- Sep 12, 2004
Greening came to this conclusion:Originally posted by: event8horizon
no u havent explained it to me. u link frank greening who hasnt figured how the sulfur got there. actually fema wanted a furthur study but didnt get one.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, it's you that doesn't get it. I've already explained but it doesn't sink in. It doesn't matter where that sulfur came from because it didn't cause the collapse, nor did it come from any demolitions. As far as FEMA and NIST are concerned, the sulfur is a non-issue for determining WHY the towers collapsed. Maybe in the future they'll have the time and funds to determine if the sulfidation occurred pre- or post-collapse? Unlikely though because it's just not that an important issue to their reports on 9/11.Originally posted by: event8horizon
i dont think u get it. they havent figured out where the hell that elemental sulfur came from. they have ideas. and the fema report stated that the "corrosion could have started before collapse". now the engineer stated that the beam that came from wtc 7 looked as though it "vaporized" before it fell. that blows the lid off nist that the molten metal had nothing to do with the collapse.
have there been any fires which caused steel to do this.
jones might have found some thermite on those red chips though.
Jones did not find thermite or thermate. He found iron nodules. That doesn't imply thermate whatsoever. It's discussed in the very page you linked previously but clearly you ignored it because it destroys your narrative.
jones spheres are spent thermite from his hypothesis. the "red chips" are a form of thermite.
the sulphur should be a very big issue if they cant explain it and the possibility that it could have contributed to the collapse. even your debunking site wants more info on that sulfur.
Besides that, Greening doesn't claim that the sulfidation had any role in the collapse. Only truthers make that claim and they use highly dubious evidence that doesn't add up when you look at the big picture. But you'd rather ignore that big picture to make hay of insignificance. Your sulfidation is a hyped red herring of a truther argument, nothing more. Once again it's fruit, not meat.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.