Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Christopher7]

I prove that thermite methods could not have done it.

You cannot prove a negative. ;-)

You don't have a clue what nano-thermite can do or all the ways it can be used or if it was used in conjunction with other explosives. The possibilities are infinite and you are claiming you know everything. You don't

Good night.

PS: Iron melted during the WTC event. - i.e. temperatures reached 2800[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]F[/FONT]

 

[tsig]

That's all kinda esoteric and not really worth anything.

The whole point of the spheres is that the iron melted during the WTC event and were deposited by the dust cloud in places other dust does not go.

??

How can they be deposited by the dust cloud if the dust doesn't go there?

 

[Christopher7]

[/hilite]

??

How can they be deposited by the dust cloud if the other dust doesn't go there?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973189&postcount=379

 

[Sunstealer]

Truthers - When you burn steel wool by setting it on fire with a standard cigarette lighter - does the iron melt?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ordinary fires can't liquefy iron. Ordinary fires don't get that hot.

rubbish, burning wood, coal etc creates iron spheres.

Nanothermite does.

So?

Ordinary fires don't vigorously pull iron rich spheres into tear drop shapes.

Many liquids will do that. Its caused by surface tension, no violent pulling required.

Nanothermite does.

So?

Wait....how hot did the fires burn in the towers according to credible source? What temp does iron melt at?

How hot does wood, coal etc burn at?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ok...but not 6% of the entire WTC powder Formerly concrete. Also no evidence of fly ash ever used or not used so should be ruled out IMO. Your once again stepping over the fact that they were melted at one time. The spheres got to a degree that any type of fire, be it wood or wood product or coal cannot account for.

We don't care less what your opinion is.

and of course the iron in fly ash was once melted......when the coal was burned and the iron forms into the spheres at that time and remained that shape when added to the concrete and freed from the concrete when it was crushed into dust. You really are the most clueless twoofer yet.........

Does burning coal melt the iron spheres it produces?? does coal ash have formerly molten spheres it naturally creates? Does it pull the spheres into a tear drop shape?

--

of course it does!!!!!!

The RJ Lee Group was crystal clear in stating " iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles"
The bi product of a thermitic reaction is molten iron spherical metallic particles.

Yes but since there are lots of other ways they are formed the presence of them does make them proof of the other.

The thermite/ CD hypothisis is the most logical one out there.

Sorry but no, not even close.

 

[chrismohr]

The RJ Lee Group is not incompetent as you suggest and you are far from being qualified to call them incompetent.

The quote you posted is just a conformation of what they said in the quote I posted.

Note that they said "Considering the high temperatures" i.e. 2800[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]F [/FONT]to melt iron. Perhaps they did not think this was a problem because the "experts" were saying that jet fuel melted the steel.
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

But the bottom line is: Iron melted during the WTC event.

And by "event" they mean the collapse because the dust was deposited by the dust cloud from the collapses.

Any microspheres from cutting torches did not have the mechanism to deposit them in and on top of the building like the dust clouds from the collapses.

Ooops my bad... I was quoting a "debunker" in the first section, then chris7 in the second section of my post (bad labeling on my part). I was just using these two posts as examples of how people from both sides are quoting RJ Lee, and we're not getting answers from them to clarify certain things they said. I never said anything about their competence; that was a quote I lifted from someone else.

 

[chrismohr]

Whoah gang,
I've seen a couple people now go after 9/11 Truth activists by saying they are making debating points over the dying, or don't care about the deaths on 9/11. NOT FAIR. We all put our thinking caps on and debate technical points, but let's be good Buddhists here and assume good intent at least. I haven't met anyone on JREF ever on either side who indicated they never cared a whit about the tragic loss of life that day. We certainly disagree on who the killers were, but not that it was an awful loss of life.

 

[triforcharity]

What part of: "iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles" don't you understand?

Do you actually think you know better than the RJ Lee Group that studied the dust?

And besides the argument about the spheres is to establish temperatures far above what office fires can attain and there is an unimpeachable source - the NYPD Museum.

This video is a photo of a display case with a gun encased in concrete that melted. You can see the is kind of like a mini meteorite. To elements melted as one. Could Jim somehow get a sample from this so we can test what kind of degrees this thing experienced?

I'm trying to upload the photo and it's not working. Says it take too much time. But watch this, at At 9:55 is a photo of a display case with a gun encased in concrete that melted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

In the picture I have you can see the display case at the NYPD museum reads " remains of a revolver embedded in concrete" and further on it says " the fires were so intense that concrete melted like lava"....right there in the NYPD museum.

I forget who it was but someone asked me to post some melted concrete as if it didn't happen. Don't worry I'll find you.

Now wait a minute......how hot does a fire have to be to melt concrete?

The melting point of concrete varies between 1800-2500°C. (3272-4532 degrees F.) http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm

I challenge anyone here to present a fire that hot to have "melted concrete like lava".

Again, I can't get the picture up, but it will send in an email. If someone would like to create an account, or provide an e-mail address so I could send it, and maybe they can play with it and post it so you can see that everything here I have stated is backed up.

If the temperature was hot enough to melt the concrete, it would have melted the gun too. There would be nothing but a blow of concrete and steel.

Fail.

 

[triforcharity]

Really? You know better than they do what they meant?
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?

[qimg]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8669/meltedconcretecrop3.jpg[/qimg]

You just will not accept any evidence that proves temperatures far in access of what office fires can attain.

And yet, well above what thermite could do.

 

[chrismohr]

Still trying to wrap my mind around how concrete could be wrapped around a gun without melting-high temps... I agree with Tri, the gun would have melted and it didn't. Does this explanation below make sense?
1) I believe the temps in the fires got to 1300-1800 degrees F max, not enough to melt concrete. If concrete ever did melt, the first responder fire safety guy in my YouTube video 8 would have known it and would have reported VERY different firefighting tactics. 2) Instead, we have all this pulverized concrete in the debris pile at over 1000 degrees F. 3) Firefighters dump millions of gallons of water on the debris. 4) The hot concrete powder coalesces somehow when hit by water, and wraps itself around a gun. Kind of how like when I get a bag of concrete powder and mix it with water at home, it's liquid for awhile, I pour it into whatever shape I want, then it dries and hardens (??)

This doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis as I am not a scientist. Not even a construction guy so the idea of mixing this pulverized concrete with water and one again getting liquid concrete may be way off. Just an idea. Can someone explain if I'm on the right track and explain it better to Mr. Layman here?

 

[Oystein]

"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."


Any microspheres from cutting torches did not have the mechanism to deposit them in and on top of the building like the dust clouds from the collapses.

Not the same mechanism, but a mechanism:

1. Do you accept that the air near GZ contained aerosols?
2. Do you accept that the air near GZ contained iron in its aerosols?
3. Do you accept that the concentration of iron in the air near GZ was (typical, or mean, value) 5µg/m³?
4. Do you accept that this concentration is significantly higher than in typical inner city air, and that the source for the extra iron is most likely the nearby GZ?
5. Do you accept that iron workers cutting up steel debris produce iron-rich microspheres and release them into the air?
6. Do you accept that this iron work may account for a significant proportion of the measured increase of iron-rich aerosols in the air above GZ, given the fact that measured iron concentration near iron workers was significantly higher than near other workers on GZ?
7. Do you accept that aerosols, including iron, are prone to falling out and settling as dust?
8. Do you accept that the air inside the offices of 130 Liberty street, which had 1500 windows broken, exposing the offices to the elements, was constantly replenished with air from outside?
9. Do you accept that this fresh air was also laden with iron-rich aerosols?
10. Do you accept that these iron-rich aerosols are prone to falling out and settling into the dust even in the offices of 130 Liberty St?

Please indicate precisely which of these points you do not accept, and give short reasons!

If you accept them all, I guess you know your mechanism and are now ready to admit that there was indeed a mechanism "to deposit them in and on top of the building". Please acknowledge!

...
Pg 12
The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate 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.

Do you have any indication of what temperature RJ Lee considers "extreme"?

Are you aware that lead compounds are sometimes contained in plastics that are used for tubing or electrical insulators? Such lead would be freed and released into the air (as PbO or more complex) when the plastic burns, and will condense on surfaces.
As The Almond descibed very nicely in Simple English a while ago (in this thread even, I think), the RJ Lee Group was not tasked to figure out the origin of the many substances they catalogued. When they make a one-off remark such as "iron and lead were melted", that's simply not gospel. (Of course lead was melted, but that is probably not a major contributor to lead vapor, as lead a a very low vapor pressure)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Whoah gang,
I've seen a couple people now go after 9/11 Truth activists by saying they are making debating points over the dying, or don't care about the deaths on 9/11. NOT FAIR. We all put our thinking caps on and debate technical points, but let's be good Buddhists here and assume good intent at least. I haven't met anyone on JREF ever on either side who indicated they never cared a whit about the tragic loss of life that day. We certainly disagree on who the killers were, but not that it was an awful loss of life.

Chris, the no planers won't even admit there were any deaths on the planes and the CD crowd are essentially accusing the FDNY of being complicit in the murder of hundreds of their family, friends and colleagues. The deaths are an irrelevant detail in their CT, they happened or didn't happens as suits their story. This is not the behavior of people with any sort of empathy.

 

[triforcharity]

Still trying to wrap my mind around how concrete could be wrapped around a gun without melting-high temps... I agree with Tri, the gun would have melted and it didn't. Does this explanation below make sense?
1) I believe the temps in the fires got to 1300-1800 degrees F max, not enough to melt concrete. If concrete ever did melt, the first responder fire safety guy in my YouTube video 8 would have known it and would have reported VERY different firefighting tactics. 2) Instead, we have all this pulverized concrete in the debris pile at over 1000 degrees F. 3) Firefighters dump millions of gallons of water on the debris. 4) The hot concrete powder coalesces somehow when hit by water, and wraps itself around a gun. Kind of how like when I get a bag of concrete powder and mix it with water at home, it's liquid for awhile, I pour it into whatever shape I want, then it dries and hardens (??)

I would agree, but you'd have to get that slurry mix hot again.

Concrete hardens due to it becoming hot. It's the natural chemical reaction between the silica, the portland, and the water.

But, again, not a problem because of the massive fires that were in the pile.

 

[plague311]

Whoah gang,
I've seen a couple people now go after 9/11 Truth activists by saying they are making debating points over the dying, or don't care about the deaths on 9/11. NOT FAIR. We all put our thinking caps on and debate technical points, but let's be good Buddhists here and assume good intent at least. I haven't met anyone on JREF ever on either side who indicated they never cared a whit about the tragic loss of life that day. We certainly disagree on who the killers were, but not that it was an awful loss of life.

I don't care if it's truther or debunker, if you use the phrase "I win" when describing an aspect of 9/11 then I'll say the same thing time after time.

 

[Myriad]

Ok...but not 6% of the entire WTC powder Formerly concrete. Also no evidence of fly ash ever used or not used so should be ruled out IMO. Your once again stepping over the fact that they were melted at one time. The spheres got to a degree that any type of fire, be it wood or wood product or coal cannot account for.

The spheres were never melted. They form by condensation and reduction of ferrihydrite complexes liberated from the combustion of plant material, in the hot reducing atmosphere of ordinary class A flames. (Just like ice crystals form by condensation of water vapor, in air colder than the melting temperature of water. Ask any meteorologist whether that defies logic.)

Since the reduction of ferrihydrite into hematite is exothermic, it's possible that under some conditions the spheres become hotter than their surroundings and therefore do melt as they form. Doesn't matter either way; the spheres still form. Burn some clean untreated wood in a clean vessel, and see for yourself.

Does burning coal melt the iron spheres it produces??

No. The iron oxide complexes in the coal reduce and condense into spheres. Melting is not required.

does coal ash have formerly molten spheres it naturally creates?

Possibly (due to the exothermy of the condensation and reduction process), but since the spheres form by condensation not by melting, it doesn't matter whether or not the spheres are molten at any point.

Does it pull the spheres into a tear drop shape?

No. Spheres are not tear drop shaped.

That's because all those pieces went to china really fast and were destroyed.

All the iron-rich microspheres in the dust that had reduced iron cores were separated from the iron oxide ones and sent to China? I don't recall any dust being sent to China (and I can't think of any reason why China would want dust). Do you have a cite for that?

The RJ Lee Group was crystal clear in stating " iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles"


Probably some iron did melt (e.g. in electrical arcs and high-speed impacts), and some spherical metallic particles were formed as a result. Lead melts easily in ordinary fire; even more when lead-acid batteries (found in every desktop power back-up box, as well as in larger power backup installations) are destroyed in fire. Did RJ Lee Group say that all of the spherical metallic particles were formed that way? They did not, and since they were being so crystal clear, they would certainly have said that if that's what they meant.

The bi product of a thermitic reaction is molten iron spherical metallic particles.

No, the product of a thermitic reaction is a flow of bulk reduced molten iron. Your theory must account for how that got turned into spherical iron oxide particles of the size distribution observed. And how is it that larger spheres or blobs (say, the size of BBs or water drops) didn't also get formed?

The thermite/ CD hypothisis is the most logical one out there.

There are several facts that make the thermite/CD hypothesis less than logical:

- No CD is necessary to account for any observed characteristic of the event; therefore the most logical proposition is that no CD took place.
- Thermite does not produce iron oxide spheres of the type observed. It produces a flow of reduced molten iron.
- If the iron product from a thermite reaction were turned into iron spheres (by mechanical agitation of some sort), they would have characteristics not observed in the dust: wider size distribution, and reduced iron instead of iron oxide in the interiors.
- The thermite reaction does, however, produce a second product: large amounts of aluminum oxide particles of roughly uniform size ("white dust" which is heavy and settles quickly near the reaction site). This product should be prominent in particle studies of WTC dust, with about the same total mass as the mass of all the elemental iron supposedly produced from the same thermite. Where is it? Was that collected and sent to China too?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Edx]

The RJ Lee Group is not incompetent as you suggest and you are far from being qualified to call them incompetent.

The quote you posted is just a conformation of what they said in the quote I posted.

You dont understand Christopher, YOU are the one that requires RJ Lee to be incompetent.

THEY Are the ones that said in the same report that these iron micropheres are expected.

That is the word they used. I already gave the quote and it was ignored, and yet you still quote them as if they are experts. Well they cant be experts if you require them to not know what the hell they are talking about.

 

[beachnut]

That's all kinda esoteric and not really worth anything.

The whole point of the spheres is that the iron melted during the WTC event and were deposited by the dust cloud in places other dust does not go.

The WTC event for RJ Lee were samples taken after clean up.



This is silly, dust where dust does not go, Start Trek Dust... lol, this is super CT junk, you can't make this up, you have to wait for it to arrive where it never goes... what? You made my day

Dust cloud where dust does does not go, A new book by ...

 

[NoahFence]

BasqueArch
You guys are very good at thinking up reasons why it couldn't be but your imagination only works in one direction - desire to deny.

Jon went out in his back yard and invented a thermate cutter. It's just a basic device to demonstrate the principle. You can't make judgments based on it.

If thermite devices were used for cutting and then kicker explosives were used, they would splatter much of the molten iron and account for the abundance of spheres. AND BE SEEN FOR MILES AROUND. This is just one possibility. The "I can't figure out how they did it, therefore it did not happen." is a very threadbare and worthless argument.

And be seen for miles around.

FTFY.

And why cite the RJ Lee report when they obviously don't draw the same conclusion as you people?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

(1

) Oystein’s calculations show that many tons of thermxte would be needed to produce the amount of iron microspheres it is claimed were the result of the use of thermxte.

Both explosives and incediaries played a role in the destruction of the twin towers. Why is it you guys only talk about thermite?


(2)

Powdered thermxte: A number of experiments, including one by Cole show that structural steel immersed in thermxte does not damage these and therefore cannot produce weakening of the structure, melt steel, or produce iron microspheres.

Wow!...Did you happen to see Jon cut a verticle slit, by the use of thermate, in stuctural steel. Jon Cole debunked myth busters for free from his back yard.
The tunnel vision you see with is clouding your judgement.

(3)

Painted on sol-gel thermxte: There’s not enough energy for a thin layer of T-paint to heat structural steel sufficient to weaken the structure, melt steel, or produce iron microspheres.

Source?

(4)

Thermxte in a container: Cole’s experiment shows that the only means to damage the structural steel is to contain the thermxte in a device attached to the steel that focuses the heat through a slit. The slit in this steel container itself melts, and the container survives. Another tube device, open at one end burns a hole in the structural steel.. None of these devices were found in the debris.

I'm sure the U.S Military can figure that one out. Self consuming cases exist. This one is made of copper, which has a low enough melting point for the thermite to consume it, or at least most of it so it does not look like a casing upon ignition. http://www.havoc.com.au/linear_charge.html

The slag and damage around the burnt area next to these devices would remain as a suspicious clue of this use. Cole's experiments did not produce "pools of molten steel", only an amount equal to the size of the slit cut in the steel.

He only cut one slit out of one column. You do understand how irrelevant that statment was don't you? What a waste of typing that was.

Jon cut a verticle slit in strucural steel by the use of themate. He also reduced a peice of stuctural steel to razor sharpness by the use of thermate.. Sound familliar Fema?

No suspicious devices, telltale damage or slag was found by first responders or the engineers that inspected the WTC steel. No triggering devices were found.

No, but what was found was molten metal flowing like lava. We've all heard Capt. Ruvolo.


(5)

Niels Harrit stated that “some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams” and that also “Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!” of conventional explosives were still used to demo the Towers.

It's a personal opinion. Do you have any of those. Or does Oystien think for you?

“Some thermite” implies quantities insufficient to produce the “rivers of molten steel” still flowing weeks after the collapses, .

Harrrit was very clear in saying that there was more than one thermite. Listen closer dude.

Conclusion: None of these thermxte applications (2) - (4) caused weakening of the structure, produced molten steel or iron microspheres.

RJ Lee Group report 2004:

"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

Pg 4 [pdf pg 5]

The pressure differential was caused by the onrush of the WTC Dust cloud that was created by the collapse of the WTC Towers with a low pressure inside Building components and high pressure outside. A huge pressure difference was created that caused large quantities of dust laden air to move through unplanned pathways. Individual components or devices with internal spaces effectively acted like a vacuum cleaner pulling the dust into them with great force.

Pg 6
As a result of microscopic and chemical analysis of the components of the WTC Dust, it was determined that the average level of contaminants were present in direct proportion to one another throughout the Building,

Pg 12

The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate 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.