JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Sizzler]

Is there someone here denying "spherical metallic particles" existed in and around the site?

No, but people are suggesting the spheres came from flyash in the concrete, or burnt organic matter, etc.

Jones suggests they come from melted iron contents in the building due to the WTC event.

and so does this non-truther scientist.

RJ. Lee Report.

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

that is the same conclusion Jones suggests. so why is he being scietifically dishonest?

 

[Sizzler]

Exactly. But do they make any absurd assumptions in their paper about abnormally high temps? Please use the critical eye to look in both directions.

I'll ask my local fire chief if he knows any good references to fire info. He just showed up at the meeting from hell. I need a bigger office.

ok, so the temperature to melt iron is ~1500C.

That is well above any temperatures I've seen cited in any offical account for the WTC pre-collapse fires.

I mean, I've been told over and over again that iron did not melt in the WTC event because temperatures were too hot. For example, observed molten metals are described by NIST as being aluminum or glass or whatever.

If it is possible for iron to melt in the pre-collapse fires, why do so many official debunkings debunk that very event?

So this is why I am confused about this entire thing.

 

[DavidJames]

No, but people are suggesting the spheres came from flyash in the concrete, or burnt organic matter, etc.

Jones suggests they come from melted iron contents in the building due to the WTC event.

and so does this non-truther scientist.

RJ. Lee Report.



that is the same conclusion Jones suggests. so why is he being scietifically dishonest?

People are suggesting alternative reasons, something Jones has not pursued. You want to believe so bad, I'm sorry.

 

[DGM]

ok, so the temperature to melt iron is ~1500C.

That is well above any temperatures I've seen cited in any offical account for the WTC pre-collapse fires.

I mean, I've been told over and over again that iron did not melt in the WTC event because temperatures were too hot. For example, observed molten metals are described by NIST as being aluminum or glass or whatever.

If it is possible for iron to melt in the pre-collapse fires, why do so many official debunkings debunk that very event?

So this is why I am confused about this entire thing.

Because you can't get past the "melt" to get to burn. Burning is "oxidation" this can happen at room temperature (rusting /why I gave you the link this morning/ big picture) or by other chemical processes so the temp is not known that these things formed.

Jones is telling you something that he should be trying to prove.

 

[Sizzler]

[/QUOTE]

Because you can't get past the "melt" to get to burn. Burning is "oxidation" this can happen at room temperature (rusting /why I gave you the link this morning/ big picture) or by other chemical processes so the temp is not known that these things formed.

Jones is telling you something that he should be trying to prove.

But it isn't just Dr Jones that said these are the result of melting.

RJ. Lee Report.

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

this is sourced from a non-truth scientist. he comes up with the same process for creation of microspheres.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't mean to be dense, but I still don't see where RJ Lee Group Inc. reports ~5% iron microspheres. Maybe I need my hand held?

Not that this matters for our discussion.

Sizzler, for the hundredth time, iron microspheres do not necessarily imply temperatures of > 1500 ^oC. Sulfur-laden chemical fires, e.g. diesel fuel and gasoline fires, can catalyze this at much lower temperatures. Steel degrades at its surface at much lower temperatures even in the absence of sulfur. Mechanical sources for local heating exist, both before impact, during impact, and during collapse. If there were temperatures as high as you propose over any appreciable area, rather than tiny localized spots as governed by local chemistry and mechanics, there would be melted steel slag remaining. This slag would cool and remain unmelted after the Pile fires and salvage operations, and therefore would be found. They were not.

metamars, we've discussed thermobarics with you before, and discarded the idea. Why are you bringing it up again? Thought we'd forget? Conspiracy theorists do this all the time -- you're not special. And before you bring up Jim Hoffman's "hydrogen thermobaric," remember the fires in the building..?

 

[metamars]

Metamars:

So you also decline such a simple challenge.

Okay, please explain how thermobaric explosions that are strong enough to destroy WTC floors are not strong enough to break windows or even perturb smoke coming from open windows.

I await with sadness your denial of reality.

Why do you say that they are not strong enough to break windows?

According to ex-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/15/1052885324203.html

Rumsfeld said the new missile "can take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above, and is capable of reaching around corners, striking enemy forces that hide in caves or bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes.''

He was referring to the Hellfire with a thermobaric warhead.

As for "not perturbing smoke coming out of open windows", of course, the question to ask is "which windows belonging to which floors"? I am suggesting the use of thermobarics for damaging the building on a floor by floor basis. There's no law of nature that says that each and every floor must have a thermobaric applied, if you're going to apply thermobarics, at all.

In fact, I recall the claim that explosive outburst seem staggered every 3 floors.

I would agree that if a particular floor has open windows, and even a low velocity (<80 mph, say) thermobaric (if such a thing exists) is detonated therein, that the smoke will, indeed, be perturbed.

However, if the smoke is not perturbed, why assume a thermobaric for that particular floor, to begin with?

As for "declining your simple challenge", it should be clear that your challenge is a straw man, since you have not exhausted possible chemical causes of the explosive outbursts you see.

If it makes you happy, please note that I don't believe high explosives are what's causing the explosive (~40-80 mph) bursts. Therefore, I have no need to take up your challenge, since we actually agree on this point.

Finally, I note that you've ducked my question as to when you're going to address the question of thermobarics in one of your movies.

 

[Pardalis]

Siz, you're so focused on the micro world you need to take a look back for a sec.

How on earth would one lace thermate secretly on these giant skyscrapers to begin with? Where exactly would it need to be placed and how?

We're talking science-fiction here.

 

[twinstead]

Boy, each of you truthers do indeed have your own little pet theories, don't you?

 

[Sizzler]

I don't mean to be dense, but I still don't see where RJ Lee Group Inc. reports ~5% iron microspheres. Maybe I need my hand held?

Not that this matters for our discussion.

Sizzler, for the hundredth time, iron microspheres do not necessarily imply temperatures of > 1500 ^oC. Sulfur-laden chemical fires, e.g. diesel fuel and gasoline fires, can catalyze this at much lower temperatures. Steel degrades at its surface at much lower temperatures even in the absence of sulfur. Mechanical sources for local heating exist, both before impact, during impact, and during collapse. If there were temperatures as high as you propose over any appreciable area, rather than tiny localized spots as governed by local chemistry and mechanics, there would be melted steel slag remaining. This slag would cool and remain unmelted after the Pile fires and salvage operations, and therefore would be found. They were not.

metamars, we've discussed thermobarics with you before, and discarded the idea. Why are you bringing it up again? Thought we'd forget? Conspiracy theorists do this all the time -- you're not special. And before you bring up Jim Hoffman's "hydrogen thermobaric," remember the fires in the building..?

Thanks mackey for addressing my questions. I'll reply to this tomorrow....falling asleep as we speak.

 

[DGM]

But it isn't just Dr Jones that said these are the result of melting.

RJ. Lee Report.



this is sourced from a non-truth scientist. he comes up with the same process for creation of microspheres.

And I showed you why high temps are not to be unexpected. Jones has a large range of particles (elements). Please have him narrow this down to the ones that have no natural explanation. Maybe and only then will his paper will be of any value. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why you wouldn't question why he does not eliminate the known sources. Can you tell me this? The article (JR Lee) makes none of these assumptions or draws any unscrupulous conclusions.

 

[Sizzler]

Siz, you're so focused on the micro world you need to take a look back for a sec.

How on earth would one lace thermate secretly on these giant skyscrapers to begin with? Where exactly would it need to be placed and how?

We're talking science-fiction here.

that a different thread. start it up and i'll join after i get some sleep.

 

[Sizzler]

But it isn't just Dr Jones that said these are the result of melting.

RJ. Lee Report.



this is sourced from a non-truth scientist. he comes up with the same process for creation of microspheres.

And I showed you why high temps are not to be unexpected.

Jones has a large range of particles (elements). Please have him narrow this down to the ones that have no natural explanation. Maybe and only then will his paper will be of any value. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why you wouldn't question why he does not eliminate the known sources. Can you tell me this? The article (JR Lee) makes none of these assumptions or draws any unscrupulous conclusions.[/QUOTE]

Gotta get some rest. I will address this when I wake up. Thanks for your time so far. cheers.

 

[beachnut]

Why do you say that they are not strong enough to break windows?

According to ex-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/15/1052885324203.html

He was referring to the Hellfire with a thermobaric warhead.

As for "not perturbing smoke coming out of open windows", of course, the question to ask is "which windows belonging to which floors"? I am suggesting the use of thermobarics for damaging the building on a floor by floor basis. There's no law of nature that says that each and every floor must have a thermobaric applied, if you're going to apply thermobarics, at all.

In fact, I recall the claim that explosive outburst seem staggered every 3 floors.

I would agree that if a particular floor has open windows, and even a low velocity (<80 mph, say) thermobaric (if such a thing exists) is detonated therein, that the smoke will, indeed, be perturbed.

However, if the smoke is not perturbed, why assume a thermobaric for that particular floor, to begin with?

As for "declining your simple challenge", it should be clear that your challenge is a straw man, since you have not exhausted possible chemical causes of the explosive outbursts you see.

If it makes you happy, please note that I don't believe high explosives are what's causing the explosive (~40-80 mph) bursts. Therefore, I have no need to take up your challenge, since we actually agree on this point.

Finally, I note that you've ducked my question as to when you're going to address the question of thermobarics in one of your movies.

Who did it, super research person? Who put the stuff in place on 9/11? What a pile of junk, to imply on 9/11 any of the idiot ideas you propose happen.

Would it be better to present these insane ideas at a fantasy board full of people who want to discuss dim-witted fantasy ideas which at the fantasy board would be perfect. This topic is a real event. Remember reality? Most of 9/11 truth forgot 9/11 was based in reality, not a pick your stupid idea festival of ignorance they persist in making it, while selling false information 14.99 a DVD. You can't be serious that these things were used on 9/11. If you do, you have failed to think rationally on this topic.

But alas, you are off topic, unless your bombs of silent not blast building breaking make Dr Jones items of interest.

The mindless part of suggesting the use of your weapon is the blast effect that kills people. No people died from this specific effect on 9/11? I wonder why we did not find the stuff that shows it was used. I wonder how a rational person could even make up the idea it was used on 9/11, or imply it. Very shallow research on your part to introduce an idea with no real evidence to support it. Pathetic to present ideas without support, or not saying so. The best why to show you are not such a shallow research is to place a disclaimer like this. Hey, this is a real far out idea and I have no evidence for its use, but what do you think about this. That way we know you are not insane to present an idea as if you were serious.

In fact, I recall the claim that explosive outburst seem staggered every 3 floors.

So, did you confirm this with your extensive research? Did this happen? Or was a floor failure every 3.7 meters. I wonder where that air went?

 

[metamars]

metamars, we've discussed thermobarics with you before, and discarded the idea. Why are you bringing it up again? Thought we'd forget? Conspiracy theorists do this all the time -- you're not special. And before you bring up Jim Hoffman's "hydrogen thermobaric," remember the fires in the building..?

We didn't dismiss it. You dismissed it. In doing so, IIRC, your answer to my question of whether or not reinforcing pressure waves of 2000 psi thermobarics are enough to fracture 3000 psi concrete was "try harder".

Somehow, I think if I had asked any of my physics profs this question, way back when, I would have gotten a very different answer.

I do recall you stating that thermobarics would not destroy columns, and I basically have no trouble with that statement. (I still wonder about pre-weakening, though). Remember, this thread is about the new JONES paper, and the connection with thermite/thermate, though not explicitly mentioned in the paper, may be as a thermobaric, and not utilized for destroying columns, whatsoever. Ultimately, in this thread, we are discussing the origin of the metallic micro-spheres, correct?

If you claim that thermobarics could not have been used, perhaps you can advise Gravy should he address thermobarics in a new and improved version of his movie.

 

[R.Mackey]

We didn't dismiss it. You dismissed it. In doing so, IIRC, your answer to my question of whether or not reinforcing pressure waves of 2000 psi thermobarics are enough to fracture 3000 psi concrete was "try harder".

"2000 PSI thermobarics" is a smokescreen. Conventional explosives routinely top 20,000 PSI -- but only at the surface of the explosive. This statistic is utterly meaningless. You need to consider area of effect, shock front, and pressure-impulse at the target. Most buildings, even concrete ones, are destroyed at only 15 PSI, but this number has absolutely nothing to do with your number.

Somehow, I think if I had asked any of my physics profs this question, way back when, I would have gotten a very different answer.

No one is stopping you, pal. I give this exact advice frequently. Oddly, nobody in the Truth Movement ever seems to take it.

I do recall you stating that thermobarics would not destroy columns, and I basically have no trouble with that statement. (I still wonder about pre-weakening, though). Remember, this thread is about the new JONES paper, and the connection with thermite/thermate, though not explicitly mentioned in the paper, may be as a thermobaric, and not utilized for destroying columns, whatsoever. Ultimately, in this thread, we are discussing the origin of the metallic micro-spheres, correct?

I don't recall you proposing a mechanism where "thermobarics" are a good fit to microsphere creation, so no, I don't think we are discussing it. I think you're off topic, along with previously debunked.

If you claim that thermobarics could not have been used, perhaps you can advise Gravy should he address thermobarics in a new and improved version of his movie.

I would advise Gravy not to specially address thermobarics in his movie. His movie doesn't restrict itself to any class of explosives. Thermobarics offer no qualitative differences versus conventional explosives in this application. Power-to-weight, pressure amplitude, and wavefront are different. And they're more complex. That's all. The theory offers no meaningful advantage over any other, equally stupid explosives theory.

The thermite theory, pathetic as it is, at least offers the advantage of being quiet and not being seismically detectable. It fails in many other ways, of course, but at least it's different. Your thermobaric story is not.

 

[Gravy]

Metamars, I provided two videos of the beginnings of the collapses. You're positing massive explosions that destroyed the structure, causing the collapse. Now you're suggesting that these thermobaric weapons wouldn't even disturb the smoke in the open windows of the collapse zones (much less break windows), even though small pressure fluctuations will do so?

Is this a joke?

Metamars, this is very simple: no detonations happened to precipitate the collapses. No sound of detonations, no effects of detonations. You're positing huge detonations, strong enough to destroy structure. That didn't happen.

Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Show me, with minutes and seconds on the videos, when the thermobaric detonations happened that caused the collapses. If you cannot, you must revise your position. Reality will not adjust itself to your fantasies.

No more stalling. No more games. Do it. Clear enough?

 

[DGM]

Metamars, I provided two videos of the beginnings of the collapses. You're positing massive explosions that destroyed the structure, causing the collapse. Now you're suggesting that these thermobaric weapons wouldn't even disturb the smoke in the open windows of the collapse zones (much less break windows), even though small pressure fluctuations will do so?

Is this a joke?

Metamars, this is very simple: no detonations happened to precipitate the collapses. No sound of detonations, no effects of detonations. You're positing huge detonations, strong enough to destroy structure. That didn't happen.

Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Show me, with minutes and seconds on the videos, when the thermobaric detonations happened that caused the collapses. If you cannot, you must revise your position. Reality will not adjust itself to your fantasies.

No more stalling. No more games. Do it. Clear enough?

I've been a cub scout/boyscout leader for 30 years. I find "truthers" less receptive to logic than 8 year olds. I think it's on purpose.

 

[BenBurch]

I've been a cub scout/boyscout leader for 30 years. I find "truthers" less receptive to logic than 8 year olds. I think it's on purpose.

It is.

It's because being wrong threatens the very things that give them their self-esteem.

When you back people in a corner like that, rationality goes out the window.

 

[Swing Dangler]

I have to disagree. The fact that the dust was collected inside an apartment 4 blocks away tells us three things about the dust sample:
1) The dust was was light enough to be buoyant or neutrally buoyant in air. This provides the first bias as heavier particles would naturally not travel as far.
2) The dust was collected from a contaminated site. The fact that it was collected by someone holding a PhD has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the test site. While I have no doubt that some of the particles included in the analysis were from the WTC, there is no way to tell how many or to differentiate the two.
3) There exists no established chain of custody or valid sampling criteria for the collection of the dust particles. Without these fundamental parameters, Jones cannot make statistical inferences on the nature of the WTC dust as a whole. He can only make inferences based on his sample.


Why, then, have they refused to test natural ashes from fires of similar size and fuel sources? Why have they refused to test fly ashes, rice husk ashes or any other numerous ash sources?

1. We are talking about microscopic particles here. I have to reject your first point. The weight of which is going to have little to no bearing on the sample in question. Unless there has been a study done to determine the average airborne distances an iron-rich microsphere particle travels in an open air environment, this point is moot.

2. Although a valid criticism to a point, one could use that line of reasoning to conclude that any and all dust no matter the distance from the sight could be contaminated, and therefore invalid. This of course negates the USGS report as being useless and pointless allowing one to conclude that first responders all suffer from a virus in the lungs and not from contamination. This negates any scientific study of any material in an open air environment. I think we can all agree that is ludicrous.

3. The chain of custody was established as displayed in the appendix. His inferences were also based upon the government study as well.

Some have suggested that the source of the particles could be flyash. If that is the case should the XEDS detect Sulfur trioxide (SO3) or O3S-2in the sample?
I found no evidence in the paper or from the government report of SO3 in the sample unless I'm overlooking it. I believe this would rule out flyash. Please correct me if I'm wrong.