Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed?

Greening does not seem to think it's unlikely. Who said it was unlikely?
I believe CR was referring to the sulphur origin being gypsum, not that sulphur corrosion was unlikely.

Does Greening say that this corrosion is suspicious, in a conspiracy theory way?
 
You are all being red-herringed. It's the fireman's water.

The chemistry is aqueous chemistry: what happens when you pour WATER onto a red-hot pile of crushed iron and gypsum wall-boarding. What did the fireman do for days after the collapses?

A series of reactions with STEAM and HOT WATER POOLS in the presence of SULFATE ions and OXYGEN in the air corrodes both the iron and the gypsum, liberating HYDROGEN GAS* as the steel RUSTS QUICKLY. There are MANY catalytic pathways present in CRUSHED OFFICES, like light metals and exotic elements in electronic equipment, which can help speed this and other similar processes on. Any carbon dioxide present helps as well. Temperature speeds the reactions.

Gypsum is about 5% soluble. Sulfate ions make the water conductive, and dissimilar elements become elements of a battery. Even the CARBON in the civil steel is dissimilar to iron, so nothing needs to be added for corrosion to begin. All the other stuff would have been there in dilute (boiling) aqueous solution, and would have potentiated this reaction by multiplying the reaction pathways - increasing the number of ionic exchanges - increasing all events, and therefore the "demand" for iron atoms. Rust.

This was in "O" level chemistry when I took it in 1960, so don't anyone spin yarns about my "vivid imagination". What happened to science education? What happened to steam engines? :)

It is true that large corrosion events caused by functional combinations of these several requirements would be few and far between. But that is, of course what happened. The whole "issue" is without meaning to those who understand it, and quite the reverse to those who don't.

* There's eyewitness evidence. Almost all hydrogen gas liberated evidences corroded iron on a two-for-one basis, atom-by-atom. Some might be attributable to dissolving aluminum and/or any other metals higher than hydrogen on the electrochemical potential chart. Zinc diecastings spring to mind. There's lots of those in offices. Where any zinc surface or particle physically touches iron in that aqueous solution - it will form a battery, and corrosion will happen to both. There would have been many instances of that.
 
Last edited:
Jay, I think you have to read the op again to understand the difference between the BBC's claim and the expert opinion that followed it; Greening's work does indeed confirm the view that gypsum is unlikely to be the source of the sulphur in concentrations required; and the various alternative sources considered by both Greening and contributors to this thread serve to underscore my point that BBC was quite wrong to assert a definitive source has been established.
 
No, I read it. You need to go over my posts. From post 31 "
Again, IF the BBC got it wrong, its based on their discussion with their chosen expert. Did they misrepresent what he said? Maybe, gee, journalists, with their journalism, History, English, or Communications, diplomas mangle an interpretation of a technical/scientific report. Imagine that!
"You have a beef with both Sisson and journalists.
Let me say that again
JOURNALISTS
They are not scientists.
 
Last edited:
Journalists have a duty to report the facts as accurately as possible: this was a researched documentary, not a hurried piece, and the facts here were misrepresented to suggest that the source of the sulphur has been definitively established; this is disinformation.
 
Journalists have a duty to report the facts as accurately as possible: this was a researched documentary, not a hurried piece, and the facts here were misrepresented to suggest that the source of the sulphur has been definitively established; this is disinformation.
Yeah, and they never get things wrong, never misapply the information they receive from experts.
Now, did the WTC towers have an all steel core, or a concrete core?

Perhaps they got it wrong, perhaps they misleadingly put forth that the source of sulphidation corrosion was definitively established.
Bad journalists, bad, bad boys. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct. What effect does this have on the larger picture of the destruction on Sept 11/01? This is not an engineering report, its not a issue wrt to the collapses.
 
Journalists have a duty to report the facts as accurately as possible: this was a researched documentary, not a hurried piece, and the facts here were misrepresented to suggest that the source of the sulphur has been definitively established; this is disinformation.
I would suggest YOU are "disinformation". You have to be disinformative if you can pretend to ignore what I posted. Why would you ignore it? Are you pretending it might go away?

There is no issue here because calcium sulfate IS NOT INSOLUBLE. That means that water passing past ANY wall boarding WILL dissolve sulfate ions, become conductive, and initiate rusting on the next exposed steel surface it meets. Thereafter, the products of the rusting process, themselves equally electrochemically active and falling into an increased temperature regime, WILL intensify this process.

