Sulfur in the WTC -- sheetrock or thermate?

[dubfan]

As predicted, the next battleground is shaping up to be sulfidation of the WTC steel. Sadly, I don't have the chemistry chops to take this one up even though Greening has a convincing bit of stoichiometry and the "Scholars" have....who knows. Unfounded assertions & confirmation bias, it appears.

If you're just joining us a brief recap. One of the enduring mysteries of 9/11 has been the presence of sulfur contaminants observed on some of the WTC steel. The source and mechanism of this contamination has never been conclusively identified. The CTs -- of course -- immediately leapt to the conclusion that it's evidence of "thermate" (thermite enriched with sulfur to enhance its cutting effectiveness).

It turns out that the gypsum sheetrock in the WTC (which was obviously used in massive quantities) is pure hydrous calcium disulfate. So the basic issue at present is in either confirming or ruling out the sheetrock as a source of the elemental sulfur that caused the contamination.

The relevant Looser post is here:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6763&view=findpost&p=5544918

Excerpt:


Also remember that the 3rd most used substance in the WTC tower was a sulphur based drywall.

Rulling that out as the source of the sulphur is crucial.

S911T forum:
Nearly all the sulphur present is in sulphate form, calcium sulphate. All that will happen if you heat it in a kero fire is that any water present will be driven off. In fact that is the method used to make drierite, a dehydrating agent, obtained by heating to 650 deg C.

Even materials like rubber will, if burnt, release SO2, not free sulphur. To penetrate steel free sulphur would be required.

If I'm not mistaken, it's not elemental sulfur that's required, it's sulfuric acid. Furthermore, the first point -- about the water being driven off -- seems suspect to me (given Greening's analysis, below) because it ignores the catalytic effect of carbon monoxide on the reaction.

The Greening paper is here:

http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

Excerpt (pp. 3-4):

Chemists have investigated the thermal decomposition of gypsum, CaSO4.2H2O or anhydrite, CaSO4,
since the early 1900s because of its potential for making sulfuric acid by the liberation of SO2 or SO3
from a plentiful and inexpensive starting material /7/. It was known at this time that the direct reaction:
CaSO4 -> CaO + SO3 + 1/2 O2
(followed by: SO3 + H2O -> H2SO4), only proceeds at an acceptable rate at temperatures ~ 1400 degC.
However, early research showed that the above reaction could be accelerated by additives such as clay
and, more importantly, the reduction of CaSO4 to CaO and SO2 by reaction with solid carbon or gaseous
carbon monoxide was found to be possible at temperatures well below 1000 degC /8/. In these cases CaSO4
was decomposed by two novel reactions:
2CaSO4 + C -> 2CaO + CO2 + 2SO2
and,
CaSO4 + CO -> CaO + CO2 + SO2

Since the 1980s there been renewed interest in these reactions because of their role in the removal of SO2
from combustion gases by contact with lime (CaO) in so-called flue gas desufurisation processes, (See,
for example /9/ and references contained therein.). As a consequence, the chemistry of calcium sulfate
reduction has been investigated over a wide range of conditions. Thus, for example, R. Kuusik and co-
workers (See Ref/10/), have reported details of the thermal decomposition of calcium sulfate in carbon
monoxide/nitrogen mixtures and note that in 10 - 20 % CO/ N2, calcium sulfide, CaS, and carbon dioxide
are formed at temperatures in the range 780 - 850 degC, while at CO concentrations below 10 %, calcium
oxide, CaO, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are formed above 900 degC. Kuusik et al. also note that the
presence of impurities such as SiO2 in the calcium sulfate lower the decomposition temperatures by up to
100 degC.

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 900 degC 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. If we further assume, as was done for
the live load production of SO2, that the decomposition gases accumulated in a volume of 10,000 m3 and
the effective air exchange rate was four floor-volumes per hour, the maximum concentration of SO2 from
the decomposition of gypsum was 12 grams / m3, equivalent to 0.42 vol % SO2.

So, if I'm following Greening, he's saying, yeah, BUT, we had a fuel-rich fire going there, and therefore a lot of CO, so it's possible some elemental sulfur was liberated from the sheetrock and that's where we got all this sulfur contamination.

Any chemists in the house?

