Merged Jeff Farrer Reshashes Jones's nonsense

[HyJinX]

According to this site, Dave is correct...again.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5700758_extract-sulfur-gypsum.html

 

[Miragememories]

Farrer's an idiot. Decomposition of gypsum is well documented to occur below 1000ºC, way below the melting point of steel.

Dave

Smearing reputable professionals, and making statements which you fail to back up with proof is truly pathetic.

I suggest you actually back up the bs you convince yourself is effective rebuttal.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

According to this site, Dave is correct...again.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5700758_extract-sulfur-gypsum.html

"Roast the gypsum moderately in an oven, causing it to give off its "waters of hydration."

CaSO₄·2H₂O ' CaSO₄ + 2 H₂O'

The anhydrous calcium sulfate can then be processed further to obtain a separation or extraction of its sulfur content.
2
Heat the gypsum in a kiln to 600 to 900 degrees C in the presence of a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide to produce calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide. Using hydrogen, for example,

CaSO₄ + H₂ ' CaO + H₂O + SO₂

Thus the gypsum is converted to calcium oxide (lime) and sulfur dioxide, both very useful products. The sulfur dioxide can then be further processed in at least two commercially profitable ways.
3
Employ a catalyst made up of vanadium pentoxide and an alkali metal sulfate supported on small silica beads at high temperature. The sulfur dioxide will be converted into sulfur trioxide, which is to be dissolved in 98 percent sulfuric acid. That sulfur trioxide reacts with the 2 percent moisture to form additional sulfuric acid.
4
Catalytically reduce the sulfur dioxide into elemental sulfur. The U.S. Department of Energy describes the use of a cerium oxide catalyst to reduce a mixture of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide to form sulfur and carbon dioxide. In this reaction, the carbon monoxide is oxidized to carbon dioxide; hence the overall reaction is a reduction-oxidation reaction, or REDOX.


Read more: How to Extract Sulfur From Gypsum | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5700758_extract-sulfur-gypsum.html#ixzz14ROttuHg"

Yeah like all that was happening in the WTC.

Too funny.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Now is the source of sulfur...

...
Physicist Jeff Farrer "...More significantly probably, was the sulphur content that we found. In fact in one piece, I found a pore in the steel that had pure sulphur embedded in the pore, which I thought was very strange. That is when I really began looking for sulphur and finding it in great abundance in some of these phases.

There are possibilities for sulphur. Any number of possibilities. There is a version of thermite called thermate which has sulphur. And what the sulphur does, is sort of like salt on ice, it creates a eutectic temperature, so it lowers the melting point of steel and in that way the thermate can melt the steel more quickly than regular thermite.
...

...thermate, or is it...

"...in order for you to get sulphur out of the wall board you've got to heat up the gypsum board to high enough temperatures to dissociate the calcium from the sulphur. And then you would have free sulphur and then the sulphur could attack the steel and create these sulphide phases which go into the grain boundaries. You have got to get extremely high temperatures to dissociate those two things. And then certainly if you've got those temperatures, you've got the temperature to melt the steel. So this would require high temperatures. Certainly higher temperatures than you would get in normal office fires. This is impossible to achieve in a normal office fire. Even a jet-fuel fed office fire."

MM

...gypsum?

Could the Farrer/Jones/Harrit posse please make up their minds?

And where, by the way, is the proof for either gypsum-cracking high temps, or thermite of any kind? The infamous Bentham paper proves it wasn't in the red-grey chips.

 

[excaza]

MM, how did your grand scientists pull aluminum out with a magnet?

 

[Oystein]

"1 Roast the gypsum moderately in an oven, causing it to give off its "waters of hydration."

CaSO₄·2H₂O ' CaSO₄ + 2 H₂O'

The anhydrous calcium sulfate can then be processed further to obtain a separation or extraction of its sulfur content.
2
Heat the gypsum in a kiln to 600 to 900 degrees C in the presence of a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide to produce calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide. Using hydrogen, for example,

CaSO₄ + H₂ ' CaO + H₂O + SO₂

Thus the gypsum is converted to calcium oxide (lime) and sulfur dioxide, both very useful products. The sulfur dioxide can then be further processed in at least two commercially profitable ways.
...
Too funny.

MM

1. Are you saying it wasn't hot enough in parts of the rubble pile to roast / dehydrate gypsum?
2b. Are you saying temperatures everywhere in the pile were below 600°C?
2a. Are you saying there was no carbon monoxide in the trash heap fires, resulting from incomplete (oxygen starved) fires?
(You can stop after 2 - SO₂ will do)



I notice in passing:

Smearing reputable professionals, and making statements which you fail to back up with proof is truly pathetic.

I suggest you actually back up the bs you convince yourself is effective rebuttal.

MM

You smear a reputable forum member and making a handwave which you fail to back up with proof. Truly pathetic.

I suggest you acknowledge that Dave's "bs" is actually backed up.

 

[Oystein]

Dr. Jones is not the only scientist making the claim.

Physicist Jeff Farrer "We did find small amounts of aluminum in some of the specimens. More significantly probably, was the sulphur content that we found. In fact in one piece, I found a pore in the steel that had pure sulphur embedded in the pore, which I thought was very strange. That is when I really began looking for sulphur and finding it in great abundance in some of these phases.

There are possibilities for sulphur. Any number of possibilities. There is a version of thermite called thermate which has sulphur. And what the sulphur does, is sort of like salt on ice, it creates a eutectic temperature, so it lowers the melting point of steel and in that way the thermate can melt the steel more quickly than regular thermite. The finding of aluminum in these steel samples, or what used to be steel samples, also supports the theory that thermite was used to melt the steel. I would certainly love to get an official sample of the steel that we know came from a large piece of the steel.

Eventually Steve came to me and said; "we're finding these red/gray chips", and I didn't really think anything of it. They could have been anything.. The significant thing about the red/gray chips was not just the frequency that they were finding them, but also, they were attracted by a magnet which was his method for pulling out these spheres. So he was pulling out the spheres as well as the red/gray chips. And so he came to me and said; "were getting some interesting compositional analysis from the red layer of these red/gray chips, we're actually seeing peaks of aluminum ", as well as other things, but the aluminum peak was significant. He would find those aluminum peaks as well as iron peaks and oxygen peaks and various other peaks. But the aluminum, the iron, and the oxygen together were very significant because this is your composition for thermite. So that is when I started to get a little bit more interested and more interested in these red/gray chips. But I didn't really start working on these red/gray chips and Steve and Daniel were continuing to find things about the chips and they would bring that information to me and eventually I said, "okay."

So now what we have is from the composition of the red layer, we have an aluminum peak, we have a silicon peak, we have the iron and the oxygen as well as other peaks.

So we were looking at clean edges in order to get the composition and that is where we found the silicon, as well as the aluminum peaks and the iron and oxygen peaks in abundance and throughout all of the red layers in all of these chips.

Additional studies in the TEM (transmission electron microscope) found these were iron oxide phases. There were other particles present in the red layer. There were some plate-like particles and those again, were consistent throughout the red layer, throughout all of the samples that we found. Those appeared to have higher aluminum and silicon peaks in their compositional analysis and one of the significant things that we find in the red layer is the fact that these particles that we find in the red layer are..the fact that they are consistent. The fact that they are consistent in shape, in composition, and in size, leads me to believe that these are not naturally occurring materials."

MM

I re-formatted your post, to direct your attention to the fact that Farrer describes very vividly the Kaolinite (Al-silicate) they found. Along with Fe2O3, it is a common ingredient of orange-red paint.

 

[Miragememories]

Now is the source of sulfur...



...thermate, or is it...



...gypsum?

Could the Farrer/Jones/Harrit posse please make up their minds?

And where, by the way, is the proof for either gypsum-cracking high temps, or thermite of any kind? The infamous Bentham paper proves it wasn't in the red-grey chips.

OMG

You really don't read do you.

The gypsum board-sulphur source argument comes from the Official Conspiracy Theory believers.

MM

 

[Oystein]

OMG

You really don't read do you.

The gypsum board-sulphur source argument comes from the Official Conspiracy Theory believers.

MM

No. Not "the" "OCT believers". It has been mentioned by a few, and others have chimed in and said that gypsum is not a likely source, precisely because of such high temps.

Then again, chemical processes have been suggested by which gypsum could be cracked at lower temps - one idea was the presence of Cl-compounds from burning PVC. Another is reduction with CO.

There is no "official" version of this. Any speculation about gypsum, PVC, CO, or sulfur from rubber, UPSs, car fuels etc. have a very distinct advantage over the thermate speculation: We knpw with 100% certainty that all these sources of sulfur, and the chemicals to crack it, and the temperatures needed to reduce gypsum with CO, were in fact present. We do not know this about thermate.




ETA: It is very telling, and very much in character for MM or "truthers" in general, that MM has not replied to post 66. Why is that?

 

[grandmastershek]

What I love most about people like MM is that they still parade around Griffin's "OCT" equivocation fallacy. Just further demonstrates that they have no idea what logic is and don't really care.

Side question...

They claim its "nanothermite" so would they not pick up the aluminum via magnet being a mixture of Iron Oxide and Aluminum?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I gotta question for MM!

You say that thermite is explosive, ok. Here's my question to you:

If thermite is an explosive, then why didn't the skin on the Hindenberg blow off the steel skeleton or cut through the steel skeleton like you claim it did to the WTCs'?

 

[Miragememories]

No. Not "the" "OCT believers". It has been mentioned by a few, and others have chimed in and said that gypsum is not a likely source, precisely because of such high temps.

Then again, chemical processes have been suggested by which gypsum could be cracked at lower temps - one idea was the presence of Cl-compounds from burning PVC. Another is reduction with CO.

There is no "official" version of this. Any speculation about gypsum, PVC, CO, or sulfur from rubber, UPSs, car fuels etc. have a very distinct advantage over the thermate speculation: We knpw with 100% certainty that all these sources of sulfur, and the chemicals to crack it, and the temperatures needed to reduce gypsum with CO, were in fact present. We do not know this about thermate.

ETA: It is very telling, and very much in character for MM or "truthers" in general, that MM has not replied to post 66. Why is that?

The magnitude of impregnation and the fact that airborne dust samples obtained during the collapse show the same results, make your postulated sulphur sources a fantasy.

MM

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The magnitude of impregnation and the fact that airborne dust samples obtained during the collapse show the same results, make your postulated sulphur sources a fantasy.

MM

so what was the "magnitude of impregnation"? and why wouldn't airborne samples have similar amounts?.....they were all in the same fire/collapse

 

[Miragememories]

"No. Not "the" "OCT believers". It has been mentioned by a few, and others have chimed in and said that gypsum is not a likely source, precisely because of such high temps.

Then again, chemical processes have been suggested by which gypsum could be cracked at lower temps - one idea was the presence of Cl-compounds from burning PVC. Another is reduction with CO.

There is no "official" version of this. Any speculation about gypsum, PVC, CO, or sulfur from rubber, UPSs, car fuels etc. have a very distinct advantage over the thermate speculation: We knpw with 100% certainty that all these sources of sulfur, and the chemicals to crack it, and the temperatures needed to reduce gypsum with CO, were in fact present. We do not know this about thermate."

"The magnitude of impregnation and the fact that airborne dust samples obtained during the collapse show the same results, make your postulated sulphur sources a fantasy."

"so what was the "magnitude of impregnation"? and why wouldn't airborne samples have similar amounts?.....they were all in the same fire/collapse"

You do not address where the sulphur came from by any realistic means. Sulphur existing as part of some building material compound is simply not that easily made separate.

The dust samples were random, yet they all exhibited similar thermitic material characteristics, despite the time and location that each was obtained.

This argues a commonality in all the WTC dust.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"1. Are you saying it wasn't hot enough in parts of the rubble pile to roast / dehydrate gypsum?
2b. Are you saying temperatures everywhere in the pile were below 600°C?
2a. Are you saying there was no carbon monoxide in the trash heap fires, resulting from incomplete (oxygen starved) fires?
(You can stop after 2 - SO2 will do)"

I am saying that cut 'n paste handy-dandy Googled sulphur solution presented in that post was absurd in the thoughtless manner in which it was applied in explaining the availability of sulphur for thermitic materials at the WTC site.

"I notice in passing:"

"Farrer's an idiot. Decomposition of gypsum is well documented to occur below 1000ºC, way below the melting point of steel."

"Smearing reputable professionals, and making statements which you fail to back up with proof is truly pathetic.

I suggest you actually back up the bs you convince yourself is effective rebuttal."

"You smear a reputable forum member and making a handwave which you fail to back up with proof. Truly pathetic.

I suggest you acknowledge that Dave's "bs" is actually backed up."

I will only suggest that maybe he take a laxative if his "bs" is backed up.

Decomposition can mean a number of breakdown related things. It certainly does not prove a foundation for the separation of sulphur and calcium in wallboard.

Dr Farrer said; "... in order for you to get sulphur out of the wall board you've got to heat up the gypsum board to high enough temperatures to dissociate the calcium from the sulphur. And then you would have free sulphur and then the sulphur could attack the steel and create these sulphide phases which go into the grain boundaries. You have got to get extremely high temperatures to dissociate those two things...."

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
Dr Farrer said; "... in order for you to get sulphur out of the wall board you've got to heat up the gypsum board to high enough temperatures to dissociate the calcium from the sulphur. And then you would have free sulphur and then the sulphur could attack the steel and create these sulphide phases which go into the grain boundaries. You have got to get extremely high temperatures to dissociate those two things...."

MM

And it so because he says so, right? You believe him on assumed authority - it suffices to drop the "Dr" to the beginning of the paragraph, right? And because he says that it takes extremely high temps, that is the ONLY way to dissociate those to things - gypsum cannot possibly be susceptible to any chemicals, because, well, Dr Farrer - praised be his offspring to the 7th generation - says so.

Right, MM?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And it so because he says so, right? You believe him on assumed authority - it suffices to drop the "Dr" to the beginning of the paragraph, right? And because he says that it takes extremely high temps, that is the ONLY way to dissociate those to things - gypsum cannot possibly be susceptible to any chemicals, because, well, Dr Farrer - praised be his offspring to the 7th generation - says so.

Right, MM?

Let's also recall that back in 2006, Frank Greening came up with a possible way for sulfur dioxide to be liberated from the gypsum:

The question remaining, of course, is: could gypsum wallboard, in regions of the WTC buildings that were exposed to fires, have released a significant amount of sulfur as SO₂?

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​

Since the 1980s there been renewed interest in these reactions because of their role in the removal of SO₂ from combustion gases by contact with lime (CaO) in so-called flue gas desufurisation processes, (See, for example /9/ and references contained therein.). As a consequence, the chemistry of calcium sulfate reduction has been investigated over a wide range of conditions. Thus, for example, R. Kuusik and co- workers (See Ref/10/), have reported details of the 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 100^oC.

ETA: Whoops! Forgot the link. http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

 

[Miragememories]

And it so because he says so, right? You believe him on assumed authority - it suffices to drop the "Dr" to the beginning of the paragraph, right? And because he says that it takes extremely high temps, that is the ONLY way to dissociate those to things - gypsum cannot possibly be susceptible to any chemicals, because, well, Dr Farrer - praised be his offspring to the 7th generation - says so.

Right, MM?

Are you speaking from position of equal academic authority?

I may not have a PhD, but I am well aware of the educational requirements that need to be satisfied in order to obtain one.

Your desperate attempts to rationalize the release of sulphur from wallboard shows a willingness to accept improbabilities even greater than those you feel are used to justify the 9/11 truth Movement.

Too funny.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Let's also recall that back in 2006, Frank Greening came up with a possible way for sulfur dioxide to be liberated from the gypsum:

​

ETA: Whoops! Forgot the link. http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

SO2 is not the same as S.

So you agree with Frank Greening when he says something that you believe supports your pov.

In that paper Frank concedes that his postulations have not been verified.

Does this mean you now also accept Frank's views that there was insufficient fuel to satisfy the NIST's WTC 7 heat calculations and that the estimates of descent speed for column 79 were too great given the number of intact floor systems above floor 14?

MM

 

[W.D.Clinger]

And it so because he says so, right? You believe him on assumed authority - it suffices to drop the "Dr" to the beginning of the paragraph, right? And because he says that it takes extremely high temps, that is the ONLY way to dissociate those to things - gypsum cannot possibly be susceptible to any chemicals, because, well, Dr Farrer - praised be his offspring to the 7th generation - says so.

Right, MM?

Are you speaking from position of equal academic authority?

Is that an attempt to personalize the argument?

I can't speak for Oystein, but I'll cop to not being a lab manager.

I may not have a PhD, but I am well aware of the educational requirements that need to be satisfied in order to obtain one.

Too funny.

MM