JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, can you please check this quote you put in post 165. Looking at the context I suspect you may have made an error in transcription.

Thanks

Dave

Dave you are right....

Edit:

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

thanks.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So how can you prove that iron was melted in the fires?

 

[Sizzler]

So how can you prove that iron was melted in the fires?

No one can ever prove anything.

However I can support the claim, that iron melted, by appealing to an expert in the field.

Lee states:

Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC collapse.....results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension

I however believe it is unlikely that the fires causes iron to melt simply because iron melts at a temperature of ~1500C.

Whereas, radiant temperatures were ~1100C.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No one can ever prove anything.

However I can support the claim, that iron melted, by appealing to an expert in the field.

Lee states:



I however believe it is unlikely that the fires causes iron to melt simply because iron melts at a temperature of ~1500C.

Whereas, radiant temperatures were ~1100C.

Dear Sizzler, at what temperature does hydrogen burn?

At what temperature does super heated steam react with Steel to oxidize the steel and what temperature does Oxidizing steel produce?

How was the world trade center building heated?

How is iron oxide reduced to iron at 850c?

Did it ever occur to you that chemistry could be the answer to your questions not just thermal energy?

 

[Sizzler]

Dear Sizzler, at what temperature does hydrogen burn?

At what temperature does super heated steam react with Steel to oxidize the steel and what temperature does Oxidizing steel produce?

How was the world trade center building heated?

How is iron oxide reduced to iron at 850c?

Did it ever occur to you that chemistry could be the answer to your questions not just thermal energy?

Ok CC, could you please, in laymen terms, explain how chemistry could account for the temperature gap.

thanks.

 

[metamars]

"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.



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



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.



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.

From:
http://www.jya.com/nld3-bye.htm

Basically, the explosion of almost all types of Stun and Diversion / Distraction Grenades/Devices consists of the extremely rapid burning of a mixture of very finely powdered metal "fuel" and a potent oxidizer (which furnishes the necessary oxygen for the rapid combustion). For the technically inclined, the metal fuels are usually magnesium or aluminum and the oxidizers are either potassium perchlorate or a similar chemical with a high oxygen content.

.
.
.
In the normal functional range of true Stun Grenades, this over-pressure is relatively small, being on the order of ten psi or less. In fact, the most effective pressure operating range of a stun grenade is from five to ten psi.

I can't think of why the oxidizing agent used in stun grenades can't be a ferrous agent such as Fe3O4, which is comonly used in thermite. If your oxidizing agent for an aluminum powder explosion or deflagration is Fe304, then ferrous microspheres would be expected, correct? Then again, I'm no chemist, so maybe somebody that actually knows something about chemistry, like Apollo20, can tell us for sure if there is a physical principle which forbids this.

So, at the low end we can have 10 psi explosions. At the high end, from the Australian military web site document that I linked to previously, we saw a graph with a thermobaric of 1/2 the overpressure of a high explosive. The High Explosive overpressure you give is much higher than the reference I found for TNT. However, as I've tried to make clear, a WTC explosive device would have to be less explosive than a High Explosive, if for no other reason than that otherwise we would have seen a shock wave.

If you have some scientific reason for claiming that explosions with 20 psi, 200 psi, or 2000 psi can't be produced, while a low value of 10 psi but a high value of 4,000 - 20,000 psi can, why don't you let us know what that would be?

I don't think you will make such a claim (and even if you did, I wouldn't believe it, short of some totally unexpected proof), so the issue of thermobaric plausibility boils down to whether or not explosions can be concocted of sufficiently high psi (which will be a function of time and space, of course) to pulverize the contents of a WTC storey, but of sufficiently low velocity not to exceed observed 'squib' velocities.

You haven't written anything to make me dismiss this as a possibility. I will try and run this past a physics prof or two, but I think the guys I need to talk to are at mining colleges, or maybe somebody in a chemical engineering department that works on explosives. I'm auditing a graduate course in solid state physics, so I can certainly ask my own professor.

Oh, and I have indeed not only, in times past, talked to an applied a mathematician - my cousin, actually- I've also conducted a mini-survey of civil engineers to ask them if they studied the NIST report, and if they'd read Professor Jones' paper. Although my survey size was very small (6), as expected, they weren't paying much attention either to NIST or Professor Jones. I also urged other participants in the physorg 911 threads to take various papers on the WTC collapse to their local physics department - years ago. You're not the only one.

I had hoped that lots of serious physicists would post at physorg on 911, but aside from Apollo20, there's been very little in the way of Ph.D. level physicists. I can only think of Charles M. Beck.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Ok CC, could you please, in laymen terms, explain how chemistry could account for the temperature gap.

thanks.

Oxidation of H2 with Fe 2O3 in a reducing atmosphere, produces H2O and temperatures over 2000c steel melts at 1565c.

Oxydation of Fe with H2O in an oxydizing atmosphere produces temperatures of almost 3000c, steel melts at 1565c.

Lead sulfate hydrate, from lead in sulfuric acid of lead acid batteries can percipitate out when heated and cover a surface it does not have to be vaporised.

Simular metals can do the same thing, take aluminun Chloride for entance.

Also both Iron Oxide Fe 3O4 micro spheres from fly ash, and Fe spheres from other sources are widely used today, in everything from ink toner to plastics to paints.

Fly ash could have been used in the roofing of the towers, or in other products with in them, Although Fe 3O4 separated out and not used in the concrete because it makes the concrete weak as it can further oxidize into
Fe2O3.

 

[Sizzler]

Oxidation of H2 with Fe 2O3 in a reducing atmosphere, produces H2O and temperatures over 2000c steel melts at 1565c.

Oxydation of Fe with H2O in an oxydizing atmosphere produces temperatures of almost 3000c, steel melts at 1565c.

Lead sulfate hydrate, from lead in sulfuric acid of lead acid batteries can percipitate out when heated and cover a surface it does not have to be vaporised.

Simular metals can do the same thing, take aluminun Chloride for entance.

Considering an iron content of ~.5% to 5% for various dust samples, are these processes likely able to account for such percentages?

Also, considering H2 (gas) and reduction environments are needed, is it likely that this would have been possible in the pre-collapse fires, or would such conditions be lost to the environment? I can't help but to think about your comments about the likelihood of SO2 going through a reduction reaction in the fires.

I mean, it seems more likely that these things could have occurred in the rubble piles, but not so much in the pre-collapse office fires.

I may be pulling a stundie in a moment, but for lack of better words, I will do it anyway:

I have flour, sugar, yeast, water, etc in my apartment. If a plane crashed into my apartment and set it ablaze, theoretically, the ingredients and temps would exist to bake a cake; however, if investigators found such cake in my apartment, would they consider such natural causes plausible?

I can't help but to think of the above example when considering your comments about chemistry and temperatures in the WTC fires.

I can reasonably accept such an outcome for the rubble pile, but it is really hard for me to accept the likelihood of them occurring in the pre-collapse office fire. We can only consider the pre-collapse office fire because we know the dust was emitted well before the rubble pile would have time to brew.

Any comment about likelihood would be great.

Thanks CC.

 

[beachnut]

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had.

No mention of therm?te in this one.

So where did they go wrong?

If you knew the background of Jones, you already know he made up thermite. He is a four year missed the boat trying to catch up and spread false information for some unknown reason. If he believes his work, he is a poor researcher or clearly insane. That is the first thing wrong. Backing in evidence and making up things about other peoples reports is wrong. Jones' and company are debunked by the reports they cite. The one report they use in Jones' paper does not present evidence for bombs or thermite/thermate.

Failure is standard for all of 9/11 truth. These so called "experts" make up ideas and fool other people into believing implied conclusions, based on hearsay and cherry picking real reports. The reports they cite as references can be used to debunk 9/11 truth. Most intelligent people and those who can research well, can read the work of any of the 9/11 truth movement author and use the references to debunk the paper.

I have found it interesting to see this repeated in many works. Hoffman is a good example. Jones excellent work in providing references that clearly debunk his work. This paper is no exception. Jones cherry picks the key parts of RJ Lee's work and fools the weak minded who want to believe 9/11 truth. Jones' and his friends fool those who lack experience and have no ability to do proper research on 9/11.

Does Jones expect people to be stupid on 9/11 issues and believe him without reading the works he cites? Or does Jones know most of the people they attract are not able to comprehend the other work?

 

[Sizzler]

If you knew the background of Jones, you already know he made up thermite. He is a four year missed the boat trying to catch up and spread false information for some unknown reason. If he believes his work, he is a poor researcher or clearly insane. That is the first thing wrong. Backing in evidence and making up things about other peoples reports is wrong. Jones' and company are debunked by the reports they cite. The one report they use in Jones' paper does not present evidence for bombs or thermite/thermate.

Failure is standard for all of 9/11 truth. These so called "experts" make up ideas and fool other people into believing implied conclusions, based on hearsay and cherry picking real reports. The reports they cite as references can be used to debunk 9/11 truth. Most intelligent people and those who can research well, can read the work of any of the 9/11 truth movement author and use the references to debunk the paper.

I have found it interesting to see this repeated in many works. Hoffman is a good example. Jones excellent work in providing references that clearly debunk his work. This paper is no exception. Jones cherry picks the key parts of RJ Lee's work and fools the weak minded who want to believe 9/11 truth. Jones' and his friends fool those who lack experience and have no ability to do proper research on 9/11.

Does Jones expect people to be stupid on 9/11 issues and believe him without reading the works he cites? Or does Jones know most of the people they attract are not able to comprehend the other work?

I think you post this same speech (slightly modified to fit relevant issue) in every thread I post in.

You are a man of zero substance.

Post an example with links and I'll take you seriously.

Until then.....

 

[Myriad]

Does anyone know for sure whether the microspheres from the wtc dust are hollow?

It occurs to me that if they are, then it's pretty much impossible for them to have formed from mechanical agitation (spraying, spattering, pulverizing, etc.) of bulk melted metal. You'd get solid droplets that way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm still trying to figure out what the significance of the vaporized aluminosilicates would be. I can visualize how some horrendously powerful explosive might create them out of the concrete, but what would that have to do with fries or thermite? I can see how it might fit with whacky Judy's discombobulator rays, but dismiss that for obvious reasons.

So, I am thinking that they might be residues of some sort of ceramic material, but cannot figure out what sort.

Just a random thought that has occurred to me. What is the coating on the inside of a flourescent light tube made of, and how is it applied? It seems to me that it rubs off rather easily. Are any of the microspheres attributible to this coating? It should be there, for obvious reasons.

 

[Sizzler]

I'm still trying to figure out what the significance of the vaporized aluminosilicates would be. I can visualize how some horrendously powerful explosive might create them out of the concrete, but what would that have to do with fries or thermite? I can see how it might fit with whacky Judy's discombobulator rays, but dismiss that for obvious reasons.

So, I am thinking that they might be residues of some sort of ceramic material, but cannot figure out what sort.

Just a random thought that has occurred to me. What is the coating on the inside of a flourescent light tube made of, and how is it applied? It seems to me that it rubs off rather easily. Are any of the microspheres attributible to this coating? It should be there, for obvious reasons.

http://911blogger.com/node/13630#comment

 

[T.A.M.]

I however believe it is unlikely that the fires causes iron to melt simply because iron melts at a temperature of ~1500C.

Whereas, radiant temperatures were ~1100C.

ok then, Mr. "I am agnostic, just asking questions" (uh huh...I see), if the fires did not cause the iron to melt...wait for it...wait for it....

WHAT CAUSED THE IRON TO MELT????

