Sulfur in the WTC -- sheetrock or thermate?

dubfan

Critical Thinker
dubfan
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
452
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:

(constitution @ Jun 23 2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
dubfan said:
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).
Click to expand...

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".
 
Montoya said:
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".
Click to expand...

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?".
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

So far no info on standard residue from spent thermate
 
Montoya said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
kevin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
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.
 
dubfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
Montoya said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Montoya said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CurtC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CurtC said:
Another potential source of the sulfur: it's commonly found in fuels.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom