Crazy Chainsaw:
In the
Boston conferance Professor Jones claims to possess unignited samples of thermite or “red chips”. He claims that he has compared the chemical composition of these red chips with commercial thermite and accrording to the slides the results appear to match.
(i)Is the combinaton of Fe-O-(K)-Al-Si
unique to thermite, or not?
Now assuming that the above combination of chemicals are not unique to thermite then the next question (and this applies to all the microsphericules mentioned in this
paper ) is can it
only be produced at high temperatures exceeding that of the WTC fire or can it
also be produced at temperatures within that of the WTC fire? You claim that they can be produced at temperatures within the range of the WTC fire and I have no reason to doubt you. However
(ii)Is there
any physical difference between micro sphericules produced at high temperatures and those produced at lower temperatures?
I note that in your
post #235 you display a photo of a kinda “purple hollowed sphere” that seems substantially larger and with a different colour than the microspheres in this
paper
In another post you indicate
the environment wherein you created microspheres:
This by the way comes from experimental data, I am not sure but I think such back-draft and hydrogen events in the fires by mixing in a wave compression front can produce sufficient over pressures to form the amount of micro spheres seen... Jones has discovered that there were back-draft explosions in a hydrocarbon and carbohydrate fire with reactive metals.
I was unaware of the occurance of back-draft in the impact zone. Is there evidence to support the assumption of backdraft in the impact zone?
(iii)Could your experimental microspheres be created in the
absense of back-draft?
According to
NIST the overpressure from the fuel deflagration upon impact ranged between
2 to 3psi for 0.5 to 2 secs.
(iv) Are the overpressures in your experiments
less than, greater to, or equivalent to those in the impact zone?
It is your contention that sources of all the micosphericules in Jones’s
paper are ubiquotous and furthermore that there are numerous (low temperature) mechanisms for their formation. This is an empirical matter. According to your position we should expect to find the same variety of microspherules in a normal and random dust samples. In the
RJ Lee report however this was not the case
“Dust samples collected from the New York City area collected and analyzed prior to 9/11/2001 were reevaluated. The pre-WTC Event samples, collected in the spring of 2000, included materials from both the interiors of the World Trade Center Towers as well as exterior samples, taken in close proximity to the Towers. The Background Building samples and the pre-WTC Event samples were compared to known WTC Dust for the forensic evaluation...”
Following comparison the WTC dust was considered rather unique: “These dust and heat-processed constituents
are not typically found associated with typical office building environments”
(v)Does this comparative study
not rule out contamintion of the WTC dust samples prior to collapse?
RJ Lee Report also state: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were
melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles”. I noticed that they do not mention the deterioration of the
“crystalline bonding of the crystals”
however I could be wrong.
(vi)Is the “deterioation of the crytalline bonding” simply synonymous or a more nuanced way of describing what laymans commonly refer to as “meting”? Or is it something else?
Unfortunately the
RJ Lee Report does not specify the temperature ranges involved in producing the microsphericules. But on its face - taken
literally – the fact that it does state that “various metals were
melted” does contradict/contrast with
NIST who stipulate that
“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires”
.
I`m confused Chainsaw the fires in the WTC allegedly reached 1000c; NIST say that no steel melted at this temeprature. But your saying that steel can melt (assuming “the deterioration of the crystalline bonding” is synonymous with “melting”) at an even lower temperature of 900c. You also stated elsewhere that
Steel does not have to melt to be flowing
(vi)Can you help end my confusion and explain why NIST
does not mention or concede the possibility that steel in the impact zone could have melted due to fires below 1000c?
There is no reason to believe these spheres and the materials shown are not normal occurrences of high energy events such as the collapses of the twin towers, on 9/11/2001.
How do you know? Have previous dust samples been collected from gravity collapses? I am unaware of any such studies. Moreover I am unaware of any example prior to or since 911 when a gravity collapse completely pulverised the entire building.
(vii)So on what
empirical data are you supporting this assumption that microspherules of the same variety in the WTC dust are normally produced in the gravity collapse (and complete pulverization) of office buildings?
To my mind, the main source of possible contamination of the WTC dust would have been within the thousands of tons of pulverised concrete itself but this has been ruled out by Jones
Some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.
the other possible sources would include office material, computer chips et cetera but as mentioned previously such a claim needs to be supported by empirical data in order to be taken seriously.
peace