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

You are a man of zero substance.

hmmmmm....Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

TAM

 

[Sizzler]

ok then, Mr. "I am agnostic, just asking questions" (uh huh...I see), if the fires did not cause the iron to melt...wait for it...wait for it....

WHAT CAUSED THE IRON TO MELT????

TAM

Read the paper.

 

[Sizzler]

hmmmmm....Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

TAM

How ironic of you make such a statement T.A.M., while obviously trolling like your usual self.

All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens.

 

[R.Mackey]

If you have some scientific reason for claiming that explosions with 20 psi, 200 psi, or 2000 psi can't be produced, while a low value of 10 psi but a high value of 4,000 - 20,000 psi can, why don't you let us know what that would be?

This kind of statement exposes your gross incompetence to talk about explosives. I said nothing of the kind. Your retort doesn't even make sense.

The pressure depends on distance from the explosion and is affected by formation of the blast wave. You, foolishly, are comparing this with the reference detonation pressure, or the theoretical maximum measured in calibrated tests at zero range, typically of a fixed size cylinder of explosive detonated in water. This has almost nothing to do with the pressure one will see in the field. It's like saying a light bulb is hotter than a blowtorch, so the light bulb is more likely to burn you.

A shaped charge can generate millions of PSI, but is highly anisotropic. 20,000 PSI or whatever at the surface of a hexolite charge is true no matter the size of the charge, but 10 PSI over the surface of an ordinary building -- enough to destroy ordinary structures -- requires a minimum amount of explosive for any particular value of surface area.

Heck, I don't have any special training in explosives, and even I know that.

You're not qualified to talk about explosives. Your fantasies about thermobarics are totally meaningless. They likewise have no place in a discussion about microspheres seen in the WTC collapses. Once again, the video, the seismic record, the sounds, and the phenomenology of collapse proves no explosives. Thermobarics are not special. No explosives means, inclusively, no thermobaric explosives.

That's all I have to say to you. I encourage you to carry this on with physics professors, mining professors, demolition engineers, military engineers, or whomever you want. Learn. Please.

 

[T.A.M.]

How ironic of you make such a statement T.A.M., while obviously trolling like your usual self.

You know what Sizzler, let he who is without sin cast the first troll stone.

I have almost eleven thousand posts here, and I am willing to bet that a very small minority of them might be considered trolling. Many of my posts may not be detailed analysis, or ridiculous obfuscation, but rather brief, and occasionally witty commentary, but at least I am up front and honest about where I stand.

At least I didn't come in to this forum PRETENDING to be one thing, and as most of us suspected, turned out to be something else.

I think you are simply annoyed that we called you out on your true intentions here...too bad, we have done it to others before you, and will do it to others after.

I am glad you have revealed yourself for the truther you are...too bad you had to take the cowardly way of announcing it.

TAM

 

[Sizzler]

You know what Sizzler, let he who is without sin cast the first troll stone.

I have almost eleven thousand posts here, and I am willing to bet that a very small minority of them might be considered trolling. Many of my posts may not be detailed analysis, or ridiculous obfuscation, but rather brief, and occasionally witty commentary, but at least I am up front and honest about where I stand.

At least I didn't come in to this forum PRETENDING to be one thing, and as most of us suspected, turned out to be something else.

I think you are simply annoyed that we called you out on your true intentions here...too bad, we have done it to others before you, and will do it to others after.

I am glad you have revealed yourself for the truther you are...too bad you had to take the cowardly way of announcing it.

TAM

Well, you may choose to believe what you like. But a hint, simple dichotomies don't always work in the real world.

And again, I'll state, I have no option but to accept the official hypothesis as the closest thing anyone has to truth simply because there is lack of evidence in favor of the alternative (at the moment).

I am highly skeptical of the current version of truth though.

And as such, I have every right to express my skepticism.

Anyway, I don't expect you to see beyond black and white: your previous posts demonstrate such.

And, yes, you can be quite funny, sometimes, thanks for the occasional laugh.