Question for Apollo20

[Max Photon]

Constrain yourself Max

I agree, completely as I have stated here in the past Oxide reduction reactions have had to occurred with carbon.

Then kudos to you too CC. Very cool.


These are all constraints.

 

[Max Photon]

Was Crazy Chainsaw unable to replicate Jones' thermite-derived microspheres?

Chainsaw,

I am under the impression Jones obtained dust from near Ground Zero, and found - among other things - various microspheres.

I am also under the impression that Jones burned some thermite recipes and found microspheres similar to those found in the WTC dust sample.

Now I am also under the impression that you have tried Jones' recipes - and others - many others - and cannot reproduce Jones' findings (as you understand them).

In your estimation, are my impressions correct?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chainsaw,

I am under the impression Jones obtained dust from near Ground Zero, and found - among other things - various microspheres.

I am also under the impression that Jones burned some thermite recipes and found microspheres similar to those found in the WTC dust sample.

Now I am also under the impression that you have tried Jones' recipes - and others - many others - and cannot reproduce Jones' findings (as you understand them).

In your estimation, are my impressions correct?

NO I can produce Joneses findings from thermite thermate, or though chemical reactions in ordinary fires, he has to date not found anything that I would not expect to find, in a fire.
I have identified species compounds only formed by high temperature reactions that would not normally occur in the fires of the World Trade Center, to date Jones has shown none of them.
IF Jones found those species then Thermite, would be one of the few ways they could have been formed in an oxygen environment.
The problem has always been producing a solid iron, Fe sphere with sulfur, FeS in a reducing environment with carbon, IF I take a Fe 203 or Fe 304 sphere, and react it with carbon to create Fe, the sulfur in the sphere also reacts with the oxide to form SO2, so I loose the sulfur in the process as well with the oxygen.
Since the S in Joneses Micro spheres is Si silicon it is not lost during the Oxidation of FeS to Fe 304 so Jones spheres are not evidence of thermite at all.
The problem was that Jones did not release the data and I actually believed him to be an honest researcher with critical important knowledge.
My mistake.
I actually sent Jones a sample of Fe 304 formed from Chlorides similar to those found in brown paper as the mordant that holds brown paper together.
Brown paper is brown because of Ferric Chloride.
All Dr. Jones had to do was state that his IRON spheres were mostly oxide with Si and anyone would be able to recreate them.

DR. Jones has not found anything that would not be found in an ordinary house fire.

 

[Max Photon]

Thank you very much for clarifying. All very interesting.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chainsaw/Max:

Thanks... I am still trying to dig out more information on these reactions. I suspect that the heat production would be less than the Al/iron oxide reaction. As for the magnetism, I think its a key feature of the reaction ......... see:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030093577_2003101278.pdf

Working from experience I can say positively that your right. The carbon molecular bonding gets stronger with heat, forming graphite rings, heat and pressure are in fact how diamonds are formed the strongest molecular bonding known in the universe.
As metals are heated they lose their inherent magnetic fields as the electrons become less molecularly bonded.
I have preformed the experiments, and have created crude pig iron from iron ore, Fe 304-Fe 203, and diesel soot it works, Chlorides and Sulfates make it work even better because the Chlorides and Sulfates when heated decay into hot metal oxides, that react with carbons because they are hot.
I have already preformed that experiment I know it to be true, and as Dr. Jones so well put it experiments trump authoritarian statements even his.

A

+B

=C

It simply adds up that such reactions would play a major part in that environment and would produce as mine did explosive carbon monoxide.
However no one really wants to listen such gas when compressed even mildly with air explodes.

Now Apollo20 we will have the enjoyment of members of the Herd mentality, criticizing me for my crazy conspiracy theories, (on natural explosive and high temperature fuels created in fire,) again.
Such fuels and reactions would undoubtedly lead to energy increases in the collapses, and unusual effects.
I however do not like to talk about them as I have been criticized so much for even bringing up the subjects.

 

[T.A.M.]

If Jones is any sort of legitimate scientist, he should release his dust samples for independent testing...I doubt, in the extreme, that he will...he seems to have a thing for chips now (with or without dip is the question).

TAM

 

[Max Photon]

How iron-sulfur microspheres might have formed in WTC2, despite carbon

NO I can produce Joneses findings from thermite thermate, or though chemical reactions in ordinary fires, he has to date not found anything that I would not expect to find, in a fire.
I have identified species compounds only formed by high temperature reactions that would not normally occur in the fires of the World Trade Center, to date Jones has shown none of them.
IF Jones found those species then Thermite, would be one of the few ways they could have been formed in an oxygen environment.
The problem has always been producing a solid iron, Fe sphere with sulfur, FeS in a reducing environment with carbon.

[bold mine]


Chainsaw / Apollo20,

Allow me to offer how Fe spheres with S might have been created at WTC2.

Assume the 10 minute metal fire at Column 301/81 was from a thermite reaction (and that there were more of them in that NE corner).

Assume that these reactions left molten iron on the slab (some of which we saw in the metal flows).

For the iron to flow while yellow, the iron would have to be high in sulfur. Jerry Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram shows a eutectic at about 32% sulfur, with a melting temperature at around 950 C.

When WTC2 failed right at the NE corner, all of this hot sulfur-rich iron - some still molten - was blasted out - "atomized" if you will - and this cooled into iron/sulfur microspheres.

(I mentioned elsewhere that columns could have had a foot of sand or silica in the bottom ends, which might have provided some Si, or Ca, K to the Fe, S product.)

Please note that not just one, but many WTC2 videos and photos of the collapse initiation clearly show a red-orange cloud blowing out of the NE corner. Attached is just one example.

So why is there S in the iron spheres in a carbon rich environment? Wouldn't the S get removed to form S02?

I suggest that the NE corner was severely depleted of carbon based fuel by the time of the metal fire. Furthermore, the NE corner was very well ventilated. Between little carbon-based fuel, and plenty of O2, the NE corner was in fact NOT a carbon rich formation environment for the iron-sulfur melt. Thus S was not taken up as S02, and we see sulfur rich iron microsphere, formed in a low carbon, high oxygen environment.

[Fly ash in the ointment: I have to check, but Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram might have been for a low O2 environment.]


ETA: Ignore the markings on the photo below. Those are NOT pointing out the reddish cloud.

* * *

 

[Major_Tom]

Dgm writes:

Major Tom:
There's no buckles because they failed at the weld joints where you would expect. The weak link so to speak.

Totally agree. Using forensic photographic evidence we can see that this is where the large, large majority of column-to-column separations occurred.

So when Bazant speaks of plastic hinges and buckles, we know that they are indeed snapped welds.

We know that from the forensic photographic evidence available.



DGM, I am glad that we can all agree on a model for the "progressive collapse" of the core based on "weld failure".

This is a big step in understanding at what points the core columns failed.

This means that the core structure can be modelled using the idea of "matchsticks".

"Matchstick theory" recognizes that the large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble were totally straight and had cleanly squared-off ends.

In other words, matchstick theory accepts that the core box column sections separated from one another along their original welds.

It also accepts the fact that almost no plastic buckling deformations were observed along core box column sections.

Matchstick theory relies on comprehensive collections of photographic forensic evidence taken of the North Tower, South Tower and the Plaza area to verify it's claims.



If you combine the matchstick model with the Bazant collapse model, you will find some absurdities in the way Bazant transfers the kinetic energy of the top portion of the building to the columns of the bottom portion.

According to a matchstick visualization of the continued impacts between the 2 portions of the building, the "matchstick" upper core columns will most probably penetrate through floor panels of the lower portion.

They will in no direct way make firm contact with the tops of the core columns of the lower section.

The resulting effect would be "spearing" of core columns through floor panels.


Bazants mathematical model wouldn't make much sense if the force of the falling building can't be directly delivered to the columns in the portion of the building receiving the blow.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

[bold mine]


Chainsaw / Apollo20,

Allow me to offer how Fe spheres with S might have been created at WTC2.

Assume the 10 minute metal fire at Column 301/81 was from a thermite reaction (and that there were more of them in that NE corner).

Assume that these reactions left molten iron on the slab (some of which we saw in the metal flows).

For the iron to flow while yellow, the iron would have to be high in sulfur. Jerry Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram shows a eutectic at about 32% sulfur, with a melting temperature at around 950 C.

When WTC2 failed right at the NE corner, all of this hot sulfur-rich iron - some still molten - was blasted out - "atomized" if you will - and this cooled into iron/sulfur microspheres.

(I mentioned elsewhere that columns could have had a foot of sand or silica in the bottom ends, which might have provided some Si, or Ca, K to the Fe, S product.)

Please note that not just one, but many WTC2 videos and photos of the collapse initiation clearly show a red-orange cloud blowing out of the NE corner. Attached is just one example.

So why is there S in the iron spheres in a carbon rich environment? Wouldn't the S get removed to form S02?

I suggest that the NE corner was severely depleted of carbon based fuel by the time of the metal fire. Furthermore, the NE corner was very well ventilated. Between little carbon-based fuel, and plenty of O2, the NE corner was in fact NOT a carbon rich formation environment for the iron-sulfur melt. Thus S was not taken up as S02, and we see sulfur rich iron microsphere, formed in a low carbon, high oxygen environment.

[Fly ash in the ointment: I have to check, but Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram might have been for a low O2 environment.]


ETA: Ignore the markings on the photo below. Those are NOT pointing out the reddish cloud.

* * *

Max, Iron sulfide burns in air to Iron and SO2.
http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CC1000183&

Iron sulfates decompose when heated to SO2.

The S in the micro spheres was never S sulfur as Dr. Jones originally stated, it was Si, silicon.

 

[Max Photon]

Max, Iron sulfide burns in air to Iron and SO2.
http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CC1000183&

Iron sulfates decompose when heated to SO2.

The S in the micro spheres was never S sulfur as Dr. Jones originally stated, it was Si, silicon.

Are you referring to the WTC microspheres, or Jones' experimental microspheres?


ETA: Apollo20, I realized I'm not clear. By magnetic, do you mean magnetized, or attracted by magnets?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Are you referring to the WTC microspheres, or Jones' experimental microspheres?


ETA: Apollo20, I realized I'm not clear. By magnetic, do you mean magnetized, or attracted by magnets?

The ones found by Dr. Jones and in the air data collected by the USGS.

I believe he means that the carbon is electromagnetically attracted to the iron oxide because of the difference in charges between the two.

In other words the Hot carbon is attracted to the hot Iron oxide, and the reaction happens because of the attractions.

He is talking about this reaction.
http://www.topforge.co.uk/Processes.htm

This is the process that started the Iron Age. It seems most likely that a lump of Iron Ore in a particularly hot fire lead to a strange material left in the embers of the fire. From this, the Bloomery Furnace developed, in this a mixture of Iron Ore and Charcoal was burnt with the help of a blast of air from hand worked bellows.

The Output was typically a small lump of Wrought Iron of poor quality, but even this was enough to make an impact on history.

 

[Max Photon]

Now where in the world did I put my iron microsphere?

* * *

Sometimes it seems like the whole world is an iron microsphere.


Wait, the whole world is an iron microsphere (well, at least the core).

 

[Max Photon]

W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie

* * *

By the way, Apollo, in case you finish the crosswords early, this was posted
right before you slipped in to communism : )

 

[Golden Bear]

Golden Bear:
However, the way I see it, the paper is still being reviewed, so now is NOT the time to present this type of information on a public forum in the same way that a jury does not discuss a case until the trial is over.

It's funny how life goes sometimes. It seems like every time I have a mediation coming up, a prescient article will appear on my desk that talks about mediation tactics and strategy. Today, a similar thing happened. I was discussing jury issues with a young associate, who pointed me to an interesting article: http://www.abanet.org/yld/tyl/jan08/diamond.html. It reminded me of your comments above

FTA: "...Arizona courts wanted to evaluate an innovation that allows jurors to discuss the case among themselves during breaks in the trial—a contrast to the usual practice of admonishing jurors to refrain from discussing the case until the end of the trial. ... The results of the evaluation revealed some of the advantages (e.g., jurors found expert testimony easier to understand) and no evidence of the disadvantages (e.g., plaintiff advantage, premature closure) that proponents and critics of the discussions innovation had predicted."

I don't think this sole article will cause you to change your mind, but I did want to offer it as food for thought. If you and your writing team change your mind and would like to be more forthcoming with the revisions you have made to the paper, I would certainly welcome it.

Happy and Healthy New Year to all.

 

[Apollo20]

Golden Bear:

Welcome to the New Year!

Just like the Old Year....

You know I appreciate and even agree with your point that CLOSED-DOOR deliberations over a scientific paper that is headed for publication in the OPEN literature is something of an oxymoron, but you have to accept the REALPOLITIK of the scientific publication process. And I am saying that this is true REGARDLESS of the added sensitivities of publishing, in a mainstream (read conservative) engineering journal, a paper on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 that even MENTIONS controlled demolition/explosives !

You may not like or agree with Prof. Bazant, but I commend him for even TRYING to tackle this issue head-on in the open literature when I know that most professional engineers won't even touch the subject!

However, as it turns out, I can tell you that the politics of 9/11 is NOT what's holding up the paper - it really is mostly about the science, and let's just say "personalities"......

You know, I once had a paper rejected by a referee because, as I subsequently discovered, he didn't like the Professor who ran the research lab where I carried out the work. (By the way, the Professor's name was not even on the paper!). I know this was the only reason my paper was turned down because I eventually had a long conversation with the referee who ultimately admitted that the paper was ok; in fact he eventually apoligized for rejecting my paper!

Anyway, at the present time, I will not divulge all the on-going machinations around my paper with Bazant, but I will say that ONE issue centers on our mathematical approach to the collapse problem - an approach that has been criticized for being "too simplified". Indeed, there are those in the engineering community who believe that detailed finite element calculations are the ONLY way to model the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Obviously I, and Bazant, totally disagree with this view!

And so the debate continues.......

"Nothing changes, it's New Year's Day"

U2

 

[Max Photon]

Yes, could you get me the number of the engineering community please?

... at the present time, I will not divulge all the on-going machinations around my paper with Bazant, but I will say that ONE issue centers on our mathematical approach to the collapse problem - an approach that has been criticized for being "too simplified". Indeed, there are those in the engineering community who believe that detailed finite element calculations are the ONLY way to model the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Obviously I, and Bazant, totally disagree with this view!

As do I.




Hey look...linear thinking in a cyclical world:

 

[Golden Bear]

Anyway, at the present time, I will not divulge all the on-going machinations around my paper with Bazant, but I will say that ONE issue centers on our mathematical approach to the collapse problem - an approach that has been criticized for being "too simplified". Indeed, there are those in the engineering community who believe that detailed finite element calculations are the ONLY way to model the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Obviously I, and Bazant, totally disagree with this view!

And so the debate continues.......

Wait a minute... You mean to tell me that after publishing two papers by Bazant that espouse the mathematical model of crush down then crush up, that the good people at JEM have finally looked beyond Bazant's credentials and into the meat of the theory? I guess it's better late than never.

My question for you regarding your mathematical model vs. a finite element analysis is this: If a finite element analysis were performed for the entire collapse (ie. everything that happened after "collapse initiation" in the parlance of NIST) do you think the upper section of floors would remain in tact as a rigid block and crush down through the entire lower structure, and only after the upper section of floors completely destroyed the lower structure would it then become non-rigid and destroy itself (crush up)? Or would it be more likely that the upper section of floors would not remain a rigid block and intact as it destroyed the lower floors?

Surely a man of your intelligence can see that the upper floors would, in fact, not crush the entire lower structure as a rigid block, but instead would be just as likely as the lower floors to deform and "crush up", you know, seeing as how the upper and lower floors were very similar to each other structurally and materially speaking. What I mean is, if the columns and connections comprising the lower structure are likely to fail when the upper floors impact it, doesn't it just make sense that the columns and connections comprising the upper floors are just as likely to fail at impact? If not, why do you think not?

I'm even giving your mathematical theory the benefit of the doubt by not taking into consideration the fact that the lower down in each structure you go, the stronger and sturdier it would be (the lower structural elements had to carry more weight, after all), and thus would be even less likely to deform and fail than the relatively weaker upper section of floors.

Because this new paper you have penned with Bazant continues to rely on this ridiculous crush down then crush up theory, it is abundantly clear that your mathematical model is too simplistic, and that a finite element analysis would be a much better representation of reality. Is it possible to formulate a mathematical model that's close enough to reality to make it instructive? Maybe. I don't know. What I do know is that yours and Bazant's certainly is not.

Once JEM forces Bazant to formulate a model that's closer to reality (that is, if he can), Bazant should publish a retraction of his two previous papers if he wants to salvage any shred of credibility.

And I am saying that this is true REGARDLESS of the added sensitivities of publishing, in a mainstream (read conservative) engineering journal, a paper on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 that even MENTIONS controlled demolition/explosives !

You realize you have just given Dr. Jones and the Journal of 9/11 Studies more credibility. If what you say is true, it would be virtually impossible for a "mainstream (read conservative) journal" to publish anything that advocated, let alone MENTIONED, controlled demolition. If it's difficult to get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is debunking CD because it only mentions it, how on earth could you get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is supporting CD?

 

[Apollo20]

Well Golden Bear, please come up with a better calculation if you can.

Anybody can mouth off, but remember the story of The Little Red Hen.

 

[Max Photon]

Here, let me feed the chickens...

 

[The Almond]

[...]

You realize you have just given Dr. Jones and the Journal of 9/11 Studies more credibility. If what you say is true, it would be virtually impossible for a "mainstream (read conservative) journal" to publish anything that advocated, let alone MENTIONED, controlled demolition. If it's difficult to get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is debunking CD because it only mentions it, how on earth could you get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is supporting CD?

I'll give you a hint: Dr. Jones can acquire evidence and perform analyses that conform to the standards of the legitimate scientific community.