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?
NO that signature is a thermite signature of cheap commercial grade thermite, usually that type also includes sulfur to react with the Si., from cheaper grades of iron ores not well separated.
It can also be found in other steel products, and in glues used on sanding and grinding disks primarily those using aluminum oxide grit on steel for cutting steel which incidentally leaves microspheres of steel and aluminum oxide from the high temperatures involved ins steel erosion.
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
Oxidation reactions can produce microsphericals at the temperature of the World Trade Center fires.
(ii)Is there any physical difference between micro sphericules produced at high temperatures and those produced at lower temperatures?
Yes there is, the spiracles produced though combustion of the metals themselves will be different from those produced from temperature alone in an oxygen depleted atmosphere, however even heating will produce oxidation events so some times it is impossible to tell which sphere is which.
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
Lighting could explain the color difference or a difference in camera setting, color is really a bad indicator to go by, as is size the micro spheres or spiracles can be produced in multiple sizes but only those of a specific small size will become airborne.
In another post you indicate the environment wherein you created microspheres: 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?
The condition were right for gas and dust entrapment on multiple levels of the buildings, back Draft like explosions were even noted by fire fighters, they are common in fires.
Carbon dust and Carbon monoxide both are explosive compounds.
(iii)Could your experimental microspheres be created in the
absense of back-draft?
Yes.
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?
Significantly greater, Nist is wrong in that reguard.
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
You should find microsphericals in events like the building collapses when there is sufficient energy to make them air born particles.
I believe there was sufficient energy in the collapse to do so.
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?
NO, the collapse makes the particles air born, that would not occur in ordinary fires.
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 however I could be wrong.
The Oxidation of metals produces heat, that can melt the metal being oxidized, especially if a catalytic agent is present, Dr. Joneses own work with sulfur points that out.
(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?
No the Crystalline bonding is what gives metals the strength and properties they have, for instance if carbon is inserted trapped in the iron crystal we have steel, however if a substance disrupts the crystalline bonds the metal is weakened and can become more susceptible to melting, or breakage, from a change in the shape and the size of the crystal matrix.
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 .
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
(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?
Nist is referring to the structural steel, in the buildings however there were other steels that were non structural, like the floor pans that could have and most probably did melt, though metal oxidation reactions.
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.
Only a high energy event would have made the spheres air borne, and contamination seems the most likely source.
I have found Al and Fe Micro spheres in electrical light switches from the arcing as the contacts make the connection that allows current to pass though.
(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 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[/QUOTE]
100% repeatable experiments, in metal oxidation and friction reactions.
Sorry I could not answer in a more timely manor, my hard drive crashed.
