A Review of the Jones 'Paper' Part 2

Reason Number 2 that Jones presents in support of his claims.

2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel



One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:

While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

ANALYSIS 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 ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)

How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are indeed remarkable.

Here is where Jones gets himself in trouble again. Fire temperatures in excess of 1000°C are fairly common in structure fires.

For instance in this test:

Peak temperatures in the living area of the fire flat reached approximately 1000°C and remained at this level until the test was stopped at 64 minutes having reached one of the planned termination criteria.

other data

Furthermore, the contention that it is difficult to produce temperatures above 650°C is based on the misapplication of standardized, laboratory conditions to real world situations.

Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.

No answer is given, because the scientists that wrote the reports are not given to speculation based on belief in a particular conspiracy theory. but apparently professor Jones has no inhibitions in that regard as we shall see.

Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military (see
www.dodtechmatch.com...). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is allowed in the discussion. Note that other oxidizers (like KMnO4) and metals (like titanium and silicon) are commonly used in thermite analogs.

Sulfur is also a common component in many building materials. Gypsum from wallboard contains sulfur. Prolonged exposure to high temperatures will cause the drywall to decompose.

Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report. It is quite possible that more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in some combination. While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic.

Care to support that claim with some hard data? What proof is offered to support the contention that gypsum can not decompose to sulfur dioxide gas upon prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures? Furthermore, gypsum isn't the only source of sulfur in ground zero, you also have the diesel fuel in the storage tanks, plastics, and other miscellaneous materials.

The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation.

The pieces of steel with the sulfidation attack (also known as "hot corrosion") were recovered after they had been in the hot debris pile for several weeks after 9/11. The evidence is of hot corrosion does not compelling of anything other then the fact that these pieces of steel were subjected to prolonged exposure to high temperatures and corrosive gasses from the burning debris.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Here is where Jones gets himself in trouble again. Fire temperatures in excess of 1000°C are fairly common in structure fires.

Why do you keep saying this without supporting it?

Fires CAN reach 1000 C, for brief periods during a flashover and when in an enclosed space where heat cannot escape.

Saying this is "fairly common", or suggesting it would have happen at the WTC, is dishonest at best.

Sulfur is also a common component in many building materials.

Prove that the right conditions were there for the chemical reactions you're suggesting. You don't just throw a bunch of stuff in a pile and stick a hydrocarbon fire to it.

This is another one of those arguments that are old here on ATS. You aren't traversing any new "debunking" territory.

Just like the other threads in your new spam series.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Here is where Jones gets himself in trouble again. Fire temperatures in excess of 1000°C are fairly common in structure fires.

Why do you keep saying this without supporting it?

Fires CAN reach 1000 C, for brief periods during a flashover and when in an enclosed space where heat cannot escape.

Saying this is "fairly common", or suggesting it would have happen at the WTC, is dishonest at best.

Sulfur is also a common component in many building materials.

Prove that the right conditions were there for the chemical reactions you're suggesting. You don't just throw a bunch of stuff in a pile and stick a hydrocarbon fire to it.

This is another one of those arguments that are old here on ATS. You aren't traversing any new "debunking" territory.

Just like the other threads in your new spam series.

At best??? I watched Half Baked once too.Ijust understand it is fiction.As for your "belief".The fires were polycarbon as well real hot in an instant.That is your black smoke,I mean no oxygen fire!!LOL LOL LOL!! As far as sulfer,ther are many reasons for it to appear.If it was thermite,or mate(feel like doing the Hokey Pokey here,and I don't know why!)it would show up everywhere!I mean everywhere,not kidd'en kid!