Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

chrismohr said:
The police museum picture, while not proof for me, is at least admitted into evidence. Sorry to disappoint my friends here!
Click to expand...

I edited my post above to include this thought...

EDIT: And btw, that picture that was posted is not verified melted concrete. Its just a plack on the wall that says it is. We have established that stuff like this is incorrectly reported all the time, there is also the fact that if its so obvious a fire without thermite can't do that to concrete then why the hell are all these people so blase about it? If they know what they are talking about enough to say that its definitely melted concrete then why don't they know what that means? And while we're on the subject, why are they allowed to have such an exhibit when according to you its so obvious that this melted concrete means thermite had to be present? Why didnt the black ops team swoop in and stop them and deny any such materials existed?
 
Last edited:
Here's part of a recent post by EDX:

Here's what else the RJ Lee Report said....

Quote:

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Why would they say that?

If they are THAT incompetent that they don't know that iron microspheres can apparently only point to super nano thermite, yet they don't even think its suspicious but rather that its "expected", then how can you use anything they say as some kind of authority on the subject?

On the other hand, we have this from Christopher7:

This is a very definitive statement:
"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."
Who are you to say that the RJ Lee Group is wrong?

Neither side can quote RJ Lee as scripture, because both sides can find support for their arguments! People have already written to ask RJ Lee about these apparent contradictions and gotten no response. That is because their customer was Deutsche Bank, not any of us. And I am pretty sure that RJ Lee put out their report when talk of extremely high temps was the norm. That is not the consensus now (most people outside the 9/11 Truth movement talk of temperatures maxing out around 1400-1800 degrees Farenheit). I was able to confirm that consensus with the direct testimony of a firefighter who was there, looking at NASA thermal imaging maps daily and using the temperature measurements to determine firefighting and lifesaving strategies. Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4 and go about 7:45 in. No one in 9/11 Truth has ever tried to rebut this direct testimony, to my knowledge, so I remain very skeptical (as in open only a small crack) to claims of concrete-melting temps. Maybe the James Millette study I organized will help answer at least some questions. Main point: I'm not convinced all these questions are fully resolved, at least not to my 100% satisfaction.
 
chrismohr said:
Neither side can quote RJ Lee as scripture,
Click to expand...

The only people doing that is truthers, albiet selectively of course as seen by Christopher who then asked who are we to question them. As if we were denying the iron microspheres existed at all, but somehow doesnt notice that RJ Lee report also says they are totally expected in such an event, but apparently us not questioning them stops at the sphere's existence and we're just meant to assume RJ Lee are stupid from that point on.


because both sides can find support for their arguments!
Click to expand...

In what way have they supported it in your opinion?
 
chrismohr said:
Neither side can quote RJ Lee as scripture, because both sides can find support for their arguments! People have already written to ask RJ Lee about these apparent contradictions and gotten no response. That is because their customer was Deutsche Bank, not any of us. And I am pretty sure that RJ Lee put out their report when talk of extremely high temps was the norm. That is not the consensus now (most people outside the 9/11 Truth movement talk of temperatures maxing out around 1400-1800 degrees Farenheit). I was able to confirm that consensus with the direct testimony of a firefighter who was there, looking at NASA thermal imaging maps daily and using the temperature measurements to determine firefighting and lifesaving strategies. Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4 and go about 7:45 in. No one in 9/11 Truth has ever tried to rebut this direct testimony, to my knowledge, so I remain very skeptical (as in open only a small crack) to claims of concrete-melting temps. Maybe the James Millette study I organized will help answer at least some questions. Main point: I'm not convinced all these questions are fully resolved, at least not to my 100% satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Food for thought:
These temperature studies do not take in to consideration the friction from the impacting of all the mass in the collapses.

;)
 
Last edited:
Chris: I am a layman in the fields like construction materials, but it seem to me to be apparent that concrete after melting can't be again the same concrete after solidification. Consider that concrete is basically complex composite material, with some gravel (various minerals can be used) and sand grains, embedded with fine reacted portland cement, fly ash (:cool:) and perhaps other minor ingredients. Morever, many various kinds of concrete exist. The behavior of such composites at very high temperatures can be very complex and concrete can basically decompose before melting. For real melting (basically formation of homogeneous mass), gravel and sand must be melted, and, therefore, material after cooling must have a considerably different structure. But... this is just my guess. It is rather questionable if concrete can really melt at all (this is why is perhaps not so easy to find some info on the melting range of concrete).

Otherwise, I understand your doubts and we have still to find how it is with all those microspheres. Therefore I suggested to look for microspheres in the authentic samples of concrete.

SuperLogicalThinker, if I understand JREF rules, after several contributions, you will become Critical Thinker morever (perhaps even today). This will be important event in your life, so when you reach this unusual level of thinking abilities, open some bottle of champagne and think: can layer of any thermite thick 25 micrometers really melt concrete boulder with the diameter of about 0.5 m (i.e. 20 000x larger)? Think about it...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4
Click to expand...

A few points (among many others that I would raise, if I have time sometime):

Chris, the person you quoted who said a grappler would not be able to pick up a piece of steel that was red hot or molten on one end, who was that? What was their name?

You state that there were no injuries involving "scalded lungs". How do you know this?

Near the beginning, you state that "eyewitness testimony cannot be ignored" or something along those lines, but then you in fact do ignore the many accounts of molten steel in favour of a speculated molten aluminum theory, which is even less believable and much less supported by what was observed. In fact, not a single report of molten anything speculated that it might be molten aluminum. Aluminum is common in building materials, so firefighters would certainly have encountered this in other fires. Yet none of them said, "oh, it must be aluminum". Nor did any of the engineers who surveyed Ground Zero in those early days. None of them speculated that it must have been the aluminum. The molten aluminum hypothesis is a real stretch. Even you must recognize this.

You also ignore that the USGS study found that molybdenum had been melted.

Did you get information from any other Ground Zero firefighters besides Vince Palmieri?
 
Edx said:
The only people doing that is truthers, albiet selectively of course as seen by Christopher who then asked who are we to question them. As if we were denying the iron microspheres existed at all, but somehow doesnt notice that RJ Lee report also says they are totally expected in such an event, but apparently us not questioning them stops at the sphere's existence and we're just meant to assume RJ Lee are stupid from that point on.




In what way have they supported it in your opinion?
Click to expand...
This is a very definitive statement [from RJ Lee]:
"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

That supports Christopher7's position. I admit that into evidence with the caveat that I don't believe that RJ Lee got this right. My firefighter's evidence which I quote in my YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4 carries more clout for me, as just one example.
 
chrismohr said:
OK a few things here:
I looked at a past thread re the Police Museum's evidence of melted concrete. Most of it was insults. There was one good point: if concrete melts, when it resolidifies does it become concrete again or something else?
Another point made less sense to me: the idea that water can do this, like melty-shaped concrete you see on the beach. But that would take too much time, I would think.
I certainly think that if slt, christopher7 et al can prove melted concrete, that would also prove temperatures hot enough to melt iron, so the concrete argument should be allowed in this thread in my opinion.
Bottom line: the iron-rich microspheres are not 100% solved either way. "My side" has hypotheses (printer toner, fly ash in concrete, welding from the 70s during construction, etc), but we have no proof to my satisfaction. This is why I asked Jim Millette for a sample of the concrete from WTC debris, so we can see if there are tons of microspheres in the concrete itself (as some have claimed). Since it looks like there are lots of microspheres in the dust, as much as 6% microspheres but maybe less, I just don't believe we have fully accounted for this high a quantity yet. I have less expertise than many people here, but I will say the question remains an open one for me.
I am 99% certain I am right about natural collapse. I continue to look into the 1% where my uncertainty is. In this case my list of possible sources for iron-rich microspheres has to include, however unlikely it may seem to me, the possibility that they were created by very hot thermitic agents. The police museum picture, while not proof for me, is at least admitted into evidence. Sorry to disappoint my friends here!
Click to expand...
I think the strongest evidence on our side is simple chemistry and analysis of ash itself. As a person who has participated in studies of ash from fires and other processes, I can assure you that these microspheres are quite common. They are ubiquitous in the urban environment (due in large part to all of the processes you list above), and their chemistry isn't necessarily pure Fe2O3. As I have pointed out many, many, many times on this forum, hydrogen is completely invisible in X-ray analyses, and there is no way to eliminate the possibility hydrogen or hydrous compounds from the particles without using other techniques.

Fires do not need to melt iron, steel or otherwise to create these particles. Fires are far more likely to act simply as pre-concentrators for these materials. Much of what we work with is carbonaceous (desks, paper, fabric, carpet, etc), and as we all know, carbon combusts, and what is left after combustion is non-combustable material, just like these iron microspheres. The idea that they are only created in fires is missing a large part of the story. They very well may be created from other iron rich materials, but they can also simply be concentrated in ash because they don't combust readily.

The issue I have is with the following logic:

I found iron microspheres

Iron microspheres are part of a thermite reaction

Therefore, I have found thermite

The legitimate criticism of this argument is that these iron microspheres can come from many, many, many places, and the author must first eliminate all of those processes first. Since that is impossible to do, we need not worry about thermite as viable hypothesis.
 
chrismohr said:
This is a very definitive statement [from RJ Lee]:
"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

That supports Christopher7's position. I admit that into evidence with the caveat that I don't believe that RJ Lee got this right. My firefighter's evidence which I quote in my YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4 carries more clout for me, as just one example.
Click to expand...


And no one is saying that they were not produced, the point is Christoper is saying that we should not question RJ Lee, apart from, the fact that RJ Lee said this was "expected". So why is it expected and why don't truthers care from that point on?
 
The Almond said:
I think the strongest evidence on our side is simple chemistry and analysis of ash itself. As a person who has participated in studies of ash from fires and other processes, I can assure you that these microspheres are quite common. They are ubiquitous in the urban environment (due in large part to all of the processes you list above), and their chemistry isn't necessarily pure Fe2O3. As I have pointed out many, many, many times on this forum, hydrogen is completely invisible in X-ray analyses, and there is no way to eliminate the possibility hydrogen or hydrous compounds from the particles without using other techniques.

