Molten Steel

[~enigma~]

That's exactly the point Mike is making. He lists a number of elements that would be expected to be found in post-collapse chemical analysis because they were components of compounds and materials to be found in the Twin Towers, or any other steel-framed office building, in normal daily life. These cover just about everything Jones ever found.

Dave

And the list is much more exhaustive than what can be found from an analysis of the dust.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's what I'd like to know. Conventional explosives don't produce molten metal and a thermite reaction is very fast. The fires at the WTC lasted until December. Molten metal doesn't seem to fit into any type of conspiracy theory.

Well among the many sources I've seen on the subject:

Photographic evidence
- What was genuine if anything wasn't molten at all, it looked 'red hot', but displayed non-fluid characteristics, which leads me to question how broad the truther definition of 'molten' is.

- Other photographic evidence has been photoshopped to look like fighfighters were looking down at molten steel.

Thermite speculation
- As you correctly pointed out thermite is a very fast reaction, incapable of sustaining itself for months at a time

- The only source I've ever heard of super or nano thermite (which happens to be the apparent backup in the event the traditional is debunked), is fro Jones' research. I've found zero mention of this apparent new thermite on chemistry, demolition, or any other education or professional information sources. I find the claims to be currently without merit as aside from Jones there is no evidence that such a grade of thermite exists.

- Molten metal cannot sustain a 'molten' state w/out a sufficient heat source

Thermite doesn't fit anything before the collapses either because it would have made for an utterly spectacular fireworks display in downtown Manhattan in the presence of tens of thousands of eye witnesses that were in the immediate vicinity at the time....
Wjile I almost find the notion amusing I like to stay on the side of reality.

I attacked the information source in Post #90: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3828278&postcount=90
For those who didn't catch it.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Thermal images are not poor evidence. It is key evidence which prompted me to open a new thread on molten steel because it is immune to reasonable scepticism. With temperatures of 1500c of course steel exposed to such temperatures would turn molten. Are you seriously willing to argue against this fact?

For the love of GOD, those readings were taken POST COLLAPSE!! How many times do you have to be told that post collapse measurements do not indicate anything about the pre-collapse state??

YES, conditions existed in the rubble piles that could have melted steel. You've yet to connect that to conditions within the towers! Think about it: If temps in the towers were higher than what NIST claims, why was there no other evidence of it? Why, for example, was there no melting found on steel members recovered nearer the surface of the rubble piles? Or the ones embedded in neighboring buildings?? Why is the only evidence either underground sightings or metal pieces dug up from deep inside the rubble piles? If your assessment is that there were temperatures high enough to melt steel prior to collapse, then those other pieces of metal should have shown signs of such an effect. They do not! Read the NIST report's auxilliary works detailing the steel they found, and look at pictures on the web for evidence of this.

Furthermore, why weren't the heat-related effects not more pronounced? You forget, the bowing of the exteriors on the main towers was one of those effects. The amount and timeframe of that is consistent with the temperatures postulated by NIST. If the "true" temperatures were higher, why were the effects not similarly increased? Why wasn't the bowing more pronounced? Or why didn't the collapse happen sooner? Those would have been the natural consequences of higher temperatures in the towers. Why is that being ignored???

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Steel pipe on an old hot water heater tank glowing surrounded by wood.

Steel pipe and end of tank melt, and flow downward steel surrounded by un burned wood.

Molten steel, I believe there was molten steel and I know how it was formed, in fact it should have been flowing downward into the rubble pile from being formed continuously in the chlorate cycle of the rubble pile as the fires spread and thin metals reacted with Chlorate's and sulfides.

Sorry for the bad pics, had to take them with my cell phone.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

But did they find evidence that would support the melting of steel eleswhere in the towers prior to collapse? Did they even look for such evidence? Taken literally it would appear as though they were only looking for evidence that supported their pre-determined conlusion. This fact is further confirmed in the final report as we discover their justification for not analysising all the core columns:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

so if a column was not within the impact zone or if its location was unknown it was not even considered for analysis. Their assumption that any damage to columns outside impact zone was caused by damage during collapse or handling during recovery – could just as well apply – to the columns from the impact zone! Bottom line is they didnt look for evidence outside their pre-determined conclusion. Very poor science indeed.

First of all, you ignore the fact that the NIST engineers on site would have to examine whatever steel that came their way to first determine if it came from the impact point. Given the fact that signs of incendiaries or explosives would be very obvious, there was plenty of time to note that on pieces that came their way. They did not.

Secondly, when you quote the NIST report's procedure, you're only referring to NIST's activities at Ground Zero. You forget, the NYPD Crime Scene Unit, the FBI, and the FDNY were also going through the debris. There were more teams there, but the Medical Examiners' unit doesn't matter in this discussion (they were concentrating on human remains). The point is this: The FDNY and NYPD CSU had also gone through the debris, and had not limited themselves to selecting pieces from the fire and impact zones. Neither did the FBI, although if I'm reading things correctly, I think they were being more reactive to what the Fire Department and local police brought them than they were looking for things in the debris themselves. Regardless... there were other units there that also never found anything suspicious about the debris. So why quote the NIST report in a manner that suggests that much of the steel was never examined? That's the farthest thing from the truth. Not even NIST limited their GZ work to pieces from the impact/fire/collapse zones; they merely singled those out for later, more exhaustive examination.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Furthermore just read their response below given by the NIST spokesman, Neuman to a non-truther journalist: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124760.html “We don’t want to get into a debate,” Neuman said. “Certainly people are entitled to their opinion … [but] we’re staying away from debates with these groups (911 truth groups).” We assured him we didn’t belong to “these groups,” though we admitted some of the groups’ members made points we could not refute. We hoped Neuman could. The first thing we mentioned was [former Brigham Young University physicist Steven] Jones’s claims of finding explosive residue in the debris. “We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,” Neuman said. We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives? “Right, because there was no evidence of that.” But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first? “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.”

So the reason why they did not look for evidence of explosives was because there was no evidence for explosives! How can any rational person find sense in such circular reasoning is beyond me.

What Neuman was saying was that the steel showed no physical signs of explosives characteristics, like fragmentation effects. If there's no physical signs of explosives use on the steel, why go on to test for chemical residues? That's like saying one should test for bullets when there's no hole in the supposed target. How you fail to see that that the lack of obvious, physical signs obviates the need for chemical testing is beyond me.

 

[GlennB]

As a matter of fact, I would not expect steel to drip from the end of a steel beam that's being lifted by a tractor. If it's solid enough to be picked up without bending like a wet noodle, it's unlikely that one end would be a runny liquid. If a liquid metal was dripping off the end (and not just flakes of hot stuff falling off), that metal was probably something besides steel.

Bingo

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

For the love of GOD, those readings were taken POST COLLAPSE!! How many times do you have to be told that post collapse measurements do not indicate anything about the pre-collapse state??

YES, conditions existed in the rubble piles that could have melted steel. You've yet to connect that to conditions within the towers! Think about it: If temps in the towers were higher than what NIST claims, why was there no other evidence of it? Why, for example, was there no melting found on steel members recovered nearer the surface of the rubble piles? Or the ones embedded in neighboring buildings?? Why is the only evidence either underground sightings or metal pieces dug up from deep inside the rubble piles? If your assessment is that there were temperatures high enough to melt steel prior to collapse, then those other pieces of metal should have shown signs of such an effect. They do not! Read the NIST report's auxilliary works detailing the steel they found, and look at pictures on the web for evidence of this.

Furthermore, why weren't the heat-related effects not more pronounced? You forget, the bowing of the exteriors on the main towers was one of those effects. The amount and timeframe of that is consistent with the temperatures postulated by NIST. If the "true" temperatures were higher, why were the effects not similarly increased? Why wasn't the bowing more pronounced? Or why didn't the collapse happen sooner? Those would have been the natural consequences of higher temperatures in the towers. Why is that being ignored???

The plane actually melted though the steel of the outer wall, that is how the cut out shape was actually formed so there was a reaction and temperature that did melt some steel in the initial impact.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Bingo

Because one end of a beam can be exposed to a chemical reaction and melt, and the other end not be exposed and remain solid. Both at the same temperature.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The plane actually melted though the steel of the outer wall, that is how the cut out shape was actually formed so there was a reaction and temperature that did melt some steel in the initial impact.

..... I think that had much more to do with the planes' momentum and that the columns were either severed at the connections/where the planes hit them, more than melting the metal... The heat transfer from the kinetic energy is expected, but the time span in which the plane and the exterior columns were in physical contact was less than a second...

 

[T.A.M.]

I have no doubt, that at some point after the collapse of the towers, there was the following in the debris pile...

1. Molten Steel
2. Molten Copper
3. Molten Aluminum
4. Molten Glass
5. Molten Tin

Now, anyone care to show me, based on the pics I presented much earlier in this thread, how any one is going to tell them apart based on visual inspection???

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The plane actually melted though the steel of the outer wall, that is how the cut out shape was actually formed so there was a reaction and temperature that did melt some steel in the initial impact.

I think that was much more mechanical than thermal. But regardless, I don't see the jet impact contributing to a 1500-so degree reading of the whole impact area. The actual contact points of airliner metal on building metal, perhaps, but that would be very, very localized temperature and melting. Not the "cascading waterfall" like in that video, or the "rivers" that fantasy spinners keep bringing up.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

..... I think that had much more to do with the planes' momentum and that the columns were either severed at the connections/where the planes hit them, more than melting the metal... The heat transfer from the kinetic energy is expected, but the time span in which the plane and the exterior columns were in physical contact was less than a second...

Your forgetting there is evidence of aluminum combustion at over 2800c on impact, that occurs because of the aluminum at impact actually melting do to kinetic energy transference.
The first thing that happens is the aluminum melts then com-busts, and burns it's way though the columns like DU though tank armor.
I have done experiments that can be easily recreated that show the process.

PS, it also happens when an aluminum plane hit concrete, heaven forbid, there be a hydrocarbon fire or a water tank where the plane impacts as the aluminum reacts with any moisture or even nitrogen to form AlN then later oxidizes with water or air.

It has to happen because of the physical caricteristics of aluminum, in impacts.

Did I also mention that hydrogen is produce in the process of the reaction of aluminum with burning hydrocarbons? Said hydrogen when ignited produces significant over pressure, that can damage structures and destroy fire proofing materials.
It can cause fire balls to expand into other areas as high speeds and eject material.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think that was much more mechanical than thermal. But regardless, I don't see the jet impact contributing to a 1500-so degree reading of the whole impact area. The actual contact points of airliner metal on building metal, perhaps, but that would be very, very localized temperature and melting. Not the "cascading waterfall" like in that video, or the "rivers" that fantasy spinners keep bringing up.

The waterfall would be aluminum most likely combined with nitrogen to form AlN, that reacting with atmospheric oxygen or moisture of any kind would create that effect.

The flowing metals in the rubble pile would be from Chlorate's and sulfates reactions with various metals in the rubble pile, actually adding fuel to the pile to continue the release of heat though time.

The catalysts are recycled by reaction with water in lower levels and vaporized off to react again with then hot metals then flow downward to react with water, and start the whole process again. That would allow for a high temperature below, and actually cool the surface of the rubble pile.

PS. the contact area, is not relevant, once the aluminum starts reacting in the fire ball, only the amount of potential oxidants and contact of those with shredded aluminum.

 

[thewholesoul]

What I'm doing is raising more probable sources for the phenomena in question. I'm presenting sources that do not require any complex conspiracy or the presence of materials (such as thermite) that are not only not indicated by present observations, but are actually contraindicated by them. Sources which flow naturally from known details of the towers (for example, the fact that welding was most definitely used during construction).

So I was correct in saying that you are not contesting the fact that the particles in the WTC Dust can be produced by extreme temperatures, that instead you are trying to establish other possibile explanations for their presence? However in your view these other possibilities are more probable. The reason they are more probable is because they do not depend on any conspiracy and the presence of preplanted explosives. Yet they do depend on the official unproven hypothesis being true i.e. that a steel framed skyscraper can be totally destroyed symetrically in near-free-fall speed, an event that has a low probability of occurence in the absense of preplanted explosives.