ETA: page number refs to the Greening paper, spelling ("difulfate", geez)

[Montoya]

As predicted, the next battleground is shaping up to be sulfidation of the WTC steel. Sadly, I don't have the chemistry chops to take this one up even though Greening has a convincing bit of stoichiometry and the "Scholars" have....who knows. Unfounded assertions & confirmation bias, it appears.

If you're just joining us a brief recap. One of the enduring mysteries of 9/11 has been the presence of sulfur contaminants observed on some of the WTC steel. The source and mechanism of this contamination has never been conclusively identified. The CTs -- of course -- immediately leapt to the conclusion that it's evidence of "thermate" (thermite enriched with sulfur to enhance its cutting effectiveness).


If the sulphur comes from the "thermate", then there should be plenty of aluminum, and/or aluminum oxide mixed in the iron, but the reports that indicate the presence of sulphur never mention any aluminum. That alone would rule out "thermate".

[Hellbound]

If the sulphur comes from the "thermate", then there should be plenty of aluminum, and/or aluminum oxide mixed in the iron, but the reports that indicate the presence of sulphur never mention any aluminum. That alone would rule out "thermate".

Not to mention that the ONLY time I've seen information about sulphur on thermite, it's an older version of thermite, LESS effective than modern Aluminum/Iron Oxide mixes.

Not saying it's false,just that I've yet to find any info suggesting that sulphur enhances the reaction.

Military-grade thermite adds Barium nitrate and sulfer, but the amount of sulfer is minimal (1/15th the amount of barium nitrate), so my question would be "where's the barium reactant products?".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thermate grenades: these special-purpose grenades are (obviously) filled with a substance called thermate. Thermate is a powdered mixture of 1 part barium nitrate, 2 parts aluminum, and 3 parts iron oxide (rust). The aluminum and iron oxide particles are known as thermite, and when ignited by a very hot-burning fuse substance such as magnesium, the resulting incendiary reaction can easily melt steel. The burning liquid metal produced by the reaction has an accelerated heating/corrosion effect, and an M14 thermate grenade is said to be capable of burning a hole through a ½-inch thick steel plate. The addition of barium nitrate distinguishes thermate from thermite, and it allows the mixture to burn even when submerged underwater. Unlike the anti-personnel WP grenades, thermate grenades can be used to damage vehicles, small buildings, stored munitions, etc. The burning metal welds parts together, burns holes through plate, and distorts structural components. However, the area of destruction is quite small, so these grenades are not very widely used.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Misc.html


Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature. Although the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 is as an incendiary, it will also weld metal surfaces together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

So far no info on standard residue from spent thermate

[dubfan]

If the sulphur comes from the "thermate", then there should be plenty of aluminum, and/or aluminum oxide mixed in the iron, but the reports that indicate the presence of sulphur never mention any aluminum. That alone would rule out "thermate".

A CT will argue that the site was sanitized and that the only reason we know of the sulfur is because of its presence on a few extant beams that were preserved. Jones' experiments (FWIW) are based on scrapings from a section of WTC that was preserved for use in a memorial (and yes, for now, let's ignore all the obvious chain of custody questions that arise from that).

So, for the purposes of argument, assume any aluminum residue is gone -- removed in the process of cleaning up the site.

[Hellbound]

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Misc.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

So far no info on standard residue from spent thermate

Thanks, Arkan. I went and found some info right after I posted, and edited my comment.

Still, sulpher is one of the smallest constituents of thermite (except for the binder), and it seems that other elements would be much more abundant. Aluminum Oxide and Elemental Iron, for one, and well as whatever Barium Nitrate would react to.

It's Ba(NO3)2, so I'd assume:

2Ba(NO3)2 + O2 -> Ba2O + 2NO3-

Not sure what the nitrate would combine with, but the Barium would oxidize (it's specifically put in to increase combustion). That's a start, though, should be barium oxide residue, as well.

[azazal]

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Misc.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

So far no info on standard residue from spent thermate


Woo-hoo, SD.net quoting :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Woo-hoo, SD.net quoting :)

This is a good thing? :confused:

[azazal]

This is a good thing? :confused:

Yes, yes it is. I hang out at the forums there as well

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, yes it is. I hang out at the forums there as well

Copy. I'm only on my 2nd caffeinated beverage of the morning, so I'm not firing on all four cylinders yet.

[kevin]

I think Huntsman pointed this out in another thread, but why would use thermite/thermate for any of this? Sure it can MELT steel, but if you wanted to CUT steel use something explosive, which thermite isn't.