The corrosion is perfectly explicable without any other agency, and is therefore a NON-ISSUE.

Acknowledge this, or dispute it
. If you don't, we shall see it is you that is the disinformative TROLL here.
 
Last edited:
The question is the concentration, as Greening points out; this is why alternative sources must be considered: if you imagine your reaction can be experimentally demonstrated within the context of the links posted in the op please provide evidence, otherwise post elsewhere if you think you represent the voice of collective insult.
 
The question is the concentration, as Greening points out; this is why alternative sources must be considered: if you imagine your reaction can be experimentally demonstrated within the context of the links posted in the op please provide evidence, otherwise post elsewhere if you think you represent the voice of collective insult.
Water and dissolved salts falling down a wreckage pile which is perhaps red-hot at its base IS going to be concentrated by evaporation. No "alternative sources" need be "considered".

"Insulting" was behavior initiated by YOU, and for no good reason, as I have just pointed out. Acknowledge or dispute. Or take your own "elsewhere" option.

.
 
Last edited:
Post #1
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.

Post #46 (my take)
Yeah, and they never get things wrong, never misapply the information they receive from experts.
Now, did the WTC towers have an all steel core, or a concrete core?
Perhaps they got it wrong, perhaps they misleadingly put forth that the source of sulphidation corrosion was definitively established.
Bad journalists, bad, bad boys. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct. What effect does this have on the larger picture of the destruction on Sept 11/01? This is not an engineering report, its not a issue wrt to the collapses.

What makes this "disinformation"? as opposed to a reporter not fully understanding the concepts involved?

Cube Radio, do you consider this corrosion to be significant wrt the collapses and if so why?
 
Journalists have a duty to report the facts as accurately as possible: this was a researched documentary, not a hurried piece, and the facts here were misrepresented to suggest that the source of the sulphur has been definitively established; this is disinformation.
Where is the proof it was not gypsum.

Jay, I think you have to read the op again to understand the difference between the BBC's claim and the expert opinion that followed it; Greening's work does indeed confirm the view that gypsum is unlikely to be the source of the sulphur in concentrations required; and the various alternative sources considered by both Greening and contributors to this thread serve to underscore my point that BBC was quite wrong to assert a definitive source has been established.
Greening said:
"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.
By way of verifying these conclusions it is suggested that the NIST fire tests, which were conducted on simple office module simulations, should be repeated using more realistic environments that include shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc. In this way better estimates of the rates of production of SO2 and the degree of sulfidation of steel could be established."
Greening said it is more likely gypsum and diesel fuel could supply the sulfur than other junk in the WTC. BBC is vindicated, and I can still use gypsum for sulfur in my garden. Science...
 
Last edited:
But of course NIST did not do these tests that Greening recommends, and so the speculation as to how the "intergranular" penetration of sulphur into this steel occurred remains exactly that: to present speculation as fact as the BBC does is to wholly misrepresent the question.
 
But of course NIST did not do these tests that Greening recommends, and so the speculation as to how the "intergranular" penetration of sulphur into this steel occurred remains exactly that: to present speculation as fact as the BBC does is to wholly misrepresent the question.
The two samples of corroded steel are not important. Who says they are? The two samples did not cause the collapse, fires did. The two samples have been used by 911 truth as melted steel, done by thermite. Means they made it up without thinking.
What did the BBC say about your claims?
 
the NIST fire tests should be repeated - it is more likely gypsum and diesel fuel could supply the sulfur

the speculation as to how the "intergranular" penetration of sulphur into this steel occurred remains exactly that
Neither of these are anything to do with aqueous corrosion and do not address the issue:
"Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed?"


Please reply to my posts:
External Quote:
water passing past ANY wall boarding WILL dissolve sulfate ions, become conductive, and initiate rusting on the next exposed steel surface it meets
and
External Quote:
Water and dissolved salts falling down a wreckage pile which is perhaps red-hot at its base IS going to be concentrated by evaporation
and, of course:

Intergranular penetration by sulfur WILL occur if calcium sulfate salt is in contact with red hot steel.

It is a well-known property of red hot iron to absorb both carbon, sulfur, silicon and nitrogen when in contact with these elements even when they are in compound form. I have used steel surface-hardening preparations myself.