Would you agree that inducing a total collapse (as described above) of a steel framed skyscraper by pre-planted explosives is more probable than inducing such an outcome by asymetric structural damage and a fire?

And: You need to actually read Jones's work.

Key word: If. Jones isn't establishing that the characteristics of the particle indicate temperatures, he's saying if the appearance is the result of high temps, then that indicates high temperatures. Why he then goes on to treat the matter as a settled issue rather than a hypothetical is unclear, but he comes out and admits it's a supposition, not a conclusion. So before you use aluminosilicate particles to prove high temperatures, establish first that the particles' appearances were indeed caused by such high temperatures. Jones isn't doing that. He comes out and says it in his paper.

Jones does express doubt that the appearance of these particles resulted from boiling or evaporation but he does not express doubt that it resulted from melting. Can an office fire melt alumino-silicates and produce a swiss cheese appearance? This is an empirical question.

As for “if”: perhaps you should insert that qualifier infront of your suggestions of possible contamination of the WTC Dust by welding because in fact, you have no evidence that welding during construction actually contaminated the WTC Dust. You only assume it did.

Moreover I was surprised to see you simply avoiding my counter arguments in post#165 pertaining to contamination caused by wleding so I will repost them in hope of a direct response...

•The welding of core and outer columns occured in an open-air environment , not in a closed environment. Hence it is very likely that any “micro”-sphericules produced would have been blown away by the wind. SKyscrapers are vey windy places you know.

•I dont know eactly what you mean by spheres produced by welding would have been “contained within the tower”. Where exactly were they contained and how? Would not rountine cleaning remove any accumulation of indoor dust particles?

•Do the iron-rich sphericules produced by welding possess the same chemical signature as the iron rich sphericules discovered by jones? Fe-O-(K)-Al-Si
•Does welding produce red chips that possess the same chemical signature as commercial thermite?

answering these key questions are crucial if you are to establish any plausibility in your alternative explanations.

Furthermore, didn't Dr. Frank Greening note a possible mechanism for aluminosilicate formation at temperatures lower than the, what, 2700+ degree C claim Jones makes?

Originally Posted by Apollo20
The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the m.p. of pure iron at ~ 1537 deg C is a complex process but is possible in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. Iron is transported as a volatile di or tri-chloride. FeCl2 has a m.p. of 677 deg C and allows "active" corrosion to occur with iron wastage rates as high as 100 g/m^2 per hour. The iron chloride is relatively unstable and decomposes but the iron does not wind up as a pure iron microsphere. As the very least it will be oxide (probably Fe3O4) coated and alloyed with other metals such as Al. Fly ash usually contains mullite, Al6Si2O13. This readily combines with iron oxide at ~ 1000 deg C to form an iron-rich aluminosilicate microsphere on cooling. Other elements such as K and Ca are also readily incorporated into these melts. This is the chemistry of CLAY minerals! As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite.

Bolding is for emphasis. At any rate, NCSTAR1-5 does note that "simulations and the visual evidence suggests" that there were temperatures "in the neighborhood" of 1000 degrees C.

I am not knocking Dr Greening. But like everyone else he is only human and all humans are fallible. Dr Greenings hypothesis, for example behind the molten flow seen from the south tower being the result of molten aluminium flowing over rusted steel, was disproven through experiments with published photos by Professor Jones http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

First of all, the environment he mentions is an assumption because it is not based on any hard evidence. But assuming this environment was present then this is an empirical matter that can and should be tested. Until it has been tested even if it seems theroetically plausible, just like his explanation as to the causes of the molten flow from south tower, it cannot be said to be proven.

Second, Dr Greening claims that microspheres containing Si and/or K cannot be derived from thermite. But Jones microspheres do contain Si and/or K and so did the commercial thermite he tested. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

Third, Dr Greening fails to produce iron-rich sphericules with the same chemical signature as the iron-rich sphericules Jones has discovered.
Professor Jones asks Dr Greening

Can you get a Fe-O-K-Al-Si spectrum (with oxygen, O) and sphere production from burning office materials? A few examples please -- if you can do it.

Finally, the temperatures mentioned in NCSTAR 1-5 only lasted a few minutes. and simulations most likely tailored to iliicit predetermiend outcome.

On top of that, I thought a poster here in this forum noted that aluminosilicate microspheres - not merely their precursors (i.e. mullite), but actual aluminosilicate spherules themselves - were also a component of fly ash, which in turn is a component of concrete. I'll try to locate that reference. Anyway, my point in rasing this is to note that there are already alternate explanations for the presence of the aluminosilicate spherules that do not need higher temperatures or explanations based on unproven materials like thermite, but instead flow naturally from the composition of known components of the towers.

Jones tested the concrete

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.

But lets assume that the fly ash inside the concrete did contain iron rich aluminosilicates – ask the poster if it contained oxygen as observed in the spheres jones has discovered in the dust that match the chemical signature found in commercial thermite he tested?

As Greening pointed out in that same exchange, the fly-ash constituent of concrete is a known source of these iron rich microspheres. And now Jones is trying to claim that there were none found in another sampling, which is a contradiction to this known fact about the constitution of concrete. Jones needs to provide more information before I consider his claim credible. Simply making the claim as he does is insufficient argumentation to sway me, especially in the light of other misrepresentations he's indulged in before.

As jones pointed out oxygen was a major component in the spheres he found – can Dr Greening discover iron spheres with oxygen from fly ash?

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think we have a couple months worth of stundies in Soul's last post alone.

In addition it has been provent beyond any doubt that the collapse would have occured form the fire and damage alone. So the claim is basically that some guys devised this impossible plot to get the building to simply fall faster than it should have. Brilliant wholesoul. Just brilliant.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'll be keeping this link in my sig for any CT that would like to rebut Post #90 should there be anyone wanting to comment...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So I was correct in saying that you are not contesting the fact that the particles in the WTC Dust can be produced by extreme temperatures, that instead you are trying to establish other possibile explanations for their presence? However in your view these other possibilities are more probable. The reason they are more probable is because they do not depend on any conspiracy and the presence of preplanted explosives. Yet they do depend on the official unproven hypothesis being true i.e. that a steel framed skyscraper can be totally destroyed symetrically in near-free-fall speed, an event that has a low probability of occurence in the absense of preplanted explosives.

The "official unproven hypothesis" is a terrible characterization of it. That theory is supported by observation not merely of the videos, but of the behavior of the towers prior to collapse, the study of recovered steel from the towers, the absence of any evidence existing that would point to explosives or incendiaries, and validation through modeling. "Unproven" is an allegation that is unfounded. It applies far, far more to the hypotheses from David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones, both of whom postulate thermite in the absence of signatures and opportunity for emplacement. I realize full well that NIST's narrative of the events are subject to criticism; James Quintierre has elucidated some quality ones, and so has Dr. Astaneh-Asl. But Jones's misinterpretations in favor of incendiaries use is not criticism, it's fantasy. He's basing a whole hypothesis on the presence of particles he hasn't linked to the fires, and merely saying "these require high temps, therefore there must have been high temps" means nothing when alternate sources for generation get ignored, not to mention the fact that such postulation does not even being to address the lack of emplacement opportunity for such external sources of generation.

Also: The possibilities I raise are not more probable simply because they're my view or that I like them. They're more probable because they do not depend on unsupported allegations of disproven mechanisms.

On top of that, your statement about the "low probability of occurence in the absense of preplanted explosives" is not only irrelevant to any discussion of the probabilities of alternate possibilities, it's ludicrous juxtaposition. It's comparing apples to fairies. The possibilities I raise are based on known facts about the towers' history; the possibilities you raise depend on the deus-ex-machina of explosives or incendiaries which have already been falsified by the lack of evidence on recovered steel members, the lack of signature characteristics such as noise and overpressure damage, the lack of post-explosives demolitions material in the debris, and the lack of opportunity for emplacement. I have no idea if the sources I raised for the spheres are indeed the actual ones, but at least I base my hypothesis on what's possible.

Would you agree that inducing a total collapse (as described above) of a steel framed skyscraper by pre-planted explosives is more probable than inducing such an outcome by asymetric structural damage and a fire?

Hell. No. That is absolutely not more probable. In fact, that is a ludicrous proposition. What is "more probable" about pre-planted explosives given the practical impossibility of installing them without anyone noticing and detonating them without causing characteristic noise or overpressure, or without leaving characteristic debris behind, such as fragments of detonators, or detonation cord? And how did any such explosives survive the fires without detonating? And if there were no explosives in the fire zones, how were they timed so that they collapsed the building perfectly after the initiation in the impact zone? And regarding the collapse: What is so hard to understand about the fact that the impact damage not only cut multiple supports, but ruined many other columns ability to resist fire? And that once the mass above the collapse zone got moving, the acceleration and accretion of more mass by impacting lower floors overcame whatever resistance the lower part of the structure presented? Every time I see someone argue explosives, I wonder if they've really considered the energentics involved, or if they're just trusting Gordon Ross's demonstrably flawed work.

You continue to fail to understand that you're not coming close to meeting the burden of proof of explosives being used. You've yet to explain how such did not leave any fragmentation on any of the steel that was examined - note: Not merely what was set aside by NIST, but what was actually examined by the NYPD and FDNY - and how they did not make the characteristic noise that explosives demolitions make. Nor have you explained how they got into the towers in the first place without anyone noticing. I repeat this because bringing up microspheres and making unsupported arguments about probabilities of collapse miss the point; the problems involved in getting them there in addition to the lack of characteristics negate the possiblity of explosives. Period. Therefore, even if the particles Jones found were indeed not created before 9/11, you still have no cause to link those to explosives or incendiaries at all. All that their presence can even remotely suggest is that there was a higher temperature reaction in the towers than what NIST so far has postulated, and that's only if you falsify the other possible sources. Besides which, you'd also have to explain why the other temperature-dependant effects noted that day - namely the columns distortion prior to collapse - weren't more pronounced, given that their behavoir matches the temperatures reached in the NIST model and not the ones postulated by Jones. Regardless, whatever the reaction in question was, it could not have been due to explosives, because explosives are falsified for reasons I gave above. Post facto attempts to resurrect their possibility must overcome those problems. It is not enough to point at two classes of particles and say "Explosives were used" and rest on that laurel, not when it's patently impossible for them to have been used. A superior hypothesis must take into account all the observations. Explosives fantasies do not, and are in fact negated by many of them.


To be continued...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jones does express doubt that the appearance of these particles resulted from boiling or evaporation but he does not express doubt that it resulted from melting. Can an office fire melt alumino-silicates and produce a swiss cheese appearance? This is an empirical question.

Forget the empirical question you raise; the premise still doesn't point at explosives being responsible for the formation of the particles. Crazy Chainsaw has noted that aluminum silicates in fly ash with chlorides and sulfides can undergo a reaction similar to what occurs in a waste incinerator. And again, that hypothesis doesn't depend on anything other than what is expected to be found in the towers i.e. fly ash as a component of concrete, chlorides in various items like paper, sulfates in items like drywall, etc. So the question of whether office fires can cause the physical effects of the particles is irrelevant. They might, they might not, but an explanation exists that does not depend on any external influences like explosives. Occams Razor applies here.

As for “if”: perhaps you should insert that qualifier infront of your suggestions of possible contamination of the WTC Dust by welding because in fact, you have no evidence that welding during construction actually contaminated the WTC Dust. You only assume it did.

Have I ever said anything to the contrary? But in bringing that up you miss the point: It's an explanation that doesn't depend on a disproven mechanism. The assumption is valid because welding is a known source of microspheres. That I am only using supposition to arrive at the conclusion that its a possible source does not negate that fact, nor does it aid explosives hypotheses any. There is far more supposition to any proposition of explosives use than there is to welding, which was known to be done during the construction of the towers.

Moreover I was surprised to see you simply avoiding my counter arguments in post#165 pertaining to contamination caused by wleding so I will repost them in hope of a direct response...

•The welding of core and outer columns occured in an open-air environment , not in a closed environment. Hence it is very likely that any “micro”-sphericules produced would have been blown away by the wind. SKyscrapers are vey windy places you know.
•I dont know eactly what you mean by spheres produced by welding would have been “contained within the tower”. Where exactly were they contained and how? Would not rountine cleaning remove any accumulation of indoor dust particles?

I didn't intend to bypass it. You put a lot of stuff up that needed correction, and I don't remember why I skipped over it. Big deal.

Regarding wind: If such microspheres would be blown away from the wind, it would only be whatever is produced and laying on the surface of welds. Not those trapped within the welds themselves.

And also, you appear to assume that the wind scoured every corner and surface of joined segments; you'd still have the insides of welded box columns, as one example, that wouldn't be susceptible to such an effect.

And how can you not know what I mean by "contained within the tower"? The towers were eventually enclosed, and spaces within the towers were enclosed also. Would routine cleaning be done behind the walls? In all the spaces where steel members were welded together? In the elevator shafts? Within the interior spaces of the welded box columns? Just how much cleaning do you suppose was done to anything beyond the human spaces in the towers? The idea that "cleaning" would remove any particles created by welding is a ludicrous one. Cleaning is done to the human habitated spaces, not the structural supports.

•Do the iron-rich sphericules produced by welding possess the same chemical signature as the iron rich sphericules discovered by jones? Fe-O-(K)-Al-Si
•Does welding produce red chips that possess the same chemical signature as commercial thermite?

Welding is only one of the possible sources I brought up. Does it specifically produce such spheres with such chemical makeups? I don't know. But as I've said numerous times before, explosives can not have been the source of such. They are disproven for reasons I've mentioned in previous posts.

If welds are not the source, then you must also consider other chemistries, such as what Greening and Crazy Chainsaw here have discussed. Recall what I posted earlier regarding aluminosilicate sphere formation.

And the red chips? Same chemical signature as commercial thermite? Now I know you're merely parroting conspiracy peddlers. Think about what you're saying: The red chips possessed the same "chemical signature". Well, guess what? Excluding the various "side" elements, thermite is at heart mostly aluminum and ferrous-oxide. What was the facade of the towers made of? Aluminum? What is ferrous-oxide? Rust. Steven Jones discovered a paint chip and managed to get you fantasists to believe it was an incendiary.

If you continue to believe that these chips meant thermite, then you can answer Dr. Greening's question addressed to Steven Jones: What is Si (silicon) doing there? And since when is that an ingredient of thermite? And what about the potassium? I don't recall that being a common element in thermite, but both are found in paints. So is titanium, which was also noted in Jones's spectra, but which is not a component of thermite. And how about the chromium and calcium, also not known to be thermite ingredients?

No, welding does not produce red chips as what Jones found. But to think they're thermite is to create a whole new composition of thermite.

-------


I'm done, and I'm tired. I haven't even answered the previous posts yet, and there's still a lot of unsupported argumentation there. Meh... I'll answer the rest later. Don't know if it'll be this post or earlier ones, but all contain mistakes and misrepresentations that need correction.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So I was correct in saying that you are not contesting the fact that the particles in the WTC Dust can be produced by extreme temperatures, that instead you are trying to establish other possibile explanations for their presence? However in your view these other possibilities are more probable. The reason they are more probable is because they do not depend on any conspiracy and the presence of preplanted explosives. Yet they do depend on the official unproven hypothesis being true i.e. that a steel framed skyscraper can be totally destroyed symetrically in near-free-fall speed, an event that has a low probability of occurence in the absense of preplanted explosives.

Would you agree that inducing a total collapse (as described above) of a steel framed skyscraper by pre-planted explosives is more probable than inducing such an outcome by asymetric structural damage and a fire?

Why is anybody still talking to this highly gifted impersonator of brick walls? The collapses weren't symmetrical, the speed at which they occurred is exactly the speed predicted by everybody who's investigated it, and the probability of inducing a total collapse of a skyscraper using explosives which could not possibly have been preplanted and exploded too quietly for anyone to hear them is precisely zero. He's been told all this too many times for there to be any possibility of doubt; he's not here to listen, he's here to talk.

Dave

ETA:

As jones pointed out oxygen was a major component in the spheres he found – can Dr Greening discover iron spheres with oxygen from fly ash?

I can't even begin to comment on how idiotic this statement is. Does TWS actually understand what oxygen is?