Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

[Jazzy]

Do you have an argument of why it would matter? The fact is, no paint has been matched. Period.

Paint alters its distribution as it pulls down and hardens. Its composition may well stratify out into layers. It wouldn't be unusual for a scraping of old hardened paint to differ from its own specification.

That sounds an awful lot like you're trying to say the WPI steel is not significant and doesn't represent anything noteworthy.

It depends on your point of view, I think.

Such corrosion was the bane of steam engine designers for perhaps two hundred years.
.

 

[Jay Howard]

The acronyms are only helpful if you're trying to make sense of things. Personally, I couldn't care less what you call these theories, the point is that they are very different answers to the same problems, and they should be made distinct and easily identifiable. Don't you agree?

I'm attempting to clarify what is being said and show how one theory is demonstrably better than others or not. Some people prefer obfuscation to clarity. That's only conducive to the goal of keeping people confused. Why? Lots of reasons I'm sure. Lots of emotional baiting going on, (not you, Mick; Mike is right that you are patient to have this discussion). Trying to elicit emotional responses serves best the purpose of derailing a real conversation as well. Why? Lots of reasons, I'm sure.

Ockham's Razor is a guideline, but it is inadequate by itself to sift all the theoretical wheat from the chaff. Sometimes answers to questions are downright complex and there's no way around it. Like the Cataline Conspiracy, for instance. It's tough to get your head around it with so many moving parts. Ockham does little good to illuminate the total picture. Parsimony works best at a discrete level: Does it make more sense that someone painted the interior with harmless paint that just happens to catch on fire like a fuse at a lower temp than a bic lighter, or that this stuff is designed to do that and put there for that reason? Because it can't be both.

Either the stuff was designed to ignite at a relatively low temp and peak at about 2200C, or someone who owns a paint company is in really deep doo doo. What does Ockham's razor say about that? Seriously.

Also, this paint would cost literally thousands of dollars per gallon. Why does paint have nano-particular iron oxide and nano-particular aluminum? These particles were probably not made in a paint factory in 2001. It makes much more sense that this stuff is an intentional incendiary/explosive rather than an accidentally dangerous paint because it would be like selling a bucket of rusty razors with a prize at the bottom.

 

[Jazzy]

Some people prefer obfuscation to clarity. That's only conducive to the goal of keeping people confused. Why? Lots of reasons I'm sure. Lots of emotional baiting going on.

I can understand why you feel emotional.

Does it make more sense that someone painted the interior with harmless paint that just happens to catch on fire like a fuse at a lower temp than a bic lighter. Because it can't be both.

Well - it happens to catch fire if you place a forty-years-old scraping of it in a crucible and heat it from beneath. It would only do so otherwise if you heated the beam it was painted on to near red heat. When it did finally react you wouldn't think it at all extraordinary, would you?

Either the stuff was designed to ignite at a relatively low temp and peak at about 2200C, or someone who owns a paint company is in really deep doo doo. What does Ockham's razor say about that? Seriously.

I don't think you are serious enough. Too much emotion, perhaps.

Also, this paint would cost literally thousands of dollars per gallon. Why does paint have nano-particular iron oxide and nano-particular aluminum?

Paint manufacturers having been producing "nano particles" and sieving them for perhaps thousands of years. You just put coarser materials between grindstones and work them till they are finer. Then you use finer stones. Etc.

Atomic aluminum you will find in KAOLIN, an aluminosilicate clay. But you would have to heat it hotter than the crucible would allow to get at it.

These particles were probably not made in a paint factory in 2001.

True. They were made in a paint factory in perhaps 1965.

It makes much more sense that this stuff is an intentional incendiary/explosive rather than an accidentally dangerous paint because it would be like selling a bucket of rusty razors with a prize at the bottom.

Only if you are determined to find an explosive and ignore the fact that paint manufacturers grind red oxide to the same size particles as the ones you wish to find.

The Hindenburg tragedy has already demonstrated that that particular primer burnt very strenuously in support of the burning hydrogen.
.

 

[Mick West]

Either the stuff was designed to ignite at a relatively low temp and peak at about 2200C, or someone who owns a paint company is in really deep doo doo. What does Ockham's razor say about that? Seriously.

Occam would say you are presenting a false choice.

What is our evidence of low temp ignition? It's a DSC exothermic peak at 430°C when heated in oxygen. The sensible thing would be to find what kinds of material that have a similar exothermic peak when tested in oxygen. Even more sensible would be to repeat the test in nitrogen.

Instead what they do is they compare it against some thermitic material that was tested in nitrogen.

 

[Jay Howard]

Occam would say you are presenting a false choice.

If that's a false dichotomy, what's the other option? The ignition point is not in question. The by-products are not in question. What is the Third Thing you propose to ligitimize your claim that these are not the only 2 options? You claim it's paint, I claim it's much more dangerous than paint. Tertium quid?

What is our evidence of low temp ignition? It's a DSC exothermic peak at 430°C when heated in oxygen. The sensible thing would be to find what kinds of material that have a similar exothermic peak when tested in oxygen. Even more sensible would be to repeat the test in nitrogen.

Why would a paint company care if it ignited in nitrogen? And what difference does that test make to the actual conditions this substance existed in as applied? You don't think it's thermitic? Fine. It doesn't change the ignition temp nor the by-products. The real question, from your (Misidentified Paint Chips) theory is what paint does this? That should be the number one question from your perspective.

 

[Mick West]

They should have tested it in nitrogen. That's the only way the test has any significance. Lots of things burn in oxygen.

Then they compared it with something that was burnt in nitrogen. So a meaningless comparison.

 

[Jay Howard]

They should have tested it in nitrogen. That's the only way the test has any significance. Lots of things burn in oxygen.

As a matter of confirming the "thermitic" nature of the material, they should try to heat it in an inert atmosphere. I agree. But regardless, this substance has strangely energetic properties in ambient air. Just like the air in the towers.

Then they compared it with something that was burnt in nitrogen. So a meaningless comparison.

Fair enough. I'm all for testing.

 

[Mick West]

As a matter of confirming the "thermitic" nature of the material, they should try to heat it in an inert atmosphere. I agree. But regardless, this substance has strangely energetic properties in ambient air.

Strange, compared to what? Can you show a bunch of DSC curves for a variety of substances? Paint?

Just like the air in the towers.

Sounds like another topic. Or perhaps you need to watch Backdraft

 

[Jay Howard]

Strange, compared to what? Can you show a bunch of DSC curves for a variety of substances? Paint?

Show me some paint that, when burned creates iron microspheres and you might have a case to make.

Sounds like another topic. Or perhaps you need to watch Backdraft

Or perhaps it's irrelevant if high-tech accelerant is all over the steel structure.


edit: formatting

 

[Jay Howard]

Paint alters its distribution as it pulls down and hardens. Its composition may well stratify out into layers. It wouldn't be unusual for a scraping of old hardened paint to differ from its own specification.

Ok, "Jazzy," that sounds real scientficky. Do you have any real science to back that up? Harrit gets the specs from the paint used in the WTC towers from the NIST report. The baked, final product is basically a thin layer of ceramic. Show me some ceramic that, when heated to 500C produces iron microspheres and then we have something significant to discuss. Until then, you have no leg to stand on.

It depends on your point of view, I think.

Such corrosion was the bane of steam engine designers for perhaps two hundred years.
.

Like I said, it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to deny the significance of steel that has "swiss cheese" holes in it created from a "liquid eutectic" in which there is some unaccounted-for source of elemental sulfur. It's not from the wallboard. It's not from diesel. It's unaccounted for in the official version. It is beyond the scope of the official explanation to make sense of. So naturally, the response is to deny the significance of it. I get that theories have egos attached, but what do you have riding on this? I mean, the evidence is clearly in favor of this stuff being a high-tech incendiary. It makes sense from a microscopic to a macroscopic perspective and also from an economic standpoint. It is the most powerful theory out there from any comprehensive look at the evidence. No surprise you're trying to reduce the significance of the WPI steel.

But why?

 

[Jazzy]

Ok, "Jazzy," that sounds real scientficky.

There's a missing "i" in your adjective.

Do you have any real science to back that up?

Explain what you mean. Why should I back that up?

Harrit gets the specs from the paint used in the WTC towers from the NIST report.

There you have it.

The baked, final product is basically a thin layer of ceramic. Show me some ceramic that, when heated to 500C produces iron microspheres and then we have something significant to discuss. Until then, you have no leg to stand on.

"Baked"? "Ceramic"? Mythic?

My legs are my best feature, and stand very well.

Like I said, it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to deny the significance of steel that has "swiss cheese" holes in it created from a "liquid eutectic" in which there is some unaccounted-for source of elemental sulfur.

Is there? I thought rust was a good explanation. And there were any amount of trace ions to be found when a couple of hundred acre-sized offices got crushed, then washed. And trace ions (and heat) are all one needs for accelerated rusting.

It doesn't have to be sulfur, except for the eutectic part. The carbonate ion will pass muster for the dissolution, but between you and me, I believe it was the presence of a wide variety of ions that cleared the path for rapid ionic exchange.

It's not from the wallboard. It's not from diesel. It's unaccounted for in the official version. It is beyond the scope of the official explanation to make sense of.

Well that should motivate you. What might demotivate you a little is that calcium sulfate isn't completely insoluble. So wet wallboard is "on" for supplying trace sulfate ions. Tsk.

So naturally, the response is to deny the significance of it. I get that theories have egos attached, but what do you have riding on this? I mean, the evidence is clearly in favor of this stuff being a high-tech incendiary. It makes sense from a microscopic to a macroscopic perspective and also from an economic standpoint. It is the most powerful theory out there from any comprehensive look at the evidence. No surprise you're trying to reduce the significance of the WPI steel. But why?

Again, your cart is before your horse. It is you that has to establish significance. I see none.

 

[Jay Howard]

There's a missing "i" in your adjective.


Explain what you mean. Why should I back that up?


There you have it.


"Baked"? "Ceramic"? Mythic?

My legs are my best feature, and stand very well.


Is there? I thought rust was a good explanation. And there were any amount of trace ions to be found when a couple of hundred acre-sized offices got crushed, then washed. And trace ions (and heat) are all one needs for accelerated rusting.

It doesn't have to be sulfur, except for the eutectic part. The carbonate ion will pass muster for the dissolution, but between you and me, I believe it was the presence of a wide variety of ions that cleared the path for rapid ionic exchange.


Well that should motivate you. What might demotivate you a little is that calcium sulfate isn't completely insoluble. So wet wallboard is "on" for supplying trace sulfate ions. Tsk.


Again, your cart is before your horse. It is you that has to establish significance. I see none.

So again, you post a bunch of nonsense and wash your hands of it. The significance of elemental sulfur in the "liquid eutectic" is simply that the official theory has no source for it. They say as much. If you can show a test (which I know you cannot, but please feel free to prove me wrong) that shows how the sulfur can become detached from the calcium in the gypsum, then we have something to discuss. Until then, there is no explanation for it in the official theory. Period.

 

[Mick West]

If the best explanation for the WPI steel is that it was painted with nano-thermite, then why did they they only paint this one bit? Did the rest of the nano-thermite fail to go off, which is why there's apparently several tons of it in the dust?

 

[Jazzy]

So again, you post a bunch of nonsense and wash your hands of it.

Classify what I write as nonsense and take no intellectual action if you wish.

The significance of elemental sulfur in the "liquid eutectic" is simply that the official theory has no source for it.

There is no significance et all. It was beyond their brief, anyway.

They say as much. If you can show a test (which I know you cannot, but please feel free to prove me wrong) that shows how the sulfur can become detached from the calcium in the gypsum, then we have something to discuss.

I have already told you. Feel free to re-read what I have written. You have already been proved wrong. If you'd care to research the solubility of calcium sulfate, be my guest.

Then you could consider how sulfate ions when in contact with iron, can shed their oxygen atoms and migrate through the inter-crystalline boundaries of hot steel, especially when in an atmosphere of hot steam.

Then you could perhaps consider rusting, and the manner by which ions are recycled, becoming "catalysts" for further action.

And finally you could consider time.

Until then, there is no explanation for it in the official theory. Period.

I repeat: It was beyond their brief, anyway. They wouldn't have been dealing with it. It wasn't within their scope.

 

[Jay Howard]

If the best explanation for the WPI steel is that it was painted with nano-thermite, then why did they they only paint this one bit? Did the rest of the nano-thermite fail to go off, which is why there's apparently several tons of it in the dust?

I'm not sure if the ENC theory is the best explanation, but it's better than simply ignoring the WPI steel altogether. Would you say a theory that ignores evidence is better than a theory that attempts to explain evidence?

 

[Mick West]

I'm not sure if the ENC theory is the best explanation, but it's better than simply ignoring the WPI steel altogether. Would you say a theory that ignores evidence is better than a theory that attempts to explain evidence?

You can always reduce the number of unexplained things in a theory by introducing new unknown things. Like I could say that God decided to quickly rust that bit of steel. Is that then a better theory than saying I don't know why the steel ended up like that?

Explaining away the steel by saying it was painted with nano-thermite certainly explains why the steel ended up like that. But then you've just added a vast new number of unknowns. You've introduced more unexplained things, not reduced them.

Simply saying "some unknown chemical reaction in the post collapse fires could account for the state of that steel" is vastly simpler than "an unknown form of nano thermite was applied by unknown people at unknown times in unknown quantities to that bit of steel for unknown reasons, and then ignited by unknown methods, and possibly accounts for the state of the steel via an unknown mechanism"

 

[MikeC]

In response to [quoet]The significance of elemental sulfur in the "liquid eutectic" is simply that the official theory has no source for it.[/quote]

There is no significance et all. It was beyond their brief, anyway.

It was not addressed in the NIST report - but it no secret where sulphur could have come from in the Twin Towers!

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
In this report it is shown that sulfur, especially in its most common oxidized form, SO2, had many

potential emission sources in the WTC prior to 9-11. These sources have been quantified and rated
according to their potential to release SO2 under conditions prevailing in buildings 1, 2 & 7 during and

after 9-11.
It is concluded that sulfur emissions from the combustion of typical live load materials such as furniture,
paper, plastics, textiles, etc, were relatively small compared to sulfur emissions from more
unconventional sources, including those involving diesel fuel for emergency power generation in WTC 7
and CaSO4 in gypsum wallboard used in WTC 1 & 2. Sulfur emissions from thermite/thermate are shown

to be quite small compared to these sources.

Content from External Source

Note that the amount of sulphur actually available is another debunk of thermite/thermite!

 

[Jazzy]

And there's this:

Molten Aluminum Reactions

The presence of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers during 9-11 was first documented by FEMA /1/. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and gypsum, known to be present in large quantities of wallboard used at the WTC, are noted in /13/. While it is well known that molten aluminum is very reactive to oxides, it is also reactive to sulfates. Hence consideration should be given to the possible role of molten aluminum in producing SO2 through the reaction:

3CaSO4 + 2Al > 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2

This reaction only occurs between molten aluminum and finely divided CaSO4 and therefore requires crushed wallboard material exposed to sustained temperatures of at least 550 deg C.

The presence of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers has been discussed in /13/, where it was shown that the airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into WTC 1 & 2 on 9-11 represented a source of about 10,000 kg of molten aluminum. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and materials present on the Twin Towers such as pulverized concrete and gypsum are noted in /13/.

If we assume that the molten aluminum reacted with equal efficacy with these materials, we estimate that up to 1000 kg of aluminum may have reacted with CaSO4. The stoichiometry of this reaction then implies that as much as 3500 kg of SO2 could have been released in WTC 1 & 2 by reactions between CaSO4 and molten aluminum.

Content from External Source

I shouldn't have to point out that three and a half tons of dilute sulfuric acid being washed past thousands of tons of torn and twisted steel is bound to form pools. It would be very surprising not to find instances of well-corroded steelwork.

 

[Jay Howard]

You can always reduce the number of unexplained things in a theory by introducing new unknown things. Like I could say that God decided to quickly rust that bit of steel. Is that then a better theory than saying I don't know why the steel ended up like that?

No, you misunderstand; both of those answers have the same explanatory power--none.

Explaining away the steel by saying it was painted with nano-thermite certainly explains why the steel ended up like that. But then you've just added a vast new number of unknowns. You've introduced more unexplained things, not reduced them.

Well I hate to break it to you, but sometimes answers are complicated. Molding the evidence to fit a theory because you like nice, neat solutions to problems does a massive injustice, not only to the facts of the situation but the lives involved. If getting closer to an answer of what caused the high-temp phenomena documented so far means that we have to throw out the tidy theory(ies) we have, then so be it.

Simply saying "some unknown chemical reaction in the post collapse fires could account for the state of that steel" is vastly simpler than "an unknown form of nano thermite was applied by unknown people at unknown times in unknown quantities to that bit of steel for unknown reasons, and then ignited by unknown methods, and possibly accounts for the state of the steel via an unknown mechanism"

As stated before, "simpler" is not always "better." And, that's a poor representation of what's being proposed. I don't know if that steel was affected by the same ENC studied by the Harrit team or if it was affected by some other compound. The poignant presence of elemental S in the grain boundary of the steel makes me think it was another compound. But if you accept the fact that there are experimental, explosive residues in the WTC dust, that opens the possibilities for other kinds of explosives or incendiaries to have been used.

There is time for speculation when we've made sense of the existing evidence. If the evidence points to some underhanded business, then so be it.

What I know for sure is that the conclusions of the OCT are incorrect and hence, incomplete. Too many pieces of evidence point to extremely high temps in the towers--much higher than all the "official" fuel sources can account for. The ENC theory is a step in the right direction, but again, it is incomplete. There needs to be an investigation by people looking for explosive residues who have supoena power.

 

[Mick West]

I did not say simpler was necessarily better - but perhaps I should have said "contains far fewer unknowns" than "vastly simpler".

I'm saying that adding new unexplained things to remove one unexplained things is a net decrease in the explained-ness of a situation. Introducing some unknown explosive is no better than introducing some unknown deity.

 

[Jay Howard]

I did not say simpler was necessarily better - but perhaps I should have said "contains far fewer unknowns" than "vastly simpler".

I'm saying that adding new unexplained things to remove one unexplained things is a net decrease in the explained-ness of a situation. Introducing some unknown explosive is no better than introducing some unknown deity.

Sorry Mick, you're still missing the point of a theory. The point is to explain the evidence as best as possible. If the choice is:

1. Explain some evidence and keep the theory intact

or

2. Explain more evidence with a whole new theory

choice 2 is clearly the better choice. You are still treating the official theory as some sacred cow that cannot be messed with unless NIST gives their approval. The evidence must be dealt with. If the official theory is inadequate, which it clearly is regardless of your views on my interpretation, then it must be modified. If modification is inadequate to handle the evidence, it must be discarded for a new theory. These are not some arbitrary rules I made up--this is what good scientific practice demands.

 

[Mick West]

Your choice 2 explains evidence by introducing new things that themselves need explaining. This not an improvement over things being left unexplained. It is not "as best as possible".

What's your metric for "best" here? And where are you getting this "the point of a theory" definition?

Sorry, I'm going to stick with Occam here. Replacing one unknown with five unknowns is not an improvement.

 

[Jay Howard]

Your choice 2 explains evidence by introducing new things that themselves need explaining. This not an improvement over things being left unexplained. It is not "as best as possible".

What's your metric for "best" here? And where are you getting this "the point of a theory" definition?

Sorry, I'm going to stick with Occam here. Replacing one unknown with five unknowns is not an improvement.

You aren't really applying parsimony if you don't answer the questions in front of you. The facts require a more complex answer than you are willing to wrestle with. Not because of a lack of evidence. You are simply amputating your own ability to deal with the facts of the matter because...you want a simple answer. Not good enough.

The concept of parsimony is useful only to the extent that questions are solved. You're just giving me another reason to let this steel be mysterious. Not good enough.

 

[Jazzy]

You aren't really applying parsimony if you don't answer the questions in front of you. The facts require a more complex answer than you are willing to wrestle with. Not because of a lack of evidence. You are simply amputating your own ability to deal with the facts of the matter because...you want a simple answer. Not good enough.

The concept of parsimony is useful only to the extent that questions are solved. You're just giving me another reason to let this steel be mysterious. Not good enough.

But it isn't mysterious.

Molten Aluminum Reactions

The presence of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers during 9-11 was first documented by FEMA /1/. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and gypsum, known to be present in large quantities of wallboard used at the WTC, are noted in /13/. While it is well known that molten aluminum is very reactive to oxides, it is also reactive to sulfates. Hence consideration should be given to the possible role of molten aluminum in producing SO2 through the reaction:

3CaSO4 + 2Al > 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2

This reaction only occurs between molten aluminum and finely divided CaSO4 and therefore requires crushed wallboard material exposed to sustained temperatures of at least 550 deg C.

The presence of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers has been discussed in /13/, where it was shown that the airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into WTC 1 & 2 on 9-11 represented a source of about 10,000 kg of molten aluminum. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and materials present on the Twin Towers such as pulverized concrete and gypsum are noted in /13/.

If we assume that the molten aluminum reacted with equal efficacy with these materials, we estimate that up to 1000 kg of aluminum may have reacted with CaSO4. The stoichiometry of this reaction then implies that as much as 3500 kg of SO2 could have been released in WTC 1 & 2 by reactions between CaSO4 and molten aluminum.

-------​

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

In this report it is shown that sulfur, especially in its most common oxidized form, SO2, had many potential emission sources in the WTC prior to 9-11. These sources have been quantified and rated according to their potential to release SO2 under conditions prevailing in buildings 1, 2 & 7 during and after 9-11.
It is concluded that sulfur emissions from the combustion of typical live load materials such as furniture, paper, plastics, textiles, etc, were relatively small compared to sulfur emissions from more unconventional sources, including those involving diesel fuel for emergency power generation in WTC 7 and CaSO4 in gypsum wallboard used in WTC 1 & 2.

Sulfur emissions from thermite/thermate are shown to be quite small compared to these sources.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

You aren't really applying parsimony if you don't answer the questions in front of you. The facts require a more complex answer than you are willing to wrestle with. Not because of a lack of evidence. You are simply amputating your own ability to deal with the facts of the matter because...you want a simple answer. Not good enough.

The concept of parsimony is useful only to the extent that questions are solved. You're just giving me another reason to let this steel be mysterious. Not good enough.

You're ignoring the adding of new questions. Which is the thing you try to avoid with Occam. Answering a question is pointless it it adds five new questions.

 

[Jay Howard]

Greening:

"Published data /11/ on the kinetics of the reduction of calcium sulfate indicate that about 0.1 % per minute
conversion to SO2 would occur for CaSO4 maintained at 900C in an atmosphere containing 1 % CO.
If we assume that similar temperature and carbon monoxide impurity concentrations prevailed for 30

minutes in the combustion gases from the WTC fires, about 240 kg of SO2 would have been released
within each WTC Tower by decomposition of gypsum wallboard."

So, to get 3% SO2 from the wallboard, which would be dispersed over the surface area in which the hot gases formed in contact with the wallboard, even the most generous interpretation of the available data says that temps need to be at 900C for 30 minutes. And even at those temps, unless they were spread over a large surface area for that time, would produce a modicum of available Sulfur to participate in a separate reaction invovling another increase in temperature over a sustained period on the steel surface.

The way Greening writes, it sounds as if there was a 240 kg pile of SO2 sitting in the towers, available to spread on hot steel. This is definitely not what happened, of course. We know from the burn tests conducted by UL that temps in the "piled up" scenarios (which produced the highest temp spikes), that in the hottest tests, temps peaked for about 10 minutes to about 1000C, and most of the time were at 500C or below.

Of course, this theory of a Sulfur source could be corroborated by a test. Has anyone attemted to pile up some gypsum, put a piece of steel on top and set it on fire with some kerosine and paper for fuel? No. Has anyone taken pure SO2, lathered it on steel and cooked it to see what would happen? That would at least be a place to start. If it did something, at least there would be reason to do another test with wallboard to see if the reaction is prolific enough to produce the hot corrosion attack seen on the steel pieces. But no. No interest in backing up facile hypotheses with actual tests.

Then there's this reaction proposed by Greening:

3CaSO4 + 2Al > 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2


"This reaction only occurs between molten aluminum and finely divided CaSO4 and therefore requires
crushed wallboard material exposed to sustained temperatures of at least 550 C."

The stochiometric analysis Greening refers to happens on paper, counting molecules of possible reactivity. This ideal, naturally, did not obtain in the towers, because ideal situations simply don't happen. Why not test this reaction in the real world? Afraid of a reality check?


Why, I wonder, is there such pushback on the idea of actually testing any of the various spurrious attempts at explaning the hot sulfidation and oxidation attacks on these pieces of steel? Has anyone melted Al, poured it over crushed wallboard and heated it to 600C for a "sustained" period? Nope. Why not? Is it because it's so likely to happen that it's like making a vinegar and baking soda volcano? Nope. Is it because it's so unlikely an event as to be unworthy of testing? An actual test could put that question to bed.

At best, these are attempts to justify a possibility of reactive sulfur, so people who have little knowledge of chemistry or science in general will quit doubting the official lack of an explanation. Because, the explanations Greening gives aren't likely ones. Or at least no one seems willing to test any of them. Just say it's possible and look no further...

Also, diesel has been ruled out as a possible source for the sulfur because it was found intact--very little of it (if any) combusted or leaked.

Mick, you run a site dedicated to debunking. Why do you let shallow hypotheses stand without so much as citation to a real corrosion test, and yet doubt tested data from professional scientists? Are you really trying to debunk bad data? And we're not just looking at one instance of this happening, but at TWO distinct locations where a very similar eutectic formed and did some severe damage to structural steel of buildings that happened to collapse. Why is this not a point of interest for a debunker? (Why, if this is such a likely process, is it not a point of interest for NIST?) Why let specious guesses stand while doubting rigorous analyses? Have you asked unbiased materials engineers or chemists to give you a second opinion on Greening's work? What did they say?

 

[Mick West]

And we're not just looking at one instance of this happening, but at TWO distinct locations where a very similar eutectic formed and did some severe damage to structural steel of buildings that happened to collapse. Why is this not a point of interest for a debunker?

Why would it be? It seems like a very small quantity of steel had this reaction, so it's very unlikely to be related to the cause of the collapse.

 

[Jazzy]

The way Greening writes, it sounds as if there was a 240 kg pile of SO2 sitting in the towers, available to spread on hot steel.

You admired his style so much you bought the company.

I believe the SO2 generated that way was too hot to pile. Instead it would have wafted away in the hot combustion gases. It's a gas. Was that some sort of filler, d'ya think?

No interest in backing up facile hypotheses with actual tests.

It's not my facile hypothesis but yours.

Then there's this reaction proposed by Greening: 3CaSO4 + 2Al > 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2 - The stochiometric analysis Greening refers to happens on paper, counting molecules of possible reactivity. This ideal, naturally, did not obtain in the towers, because ideal situations simply don't happen. Why not test this reaction in the real world? Afraid of a reality check?

No.

Has anyone melted Al, poured it over crushed wallboard and heated it to 600C for a "sustained" period? Nope. Why not? Is it because it's so likely to happen that it's like making a vinegar and baking soda volcano? Nope.

Correction, yep. It's more likely to happen than thermite igniting, in fact. Its ignition energy is already present.

Is it because it's so unlikely an event as to be unworthy of testing? An actual test could put that question to bed.

Yes. We should dispense with education, with the books, in chemistry, apparently, as instead we can test and retest all this information all the time. Seems reasonable. To you.

people who have little knowledge of chemistry or science in general will quit doubting the official lack of an explanation.

Not from your example, they won't. In fact the reverse seems to hold true.

Because, the explanations Greening gives aren't likely ones.

See?

Or at least no one seems willing to test any of them. Just say it's possible and look no further

The absence of sulfur to permeate the hot steel to form a eutectic, and as sulfate ions to accelerate rusting, was impossible.

The surplus supply for what were very small requirements, especially in view of the recirculatory nature of the latter was GROSS. As is your hand-waving.

Also, diesel has been ruled out as a possible source for the sulfur because it was found intact--very little of it (if any) combusted or leaked.

But there was plenty of wallboard.

I notice your further attempt to ignore the fact that calcium sulfate is marginally soluble, and therefore quite capable of supplying sulfate ions in the firemen's water, as it permeated down through feet of crushed wallboard to the steel beneath.

Mick, why do you etc.?

Because he has a basic understanding of science.
.

 

[Jay Howard]

You're ignoring the adding of new questions. Which is the thing you try to avoid with Occam. Answering a question is pointless it it adds five new questions.

You don't have any business cutting out an explanation regardless of how many unanswered questions it provokes if the initial inquiry has not been satisfied. The official explanation doesn't deal with this ONE unusual piece of evidence at all. Parsimony is only applicable to theories that answer the question(s).

As noted from the outset, this is just another attempt to ignore this piece of evidence (and any others that don't fit the scope of the official explanation). That's exactly what a weaker theory does. It is not parsimoneous to avoid answering questions within the scope of the theory because it incites new questions. That's simply protecting a theory.

When it's more important to keep from revising a theory than it is to explain the evidence, you can guarantee they aren't doing science.

 

[Jay Howard]

You admired his style so much you bought the company.

I believe the SO2 generated that way was too hot to pile. Instead it would have wafted away in the hot combustion gases. It's a gas. Was that some sort of filler, d'ya think?


It's not my facile hypothesis but yours.


No.


Correction, yep. It's more likely to happen than thermite igniting, in fact. Its ignition energy is already present.


Yes. We should dispense with education, with the books, in chemistry, apparently, as instead we can test and retest all this information all the time. Seems reasonable. To you.


Not from your example, they won't. In fact the reverse seems to hold true.


See?


The absence of sulfur to permeate the hot steel to form a eutectic, and as sulfate ions to accelerate rusting, was impossible.

The surplus supply for what were very small requirements, especially in view of the recirculatory nature of the latter was GROSS. As is your hand-waving.


But there was plenty of wallboard.

I notice your further attempt to ignore the fact that calcium sulfate is marginally soluble, and therefore quite capable of supplying sulfate ions in the firemen's water, as it permeated down through feet of crushed wallboard to the steel beneath.


Because he has a basic understanding of science.
.

TEST THE HYPOTHESES or go away with these facile, armchair "possibilities". They have no place in a serious scientific discussion about a serious topic.

They've already been tested? Really? Show me where someone piled up wallboard on steel and lit it on fire with kerosene and paper. Or where crushed up wallboard is dumped in water, sprayed on steel and THEN lit on fire. Or where molten Al is poured all over crushed up wallboard, THEN steel is piled on and it's lit on fire.

NONE of these tests have occured in the actual world we live in, yet you're defending them as if they happened. These are ALL low-probability scenarios pulled out for the sole purpose of avoiding a revision of the official theory in light of its inability to explain one of a number of high-temp phenomena.

Do a test, cite a relevant test, or accept that this is particularly weak speculation.

 

[Jazzy]

TEST THE HYPOTHESES or go away with these facile, armchair "possibilities". They have no place in a serious scientific discussion about a serious topic.

Yes. We should dispense with education, with all those books, in chemistry and physics, apparently, as instead we can test and retest all this information all the time. Seems reasonable - to you.

They've already been tested? Really? Show me where someone piled up wallboard on steel and lit it on fire with kerosene and paper. Or where crushed up wallboard is dumped in water, sprayed on steel and THEN lit on fire. Or where molten Al is poured all over crushed up wallboard, THEN steel is piled on and it's lit on fire.

NOT ONE of those suggestions is quite relevant. Is that why you suggest them, or is it that you don't know why they are specious?

NONE of these tests have occured in the actual world we live in, yet you're defending them as if they happened. These are ALL low-probability scenarios pulled out for the sole purpose of avoiding a revision of the official theory in light of its inability to explain one of a number of high-temp phenomena.

No. They spring from a basic understanding of the underlying science - something unfamiliar to you.

Do a test, cite a relevant test, or accept that this is particularly weak speculation.

There's no need, old boy. I'm educated, and don't have your need to demand of a pensioner that he produce a scientific laboratory to educate you.
.

 

[lee h oswald]

Of course, this theory of a Sulfur source could be corroborated by a test. Has anyone attemted to pile up some gypsum, put a piece of steel on top and set it on fire with some kerosine and paper for fuel? No. Has anyone taken pure SO2, lathered it on steel and cooked it to see what would happen? That would at least be a place to start. If it did something, at least there would be reason to do another test with wallboard to see if the reaction is prolific enough to produce the hot corrosion attack seen on the steel pieces. But no. No interest in backing up facile hypotheses with actual tests.

This should be of interest. Check out Jon's other actual experiments (shocking innit, J?)

Mick, you run a site dedicated to debunking. Why do you let shallow hypotheses stand without so much as citation to a real corrosion test, and yet doubt tested data from professional scientists?

I wonder that, too.

 

[Jazzy]

Check out Jon's other actual experiments.

All of them non-representative of the live action, and just as specious as J's little list.

Hiya, Harvey.

 

[lee h oswald]

All of them non-representative of the live action, and just as specious as J's little list.

Hiya, Harvey.

I see the Towers are still 450,000 tonnes each in Jazzy land today. Shouldn't that EM Forster be HL Mencken's 'Those who can't, teach'? Seems so much more apposite. Hiya!

 

[Jay Howard]

This should be of interest. Check out Jon's other actual experiments (shocking innit, J?)

Big surprise.

I wonder that, too.

So now that Jazzy has a solid demonstration of the failure of building materials + heat + time + diesel to produce a liquid eutectic, what's the play? Didn't do the experiment right? Didn't spin in a circle 3 times before lighting the pile on fire? Didn't use wallboard from Dr. Greening? Would you like to quote more chemical formulae to prove the experiment wrong? Or just more condescension and repetition?

I know this won't count as a solid falsification for Gypsum as a source of the Sulfur for Jazzy or others who hold the same view. The only question is why. Given the record, I'm going with the latter.

 

[Jazzy]

I see the Towers are still 450,000 tonnes each in Jazzy land today.

It's seems "Jazzy land" is the big wide world.



http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

I like your temporary visits to this site.

.

 

[Josh Heuer]

It's seems "Jazzy land" is the big wide world.



http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

I like your temporary visits to this site.

.

Am I missing something? Those all say 500,000 tons. Not a single one says 450,000 tons. That's quite a difference.

 

[Jazzy]

Didn't spin in a circle 3 times before lighting the pile on fire?

So you really don't know why your suggestions were specious. Thanks.

 

[MikeC]

Tons vs Tonnes - 1 Tonne (1000 kg) = 1.1 short tons (2000lbs - the most common usage of "ton" in the USA) , so 450,000 tonnes = 495,000 tons

 

[Jazzy]

Am I missing something? Those all say 500,000 tons. Not a single one says 450,000 tons. That's quite a difference.

Well, I went with the "standardized results", not feeling a need to overstate my case wrt energy calculations..

It is quite a difference, but MikeC makes the point. I instinctively search for Kg and SI units.