JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[CHF]

Jones should know his research needs to meet recognized scientific standards of reproducibility, but perhaps not, especially when this paper has no section labeled "CONCLUSION".

Which says an awful lot about just how confident he is about his own work.

The continuing "peer-reviews" in his own journal is rather revealing as well.

 

[Sizzler]

Ah, but where? Over broad areas. But what about localized higher temperatures? For instance, NIST believes the exceptionally bright flame in the NE 81st floor of the south tower was due to metal burning. How high could those temperatures have been? Would Steve Jones like to know? Would you? None of you truthers seem interested in actually learning about what you claim is of vital importance. Is JAQing off really that pleasurable?

Are you suggesting pockets of fire in the WTC office fire were 1500C and above, such that steel actually melted, fell through the air and turned into microspheres via air tension?

I just want to be absolutely clear before we proceed.

 

[HereticHulk]

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

TAM

Maybe keeping your piehole closed until you read it would be a good idea?

Not as a good an idea as keeping things civil would be. Please remember that in your future posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[BenBurch]

What happens when paper printed using an iron-based toner burns? Eh?

 

[Sizzler]

Lets focus on the RJ Lee report;

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

Since these particles were present in the WTC dust, and because the dust was emitted during collapse (not after), it is fair to assume that the above physical changes occurred during the pre-collapse office fire (not rubble pile).

Also;

Extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volitize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wood

Iron melts at 1538C

and

lead vaporizes at 1740C


So someone help me out here. Are those temperatures consistent with the pre-collapse office fire temperatures?

And if not, how can we explain these observations within the official hypothesis?

 

[quicknthedead]

Things must have developed since then. The 911 WTC perpetrators must have used latests (sic) technology to cut all these columns quickly and coordinated. (sic)

Coordinated by who? Who were the perps? Spell check, please. And when you're (sic) done that, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS CLAIM.

Grammar check, please...oh, pardon. You will have to do that yourself.

 

[Max Photon]

No one knows what the temperatures were in the towers

Iron melts at 1538C

and

lead vaporizes at 1740C


So someone help me out here. Are those temperatures consistent with the pre-collapse office fire temperatures?

No one knows what the temperatures were in the towers.

1.) All of the steel evidence (minus 236 pieces) was destroyed.

2.) NIST's quoted "temperatures" are based on computer models. (NIST always makes it sound like those were the actual temperatures in the towers.)

So...guess away! (Everyone else does.)

Max

 

[Sizzler]

No one knows what the temperatures were in the towers.

1.) All of the steel (minus 236 pieces) was destroyed.

2.) NIST's quoted "temperatures" are based on computer models. (NIST always makes it sound like those were the actual temperatures in the towers.)

So...guess away! (Everyone else does.)

Max

Thats it?

 

[Sizzler]

Thomas Eager:

The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

 

[Sizzler]

stop tap dancing around this issue you guys.

address the temperatures!!!!

 

[DavidJames]

stop tap dancing around this issue you guys.

address the temperatures!!!!

yawn. Your act is old, grow up, do your own research, organize your data, draw your own conclusions, come back and present your case.

 

[Gravy]

Grammar check, please...oh, pardon. You will have to do that yourself.

How about an honesty check, quick? Last I checked, your absurd "seismic" paper is still online at the JONES, although you're well aware that it's completely wrong.

Please explain why that is.

ETA: I bumped the thread for you. Proceed with your explanation.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I see Sizzler is ignoring the posts that address his concerns again.

microbeers aren't enough, you need at least 12oz bottles.

 

[quicknthedead]

I think a lot of you have missed this point:

Moreover, the RJ report provides provocative data regarding the abundance of observed iron-rich spheres. A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 liberty shows a "mean composition" of "Fe spheres" of 5.87% which is very high compared with "Fe spheres" found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Report, December, 2003). As the report notes, the WTC dust has unusual identifying characteristics-in particular, the WTC dust in this sample has nearly 150 times (5.87/0.04) the amount of iron-rich spheres as ordinary dust.

5.87% of the dust is iron-rich spheres, compared to regular building dust of 0.04%.

Correct. This is a significant increase of 14,675%.

 

[Gravy]

Are you suggesting pockets of fire in the WTC office fire were 1500C and above, such that steel actually melted, fell through the air and turned into microspheres via air tension?

I just want to be absolutely clear before we proceed.

What? Read my post again, this time for comprehension.

 

[Gravy]

Correct. This is a significant increase of 14,675%.

OMG! I just poured juice in my glass, and increased its juice content by a gajillion percent! Someone should investigate this anomaly!

 

[R.Mackey]

This is quite a remarkable thread...

5.87% of the dust is iron-rich spheres, compared to regular building dust of 0.04%.

Um... Dr. Jones is claiming over 5% of the dust is in the form of iron microspheres?!?

Not very credible. This appears, at the very least, to be an undersampling error. It's not consistent with a real study, which found < 3.1% in any sample with 0.5% being typical, and that's all sources of iron, not just microspheres:

The relative weight-percent ratios of Al, Mg, and Fe are in the range of those found in portland cement, a major component of concrete (McKetta 1978).

Source

I think Dr. Jones has a "special" sample, not representative of the dust at all. The onus is on him to prove his dust sample means anything whatsoever.

Are you suggesting pockets of fire in the WTC office fire were 1500C and above, such that steel actually melted, fell through the air and turned into microspheres via air tension?

I just want to be absolutely clear before we proceed.

"Air tension?" I trust you mean "surface tension" of the hypothetical liquid iron. There are other ways to form microspheres, as has been described to you here before. Many of which are at much lower temperatures.

Grammar check, please...oh, pardon. You will have to do that yourself.

Wow, it's Craig Furlong. Never thought I'd see you here again. I might take this opportunity to remind you to retract your seismic paper. Your prompt attention is appreciated. Thanks.

stop tap dancing around this issue you guys.

address the temperatures!!!!

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of such high temperatures. Microspheres are not. Dr. Jones's paper is not. There's no conflict here.

 

[quicknthedead]

Originally Posted by Sizzler
Well, NIST and others, as reported in Jones' paper, cite maximum temperature of 1100C.

Maximum temperatures where?

From the report, pg 10:

Table 2. Maximum Gas Temperature Reached in WTC Fires [20]
Analysis
°C
°F

Thomas Eager analysis
1,000
1,832

NIST analysis
1,000
1,832

Torero, Quintiere, Steinhaus
1,100
2,012

 

[Pardalis]

Sigh, I'm really anxious we get passed the minute details and get to the meat of the matter.

Who, what, when, where and how.

 

[quicknthedead]

How about an honesty check, quick? Last I checked, your absurd "seismic" paper is still online at the JONES, although you're well aware that it's completely wrong.

Please explain why that is.

ETA: I bumped the thread for you. Proceed with your explanation.

You are entitled to your opinion, Mark, and I to mine.
I believe you are wrong and the paper is right.
But this is not the topic here so we will have to let it go at that.