Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Ivan Kminek said:
...
As regards concentrations of iron: Wiki says that Portland cement contains 0-6 % of iron (as iron oxide) and fly ash (if any in WTC concrete) has something between ca 4 to 15 % of iron. (Drywalls, as the second important "source" of non-metallic rubble, seem to contain no iron). Using values closer to the upper limits, 1 % of iron in the dust/rubble seems to be quite appropriate. But 5 % is really too high...
Click to expand...

Yes, Jenkins quotes the McGee study as noting that "the relative weight-percent ratios of Al, Mg, and Fe are in the range of those found in Portland cement, a major component of concrete." (p. 9).
Plus, he provides an empirical figure from Steven Jones that the concrete contained 3.6% iron by weight.

Plus, the RJ Lee figure is clearly the outlier here - that's not what we ought to be working with! I haven't found an explanation why the dust in 130 Liberty St is an outlier with regards to iron content. I was carefull when I estimated the rate at which iron microspheres from the clean-up operation would settle into the dust.- I assumed the aerosols in an exposed office room would take 12 hours to settle, on average and found that only 0.1% of that dust would then be such spheres. But what if my estimate is off by an order of magnitude - what if the dust settles within an hour? Then fully 1% of the dust would be iron spheres from clean-up work. Add that to a totally reasonable deposit of 2% in the original collapse dust, deduct a reasonale percentage from the 5.87 figure to account for the mass difference between spheres and actual iron atoms, and you are nearly there.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Your making the claim that it wasn't. Are you not? So prove your assertion. And I know your trying to keep my distracted by looking for something thats not even there. Nice try, but I know your play book all to well;)
Click to expand...


I couldn't care less if it was or wasn't as I couldn't care less what the % of iron in the dust was. Its you that is chasing fairy tales so if you want to prove your case to, say, a jury of your Peers:rolleyes:then you need to get your facts lined up.....

so if you want to claim that the high levels of iron are evidence then YOU need to exclude all other possible sources or the defense lawyers will simply tear you to shreds. Remember the burden of proof is wholly with the prosecution and in the case of 911 twoof, that's you.

So again, show that fly ash was not used in the concrete floors of the WTC towers
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
And too high is just as fatal to the twoofers as it means a silly amount of ThermXte had to have been used.
Click to expand...

The amount of thermite used is unknown. The amount of thermate is unknown. The amount of nanothermite is unknown.

All there is, is an accumulation of a number of things. Remember what Niels says.."explosives and incendiaries both played a role in the demolitions, what role they played we do not know"

However, whatever they applied, wherever they applied it, that 9 months that the elevators were being "upgraded"....would have been more than enough time for a black op's team to apply the proper device needed in the specific place.

Also I believe there was a massive cable "upgrade" for several months as well.

Plus securacom and there security "upgrade".

These workers would have look like everyday service men, or construction workers. people would not have suspected a thing so don't play the "they couldn't have got the stuff in there cause people would have saw something" card anymore OK??
 
So again, show that fly ash was not used in the concrete floors of the WTC towers[/QUOTE]

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

I searched the entire document. If they would have used it, it would be in here. it's not. If fact, the word "fly ash" doesent even seem to be in the whole report.

I beleive this is pretty good proof that there is no evidence that fly ash was used in the WTC consrution.

Now, you send me back something that says it does .
 
superlogicalthinker said:
The amount of thermite used is unknown. The amount of thermate is unknown. The amount of nanothermite is unknown.
Click to expand...

And the existence of any of them is unproven

All there is, is an accumulation of a number of things. Remember what Niels says.."explosives and incendiaries both played a role in the demolitions, what role they played we do not know"
Click to expand...

Translated, this means "I have no evidence to support my conclusion, so I'm making an appeal to magic

However, whatever they applied, wherever they applied it, that 9 months that the elevators were being "upgraded"....would have been more than enough time for a black op's team to apply the proper device needed in the specific place.
Click to expand...

How can you know how much time they would need if you don't even know what they would have had to do?

Also I believe there was a massive cable "upgrade" for several months as well.
Click to expand...
You "believe"? Perhaps you should find a source so you can "know".

Plus securacom and there security "upgrade".
Click to expand...

It's "their". Do you have any information about this one?

These workers would have look like everyday service men, or construction workers. people would not have suspected a thing so don't play the "they couldn't have got the stuff in there cause people would have saw something" card anymore OK??
Click to expand...

As long as you stop playing the "I have no idea what the stuff was, or what was needed to install it, or where it would have been installed, but I believe that men dressed as service people could have done it without anybody noticing" card, okay?
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
:rolleyes:I have deleted my post you quoted above, Oystein, since I felt that those figures have probably been discussed many times here (and iron in rubble isn't going to be my "new hobby", since I would spent another tens of hours on this damned matter). Thanks for the more precise numbers about the rubble/dust weight.