Solid red-hot steel may liquefy with low percentages of sulfur, as the iron/sulfur compound has a lower melting point. It's called a eutectic alloy.

There were opportunities in the wreckage stack for ALL of these processes to come into play, and as I have said before - you should have learnt a lot of this information at school. It isn't an issue. Until YOU ignore it.
 
Last edited:
So here we have a weak attempt to hand-wave the question away and an attempt to portray what Professor of Fire Protection Engineering Jonathan Barnett described as "surprising" and the New York Times as a "deep mystery" as mere high school chemistry; meanwhile Professor Sisson makes no mention of calcium sulfate salt (or water) in his explanation and the only vaguely technical paper posted to this thread does not support the theory being advanced: shall we just ask Mick to shut the thread down now, or is there anything of real substance or experimental validity that could possibly explain the BBC's misrepresentation of the facts?
 
So here we have a weak attempt to hand-wave the question away and an attempt to portray what Professor of Fire Protection Engineering Jonathan Barnett described as "surprising" and the New York Times as a "deep mystery" as mere high school chemistry; meanwhile Professor Sisson makes no mention of calcium sulfate salt (or water) in his explanation and the only vaguely technical paper posted to this thread does not support the theory being advanced: shall we just ask Mick to shut the thread down now, or is there anything of real substance or experimental validity that could possibly explain the BBC's misrepresentation of the facts?
Cube, I've got to admit, after reading about 20 of your posts on this thread, I still don't really understand what your point is.

You obviously care very, very much about contradicting a scientist the BBC interviewed,
but I still can not tell to what end. What is the point of your 20 posts?
When Professor Sisson offers his professional expertise, I admit that I'm a bit out of my depth.
When you, Cube, go on and on and on and on about sulfur, I don't pretend to know if you're making
a lick of sense at all. Worse, you've given me no reason as to why I should bother to fact check you.

So, I'm left with the testimony of an expert, vs. repetitive, unclear counter-claims by an anonymous
guy on the internet. Guess which is more persuasive.

Now, show me that esteemed scientists have gone on record saying that Sisson's evaluation is wrong
(not just that "more study would be nice"), and why it matters. Rather than complaining about faux censorship
after 20 posts, just make your point.
 
@CubeRadio. You should have learnt a lot of this information at school. It isn't an issue. Until YOU ignore it. You are behaving like these men. Is that what you want to be?

 
NoParty: you can't understand the debate because you apparently can't differentiate between the views of the BBC, the scientist that the BBC falsely represented (which is the point I am making) and the views of the scientist who Mick invoked, who also does not support the BBC's assertion; demonstrating that the BBC investigated an issue (significant to the likes of Barnett if not to you or others) only to misrepresent it is otherwise sufficient for me.
 
NoParty: you can't understand the debate because you apparently can't differentiate between the views of the BBC, the scientist that the BBC falsely represented (which is the point I am making) and the views of the scientist who Mick invoked, who also does not support the BBC's assertion; demonstrating that the BBC investigated an issue (significant to the likes of Barnett if not to you or others) only to misrepresent it is otherwise sufficient for me.
"Tide comes in, tide goes out. Never a mis-communication".

Meanwhile I shall RE-COMMUNICATE.

The thread asks : "Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed?"

I answer:

water passing past ANY wall boarding WILL dissolve sulfate ions, become conductive, and initiate rusting on the next exposed steel surface it meets
External Quote:
Physical properties
Gypsum is moderately water-soluble (~2.0–2.5 g/l at 25°C) and, in contrast to most other salts, it exhibits a retrograde solubility, becoming less soluble at higher temperatures. When gypsum is heated in air it loses water and converts first to calcium sulfate hemihydrate, (bassanite, often simply called "plaster") and, if heated further, to anhydrous calcium sulfate (anhydrite). As for anhydrite, its solubility in saline solutions and inbrines is also strongly dependent on NaCl concentration. Gypsum crystals are found to contain anion water and hydrogen bonding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

I develop the idea:

Water and dissolved salts falling down a wreckage pile which is perhaps red-hot at its base IS going to be concentrated by evaporation as it meets rising temperatures. In the case of the gypsum (were it on its own in the wreckage) the reduced insolubility with the rising temperatures would cause it to travel deeper into the wreckage as more dilute water would re-dissolve it anyway. The fact is that there would be many other ionic elements dissolved in the water from smashed office equipment which may interact with the sulfate ions of the dissolved gypsum and possibly carry it faster or even precipitate some of it out. Eventually the calcium ions and sulfate ions will reach the bottom hot steelwork and crystallize out attached to the steel.
External Quote:
Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from the surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase that is not saturated with the evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is boiling, which is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming in the liquid phase. Steam produced in a boiler is another example of evaporation occurring in a saturated vapor phase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

I then go on to write:

Intergranular penetration by sulfur WILL occur if calcium sulfate salt is in contact with red hot steel.
External Quote:
“Corrosion is the disintegration of an engineered material into its constituent atoms due to chemical reactions with its surroundings.” Iron, sulfur, and oxygen are the primary ingredients of the eutectic corroding Sample 1. Gypsum wallboard, when burned, produces sulfur dioxide. Structural steel is mostly iron.
http://www.ae911truthinfo/wordpress/tag/eutectic/ :)

But burning wasn't the process because it is known that the air in the wreckage pile was already depleted of oxygen. Fires weren't supported. The oxygen was in the water.

External Quote:
Eutectoid alloys
A eutectoid alloy is similar in behavior to a eutectic alloy. An eutectic alloy is characterized by having a single melting point. This melting point is lower than that of any of the constituents, and no change in the mixture will lower the melting point any further. When a molten eutectic alloy is cooled, all of the constituents will crystallize into their respective phases at the same temperature. A eutectoid alloy is similar, but the phase change occurs, not from a liquid, but from a solid solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treating

Note that: A SOLID SOLUTION.

Now I wish you to see a logical train of events from when the fireman first turned their hoses on the wreckage pile.
  • water dripping constantly down through cold wallboard and steel
  • calcium sulfate being dissolved and its solution being concentrated by progressively hotter wreckage
  • calcium sulfate salt precipitated onto red hot steel still being wetted from above
  • ionic exchanges allowing hydrogen to vacate the steel/liquid interface, and sulfur to enter it
  • intercrystalline penetration of the iron by the sulfur and the formation of a eutectoid
  • further rusting corrosion of the penetrated iron by aqueous processes
I think you will find that answers entirely the thread question. There isn't an issue here.

Except that of YOU.
 
Last edited:
NoParty: you can't understand the debate because you apparently can't differentiate between the views of the BBC, the scientist that the BBC falsely represented (which is the point I am making) and the views of the scientist who Mick invoked, who also does not support the BBC's assertion; demonstrating that the BBC investigated an issue (significant to the likes of Barnett if not to you or others) only to misrepresent it is otherwise sufficient for me.
If the truth was "NoParty, I can neither provide evidence nor say why it's so mysteriously damned important to me" you could've said so in less words.
 
But of course NIST did not do these tests that Greening recommends, and so the speculation as to how the "intergranular" penetration of sulphur into this steel occurred remains exactly that: to present speculation as fact as the BBC does is to wholly misrepresent the question.
Why would they in the context of the mandate they were given?

NIST could not see that these two samples were indicative of anything linked to the collapses.

I asked you at least once what makes this important in the context of collapse. You have ignored the question yet accuse others of weak argument! How about you come up with one.
So far your only beef is a supposed misrepresentation of what may have caused this phenomena, by a news organization.
If you are now moving to NIST then address the question.
 
So here we have a weak attempt to hand-wave the question away and an attempt to portray what Professor of Fire Protection Engineering Jonathan Barnett described as "surprising" and the New York Times as a "deep mystery" as mere high school chemistry; meanwhile Professor Sisson makes no mention of calcium sulfate salt (or water) in his explanation and the only vaguely technical paper posted to this thread does not support the theory being advanced: shall we just ask Mick to shut the thread down now, or is there anything of real substance or experimental validity that could possibly explain the BBC's misrepresentation of the facts?
The New Your Times? Gee, look at what the MSM is doing with a missing aircraft. They make it a story, and add, "mystery", "surprising", and all the super got you quote-mining they can do to make "money". They publish to make money, make you read, make you watch. Did the New York Times fool you with the hyped up article based on two samples? BBC was wrong, yet, it could be wallboard, tons of wallboard, water, and fire which made some steel look like my battery box in my car, which I have seen countless "mysteries" of corrosion.

What does a two sample "mystery" mean for 911? Not a darn thing; 19 terrorists did 911, and the fires they started because they wanted to murder caused all the destruction. The mystery of the corroded steel is not a factor on who, or what did 911. A big zero on the mystery meter, and only fodder for the 911 truth woo factory.

For a scientist it is something to study - but it means nothing for 911, zero, and the proof is right in the study already done into the mystery of the steel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/n...e-steel-debris-taken.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2
Mystery is exposed, February 2, 2002.

Then guess who did the study????
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf
I would read the study done after the super duper mystery was announced in the New York Times, and not make up woo like 911 truth does about corrosion on steel, which does not fit any of the silly claims and fantasy they have.

Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. These guess studied the steel the New York Times said was a big mystery, and these guys found out it was corrosion in fires. And they published their results in document we all have access to, 15 May 2002. 3 Months after the mystery was announced by the New York Times, these guys found the cause to be fire in the WTC causing corrosion. BINGO

Future study according to the paper, is to see if this would be a problem in fires for future buildings. End of Story.

Lesson learned... If you think your new big building might have fires that last this long, you might want to study to see if you can prevent this, if it is a problem, or something. So you pay for the study. Pay the five dollars.
 
the proof is right in the study already done into the mystery of the steel. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/n...e-steel-debris-taken.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2 Mystery is exposed, February 2, 2002.
Which contains this:
External Quote:
The compounds, called eutectics, have a lower melting point than ordinary steel and could have caused structural members to erode quickly in the fires. (Source: Journal of Metals)(pg. B2)
Not much consideration is made of the fact that the tower had considerable potential energy to lose. A proportion of this manifested itself as heat at the base of the collapse area. (You will find the heat calculations in another thread on this site). This heat was NOT created by combusting anything.

Allowing for energy loss by ALL other means this STILL amounted to the equivalent of melting 400 tons of steel, a significant proportion of that would have been concentrated at the base of the wreckage pile by kinetic energy transfer. Furthermore, this heat couldn't escape easily (it was insulated by wallboard!) and the time taken before the pile was cleared was MONTHS (I don't recall exactly how long, tbh).

Hot water-fed corrosion would not reflect the intensity of lead-acid battery conditions (a shorted battery can destroy itself in seconds), but over that length of time at raised temperatures it would certainly be equivalent.

The conditions mentioned in http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf are exactly what I have been talking about. They were to be found in the collapse wreckage - not just briefly (and dryly) in the combustion of six acres of office furniture.

Edit: This link on "steam reforming" is also apropos:
External Quote:
Steam reforming
Hydrogen can be prepared in several different ways, but economically the most important processes involve removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas. At high temperatures (1000–1400 K, 700–1100 °C or 1300–2000 °F), steam (water vapor) reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and H2. This reaction is favored at low pressures
and a bit further down the page:
External Quote:
Thermochemical
There are more than 200 thermochemical cycles which can be used for water splitting, around a dozen of these cycles such as the iron oxide cycle, cerium(IV) oxide–cerium(III) oxide cycle, zinc zinc-oxide cycle, sulfur-iodine cycle, copper-chlorine cycle and hybrid sulfur cycle are under research and in testing phase to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water and heat without using electricity. A number of laboratories (including in France, Germany, Greece, Japan, and the USA) are developing thermochemical methods to produce hydrogen from solar energy and water.
Anaerobic corrosion
Under anaerobic conditions, iron and steel alloys are slowly oxidized by the protons of water concomitantly reduced in molecular hydrogen (H2). The anaerobic corrosion of iron leads first to the formation of ferrous hydroxide (green rust) and can be described by the following reaction: Fe + 2 H2O → Fe(OH)2 + H2 In its turn, under anaerobic conditions, the ferrous hydroxide (Fe(OH)2) can be oxidized by the protons of water to form magnetite and molecular hydrogen. This process is described by the Schikorr reaction: 3 Fe(OH)2 → Fe3O4 + 2 H2O + H2 (ferrous hydroxide → magnetite + water + hydrogen)
The well crystallized magnetite (Fe3O4) is thermodynamically more stable than the ferrous hydroxide (Fe(OH)2). This process occurs during the anaerobic corrosion of iron and steel in oxygen-free groundwater and in reducing soils below the water table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming

But you might well consider this:
External Quote:
Discovery and use
Main article: Timeline of hydrogen technologies
In 1671, Robert Boyle discovered and described the reaction between iron filings and dilute acids, which results in the production of hydrogen gas. In 1766, Henry Cavendish was the first to recognize hydrogen gas as a discrete substance, by naming the gas from a metal-acid reaction "flammable air". He speculated that "flammable air" was in fact identical to the hypothetical substance called "phlogiston" and further finding in 1781 that the gas produces water when burned. He is usually given credit for its discovery as an element. In 1783, Antoine Lavoisier gave the element the name hydrogen (from the Greek ὕδρω hydro meaning water and γενῆς genes meaning creator) when he and Laplace reproduced Cavendish's finding that water is produced when hydrogen is burned.



Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier
Lavoisier produced hydrogen for his experiments on mass conservation by reacting a flux of steam with metallic iron through an incandescent iron tube heated in a fire.
But in this case the steel was rendered hot by being violently and repeatedly mechanically-worked for a few brief seconds by the transfer of kinetic (impact) energy from above, and not by external fire, before it had water poured on it from above. The hydrogen atmosphere generated would favor rapid anaerobic corrosion as mentioned above, with all the "Pandora's Box" variations that might occur when you crush a hundred one-acre offices into small fragments and add them to the mix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming

As usual, @CubeRadio has another agenda and finds himself incapable of facing up to my replies.

The terms of NIST didn't cover what happened once the buildings fell down. This makes it possible for one to imagine that what happened 'down below' actually happened 'up above', and forget everything one ever knew about rusting. If one knew anything about it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
As an example of how journalists misrepresent technical issues, CNN reporters keep referring to the FDR/CVR ping from MH370 as being at 37.5 kilohertz, others report its 37.5 hertz while CBC.ca has it as " 37.5 hz per second"!

The last one is wrong in that hertz per second doesn't even make sense, the other two are different by a factor of one thousand, only one can be correct.
This story has been covered now for weeks but still there are news agencies getting it incorrect

Imagine that!
 
Last edited:
External Quote:
"Chinese patrol ship Haixun 01 searching for flight MH370 discovered a pulse signal with a frequency of 37.5kHz per second in south Indian Ocean waters Saturday," the official news agency, Xinhua,
Even worse, the Guardian.
 
The confusion seems to arise from the actually quite understandable description that it sends out a 37.5 kHz signal for approx a tenth of a second once every one second period.
http://www.radiantpowercorp.com/dk-series-underwater-locator-beacons.aspx

One wonders how many journalists believe this refers to a radio signal.:eek:


Must be that the Guardian, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are selling disinformation.
 
Last edited:
it sends out a 37.5 kHz signal for approx a tenth of a second once every one second period
High frequency sounds carry a great distance through water. A clever use of this was carried by US airmen over the Pacific during WW2. If they ditched, they would drop a hollow steel sphere the size of a table tennis ball into the ocean. The ball was designed to collapse under the pressure it met whilst passing through the thermocline, 1500 feet down. Using three widely-spaced detectors situated on the same thermocline, it was possible to pinpoint the pilot's location anywhere in the Pacific.

One wonders how many journalists believe this refers to a radio signal.:eek:
Most.

Must be that the Guardian, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are selling disinformation.
They've always done that. But that is misinformation. These days they have competition from free-lancers. But this is disinformation.

.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Jazzy, I did not know that concerning downed airmen. Old dogs can learn new things.
Seemed I had heard that whales use subsonic communication over long distances, and on land its recently discovered that elephants do similar. Thus even though I do keep up with matters of science as a hobby with some relation to my training , I could not know for sure whether or not a subsonic 37.5 Hz or ultrasonic 37.5 kHz was correct. I knew for certain this was not an electromagnetic emission but had to be sonic.

Point is of course, that the world's press corps have, in a wide variety of fashions, misrepresented this rather simple concept. Point is of course, that this is not unusual. Point is of course, that except in few instances, journalists have college and university degrees in Journalism, English Literature, History, Communications, but not in any science program.

When I was a student at Carleton university I was an aquaintence of a journalism student earning a double major. His second was, iirc, biology.

This man went on to be influential in the journalism program at Carleton and encouraged st least some science and technology education for all journalism students.
Its too bad its not mandatory at least in first year, for all journalists.
 
I could not know for sure whether or not a subsonic 37.5 Hz or ultrasonic 37.5 kHz was correct.
The energy involved in infrasonic communication would be higher. Large whales and elephants are probably boasting when they hit their basso profundo notes. "I'm BIG". The same communication in ultrasonic has a much less energy demand, which is what you want if you know you are finally depleting a battery to make a homing signal. The higher the frequency the better. There is a proviso: the lower frequencies allow the waves to bend round corners and are less line-of-sight. They would work better if the transmitter fell into some kind of hole, cave, or pit. Nothing's perfect.
 
The energy involved in infrasonic communication would be higher. Large whales and elephants are probably boasting when they hit their basso profundo notes. "I'm BIG". The same communication in ultrasonic has a much less energy demand, which is what you want if you know you are finally depleting a battery to make a homing signal. The higher the frequency the better. There is a proviso: the lower frequencies allow the waves to bend round corners and are less line-of-sight. They would work better if the transmitter fell into some kind of hole, cave, or pit. Nothing's perfect.
OK, of course. Essentially generating a longer wavelength sound would require "moving" more water and this takes more energy. (A sublo speaker in a home sound system has larger dimensions than normal range speakers for instance ) Whales and elephants don't have a problem with that since as long as they have food and are alive, the energy source isn't an issue.

I would think coupling through thermoclines would be better with a subsonic signal as well but if its being bent by meeting different density medium, even though it travels a long distance, it would be more difficult to pinpoint a location. Whales and elephants get a round that by being able to transmit " hey baby, I'm a big boy and you can meet me in person at..."
 
I would think coupling through thermoclines would be better with a subsonic signal as well but if its being bent by meeting different density medium, even though it travels a long distance, it would be more difficult to pinpoint a location.
Yes, the WW2 pilot finesse worked ideally because both transmission and reception were at the thermocline, which tends to act as a guide along itself and a barrier between above it and below it. Lower frequencies would be less refracted. Ah, well. Deep water makes it difficult…

Edit: of course you could rig the transmitter to contain a magazine of small highly-pressurized hollow spheres*, locked in fused salt, which were slow-released on a regular basis to explode at the thermocline, and make life a whole lot easier for the NTSB.

Ah, no light-bulb smileys…. :)

* Dangerous at NTP, of course. Could just be tiny buoyant explosive charges with salt-locked pressure fuzes. Slightly safer...
 
Last edited:
How much steel was found to show signs of this form of corrosion? If it was not extensive... what would explain a limited local phenomena? My guess is that it was limited and local and there was a specific source of the material (sulfur?) which was present such as acid in back up batteries. Gyp board was too universal to be the source as it would have produce this corrosion over almost all the steel in the pile I would think.

There was no systematic collection of forensic evidence. By the time NIST got to investigate WTC7 they had no structural steel to investigate. We are, therefore, left to speculate as to how much evidence of eutectic corrosion was present.

Here is a discussion of the evidence presented in the FEMA report where the sulfur is discussed:
 
There was no systematic collection of forensic evidence. By the time NIST got to investigate WTC7 they had no structural steel to investigate. We are, therefore, left to speculate as to how much evidence of eutectic corrosion was present.

Here is a discussion of the evidence presented in the FEMA report where the sulfur is discussed:
Youtube videos are not considered enough evidence here. This site is about claims of evidence which require links to support the claims. Videos may be used but it helps to fully explain and provide links to any claims mentioned in the video. Use YT videos as an after thought so to speak.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 
We are, therefore, left to speculate as to how much evidence of eutectic corrosion was present.

I have seen a LOT of very intelligent posts in this thread, made by people who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than I.

"Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" usually comes to the fore, here. After all, it's now been over 12 years.

There is ample evidence and video of the collapse of the WTC7 building. There is ample documentation of the ground activities, post collapse of WTC1 and 2 in the vicinity in lower Manhattan. I really do not see any further reason to "question" this event. (Except as an on-going and more precise examination into the actual and specific mechanisms involved as the collapse of this building propagated. That will be accomplished, one day, with some exquisite computer modelling, I would assume.).
 
The lack if any other examples of such eutectic corrosion simply cannot be used to bolster any case that desires to put forth that this was widespread or that was a major factor in the collapses.

Steel passed through Fresh Kills and was examined there. Notable items were retained.
 
Back
Top