[Hellbound]

I think Huntsman pointed this out in another thread, but why would use thermite/thermate for any of this? Sure it can MELT steel, but if you wanted to CUT steel use something explosive, which thermite isn't.

Good point here, too. It will follow gravity as it melts, so you have the additional problem of having to have something to "hold" it against the large steel columns until it cuts through, otherwise it'll just fall down (off the column). As well as the large puddles of molten iron it'll leave behind.

Of course, even holding it next to a column is likely to produce not a cut, but a large chunk of iron welded to the column. The reason it'll melt through an engine block is because gravity pulls it down into the softened metal.

Think of a hot knife and butter. If you set the hot knife on top of the butter, yeah, it'll cut right through it. You set it to one side, though, and you get maybe a soft spot :)

[dubfan]

Let's ignore all the sound, common-sense arguments against thermite/thermate for the moment.

There's unexplained sulfur contamination on the WTC steel. Fact.

There were large quantities of pure hydrous calcium disulfate in the WTC. Fact.

Can anyone propose a mechanism (or verify Greening's proposed mechanism) by which the elemental sulfur in the WTC drywall could've been liberated and ended up contaminating that steel?

NIST/FEMA is of little help on this (they speculate that acid rain might be a contributor). I asked Greening why they apparently overlooked the sheetrock (it would seem the obvious place to look), and he just shrugged, and said only that several of the NIST/FEMA contributors had reviewed his paper and that he had gotten a positive response. One of them said he simply lacked the chemistry background necessary to evaluate potential reactions that could've produced it.

[Montoya]

Let's ignore all the sound, common-sense arguments against thermite/thermate for the moment.

There's unexplained sulfur contamination on the WTC steel. Fact.

There were large quantities of pure hydrous calcium disulfate in the WTC. Fact.


The report I've seen also shows calcium traces in the samples, in about the same quantities as the sulphur. This also points to the gypsum as being a source of both. I'm not qualified to make any comments on the chemical reactions, though.

Do we know if the sulphur-contaminated iron was found after it had been in the rubble for a long time, or only briefly ?

[Hellbound]

The report I've seen also shows calcium traces in the samples, in about the same quantities as the sulphur. This also points to the gypsum as being a source of both. I'm not qualified to make any comments on the chemical reactions, though.

Do we know if the sulphur-contaminated iron was found after it had been in the rubble for a long time, or only briefly ?

Good question.

Another: how much of the sulphur contamination was there? Was every piece of steel contaminated? One? Half? A few?

Dependant on the quantity, it's not unreasonable to assume that some offices and areas might have had stores of sulphur containing chemicals or reagents.

I just don't know enough about the circumstances and extent of the contamination to comment.

[CurtC]

If the sulphur comes from the "thermate", then there should be plenty of aluminum, and/or aluminum oxide mixed in the iron, but the reports that indicate the presence of sulphur never mention any aluminum.But there was so much aluminum in the WTC, the presence of aluminum oxide would be unremarkable, possibly explaining why you haven't seen it mentioned.

Another potential source of the sulfur: it's commonly found in fuels.

[Hellbound]

But there was so much aluminum in the WTC, the presence of aluminum oxide would be unremarkable, possibly explaining why you haven't seen it mentioned.

Yeah, but the amounts and where they were found might tell something. Most of the aluminum was in the facade (although there were likely piping and other materials inside). Still, though, largfe deposits of aluminum oxide should have accompanied the areas of sulphur, if this was thermite contamination. As well as iron and braium oxide.

Sulphur doesn't mean thermite, just like carbon doesn't mean gunpowder ;)

Good call on fuels, though, I hadn't thought about that.

[dubfan]

Another potential source of the sulfur: it's commonly found in fuels.

Greening goes into that -- quantitatively -- in his paper. Not enough sulfur to account for what they saw, apparently.

[Gravy]

I don't have anything to add except to say thanks for the good read, and the CTs still need some lessons in stropping Occam's razor.

[Kent1]

Let's ignore all the sound, common-sense arguments against thermite/thermate for the moment.

There's unexplained sulfur contamination on the WTC steel. Fact.

There were large quantities of pure hydrous calcium disulfate in the WTC. Fact.

Can anyone propose a mechanism (or verify Greening's proposed mechanism) by which the elemental sulfur in the WTC drywall could've been liberated and ended up contaminating that steel?

NIST/FEMA is of little help on this (they speculate that acid rain might be a contributor). I asked Greening why they apparently overlooked the sheetrock (it would seem the obvious place to look), and he just shrugged, and said only that several of the NIST/FEMA contributors had reviewed his paper and that he had gotten a positive response. One of them said he simply lacked the chemistry background necessary to evaluate potential reactions that could've produced it.

I have spoken with Jonathan Barnett who worked on this mystery for FEMA. (*He prefers that people speak to him directly because he gets taken out of context quite a bit.)
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

He was very helpful and even refuted some points from Dr. Jones.
The 3 top sources are
Gyp. wallboard dust
Heating oil
Acid Rain

He also explained the "partly evaporated steel members" mentioned in Jones paper was indeed this steel http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
It wasn't steel that reached 2860C as Jones seems to imply.

There was a good amount of no 6 fuel oil leaking at ground zero.

[kevin]

are they saying there is above expected quantities of sulfur IN the steel, or ON the steel? In the steel would imply the steel was below spec since sulfer is a common impurity. This would've been a huge deal to NIST so I'm assuming it's on the steel.

Isn't supher a common ingredient in diesel fuel? Weren't there at least one large backup generator fuel tank on the upper floors and more on the lower ones? What about deposits from all the exhaust of all the diesel trucks in the removal teams? Remember the pictures of lines of dump trucks in downtown manhattan?

[kevin]

whoops just the comment on fuels already made. my bad.

[Gravy]

I have spoken with Jonathan Barnett who worked on this mystery for FEMA. (*He prefers that people speak to him directly because he gets taken out of context quite a bit.)
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

He was very helpful and even refuted some points from Dr. Jones.
The 3 top sources are
Gyp. wallboard dust
Heating oil
Acid Rain

He also explained the "partly evaporated steel members" mentioned in Jones paper was indeed this steel http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
It wasn't steel that reached 2860C as Jones seems to imply.

There was a good amount of no 6 fuel oil leaking at ground zero.

Thanks, Kent. Great post.

[XXX]

OK, not big on chemistry here. I have a layman's question.

From this link http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

"A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron."

I thought you couldn't lower the melting point of a substance? (unless you changed it's composition in the smelting process?)

[Kent1]

Thanks, Kent. Great post.
I'll add more from some of my own research, its a little bit of an info dump on spills for those who are interested. (I'm still researching)

Number 6 fuel oil spill at the Twin Towers
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/meeting/pdf02/kahnp.pdf

Here is a link on Corrosion (Hot and cold) and bunker #6 fuel
http://www.liquidminerals.com/fuels.htm

There were many spills at ground zero including
10,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil
1,000 gallons of diesel oil from ruptured petroleum storage tanks at 130 Liberty Street.
100,000 gallons of dielectric fluid from transformers and oil-filled electric feeders present in the former Con edison substations located at WTC7

Here's a link to some of the various spills and locations at ground zero
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/fstc/documents/deis/appendices/appendixl.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/ea/10_hazardous_materials.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Appendix_D.pdf
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
Some of the reports are a little conflicting.
The more later reports (post clean up) we can find, the better.

[ktesibios]

OK, not big on chemistry here. I have a layman's question.

From this link http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

"A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron."

I thought you couldn't lower the melting point of a substance? (unless you changed it's composition in the smelting process?)

Two substances can form an alloy or a solution which has a lower melting point than either of the substances by itself. An obvious example is a solution of common salt (sodium chloride) in water, which melts at a temperature lower than that of either pure water or pure salt.

Here's a page that explains this behavior with my favorite example, tin-lead solder:

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/snpb.html

You can see why the solders used in electronics work are usually either 60/40 or 63/37 Sn/Pb. These alloys are both very close to the eutectic proportions for tin/lead; this gives solder which melts at the lowest possible temperature, which helps to avoid heat damage to components and PC boards during soldering.

[XXX]

Thanks for the explination ktesibios. I'll check out that link. Always nice to learn something new.

[chipmunk stew]

dubfan,

You might try posting a link to this thread in the Science subforum, too. I know there are a lot of super-smart lab geeks over there. They might help us translate some of the more technical stuff.

Great thread, everyone! Thanks for all the reading material (esp. Kent!)

[dubfan]

Done.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58923

[AbrashTX]

Huntsman, do you feel comfortable speculating further on the expected by-products of thermate? I'm putting together a presentation rebutting some of Steven Jones' claims, and I'd like to be able to say, "If thermate were used, you would expect to find barium oxide and elemental iron in specific ratios," etc.

Thanks

[T.A.M.]

AbrashTX;

Welcome to the JREF forum. I recognize your name from SLC. Here, unlike other sites, you can freely express your opinion, Debunk or Conspiracy, and be reassured you will not be banned. they debate furiously here though, so watch out for verbal shrapnel when observing and argument.

My advice re: above, is contact huntsman via PM...seems nice enough...doubt he will mind.

TAM

[Hellbound]

Abrash,

Just noticed your question :)

I'm not an expert on thermate, but simply looking at the ingredients list will give you an idea what to look for.

Thermate consists of a mixture of ~69% thermite (aluminum/iron oxide mix), ~29% barium nitrate, and 2% sulphur. Barium nitrate increases the thermal effect.

THe primary effect of thermite is to produce iron slag and aluminum oxide. However, each of these would likely be present anyway (lots of aluminum in the building, and heat would have oxidized the aluminum and possibly melted some iron or steel in the underground fires after the collapse). Sulphur would, IMHO, be the least likely marker as it's such a small percentage of the thermate mix, and it also has many other likely sources. I'd expect to see the barium nitrate undergo oxidation processes, but I'm not 100% sure of what the by-products would be...we'd need a chemist for that. I'd suspect barium oxides, not sure what the nitrate would do.

IN any case, I'd also expect to see all of these compounds in the same area. Sulphur, found outside the presence of the other compunds that would be expected, would not be evidence for thermate. Beyond these statements, I'm not qualified to comment.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Abrash,

Just noticed your question :)

I'm not an expert on thermate, but simply looking at the ingredients list will give you an idea what to look for.

Thermate consists of a mixture of ~69% thermite (aluminum/iron oxide mix), ~29% barium nitrate, and 2% sulphur. Barium nitrate increases the thermal effect.

THe primary effect of thermite is to produce iron slag and aluminum oxide. However, each of these would likely be present anyway (lots of aluminum in the building, and heat would have oxidized the aluminum and possibly melted some iron or steel in the underground fires after the collapse). Sulphur would, IMHO, be the least likely marker as it's such a small percentage of the thermate mix, and it also has many other likely sources. I'd expect to see the barium nitrate undergo oxidation processes, but I'm not 100% sure of what the by-products would be...we'd need a chemist for that. I'd suspect barium oxides, not sure what the nitrate would do.

IN any case, I'd also expect to see all of these compounds in the same area. Sulphur, found outside the presence of the other compunds that would be expected, would not be evidence for thermate. Beyond these statements, I'm not qualified to comment.


All doctor Jones found it Sulfur form the buildings, Aluminum, Fluoride, Manganese, and no chromium so he says the sample could not be A36 structural steel because it was not stainless steel that still confuses me.

He basically found trace elements left from the steel making process.

[Hellbound]

CC:

Yep, that's my opinion as well.

[MortFurd]

All doctor Jones found it Sulfur form the buildings, Aluminum, Fluoride, Manganese, and no chromium so he says the sample could not be A36 structural steel because it was not stainless steel that still confuses me.

He basically found trace elements left from the steel making process.
Yah. A cursory internet search shows A36 structural steel to be a low carbon steel, not stainless.

What he found seems to be the trace elements that give any alloy its specific characteristics.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yah. A cursory internet search shows A36 structural steel to be a low carbon steel, not stainless.

What he found seems to be the trace elements that give any alloy its specific characteristics.

Actually fluoride and Aluminum are used only in the manufacturing process and can be left over as trace elements.
Manganese is used in the steel Alloys, that is what he found.
I know that A 36 is not stainless, that is the problem Dr. Jones says it is.

[MortFurd]

I know that A 36 is not stainless, that is the problem Dr. Jones says it is.
I understood that. Yes, you know that A36 is not stainless. I was just surprised that Dr. Jones couldn't find that out.

I can't locate a copy of Dr. Jones' work. Does anyone have a link?

[T.A.M.]

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

TAM

[MortFurd]

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

TAM

Thanks.

No mention of stainless that I could find. I haven't cheked all the links, though.