WTC - Sulfur?

Ahnimus

I just watched this video of the clean-up at ground zero
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8354172062803147963&q=building+on+ground+zero

An interesting thing I noted was that the clean-up crew actually burned and cut the steel in order to move it. That could be a source for sulfur, does anyone know if welding or whatever leaves sulfur traces?

I thought this might be a source of molten metal aswell, at least in some cases. Though I doubt there would be significant quantity of molten metal.

I'm suprised NIST didn't include this in their report.

Rushlimbo

The sulfur is leftover from the visit by Bush at groundzero. He is the devil, just like Chavez says.

Ahnimus

Hah, well, I thought I had a reasonable answer.

I remembered that the device they used in the video to cut the steel was called a thermal lance. But then I found a document that read "..researcher Michael Berges interviewed several of the clean-up crew and oxy-acetalyne torches were used not thermite..."

Well ok, that's not a very good source. Thermal lances can contain magnesium which would explain that anyway. But then I found this on CDC.gov "...another worker was overexposed to carbon monoxide (CO) while cutting metal beams with an oxyacetylene torch or a gasoline-powered saw..."url=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5121a1.htm]Citation[/url

oxyacetalyene torches use acetylene which has a residue of soot not magnesium or sulfur.

69charger

What about the million of tons of contents in the world's largest office buildings that were on fire? Perhaps that may have contributed a little to the traces of sulfur found in the rubble?

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that might have had something to do with it.

PaperPlates

69charger wrote:

What about the million of tons of contents in the world's largest office buildings that were on fire? Perhaps that may have contributed a little to the traces of sulfur found in the rubble?

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that might have had something to do with it.

You're crazy.

sonicreducer

69charger wrote:

What about the million of tons of contents in the world's largest office buildings that were on fire? Perhaps that may have contributed a little to the traces of sulfur found in the rubble?

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that might have had something to do with it.

or it could have been from thermate. call me crazy, but none of the 'official' explanations had a solid answer either,...

hippiemom

Rushlimbo wrote:

The sulfur is leftover from the visit by Bush at groundzero. He is the devil, just like Chavez says.

69charger

sonicreducer wrote:

or it could have been from thermate. call me crazy, but none of the 'official' explanations had a solid answer either,...

You've read the enitre NIST report or have you just watched 'Loose Change' a few times.

BTW, you are crazy

DPrival78

69charger wrote:

You've read the enitre NIST report or have you just watched 'Loose Change' a few times.

NIST is a government agency - not an independent entity or person. steven jones, for example, is, and based on reasearch, tests done on some of the steel, and 20 years worth of knowledge as a physicist, claims there is strong evidence that thermate was indeed used.

sonicreducer

69charger wrote:

You've read the enitre NIST report or have you just watched 'Loose Change' a few times.

BTW, you are crazy

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST DID NOT test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

taken from the FAQ page,...


so, NIST uses an educated guess to rule out thermate being used because it was unlikely.

no, i have not read the entire report.

i don't think that im crazy, but you have every right to think that i am.

Ahnimus

sonicreducer wrote:

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST DID NOT test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

taken from the FAQ page,...


so, NIST uses an educated guess to rule out thermate being used because it was unlikely.

no, i have not read the entire report.

i don't think that im crazy, but you have every right to think that i am.

I have read it. They actually state sulfur was found in the steel and state "No source for the sulfur could be identified" they later suggest "futher investigation into the source of the sulfur is required" but no further investigation was performed.

I've probably posted this on these forums 3 dozen fucking times. With links to the specific documents, and yet it's constantly overlooked.

DPrival78

Ahnimus wrote:

I have read it. They actually state sulfur was found in the steel and state "No source for the sulfur could be identified" they later suggest "futher investigation into the source of the sulfur is required" but no further investigation was performed.

I've probably posted this on these forums 3 dozen fucking times. With links to the specific documents, and yet it's constantly overlooked.

maybe NIST should give steven jones a call. he did do the further investigation they say is required.

69charger

DPrival78 wrote:

NIST is a government agency - not an independent entity or person. steven jones, for example, is, and based on reasearch, tests done on some of the steel, and 20 years worth of knowledge as a physicist, claims there is strong evidence that thermate was indeed used.

He tested steel with absolutely no proof of chain of evidence. Who knows where that steel was or what it may or may not have been exposed to since it left the scene of the collapse. How can he come to a scientific conclusion based on that?

DPrival78

69charger wrote:

He tested steel with absolutely no proof of chain of evidence. Who knows where that steel was or what it may or may not have been exposed to since it left the scene of the collapse. How can he come to a scientific conclusion based on that?

ok fair point, but still.. if NIST said themselves that further study needs to be done in order to discover the reason for the mysterious presence of sulfur, and then they just don't do that research.. what does that say? if they just did the research they claimed needed to be done, they could have proven that the sulfur had nothing to do with thermate - if that was the case. why didn't they do that? jones did what they didn't do, the best way he could.

Ahnimus

DPrival78 wrote:

ok fair point, but still.. if NIST said themselves that further study needs to be done in order to discover the reason for the mysterious presence of sulfur, and then they just don't do that research.. what does that say? if they just did the research they claimed needed to be done, they could have proven that the sulfur had nothing to do with thermate - if that was the case. why didn't they do that? jones did what they didn't do, the best way he could.

Here I found the links again with my original post:

ahnimus wrote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

I couldn't figure out a way to copy all the texts I wanted to, I had to manually type this out of the NIST report, but it goes on and on about sulfur eating away at the steal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NIST
However, the failure was not a material-related issue, as a concerted effort was made to deoxidize the steel to a relatively high degree for plates with Fy of 55 ksi or greater (NIST NCSTAR 1-2E). This was noted by the elevated levels of silicon and aluminum, with significantly low levels of phosphorous and sulfur.

The wasting of the web plates most likely resulted from a high temperature, corrosion process that was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur. While not enough evidence was available to indicate whether corrosion occurred through gaseous, liquid or solid attack (in addition to varied conditions possible in the rubble pile and lack of information associated with the recovery of this column at the WTC site), it was likely that the degradation process was most likely a complex combination of these three. As sulfur was not readily available in large amounts in the steel (0.02 weight percent max), an external source must have supplied this specie (e.g., plastic, rubber). Viewing the column, this external source was in all probability burning directly on top of the outer web while the column lay in a prone position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahnimus
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

I couldn't figure out a way to copy all the texts I wanted to, I had to manually type this out of the NIST report, but it goes on and on about sulfur eating away at the steal.


Further on the very last line of page 232 it reads "No source for the sulfur was identified."

DPrival78

Ahnimus wrote:

Further on the very last line of page 232 it reads "No source for the sulfur was identified."

i love that. 'no source for the sulfur, but we won't bother investigating that.. we're sure it's nothing.. move along.'

yea, nothing suspicious about that..

Ahnimus

DPrival78 wrote:

i love that. 'no source for the sulfur, but we won't bother investigating that.. we're sure it's nothing.. move along.'

yea, nothing suspicious about that..

What gets me is that they say it could be from plastic or rubber, but they also say the steel failed because of it, and they don't investigate what the source of the sulfur was.

"the failure was not a material-related issue, as a concerted effort was made to deoxidize the steel to a relatively high degree for plates with Fy of 55 ksi or greater (NIST NCSTAR 1-2E). This was noted by the elevated levels of silicon and aluminum, with significantly low levels of phosphorous and sulfur."

So the steel was good in other words, the steel in general didn't have high levels of phosphorous or sulfur, and they later state the sulfur was about 0.02 weight percent max

"As sulfur was not readily available in large amounts in the steel (0.02 weight percent max), "

So basically the steel conformed to industry standards, but...

"The wasting of the web plates most likely resulted from a high temperature, corrosion process that was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur."

and?

"Viewing the column, this external source was in all probability burning directly on top of the outer web while the column lay in a prone position."

Ok, so the sulfur caused the wasting of the web plates to be exacerbated, but the sulfur attacked the steel while it was laying prone? Like after the collapse?

Still...

"No source for the sulfur was identified."

So basically, they don't know what the fuck happened. But sulfur had something to do with it.

69charger

DPrival78 wrote:

ok fair point, but still.. if NIST said themselves that further study needs to be done in order to discover the reason for the mysterious presence of sulfur, and then they just don't do that research.. what does that say? if they just did the research they claimed needed to be done, they could have proven that the sulfur had nothing to do with thermate - if that was the case. why didn't they do that? jones did what they didn't do, the best way he could.

They didn't deem it necessary for the same reason a cop would ask why a dead drunk driver with empty bottles of booze in his car is wearing pink panites. It's a moot point.

It's obvious what caused the collapse and the traces of sulfur are a moot point.

DPrival78

69charger wrote:

They didn't deem it necessary for the same reason a cop would ask why a dead drunk driver with empty bottles of booze in his car is wearing pink panites. It's a moot point.

It's obvious what caused the collapse and the traces of sulfur are a moot point.

i refer you to the post above yours by ahnimus where he quotes NIST as saying that sulfur was present and played a role in the failing of the steel. yet, they have no idea why it was there.
the presence of sulfur doesn't seem that moot to NIST, but for whatever reason, they don't bother looking further into where it came from.