JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Gravy]

These fools think the "inside job" is going to be proven by examining a bit of dust.

You can't get more delusional than that.

 

[DGM]

The duh, is that truth movement action is, moving forward, and the OP is evidence of such.

Duh...

And, do you have a link to the Boston Seminar?

Moving forward into obscurity.

The link was on this site but the "tea party" page seams to be down.
http://boston911truth.org/site/

Its got to be on youtube but I don't have the time to look.

 

[Apollo20]

Hi Sizzler:

Sorry I missed all the fun last night!

I just want to get back to Jones' 0.04 % estimate.

It it true that Jones only considered the two largest particles he could see with the "unaided eye", but, as I will now explain, this does not seriously affect his estimate.

Consider what Jones' sample was: it consisted of TWO particles that were about 1 mm in diameter and let's say 100 particles that were ten times smaller or 100 microns in diameter. Now the volume of a particle varies as the radius cubed, i.e. r^3, so if the large particles are 1 volume unit, the ten times smaller particles are (0.1)^3 or 0.001 volume units. So for 100 such small particles we have a total additional volume of 0.1 units to be added to our 1 (or 2!) volume units. Hence our one hundred 0.1 mm particles add only 10 % more volume to our single 1 mm particle. Thus Jones is introducing a small error by ignoring the smaller particles. I would say that even if there were one thousand 100 micron particles for every 1 mm particle, Jones' estimate will only double. So now we have 0.08 % iron spheres in the sample. This is still a very small fraction of the total iron (~ 2 %) present in the sample.

 

[Sizzler]

Moving forward into obscurity.

The link was on this site but the "tea party" page seams to be down.
http://boston911truth.org/site/

Its got to be on youtube but I don't have the time to look.

Have you seen the full lecture of Jones at the 2008 Boston Tea Party?

 

[Sizzler]

Hi Sizzler:

Sorry I missed all the fun last night!

I just want to get back to Jones' 0.04 % estimate.

It it true that Jones only considered the two largest particles he could see with the "unaided eye", but, as I will now explain, this does not seriously affect his estimate.

Consider what Jones' sample was: it consisted of TWO particles that were about 1 mm in diameter and let's say 100 particles that were ten times smaller or 100 microns in diameter. Now the volume of a particle varies as the radius cubed, i.e. r^3, so if the large particles are 1 volume unit, the ten times smaller particles are (0.1)^3 or 0.001 volume units. So for 100 such small particles we have a total additional volume of 0.1 units to be added to our 1 (or 2!) volume units. Hence our one hundred 0.1 mm particles add only 10 % more volume to our single 1 mm particle. Thus Jones is introducing a small error by ignoring the smaller particles. I would say that even if there were one thousand 100 micron particles for every 1 mm particle, Jones' estimate will only double. So now we have 0.08 % iron spheres in the sample. This is still a very small fraction of the total iron (~ 2 %) present in the sample.

Yes, thanks for doing the math.

Your point has merit, and even more so considering Jones even considered it a "crude" estimate.

Lets say the smaller spheres were not as small as you used in your quick analysis.

Lets assume that of the 2% iron content, 1% is microspheres. So that is half of the iron content and certainly worth paying attention to.

The word abundance may not apply to the microspheres (so yes, your point stands), but are still significant if they were not created during the building the WTC (welding, wearing, etc).

Jones comment that the chemical signiture of spheres is unlike those formed using regular (forget the name?!?!) torches.

So my question really is then, how likely would it be to find aluminum, sulfur, etc (at the levels observed) in microspheres caused during contruction?

I mean, could I collect dust from a construction site right now and find the same spheres with the same chemical signiture?

 

[rwguinn]

The duh, is that truth movement action is, moving forward, and the OP is evidence of such.

Duh...

And, do you have a link to the Boston Seminar?

only if you define a coordinate system such that "forward" is designated as "toward the caboose" and "up" is directed toward the center of the Earth...
thus, the transformation

Xtroof=[\-1\]*reality

 

[R.Mackey]

I just want to get back to Jones' 0.04 % estimate.

It it true that Jones only considered the two largest particles he could see with the "unaided eye", but, as I will now explain, this does not seriously affect his estimate.

Consider what Jones' sample was: it consisted of TWO particles that were about 1 mm in diameter and let's say 100 particles that were ten times smaller or 100 microns in diameter. Now the volume of a particle varies as the radius cubed, i.e. r^3, so if the large particles are 1 volume unit, the ten times smaller particles are (0.1)^3 or 0.001 volume units. So for 100 such small particles we have a total additional volume of 0.1 units to be added to our 1 (or 2!) volume units. Hence our one hundred 0.1 mm particles add only 10 % more volume to our single 1 mm particle. Thus Jones is introducing a small error by ignoring the smaller particles. I would say that even if there were one thousand 100 micron particles for every 1 mm particle, Jones' estimate will only double. So now we have 0.08 % iron spheres in the sample. This is still a very small fraction of the total iron (~ 2 %) present in the sample.

Makes sense, and three follow-up comments:

1. Did Dr. Jones actually see any "100 micron" microspheres, or smaller? The ones found by RJLee and Lioy et. al. are quite a bit smaller, i.e. ~5 microns.

2. Why did Dr. Jones not capture these? They would appear to be much more relevant to his thermite story.

3. Is it not fair to propose the 1 mm particles, by virtue of their size alone, probably had a much different origin than ~5 micron spheres?

I fail to see how Dr. Jones's conclusion follows from what little data he has -- even if we ignore the negligible signal, or site contamination issues.

 

[boloboffin]

Lets assume that of the 2% iron content, 1% is microspheres. So that is half of the iron content and certainly worth paying attention to.

Can we all have a pony as well?

 

[Sizzler]

Can we all have a pony as well?

Assuming we all have the space and means, why not?

Bump!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Assuming we all have the space and means, why not?

Bump!

You can not have a pony unless you can take care of it, and in my case well ponys do not like loud Noises like explosions.
Now back to the micro-spheres, Sizzler if the truth movements ultimate goal is in fact the truth then they are moving closer to that goal by debunking their own ideas and though the work of good people here.
You can copy and post my replies to if you wish to Dr. Jones I do not care.
However since micro spheres can be found in car fires from the oxidation of thin metals, and in office fires from the same, The jet fuel argument is a straw man, because burning jet fuel creates water in the vapor phase that lowers the temperature of the flame, and fires, but reacts to oxidize metals.
Carbon hydrates can break down into methane When heated and produce a beautiful blueish flame capable of causing metal oxidation with steam or super heated water.

The pyrolysis process is subdivided into four stages: 1. Drying (II). The temperature shall not exceed 150 °C. This is an endothermic process; 2. (III) Disintegration of hemicellulose, removal of part of chemically bonded water and formation of CO, CO2, methane, acetic acid, methanol. The temperature is within 150-275°C. This is an endothermic process; 3.(IV) disintegration of cellulose and lignin. Secondary reactions of polymerization. Formation of the main groups of resin. The temperature shall be within the range of 275...450 °C. This is an exothermic process. The process is especially complicated for control; 4. (V) Coal heating. Removal of volatile matters that are kept by means of adsorption from carbonic framework. Formation of carbon crystalloid structures. Detachment of functional groups held by carbon. Endothermic and exothermic reactions go parallel. Total balance is endothermic. Coal heated up to 500° is not pure carbon. Should the temperature of charcoal heating be increased up to 600 ° C in this case emission of carbohydrates (methane, ethane, ethylene, etc) will take place.

At temperature range within 700-950°C emissions of hydrogen will take place mostly. The majority of consumers consider that high quality charcoal is coal heated up to 450… 550 °C. In case of high-speed pyrolysis yield of charcoal is by 30…50 % lower than in case when coal is subjected to heating in hot zone for a longer period. In case of oxidizing pyrolysis (with additives of oxygen) also reduces charcoal yield but improves its quality as raw material for activated charcoal production and for some other applications. If we regard wood material as a whole we may note that the heating rate in ordinary retorts with external heating is specified by emission and heat-transfer speed from heat carrier through the wall due to heat conductivity and inside the retort by heat convection from the wall to wood (1).

The whole jet fuel did not burn hot enough argument to make the micro spheres is just a stupid fallacy it is not the most efficient fuel that was involved in the fires.
http://mha-net.org/docs/v8n2/kuznetsov/Charcoal%20burning%20installation1.dochttp://

Have you ever wondered what happens when a filing cabinet composed of silicon killed steel burns in a fire?

http://metals.about.com/library/bldef-Killed-Steel.htm

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0780347

 

[Sizzler]

Thanks for your reply CC. I don't like ponies anyway.

you wrote:

However since micro spheres can be found in car fires from the oxidation of thin metals, and in office fires from the same.

My question is simple. Can you link me to an article that demonstrates such?

 

[CHF]

And you spend your time on a site debunking a movement that never left the station.

Looks like the joke is on you

In other words, Sizzler, you think that your movement is being successful when debunkers beat the living crap out of it?



I suppose that's one way to keep your fantasies alive....

 

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

For information about the temperatures reached in automotive fires see:

W. Reitz, "Metallurgical Investigation into an Automotive Fire": Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Vol 6(2), 20 - 23, (2006).

You may have trouble locating this article but I can tell you its about the temperatures observed in a RV fire. The author notes that:

1. Al melted near the passenger's seat indicating a temperature of 648 deg C at that location.
2. Copper wiring near the engine valve cover showed grain boundary degradation indicative of temperatures up to 1370 deg C.
3. Steel braiding over some fuel line tubing in the engine compartment had MELTED at one end indicating temperatures of approx 1535 deg C.

Iron microspheres were NOT mentioned by the way, but who knows if they were produced...........

 

[T.A.M.]

In essence, Sizzler is correct...let me explain.

As others have pointed out, if the point of the TM is to find the "truth" then the "truth exposure" component of the movement is working as we debunk all their crap.

The PROBLEM, is the people in the movement do not accept the answers provided UNLESS the answers confirm their preconceived bias. Now they will say the same holds true for us "debunkers", but the difference is that the facts and science are on our side, so they are never actually able to PROVE their opinions to us as true.

Ultimately, if the GOAL of the TM is "the truth" then eventually, through MOVING FORWARD on this point, the TM should drop much, if not all, of the "inside job" theory.

TAM

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thanks for your reply CC. I don't like ponies anyway.

you wrote:



My question is simple. Can you link me to an article that demonstrates such?

Go to your local Auto salvage Sizzler, that is what I did, in the 6 burned out cars I found, I found magnetic Fe, spherical formations in 3 of them.

http://www.dexknows.com/geo/Kentucky/Maple_Mount/Used___Rebuilt_Auto_Parts___Supplies3.html

I took them down to the local collage campus and looked at them though a stereo microscope, I do not have spectra on them, however since some were collected near the engine block cast in sand they are likely high in silicon.

The heat to cause the melting actually occurred do to Aluminum wire igniting, igniting an aluminum shield on the engine right next to the engine block, this caused an explosion of the engine block do to trapped gasses in the cast metal.

Because cast metals often contain trapped gasses they are tough to weld, and may even explode if cut with a torch.
They would be a good source of solid low oxide micro-spheres.

 

[Sizzler]

Apollo and CC:

Thanks for your replies and additional information.

 

[Sizzler]

Ultimately, if the GOAL of the TM is "the truth" then eventually, through MOVING FORWARD on this point, the TM should drop much, if not all, of the "inside job" theory.

TAM

TAM I'm going to have to agree with you on this

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Apollo and CC:

Thanks for your replies and additional information.

These might help Sizzler in your quest for the truth,
http://nhml.com/resources_NHML_Burn-Pattern-Vehicle-Fires.php

Oxidization of Steel
When steel is exposed to a fire the oxide which forms depends on the temperature. Fe2O3 (hematite) forms at lower temperatures, Fe3O4 (magnetite) in a higher range. The low temperature form tends to be brown-reddish and turns into common rust as it picks up moisture from the atmosphere. When the thickness increases the rust tends to form flakes. X-ray diffraction analysis shows it to be a hydrated iron hydroxide, FeO(OH) x H2O.

http://www.treklens.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/photo178368.htm

Execution:
This is one of several photos I took during Patterson's exercise. I was curious "what lies underneth" so I flipped my old neglected metal plant pot over. I have a scientific mind as it's my background, I decide to call rust by it's scientific name. I looked closely and see an explosion of colors -- not just rust color. I was even surprised to see "blue" in there.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4024232.html

1. In a process for preparing equiaxial magnetite starting from a ferrous sulphate solution comprising
a first step in which 2/3 of the Fe++ ion is precipitated as Fe(OH)2 with an alkali at a temperature ranging from 15° to 40° C, said Fe(OH)2 being oxidized to alpha-FeO(OH), and

a second step, in which the remaining Fe++ is precipitated as Fe(OH)2 with an alkali and the slurry is heated to a temperature ranging from 70° to 100° C, thus obtaining equiaxial magnetite;

the improvement characterized in that in the aforesaid second step, before the heating of the slurry, gamma-FeO(OH) is added in such an amount that the Fe of the gamma-FeO(OH) is 0.1-10% of the Fe++ initially present in the solution, the higher the percentage of gamma-FeO(OH), the lower the average diameter of the resulting magnetite.



2. In a process for preparing equiaxial magnetite starting from a ferrous sulphate solution, in which, at a temperature ranging from 15° to 40° C, the Fe++ present in solution is precipitated with an alkali in the form of Fe(OH)2, then the slurry is heated to a temperature ranging from 70° to 100° C and the ferrous hydroxide is oxidized with air to magnetite;
the improvement characterized in that after heating and before oxidation, gamma-FeO(OH) is added in such an amount that the Fe of the gamma-FeO(OH) is 0.1-10% of the Fe++ initially present in the solution, the higher the percentage of gamma FeO(OH), the lower the average diameter of the resulting magnetite.