Fires do not need to melt iron, steel or otherwise to create these particles. Fires are far more likely to act simply as pre-concentrators for these materials. Much of what we work with is carbonaceous (desks, paper, fabric, carpet, etc), and as we all know, carbon combusts, and what is left after combustion is non-combustable material, just like these iron microspheres. The idea that they are only created in fires is missing a large part of the story. They very well may be created from other iron rich materials, but they can also simply be concentrated in ash because they don't combust readily.

The issue I have is with the following logic:

I found iron microspheres

Iron microspheres are part of a thermite reaction

Therefore, I have found thermite

The legitimate criticism of this argument is that these iron microspheres can come from many, many, many places, and the author must first eliminate all of those processes first. Since that is impossible to do, we need not worry about thermite as viable hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Almond. Can you give us some examples from your experince or from the literature, how abundant are such particles after some fires or in urban dust etc. (some rough numbers)?
 
Last edited:
I looked at a past thread re the Police Museum's evidence of melted concrete. Most of it was insults.
Click to expand...

None from myself

There was one good point: if concrete melts, when it resolidifies does it become concrete again or something else?
Click to expand...

It becomes previous molten concrete. This particular piece you could probably consider a different element, because it has a revolver fused into it.

Another point made less sense to me: the idea that water can do this, like melty-shaped concrete you see on the beach. But that would take too much time, I would think.
Click to expand...

Can someone please shoe me how water can melt concrete? There would have to be a lot of pressure involved would there not?

I certainly think that if slt, christopher7 et al can prov
e melted concrete, that would also prove temperatures hot enough to melt iron, so the concrete argument should be allowed in this thread in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Thank you Chris. this is why you earned my faith for Chain of custody. trust me, I have taken a few hits from my side for telling them you have my faith.

Bottom line: the iron-rich micro spheres are not 100% solved either way. "My side" has hypotheses (printer toner, fly ash in concrete, welding from the 70s during construction, etc), but we have no proof to my satisfaction.
Click to expand...

This is why there should be an open investigation with subpoena power.


This is why I asked Jim Millette for a sample of the concrete from WTC debris, so we can see if there are tons of micro spheres in the concrete itself (as some have claimed).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you have to have a solid chunk of concrete to determine that? Are there any left? Since RJ Lee said the spheres were created during the event, you would need something that didn't turn to powder. Do you not? Why don't we see if the NYPD museum will let us sample THAT piece of concrete?


Since it looks like there are lots of micro spheres in the dust, as much as 6% micro spheres but maybe less, I just don't believe we have fully accounted for this high a quantity yet.
Click to expand...

That's because you keep trying to find an alternative explanation for CD

In this case my list of possible sources for iron-rich micro spheres has to include, however unlikely it may seem to me, the possibility that they were created by very hot thermitic agents.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear, Chris. I think you should open up your percentage gap a little though. i think you are more than 1% certain of CD, otherwise why would you go to such great lengths as to organize this study. Think about it.

The police museum picture, while not proof for me, is at least admitted into evidence.
Click to expand...

Appreciated.....but how can this not be proof for you? Concrete melts at an enormous degree. I have shown it by credible reference.
 
I can assure you that these micro spheres are quite common
Click to expand...
.

No you can't. You can speculate such a thing but cannot assure anything.



Fires do not need to melt iron, steel or otherwise to create these particles.
Click to expand...

But there is documented evidence of molten iron.

"iron and lead were MELTED during the WTC Event" and this, in turn, "produced spherical metallic particles."

The issue I have is with the following logic:

I found iron micro spheres

Iron micro spheres are part of a thermite reaction

Therefore, I have found thermite
Click to expand...

You keep leaving the part out that the spheres we are talking about had melted. Molten iron spheres are the bi product of a themitic reaction.

Iron rich spheres and formerly molten iron rich spheres are two very different things.

you see one melted and the other one didn't.:p
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Thank you, Almond. Can you give us some examples from your experince or from the literature, how abundant are such particles after some fires or in urban dust etc. (some rough numbers)?
Click to expand...

Surely Ivan Kminek already knows the answer to this.

"Normal background Fe Sphere dust content (Mean of Composition %) is 0.04% the wtc dust has a 5.87% mean composition of Iron Spheres."

from this link: Liberty Street/Mike Davis LMDC 130 Liberty Documents/Signature of WTC dust/WTC Dust Signature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf (nyenvirolaw.org) which is no longer working, but excerpts found here:

http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Dust_Microspheres
 
ergo said:
Surely Ivan Kminek already knows the answer to this.

"Normal background Fe Sphere dust content (Mean of Composition %) is 0.04% the wtc dust has a 5.87% mean composition of Iron Spheres."

from this link: Liberty Street/Mike Davis LMDC 130 Liberty Documents/Signature of WTC dust/WTC Dust Signature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf (nyenvirolaw.org) which is no longer working, but excerpts found here:

http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Dust_Microspheres
Click to expand...

0.04%.....normal

6%....nanothermite!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom