Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel

[Dave Rogers]

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2011/03/05/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-7/

Oh, nicely done there. You're supporting a lie by quoting a lie.

Your source doesn't say "spherical iron particles", does it? It says "spherical iron [...] particles", indicating that a word has been taken out between "iron" and "particles". Now, I wonder why they did that? Here's a clue: they didn't do it to shorten the quote to a manageable size; they replaced four characters with five, making it longer. So, what was the word, and how does it completely change the meaning?

This is yet another example of how truthers are so deeply dishonest, they can no longer tell truth from lies.

Dave

 

[AndrewBurley]

Oh, nicely done there. You're supporting a lie by quoting a lie.

Your source doesn't say "spherical iron particles", does it? It says "spherical iron [...] particles", indicating that a word has been taken out between "iron" and "particles". Now, I wonder why they did that? Here's a clue: they didn't do it to shorten the quote to a manageable size; they replaced four characters with five, making it longer. So, what was the word, and how does it completely change the meaning?

This is yet another example of how truthers are so deeply dishonest, they can no longer tell truth from lies.

Dave

How dishonest of you to ignore the bit I actually bolded

This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had "melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."21

 

[AndrewBurley]

The report itself says

Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of Iron and silicates...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

 

[Dave Rogers]

"Metallic" does not mean "iron". "Iron and silicates" does not mean "iron". Do you get it yet?

Dave

 

[Sabrina]

Hah, I started a trend!

 

[AndrewBurley]

"Metallic" does not mean "iron". "Iron and silicates" does not mean "iron". Do you get it yet?

Dave

Iron means iron. They do not say the iron and silicates are together.

Look at Figure 21, the title of that image is

SEM Image and EDS of spherical Iron Particle

They are iron spheres.

 

[newton3376]

Hah, I started a trend!

Dear FSM.....

 

[Oystein]

...
Do we have to dismiss the guy about his observations of melted beams?
...

Has Marokkaan quoted Riggs verbatimly yet to show that Riggs says he actually and personally "observed" "melted beams", i.e. beams in liquid phase?

What the heck is a melted beam, if not an oxymoron?

 

[Sabrina]

I got a whole bunch all queued up for when Marokkaan posts again, never you fear newton.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Dave Rogers, this image is taken from the RJ Lee report. What are those things with the little arrows pointing to them?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Look at Figure 21, the title of that image is




They are iron spheres.

Interesting. I stand corrected. OK, so there were spheres sufficiently high in iron to be described as "iron microspheres" analysed in the RJ Lee report. So what is the implication of the presence of iron spheres, a normal component of the combustion of impure hydrocarbons, the use of cutting and welding torches (the former from the cleanup and the latter presumably from residues left over inside the structure from construction) and various abrasive processes, including possibly the collision of steel debris with other materials in the course of the collapse?

Dave

 

[newton3376]

I got a whole bunch all queued up for when Marokkaan posts again, never you fear newton.

Heh....I'll be sure to not be eating or drinking when reading such posts....

 

[Foolmewunz]

Molten Steel??!!

Molten Steel??!!

Molten Steel??!! Welcome to 2007, I guess.


Seriously, multiple pages on Molten Steel, yet again? Not only is the claim itself nonsense, but the flip side has never been answered although asked again here, repeatedly..... What would it mean if it was molten steel? Is there a Truther who will answer that?

(I'm just glad Marokkaan hasn't found the evidence of all those people who heard explosives. I tell ya, we can never refute that.)

 

[AndrewBurley]

Interesting. I stand corrected. OK, so there were spheres sufficiently high in iron to be described as "iron microspheres" analysed in the RJ Lee report. So what is the implication of the presence of iron spheres, a normal component of the combustion of impure hydrocarbons, the use of cutting and welding torches (the former from the cleanup and the latter presumably from residues left over inside the structure from construction) and various abrasive processes, including possibly the collision of steel debris with other materials in the course of the collapse?

Dave

They were 150 times higher than the level you would see in a typical office fire. The RJ Lee report says Iron melted during the event.

By they way, you called me a liar earlier. An apology would be appreciated.

 

[newton3376]

Dave Rogers, this image is taken from the RJ Lee report. What are those things with the little arrows pointing to them?

And can you repeat for us, Andrew, what exactly the RJ Lee report said was the likely cause of those spheres?

I searched the RJ Lee report for thermite, nano thermite, super nano thermite, thermate, military grade intimately mixed nano composite, sol gel, etc.......but I came up empty...

Was there another RJ Lee report where they discuss the "exotic accelerants", "aluminothermitic reactions", or "highly energetic nano sized incendiaries"?

Perhaps I missed that report......

 

[newton3376]

They were 150 times higher than the level you would see in a typical office fire. The RJ Lee report says Iron melted during the event.

By they way, you called me a liar earlier. An apology would be appreciated.

150 times!

You don't say.......

Because we ALL KNOW that the fire in the debris pile after the TWO WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS COLLAPSED should be no different that a "typical office" fire.....right Andrew?

Can you tell us again how similar that situation is to a "typical office fire", Andrew? We must have missed THAT REPORT TOO.

 

[Dave Rogers]

They were 150 times higher than the level you would see in a typical office fire.

Which, of course, this wasn't; it was a fire followed by a very large building collapse.

The RJ Lee report says Iron melted during the event.

Yes, they did. However, they clearly hadn't done anything to verify that statement; there's no evidence that these spheres were formed during the fires or the collapses. Not that it matters, though, given that they don't really prove anything.

By they way, you called me a liar earlier.

No, I don't think I did. Please link to the post where I used the word "liar". And, to be honest, I don't think you are a liar; you've just been fooled by liars, to the point where you can't tell what's true any more.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

Marokkaan.....

Enough.

The project to kill Bin Laden would not be called a "Conspiracy" by most people.

That is simply not the way the word is used in common language.

Here is an example of the words usage in common language:


"Truthers are wacko conspiracy theorists."

Lol common language?? what tha &#*#@&@ are u talking. Only people who have trouble with their vocabulary, or are illiterate will say this

OW my .... somebody will now open the door and say surprise candid camera! ?

 

[AndrewBurley]

Which, of course, this wasn't; it was a fire followed by a very large building collapse.

Your point?

Yes, they did. However, they clearly hadn't done anything to verify that statement; there's no evidence that these spheres were formed during the fires or the collapses. Not that it matters, though, given that they don't really prove anything.

Considering you claimed moments ago that they didn't even exist you seem to know a lot about their formation. They do prove that iron melted during the wtc event.

No, I don't think I did. Please link to the post where I used the word "liar". And, to be honest, I don't think you are a liar; you've just been fooled by liars, to the point where you can't tell what's true any more.

Dave

I didn't think you would have the intellectual honesty for that. Go back and look how the conversation went after I made the entirely factual statement that iron spheres were found in the dust.

 

[Marokkaan]

RJ lee report:

“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event,
producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation
of spherical particles due to surface tension…”
“In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC
Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including
spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles
are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent
in typical office dust…”
“Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such
as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that
accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust…”

The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool
indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].

(iron melts at 1,538 °C (2,800 °F) while iron (III) oxide melts at 1,565 °C (2,849 °F) [6] and aluminosilicates melt
around 1,450 C

The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur)
in steel
1,000 1,832
To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652
To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800
To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849
To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164
To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753
To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000