is already a candidate for sulfur attack. There will always be steam present, too.

Like a said, in theory it sounds good. But once you try to fit the pieces into place "in context" it gets flaky.

Appeal to perfection noted.
You need to prove that sulfur was unavailable; that is your premise to conclude that something non-natural must have happened. You can't prove this. On the contrary: It appears that many chemical processes involving abundant compounds are conceivable. You on the other hand have no competing explanation. As pointed out already: Thermate is NOT an explantion.

 

[Oystein]

Yea, trace amounts can cause a reaction. But to the level we see there? Hardly so. You see the less concentrated the amount the less damage it would do. The less damage being done, the more time it takes. The more time it takes the less probable you'll have fuel to fire the "heat" you need to get the S releasing process going. So your argument once again backfires.

Argument from incredulity noted.

Multiply concentration by time.
If you require several kilograms of sulfuric acid (got a source for that?), that would be an ounce per hour (order of magnitude) during one week.

 

[alienentity]

Yea and they all landed in highly concentrated amounts on that beam! LOL, give me a break!

Translation: I don't understand the chemistry, therefore it can't have happened.

Sorry, your ignorance is not evidence of therm*te, nor is it evidence against the liberation of sulphur from WTC debris.

 

[Java Man]

Multiply concentration by time.

I did and I quickly ran out of fuel to supply the heat required for such a slow process. Eventually S production died out not due to lack of source, but of heat to maintain the process.

If you require several kilograms of sulfuric acid (got a source for that?), that would be an ounce per hour (order of magnitude) during one week.

Source is simple, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid, look under grades. Battery acid is listed as 5mol/L. We know the molar density of H2SO4, we know the atomic weight of iron. We know how many Fe atoms to one SO4 molecule. Do the math.

How do you figure the fire would be burning in close proximity to the beam for one week?

 

[Java Man]

Translation: I don't understand the chemistry, therefore it can't have happened.

Sorry, your ignorance is not evidence of therm*te, nor is it evidence against the liberation of sulphur from WTC debris.

Oh I understand the chemistry. I think I understand it quite well. That's why I find it strange that it happened so well in such uncontrolled environments and just happened to all land on that one beam. Very very very odd indeed.

 

[alienentity]

Neither do I. I have an issue with the concentration and the severe deterioration the beam has. If the beam were corroded on the surface, in other words, stained. Well yes it would seem plausible. But give me a break! The amount of damage requires liters and liters of sulfuric acid (not that I'm saying acid did it, but it comes to show the amount of SO4 required). Now all the vapor and byproducts just converged on that one beam in sufficient amounts equivalent to 5mol/L battery acid. Not to mention that the process to extract S from CaSO4 requires some pretty contradictory scenarios. Like dehydrated gypsum and lots of water to bring that to the steel beam. Now water can be as steam. But how is it going to condense on a hot beam? And if its pouring down, how is the gypsum dehydrated. Unless the gypsum is far away, but then how do you get high concentrations nearby?

Like a said, in theory it sounds good. But once you try to fit the pieces into place "in context" it gets flaky.

Translation: I don't understand the chemistry and I am unwilling to understand the conditions in the debris piles. I am unwilling to entertain any explanation which contradicts my fixed belief in a magic application of therm*te in the WTC.

Side note: I will not offer any concrete evidence in support of my therm*te theory, but will instead offer arguments of incredulity toward all other theories. I believe this is sufficient to prove my theory. /truther translation

 

[alienentity]

Oh I understand the chemistry. I think I understand it quite well. That's why I find it strange that it happened so well in such uncontrolled environments and just happened to all land on that one beam. Very very very odd indeed.

Translation: I don't understand the chemistry. All I can conceive of is a vague strawman argument.

 

[Java Man]

It isn't going to condense. Why do you think this is required? The hotter the gas, the quicker the molecules will diffuse between the steel grains.

LOL, you're arguing against yourself. You are aware that gas is less dense than liquid. And thus less molecules per unit of volume. So now you're saying the bean was corroded by a plume of H2SO4 vapor?

Let me quote Lefty on this "funny thing about sulphuric acid. You can store it in a highly concentrated condition in a steel bottle. Add as little as ten percent water and it eats right through it." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7102393&postcount=759

You see, no water, no corrosion.

 

[Java Man]

Side note: I will not offer any concrete evidence in support of my therm*te theory, but will instead offer arguments of incredulity toward all other theories. I believe this is sufficient to prove my theory. /truther translation

No, but its one heck of a good way to clear the way for the theory. On the other hand all you have to offer as a counter argument is a rerun of "Translation: I don't understand the chemistry and I am unwilling to understand the conditions in the debris piles." While at the same time you're unable to bring any numbers to the table as I've done. Which means that as basic as my understanding may be, it beats your's by a long shot.