Cube Radio
Member
The fact that sulfidised steel was found at WTC7 is not in dispute, although NIST ignored FEMA's recommendation in 2002 that it should be further analysed in its 2007 report. However the source of the sulfur has never been clear, although subject to much speculation.
The BBC's Third Tower documentary claims that this sulfur came from gypsum wallboard (calcium sulfate) cooked in rubble fires. The claim is made at 49m05s in voiceover in the video below, and is apparently supported by Prof Sisson of Worcester Polytechnic Institute immediately after.
However, close attention to this section of the documentary should make it clear to anyone that Prof Sisson does not make the specific claim that gypsum was the source of the sulfur: he merely states what he would expect to happen to the steel if sulfur were present, with other elements, in the rubble fires.
49.05 VOICEOVER The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burned in the fires.
49.10 PROF SISSON I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel and this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I'd expect.
This is important to recognise this qualification, because liberating elemental sulfur from its bonds in calcium sulfate is a an extended process extraordinarily unlikely to be achieved in a smouldering rubble pile, even if it were doused with water. See for example http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6024932
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=4886
http://www.ehow.com/how_5700758_extract-sulfur-gypsum.html
I therefore put it to the forum that the BBC's claim that gypsum was the source of the sulfur at WTC7 was misleading bunk, and, given that organisation's mandate and position, can accurately be described as disinformation.
The BBC's Third Tower documentary claims that this sulfur came from gypsum wallboard (calcium sulfate) cooked in rubble fires. The claim is made at 49m05s in voiceover in the video below, and is apparently supported by Prof Sisson of Worcester Polytechnic Institute immediately after.
However, close attention to this section of the documentary should make it clear to anyone that Prof Sisson does not make the specific claim that gypsum was the source of the sulfur: he merely states what he would expect to happen to the steel if sulfur were present, with other elements, in the rubble fires.
49.05 VOICEOVER The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burned in the fires.
49.10 PROF SISSON I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel and this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I'd expect.
This is important to recognise this qualification, because liberating elemental sulfur from its bonds in calcium sulfate is a an extended process extraordinarily unlikely to be achieved in a smouldering rubble pile, even if it were doused with water. See for example http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6024932
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=4886
http://www.ehow.com/how_5700758_extract-sulfur-gypsum.html
I therefore put it to the forum that the BBC's claim that gypsum was the source of the sulfur at WTC7 was misleading bunk, and, given that organisation's mandate and position, can accurately be described as disinformation.
Last edited: