Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[sheeplesnshills]

Im not lying. It's in a museum. It's on topic because I am establishing temperatures which fire cannot account for to produce the ironrich microspheres.....which the RJ Lee group says were " created during the WTC Event"

and you are failing. The picture is simply miscaptioned. And no one but twoofers think the iron rich thingumabobs are even remotely unusual. yes the sky is blue and the grass is green and the world is round, what of it?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

The picture is simply miscaptioned.

Prove that.

 

[NoahFence]

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."

So? Melted lead is really strange to you? Really?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

0.04%.....normal

6%....nanothermite!

one place giant really really big and huge fire and collapse, other place not..............and you don't think there would be difference?

The 0.04 (assuming that is actually a real figure) is a measured background level and has to be established to see what if anything is different at ground zero compared to a street in North Manhattan. That fact that the amounts are different is meaningless other than having really really ginormously big fires and collapses is not very good for the environment........

Oh and did I mention there was a really big fire at ground zero?

 

[NoahFence]

0.04%.....normal

6%....nanothermite!

You are WAY out of your league here, kiddo. You're talking to experts in the field, who are citing other experts in the field. You're claiming they're wrong with no citations and no thoughts of your own. You're being spoon-fed talking points by retarded idiots who want nothing but your money.

You use the murder of 3,000 people as a hobby, no original thought. Self-contradicting and self-debunking are your primary goals, why we'll never know because honesty isn't in the truther bag of tricks.

You fail to convince people because people use their brains to draw conclusions. Unlike truthers who use youtube to reinforce delusions.

 

[Myriad]

A few points:

-- The "melted concrete" encasing the gun is more likely crushed concrete and glass, that was sintered back into a more or less solid mass by heat. Look that word up if you're not familiar with it. It's important.

-- It is well known in the field of archaeology that ferromagnetic residues are created and left behind by ordinary wood fires. This fact is used to find fireplaces and evidence of destruction by fire in archaeological site surveys, using magnetometers. The only known ferromagnetic substance found in detectable amounts in wood ash is iron-rich microspheres, according to numerous studies of wood ash. This adds up to strong evidence that iron microspheres are produced in wood fires. I proposed a plausible mechanism for this (including where the iron comes from, and how the spheres are formed by condensation without reaching the melting temperature of bulk iron), back on page 1 of this thread.

-- Coal does not contain iron microspheres, but coal ash does. Coal burning as commonly practiced does not reach temperatures sufficient to melt bulk iron. This supports the previous point, as the mechanism for production of iron microspheres in coal fires, which is a known and proven phenomenon, would also be expected to occur in wood and wood product (e.g. paper) fires.

-- By contrast, iron microspheres of the type found, composed of iron oxides, are inconsistent with the thermite theory of either thermite reaction product or structural steel melted by thermite being turned into droplets by mechanical agitation. Thermite residue is reduced iron (the thermite reaction is exactly the reduction of iron oxide into elemental iron) and any structural steel melted by thermite would also be reduced iron. Iron oxide would be found as a layer on the surface, with pure iron inside. This is not observed.

There is no mystery about the presence of the microspheres (only some uncertainty on how much of them were pre-existing contaminants from various sources and how many came from the fire) and their presence does not support any proposed thermite hypothesis.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

That is irrelevant. The point is that there is melted concrete at the WTC site. There should have been testing for exotic accelerants




Your reaching. I would tend to think that the gun was trapped under the rubble, you know that pesky molten metal that just wouldn't go out, and the two became one.




I don't beleive there is an NWO. Just rouge elements within the government

Oh noes, there's pinkos in the government.

 

[tsig]

Steel brother. Steel. The stainless part is pretty insignificant. But.....you would pick up on that wouldn't you??

Since concrete melts at a higher temperature that steel how can molten concrete encase a steel gun and not melt the gun?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Prove that.

Again you fail to grasp the point that you are claiming it means something so you have to prove that its correct. Do you think a court would accept that picture as evidence???? Really?

I know, and have seen, what happens to concrete dust and ashes after you add water.....it resets.

So having a burnt and rusted gun stuck in a blob of reset crap is not remotely surprising.......it makes a nice exhibit but its not my fault that the person that wrote the caption was a English Major and not an Engineer or Scientist.

 

[tsig]

So what? It was found at the site. Probably under the rubble pile. You can't get melted concrete in a fire. You need ridiculous temperatures for that. Ive posted the source already.

Said temps would have also melted the gun.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"Not as abundant as to account for 6% of the entire WTC powder. "

prove that Again no debunkers is claiming that 6% is unusual so we have nothing to prove.....only you do.

 

[tsig]

C'mon man

That is not responsive to my post.

 

[tsig]

None from myself



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



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



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.



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




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?




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



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.



Appreciated.....but how can this not be proof for you? Concrete melts at an enormous degree. I have shown it by credible reference.

So why didn't the steel gun melt?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Prove that.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05054.htm


Well there appears to be a lot of dispute about if you can melt concrete at all........yes you can melt its component parts (the cement, the aggregate etc) but then it would look like lava not a conglomerate as in SLTs picture.
Concrete would simple come apart under excessive heat and become a pile of reactivated cement and aggregate long long before the cement or aggregate actually melted.
Adding water (firefighting) will simply create a slurry that will flow to the lowest point it can get too and eventually reset.

 

[GlennB]

deleted

 

[LSSBB]

So why didn't the steel gun melt?

Shhhh, quiet, you are interfering with the logical thinking process.

 

[chrismohr]

None from myself



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



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



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.



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




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?




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



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.



Appreciated.....but how can this not be proof for you? Concrete melts at an enormous degree. I have shown it by credible reference.

Hi SLT,

Water can't melt concrete, but water can gradually erode it. Someone mentioned the melty-shaped concrete you sometimes see on beaches and I think gradual erosion would be the cause of that, not melting.
I am asking for a concrete chunk from Dr. Millette, and yes, there are thousands of chunks of concrete in the rubble. Check out the picture at around 3:45 in my YouTube video on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
I hope you'll watch the whole video, it has a lot of compelling arguments!
The police museum picture is entered into evidence but not accepted by me as proof because police museum curators are not experts in metallurgy etc so they may well have made a mistake.
The percentage of iron-rich microspheres is 6% tops, maybe 1 or 2% according to Oystein. Any of these figures still seems high to me.

BTW SLT someone claimed recently that Steven Jones "backed down" from his nanothermite claims. Is this true? Are there links you or anyone else knows of that show that the Bentham research has been updated with new data or new interpretations? It's very important Dr. Millette has this because he is following the protocol of the original Bentham study.

 

[DGM]

Since concrete melts at a higher temperature that steel how can molten concrete encase a steel gun and not melt the gun?

That would be pressure.

"Truthers" hate pressure.

 

[chrismohr]

message deleted; posted twice

 

[Edx]

BTW SLT someone claimed recently that Steven Jones "backed down" from his nanothermite claims. Is this true?.

Dont want to speak for others, but what I know is Jones has both said that nano thermite can be painted onto steel and that doing this makes it become a high explosive when dry (in the Jesse Ventura show where they painted it on steel and nothing happened but they didnt notice, LOLOLOLOLOL) and then in an email exchange with Frank Greening he said that they were only used as matches for conventional explosives like C4.