Gage's next debate

[Sunstealer]

There is another reaction that produces SO2 from gypsum at temperatures below 1000°C.

CaSO₄ + SiO₂ --> CaSiO₃ +SO₂ +1/2O₂

This occurs at 900°C.

http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/60/8/1418.full.pdf

Silica or quartz can make upto 10% by weight in drywall according to this data sheet.

Hazardous Decomposition: Thermal decomposition may yield sulfur oxides, and calcium oxide fumes (above 825°C).

http://files.buildsite.com/dbderived-f/lafarge/derived_files/derived310562.pdf

So I think that settles it, there are many ways to produce SO2 from gypsum at the temperatures experienced by the corroded steel

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Let's also remember that drywall was in extreme abundance at Ground Zero. Two 110 storey skyscrapers makes for a huge amount. The amount was so large that I feel it would be a surprise if none of it reacted to the chemical stews in the rubble piles.

It's definitely correct that sulfur is difficult to extract from the gypsum; that I concede readily. What goes unsaid, though, is that conditions in the rubble pile fires were not moderate, and again, there was a huge stockpile of drywall available. You're going to get some production out of that much reactant forcing the reaction, especially in the presence of heat and other species being involved in their own reactions.

Again, for emphasis: Chemical stew. Too many truthers focus on single issues and forget the entire context. Drywall and heat wasn't the only thing available in the rubble pile fires; whatever gasses were being produced by the burning office contents were there too, and all those would contribute towards a multitude of reactions. Some of those reaction products will indeed be the very reactants necessary to liberate SO₂, H₂S, and whatever other species exist that can corrode steel and help make it susceptible to sulfidation attack.

Sunstealer is correct. It is quite obviously stupid to deny the possibility of all these methods of making sulfur readily avaialble.

 

[Kent1]

Again you are using lab tests that are for other purposes and do not reflect the conditions in a fire.

"If you have non-smelly drywall that is off gassing a very small amount of corrosive sulfur gas over years [anaerobic] there can be some level of copper tarnish inside walls and inside an air handler without any detectable odor or measurable levels of indoor gas."

"Ceilings often require UL approved Fire Code rated drywall and in such cases are always non-problematic drywall even when the walls are problem drywall."


The previous post said the emissions were due to things not normally found in drywall like elemental sulfur.

Nothing here is refuting what I posted nor refuting sulfur from drywall. This one has been pinned. I think I'm done.

 

[chrismohr]

Extreme Heat in Debris?

Simple Question #3:

Richard Gage's latest call for an Investigation includes this assertion:

The American Society of Safety Engineers reported that “the debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400°F to more than 2,800°F.”

Does anyone know about this? The NASA thermal images and all other evidence I've tracked down so far claiming temperatures of 2800 degrees or more always pan out to hot spots of 1400 degrees or so; the molten steel seems more likely to be melted aluminum; the debris pile is cool enough to walk on and dig deep holes into (I have a photo of this) etc.

Any comments on this claim by Gage?

 

[GlennB]

Simple Question #3:

Richard Gage's latest call for an Investigation includes this assertion:

The American Society of Safety Engineers reported that “the debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400°F to more than 2,800°F.”

Does anyone know about this? The NASA thermal images and all other evidence I've tracked down so far claiming temperatures of 2800 degrees or more always pan out to hot spots of 1400 degrees or so; the molten steel seems more likely to be melted aluminum; the debris pile is cool enough to walk on and dig deep holes into (I have a photo of this) etc.

Any comments on this claim by Gage?

Fallacious interpretation, people getting over-excited, ill-qualified .... ? Dunno.

Anyway, R.Mackey (now mostly retired from this sub forum) analysed those figures in depth here with a quick summary here

 

[Dave Rogers]

The American Society of Safety Engineers reported that “the debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400°F to more than 2,800°F.”

[...]

Any comments on this claim by Gage?

A quick Google traces this back, via a cached copy on Jim Hoffman's 911 Research site, to an article on health and safety concerns for workers at Ground Zero. As such, it appears to be a legitimate article, although of course it's possible that the actual temperatures are misreported. The key question, though, as with so many truther throw-enough-****-and-some-of-it's-bound-to-stick questions, is "So what?"

We know that the rubble pile remained hot for many weeks after 9/11.For the heat in the rubble pile to have been present from the time of the collapses, and for the heat loss to be small enough for the temperature to remain at these high levels for weeks, the rate of heat loss would have to be absurdly low. Therefore, we know that there must have been some source of thermal energy which was continuously active in the rubble pile for weeks after the collapses. We know that the thermite reaction is rapid and virtually unstoppable, so any thermite reaction taking place at Ground Zero would have been over in seconds rather than weeks. An underground fire is a plausible explanation for the high temperatures. Thermite, or (for much the same reason) explosives, is not.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Simple Question #3:

Richard Gage's latest call for an Investigation includes this assertion:

The American Society of Safety Engineers reported that “the debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400°F to more than 2,800°F.”

Does anyone know about this? The NASA thermal images and all other evidence I've tracked down so far claiming temperatures of 2800 degrees or more always pan out to hot spots of 1400 degrees or so; the molten steel seems more likely to be melted aluminum; the debris pile is cool enough to walk on and dig deep holes into (I have a photo of this) etc.

Any comments on this claim by Gage?

Gah! Gage can't even get basic details correct!

There was one thermal measurement claimed in an article SH&E at Ground Zero, which was published in the May 2002 edition of the journal Professional Safety. The exact quote:

Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF

While he's got the claimed range correct (and I have to emphasize that there's large doubt about the accuracy of the upper end of this), he's overreaching in saying "taken by helicopter each day". There's nothing in that article to indicate that these were daily measurements. And if he claims he's got other sources for that claim, he should be challenged to provide them. But the bottom line is that there is more solid evidence in the AVIRIS measurements that lead to doubt about this figure, plus as Mackey pointed out, there are details indicating that this 2,800 degree figure is wrong:

Correct. Here and here and here you can see the raw AVIRIS data, and it does not show 2800oF. The highest temperature supported is about 1300oF. The article -- which lists no source for that claim -- is in error.

This has all been explained before.

And as you correctly note even if such temperatures did exist, they could not be caused by thermite. Some other, slower, high-energy combustion would be required.

ETA: This article suggests the "helicopter thermal imaging" mentioned in the Professional Safety piece were, in fact, DEA helicopters. There is no DEA helicopter in service carrying a thermal imager calibrated anywhere near 2800oF. That requires a specialty instrument, viz. AVIRIS, which flew the same mission on a fixed-wing aircraft. The original article is simply not credible, and its conclusion is refuted by superior data.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4446887#post4446887

Yep. I tackled this years ago. The "2800 F" reading was reported as coming from the FLIR of a DEA helicopter -- a system that, under no circumstances, is calibrated nor can be calibrated to measure a temperature that high.

The only calibrated temperature measurement made of the Pile was using the AVIRIS instrument. Its readings are considerably lower. There is, therefore, no evidence of such high temperatures in the Pile, full stop.

So in summary: The definitive measurements were taken by JPL with their AVIRIS platform. And those are the definitive ones because NASA/JPL provided the data with the measurements, plus identified the platfor (AVIRIS) used to make the measurements, so people can evaluate its accuracy. That platform did not measure any temps higher than 1,300^oF.

And one last thing: Why would Gage get behind such a high temperature? He must be aware that thermite reactions complete within seconds to, at most, single digit minutes, so citing temperatures that at the earliest were taken days after the collapse negates any thermite proposal he or anyone else can come up with. It's stupid for him to try and adopt that claim because even if the 2,800 degree figure were correct, it wouldn't prove a thing about thermite given when the measurements were taken. If anything, it would've given support to the possibilities that other items already present in the towers were responsible for these high temperatures.

Anyway, hope that helps.

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #4

Thanks all... looks like the 2800 degree temps recorded in the DEA choppers was dealt with long ago. So now I return to a simple question one person has answered and I just want more validation for: IS IT TRUE THAT 4500 DEGREE THERMATE TEMPERATURES WOULD BREAK DOWN THE Fe-O-S CHEMICAL STRUCTURE ENTIRELY, AS I THINK SOMEONE ELSE ON THIS THREAD ASSERTED?

This is fun.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Thanks all... looks like the 2800 degree temps recorded in the DEA choppers was dealt with long ago. So now I return to a simple question one person has answered and I just want more validation for: IS IT TRUE THAT 4500 DEGREE THERMATE TEMPERATURES WOULD BREAK DOWN THE Fe-O-S CHEMICAL STRUCTURE ENTIRELY, AS I THINK SOMEONE ELSE ON THIS THREAD ASSERTED?

This is fun.

Oh, for my part, sorry Chris. I haven't read all the posts in this thread; some days I only get to look at the last few posts in a thread and end up missing quite a bit.

I need to brush up on the argument regarding iron oxide/iron sulfide/pure iron structures, so I actually can't speak directly to your point right now. I'm working at the edge of my knowledge anyway, so hopefully someone who knows about that stuff better will save me the effort . But anyway, I have been one of the folks talking about thermite temps obliterating microstructures. While including the eutectic structures, I was also referring to something else as well. Biederman, Sullivan, Vander Voort, and Sisson wrote the following in their paper "Microstructural Analysis Of The Steels From Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 From The World Trade Center":

The as-fabricated microstructure consisted of a hot worked banded structure of ferrite and pearlite. In severely “eroded” regions where the thickness had been reduced to less than a 1/16 of and inch significant decarburation was observed. In addition, some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850°C.

That's important. Even though it's not speaking towards the eutectic formations at all, it's important. What that statement is referencing are the specific phases of the carbon steel that those Worcester researchers observed. It's an important point because it gives an upper end on what temperatures were experienced right at the point of erosion. As background, take a peek at this carbon phase diagram:

The important thing to take away from this diagram is the fact that for certain percentages of carbon content, certain "phases" of steel only are formed within certain temperature ranges. As the paper's authors stated, the phases they saw indicated a high of around 850^oC.

That's well below what thermite reacts at.

What would've happened if it had gone above 850 degrees? I need to get a definitive answer from any metallurgists present (Hi, Sunstealer! ). But what I take from the other Worcester paper - "Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the Steel from Building 7 of the World Trade Center — Some Observations" - is that the microstructures would been different. How exactly they would've been different, I'm just don't know (that's why I need a metallurgist to educate me on this) but I think I got a hint of it in that "phases of steel" link I gave above: If you scroll to near the end, you'll see that they give pictures of grain structure formation based on temperature excursion. Or in plain english: The first diagram is what you'll see when the steel experiences temperatures below a certain point, the second picture is when it sees a higher temp, and so on. The lesson here is that a higher peak temperature results in a different grain structure when things cool off. I don't know what specific structures relate to what specific temperature ranges, but I do know what ranges the WPI papers give. It's there for all to see: The steel itself hit around 850^oC, and the "slag" material on top that contributed to the erosion may have gotten as high as 1100^oC. Either way, both figures are way below thermite's reaction temperature.

I'll look up the other half of the argument - the obliteration of the iron sulfide/iron oxide structures in a bit. I believe it's as simple as the fact that you shouldn't see FeS/FeO/Fe intermixed like it was had the temperatures been high enough to melt all of those. Instead, you would've had distinct "pools" or hardened pigs/pools/drops/whatever of pure Fe and some remaining powders of FeS and FeO lying about because they all would've separated when they all became molten. I think. I'm not positive. Again, I defer to any metallurgists and chemists reading this; please correct me if I've gotten anything wrong here. But that's how I'm remembering the argument.

 

[triforcharity]

What else would produce white smoke in office fires? I cannot imagine therm*te being the only possible producer of white smoke.

Incomplete combustion of wood and paper for one. Or, when wood and paper have completly bruned.

Most organics will burn white.

Also, when a fire has consumed all of the available fuel in that area, it will continue to smolder producing white smoke.

There are also some chemicals that when mixed together, will produce white smoke. Bleach, activated charcoal, and something else, I don't recall what the chemical is, when mixed together will produce TREMENDOUS amounts of white smoke. I know it was a common cleaner, maybe windex?

There are also some cleaning chemicals that even without mixing will burn and produce white smoke. Drain cleaner is one of them.

 

[triforcharity]

Simple Question #3:

Richard Gage's latest call for an Investigation includes this assertion:

The American Society of Safety Engineers reported that “the debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400°F to more than 2,800°F.”

Does anyone know about this?

Yeah, Gage is lying. If there were 2,800 deg. F spots above the piles, there would have been areas where firefighters would have been told to ABSOLUTELY not go FOR ANY REASON. There were no such restrictions.

Here is a link to the USGS mapping that was done.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf

The NASA thermal images and all other evidence I've tracked down so far claiming temperatures of 2800 degrees or more always pan out to hot spots of 1400 degrees or so; the molten steel seems more likely to be melted aluminum; the debris pile is cool enough to walk on and dig deep holes into (I have a photo of this) etc.

Correct. They were cool enough to walk on. Granted, there were times when we did get into a spot that was incredibly hot, and we would then need to change our boots by the end of the day.

However, I am not aware of any study done by NASA. All that I know of is the one done by USGS.

Any comments on this claim by Gage?

Gage is a fraud and a dick.

Oh, you mean other than that?

Yeah, he's plain wrong.

 

[chrismohr]

"However, I am not aware of any study done by NASA. All that I know of is the one done by USGS."

Thanks Triforcharity,

My understanding is that NASA had thermal images of the hot spots which showed "at least" 800 degrees F, and that the USGS did a pixel-by-pixel of the images and determined that the temperatures maxed out at about 1400 degrees F. Can't believe you were there. I do all this intellectual stuff and I keep being reminded we're talking about a horrendous terrorist attack here, beyond anything I've ever seen.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

However, I am not aware of any study done by NASA. All that I know of is the one done by USGS.

Actually, it's the same study. It started out as a combined effort of NASA/JPL, USGS, and the EPA* to determine the environmental impact of the collapses and fires on the immediate area, and got expanded once they all realized they could help FEMA manage their emergency workers by mapping the hot spots on the rubble pile. I'll leave it to Tri here to tell us whether they were actually real-time useful during those week, but that was the stated goal for taking those measurements. Anyway, I've been calling it the NASA/JPL measurements because it was carried out by their AVIRIS platform, but to be completely accurate, the project itself was one between the EPA, the USGS - they're the ones actually hosting the findings:

• http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
• http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/37096/1/02-0522.pdf
• http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/6599/1/03-0421.pdf

... and obviously NASA/JPL.

So yeah, it's all the same thing, actually.

*Scroll down the page to the Ground Zero section for the information I'm basing this all on

 

[triforcharity]

"However, I am not aware of any study done by NASA. All that I know of is the one done by USGS."

Thanks Triforcharity,

My understanding is that NASA had thermal images of the hot spots which showed "at least" 800 degrees F, and that the USGS did a pixel-by-pixel of the images and determined that the temperatures maxed out at about 1400 degrees F. Can't believe you were there. I do all this intellectual stuff and I keep being reminded we're talking about a horrendous terrorist attack here, beyond anything I've ever seen.

1400 deg. F would be about right, especially considering the contents of the fire. Chair, office supplies, plastics, etc. A hydrocarbon fire averages 1400 deg. F over a long span.

Yes, sometimes talking about the scientific side takes us away from the human aspect. I do this myself. Especially when teaching.

 

[triforcharity]

Actually, it's the same study. It started out as a combined effort of NASA/JPL, USGS, and the EPA* to determine the environmental impact of the collapses and fires on the immediate area, and got expanded once they all realized they could help FEMA manage their emergency workers by mapping the hot spots on the rubble pile.

Ok, gotcha. Like I said, I was under the impression that this was just a USGS project. Had no idea it was a joint venture.

I'll leave it to Tri here to tell us whether they were actually real-time useful during those week, but that was the stated goal for taking those measurements.

Absolutely! It's sometimes hard to pinpoint a location of a heat source, especially considering the intricate pile of steel and such that it would filter through before getting to the surface. Almost like when you spra water through a screen, it scatters in all directions.


Having that data gave us an exact location. We could then use the daily maps provided by other agencies that mapped the area in great detail, updated from the previous days progress, to pinpoint where we needed o apply water and such.

So, in short, these images and data we received were priceless. Without them, the fire would have nurned for (in my estimate) 6 months or more.

Anyway, I've been calling it the NASA/JPL measurements because it was carried out by their AVIRIS platform, but to be completely accurate, the project itself was one between the EPA, the USGS - they're the ones actually hosting the findings:

• http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
• http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/37096/1/02-0522.pdf
• http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/6599/1/03-0421.pdf

... and obviously NASA/JPL.

So yeah, it's all the same thing, actually.

*Scroll down the page to the Ground Zero section for the information I'm basing this all on

 

[ElMondoHummus]

1400 deg. F would be about right, especially considering the contents of the fire. Chair, office supplies, plastics, etc. A hydrocarbon fire averages 1400 deg. F over a long span.

Actually, that reminds me of something I've been meaning to figure out for quite some time now: Was there any one even remotely "dominant" item/substance burning? Or is that question even answerable? I leave the definitions of "item/substance" somewhat open to interpretation, but my point is that I've only been looking at things from an overhead view, and I and others here have simply talked about the combustion of "office contents". Well, "office contents" covers a wide range of things: plastics, wood, fabrics from carpeting, other composite materials, etc. Because that's so vague, I've just wondered at times what the most common substance or item (i.e. wood, carpet and therefore fabrics, plastics, paper, etc.) was that burned in the piles. Or even if that question can be narrowed down to one "leading" item/product/substance.

Yes, this may be impossible to know. Plus, I admit, I'm merely curious about it, so it's not earth-shattering if nobody knows. But, I just thought I'd take a shot and see if you happened to know if there's an answer to this or not.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Absolutely! It's sometimes hard to pinpoint a location of a heat source, especially considering the intricate pile of steel and such that it would filter through before getting to the surface. Almost like when you spra water through a screen, it scatters in all directions.


Having that data gave us an exact location. We could then use the daily maps provided by other agencies that mapped the area in great detail, updated from the previous days progress, to pinpoint where we needed o apply water and such.

So, in short, these images and data we received were priceless. Without them, the fire would have nurned for (in my estimate) 6 months or more.

Oh, good! I know we all make fun of government projects a lot (myself included), but many times, when the chips are down and it's important, people can come together and make things work right regardless of the friction involved. Even though I had zilch to do with that, I'm damn glad to see something like that not just work out but work out well because I'm fully aware that large, interagency projects can often go toes up and get completely messed up simply because of bureaucracy and cultures clashing.

If you would've told me that several unrelated federal agencies would work together on a project but not tell me what it is, I'd be cynical about how it'd turn out. But make it known that it was for something like this and you can see people rise to the occasion. It's heartening to know this.

 

[triforcharity]

Actually, that reminds me of something I've been meaning to figure out for quite some time now: Was there any one even remotely "dominant" item/substance burning? Or is that question even answerable? I leave the definitions of "item/substance" somewhat open to interpretation, but my point is that I've only been looking at things from an overhead view, and I and others here have simply talked about the combustion of "office contents". Well, "office contents" covers a wide range of things: plastics, wood, fabrics from carpeting, other composite materials, etc. Because that's so vague, I've just wondered at times what the most common substance or item (i.e. wood, carpet and therefore fabrics, plastics, paper, etc.) was that burned in the piles. Or even if that question can be narrowed down to one "leading" item/product/substance.

Yes, this may be impossible to know. Plus, I admit, I'm merely curious about it, so it's not earth-shattering if nobody knows. But, I just thought I'd take a shot and see if you happened to know if there's an answer to this or not.

Mostly plastics of random varieties would be my educated guess. Tables, chairs, computers, copy machines, blinds, etc. etc. etc.

I would also guess that after that would have been wood and paper products.

To venture a guess at what precentage, or to give a list of all the things that would have been burning would take ages.

 

[triforcharity]

Oh, good! I know we all make fun of government projects a lot (myself included), but many times, when the chips are down and it's important, people can come together and make things work right regardless of the friction involved. Even though I had zilch to do with that, I'm damn glad to see something like that not just work out but work out well because I'm fully aware that large, interagency projects can often go toes up and get completely messed up simply because of bureaucracy and cultures clashing.

If you would've told me that several unrelated federal agencies would work together on a project but not tell me what it is, I'd be cynical about how it'd turn out. But make it known that it was for something like this and you can see people rise to the occasion. It's heartening to know this.

Oh yeah. If this hadn't been such an important event, and an event tht drew all Americans together for one common goal, I have no doubt that we would still be asking who was to clean up the trash on the streets.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....

OTHER QUESTIONS: Ryan Mackey asserted in his white paper that we don't really know how the sulfidized steel was created in the first place. Do you agree? My halting research has come up with what looks like speculation (Battery acid from cars, gypsum) but not a solid explanation.
Also, is there an estimate out there of what percentage of the steel beams were corroded away in this process? I asserted in the March 6 debate that it was a very small amount, certainly not enough to explain a global collapse of a skyscraper in any event.
......

Perhaps the rare corrosion was the result of equally rare confluence of events.
High temperatures, oxygen and hydrogen from water and air, sulfur from gypsum wallboard, and fluorine gas from Halon type fire extinguishers or Freon from A/C refrigerant.

Fluorosulfuric acid (HFSO₃) is a superacid, much stronger and faster reacting than SO₂ and about a thousand times stronger than sulfuric acid . (wiki)
This might explain the rarity and severity of the corrosion.