As regards concentrations of iron: Wiki says that Portland cement contains 0-6 % of iron (as iron oxide) and fly ash (if any in WTC concrete) has something between ca 4 to 15 % of iron. (Drywalls, as the second important "source" of non-metallic rubble, seem to contain no iron). Using values closer to the upper limits, 1 % of iron in the dust/rubble seems to be quite appropriate. But 5 % is really too high...
Click to expand...


Iron is present in the C4AF phase in cement clinker. It does not have the Fe2O3 structure, but it is often quantified, using XRF, as Fe2O3. As such, I doubt that the true source of the iron microspheres is burned or oxidized cement. Hematite is sometimes used as an aggregate in concrete, but that's also unlikely to form microspheres. In electron excited X-ray EDS (and X-ray excited, for that matter), it is impossible to distinguish between oxides and hydroxides. The hydrogen atom does not produce an X-ray. The X-ray spectrum for FeO is very similar the same as the spectrum for Fe(OH)2. What we should be certain to remember is that just because you can only see Fe and O in an X-ray spectrum, it does not mean that the sample only contains Fe and O. In fact, the addition of organic and hydrous compounds to iron compounds will decrease their melting temperature. I should also point out that iron microspheres are ubiquitous in the urban environment. They come from dozens of possible sources. They are a common component of dust and ash. When idiots point to iron microspheres as proof of thermite, the burden is on them to prove that those particular microspheres could not have been produced in any other way. They must first eliminate the germane, boring and common methods for making said microspheres. Then, they have the nearly impossible task of eliminating ordinary house and building fires as a source of the ash. That would be nearly impossible, since we know (and even Truthers don't dispute this) that both towers were on fire, spewing ash all over downtown.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
So again, show that fly ash was not used in the concrete floors of the WTC towers

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

I searched the entire document. If they would have used it, it would be in here. it's not. If fact, the word "fly ash" doesent even seem to be in the whole report.

I beleive this is pretty good proof that there is no evidence that fly ash was used in the WTC consrution.
Now, you send me back something that says it does .
Click to expand...

You fail Oystein's logic class.
NIST doesn't say, or anyone else, what the concrete mix was, therefore you haven't proven fly-ash was not used.

Also pure iron is softer than aluminum, and carbon is added to pure iron (steel) to make it less flexible than iron.
 
Last edited:
You fail Oystein's logic class.
NIST doesn't say, or anyone else, what the concrete mix was, therefore you haven't proven fly-ash was not used.



And none of you can show that it was. or the link would be down my throat by now.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
You fail Oystein's logic class.
NIST doesn't say, or anyone else, what the concrete mix was, therefore you haven't proven fly-ash was not used.



And none of you can show that it was. or the link would be down my throat by now.
Click to expand...
Yeah...........find a link from the USGS that proves the earth is not flat. Does that prove it is?
 
Last edited:
Just got an email from Jim Millette, our dust researcher. He is looking into getting samples of 1) unburned concrete pieces from the WTC debris 2) a piece of the "meteorite" (this I am guessing is unlikely) 3 a sample of Laclede paint primer from a WTC I or II truss. There may be some reasonable charge for his time to do this.

Jim has proven to be not only patient and forthcoming with my challenging questions from the 9/11 Truth side, but amazingly helpful with requests from Oystein/Ivan et al. Let's see what happens.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Yeah...........find a link from the USGS that proves the earth is not flat. Does that prove it is?
Click to expand...

So if nobody has ever presented any evidence that fly ash was even used in the concrete mix for WTC, then what is the basis for that argument?

Seems like it shouln't even be spoken of unless it is documented to have been used.

it's not documented in any of the reports.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
So if nobody has ever presented any evidence that fly ash was even used in the concrete mix for WTC, then what is the basis for that argument?

Seems like it shouln't even be spoken of unless it is documented to have been used.

it's not documented in any of the reports.
Click to expand...
It's your argument. Show that these "iron rich spheres" are significant. You are failing miserably so far.

(like your "carbon makes iron flexible fantasy).
 
Jim has proven to be not only patient and forthcoming with my challenging questions from the 9/11 Truth side, but amazingly helpful with requests from Oystein/Ivan et al. Let's see what happens
I would say that the only reservation that I have, is that the samples could have/did sit around too long. Nevertheless, Jones is on record stating "comin up on 8 years and it still go's off" (nanothermite DVD)in 2009.

It is really too bad that you couldn't have at least found out how these samples were maintained for the last ten years. No Chris, I'm not requesting that you ask either. You've done enough to secure my faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom