It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is a

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The original FEMA report of the WTC disaster, Appendix C, the Limited Metallurgical Examination, states that two pieces of steel were studied because of severe and unusual erosion patterns.

www.house.gov...

I'm wondering if someone could help explain what they're saying here. Is the hot corrosion and abnormal presence of sulfur evidence of anything (scientifically speaking)?

And if anyone has heard anything more about their statement that:

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown...A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed..."

Any help to understand this more would be greatly appreciated, and appologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere.

Thanks!

[edit on 7-9-2006 by cryingindian]




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The above would not be added to the original thread header for some reason.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
It is speculated by some (ST911, Steven Jones) that the sulfidation could have been caused by Thermate, which is Thermite with S added as a catalyst to make it burn hotter and faster.

Check page 80-84 of this document... worldtradecentertruth.com...

If you search this site for thermate or sulfidation yuo should find what you are looking for. IF not, post again and I will help you.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
A quote from Prof. Jones' paper:


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.

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.

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. 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


Government sympathizers often point to the gypsum as a source of sulfur, but as Prof. Jones points out, temperatures above and beyond those possible by sooty hydrocarbon fires are required for a reaction that could result in what was found on columns in the WTC debris.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

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.


Does Jones present any evidence, data, experimental results, etc to support this claim?

Sulfur dioxide is a common byproduct of combustion of any material containing sulfur, not just gypsum, but including many types of plastics, rubbers, batteries, etc.

If you are going to claim that the steel was melted, the you have to accept that the sulfur dioxide from burning building materials would have been present in the debris pile.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Howard, three questions, please...

1) Can you explain in layman's terms what is meant by "Solid State Diffusion Mechanism"?

2) Does Gypsum burn, and, if so, at what temperature does it actually oxidize?

3) Who would FEMA be "suggesting further research" to...Steven Jones?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryingindian
Howard, three questions, please...


I'll try this.


1) Can you explain in layman's terms what is meant by "Solid State Diffusion Mechanism"?


Not sure.


2) Does Gypsum burn, and, if so, at what temperature does it actually oxidize?


Gypsum is actually a fire RETARDANT...meaning no, it doesn't burn until all of it's water is spent and even then it turns into.....plaster of paris. Does plaster of paris burn? Not sure but I don't think so.


3) Who would FEMA be "suggesting further research" to...Steven Jones?


Very good question as I haven't heard any of the other investigations (NIST, 9/11 commission, Silverstein) touch this subject....why?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If you are going to claim that the steel was melted, the you have to accept that the sulfur dioxide from burning building materials would have been present in the debris pile.


I'll accept this as a possibility if you accept that steel was indeed melted. Either way, it's necessitated by your argument here, so go for it man.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Yeah, Howard has finally conceded that there was molten steel at ground zero!!!!!
Do you people actually realize how important this is? It's like NIST claiming that explosions brought the towers down.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I never said that here wasn’t any molten steel, just that there was no verifiable evidence of it.

Furthermore, it is not impossible that the fires that burned in the rubble pile for three weeks could reach temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Certainly the mix of materials and elements were hot enough and reactive enough to cause the hot corrosion effects that have been found.


There was enough crap burning in the pile for weeks that to try to prove anything from the resulting debris is pointless.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Now all you have to do, HowardRoark, is (a) realize that that bright orange crap coming out of WTC2 wasn't aluminum, because aluminum doesn't look anything like that at anywhere near those temperatures and (b) go back and look through those posts by WCIP and etc. detailing why a theoretical Ground Zero super-furnace would have not been possible without a little help from something like an incendiary.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now all you have to do, HowardRoark, is (a) realize that that bright orange crap coming out of WTC2 wasn't aluminum, because aluminum doesn't look anything like that at anywhere near those temperatures and


Then how come it turned silver again after it fell a few floors?



(b) go back and look through those posts by WCIP and etc. detailing why a theoretical Ground Zero super-furnace would have not been possible without a little help from something like an incendiary.


Sorry, but it was entirely possible for the burning debris to reach extremely high temperatures.

Especially since the pile burned for weeks. That is the key. Time. Time for the heat to build up.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Then how come it turned silver again after it fell a few floors?




We appear to disagree on the definition of "silver".


I'll let your opinions on GZ go until you've developed a more precise argument to suggest a natural furnace was possible.


[edit: resized image]
Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
[
Then how come it turned silver again after it fell a few floors?


Total conjecture because the videos are too pixilated to verify that it did indead turn back to silver...you say silver, I say bright orange...one of us must be colour blind.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join