Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Hehe:rolleyes: Rather generally:
All these "young angry detectives" like Christopher7 are funny.

- For millions of them, there were suspiciously low temperatures in impact zones, so it is clear that building constructions can't be damaged to the point of sudden collapses.
- For millions of others, there were indeed suspiciously high temperatures in WTC.
What temperatures would'nt be suspicious for them? 324 degrees C? Slightly higher? 10 degrees lower?

Why we are discussing over and over again this silly crap?
There were perhaps locally some really high temperatures, even able to melt some steel, or to sinter some concrete. Possible, and not excluded. It is only very apparent (to me) that such high temperatures had to be anyway somehow connected with the impacts of two planes hijacked by islamistic terrorists.

The whole concept of "auxiliary" controlled demolition of WTC is by far the biggest idiocy I have met during my quite long life (and I had spent the substantial part of it in a "communist" country, which was based on some big fat lies). This is actually why I'm still so fascinated by this matter. Is it possible that some adult people, claiming such moronic nonsenses, have "sui juris status" and are even allowed to vote?

For me, there was absolutely no imaginable reason why to "ensure" the complete collapses of these towers, using some "supersecret auxiliary demolitions" (which left hundreds of clear trails, including loudy explosions... and e.g. molten concrete exhibited in the NYPD museum). Period.

I'm not going to continue in the discusion on the "suspiciously" high (or low) temperatures anywhere in WTC. My intention here is to help to prove that tiny red chips found by Harrit, Jones, Ryan and their comrades in the WTC dust were indeed particles of some red primer paints:cool:
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
Hehe:rolleyes: Rather generally: ...
Click to expand...
A comprehensively wide ranging post Ivan.
clap.gif
clap.gif

Ivan Kminek said:
...All these "young angry detectives" like Christopher7 are funny.

- For millions of them, there were suspiciously low temperatures in impact zones, so it is clear that building constructions can't be damaged to the point of sudden collapses.
- For millions of others, there were indeed suspiciously high temperatures in WTC.
What temperatures would'nt be suspicious for them? 324 degrees C? Slightly higher? 10 degrees lower?

Why we are discussing over and over again this silly crap?...
Click to expand...
From my perspective they are merely trolls - people whose objectives include preventing reasonable discussion and irritating people into responding. Their techniques are varied - derailing discussion into side tracks and use of personal insults being two common ones.

Judge whether they are "truthers' or "trolls" by a simple test. Do they enter into and progress discussion towards a reasoned outcome. If so they could be genuine (but mistaken) seekers for truth. Otherwise they are trolls. By that criterion most of our current residents commonly called truthers are in fact merely trolls

Why are we discussing this crap??? Simple! It has little to do with the real question which usually is "Was there CD at WTC on 9/11?" There was no CD so the trolls have to keep discussion circling on side issues. The topics of iron rich spheres and multiple thermXte topics are both sidelines resulting from evasions of the central question "Was there CD?" There wasn't any CD. (To be scientifically pedantic before my friend Oystein reprimands me "...no one has put forward a reasoned supportable claim that there was CD. :) )

We are discussing this crap because the trolls want us to discuss it and because the "debunkers" have a variety of reasons for going along with the trolls. Two examples of reasons being 1) It is fun to pull the tails of trolls; AND 2) "We cannot resist the temptation". Personally I rarely "feed the trolls" - my reasons not important here.
Ivan Kminek said:
...There were perhaps locally some really high temperatures, even able to melt some steel, or to sinter some concrete. Possible, and not excluded. It is only very apparent (to me) that such high temperatures had to be anyway somehow connected with the impacts of two planes hijacked by islamistic terrorists. ....
Click to expand...
Yes. And the challenge to prove that the issue has some relevance is one which our truthers/trolls steadfastly refuse to accept. Look for example to the thread OP'd by Travis "So there was melted steel" Not a truther/troll has been prepared to take the challenge.
Ivan Kminek said:
...The whole concept of "auxiliary" controlled demolition of WTC is by far the biggest idiocy I have met during my quite long life (and I have spent the substantial part of it in.....
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The plan "Four Planes into Four Buildings" had an elegant simplicity. Nothing added by attempting to complement it with a covert demolition. And that demolition for all practical purposes impossible to achieve without discovery. Plus the killer - it wasn't needed - despite this latter not known till post the event.
Ivan Kminek said:
Is it possible that some adult people, claiming such moronic nonsenses, have "sui juris status" and are even allowed to vote? ...
Click to expand...
Despite the indications of relative maturity in their posts it is likely that most have the calendar age to qualify as "adult". And letting them vote is part of the democratic process. I come from a country where we make them vote - the good of that outweighs the bad but that discussion for another place.
Ivan Kminek said:
... My intention here is to help to prove that tiny red chips found by Harrit, Jones, Ryan and their comrades were indeed particles of some red primer paints:cool:
Click to expand...
A valid personal interest but it won't shift the truther/trolls one jot. They are well practised at goal post shifting.

Again my commendation on a wide ranging post which hit a lot of the key issues.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Despite the indications of relative maturity in their posts it is likely that most have the calendar age to qualify as "adult". And letting them vote is part of the democratic process. I come from a country where we make them vote - the good of that outweighs the bad but that discussion for another place.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't "politically correct" here:cool: But why should be always really polite in this absurd internet drama?

ozeco41 said:
A valid personal interest but it won't shift the truther/trolls one jot. They are well practised at goal post shifting.
Click to expand...

I know that we can't generally shift the truthers' minds with the results of the planned Jim Millette's research on the red-gray chips from the dust. But, to say in some highflown manner, we (debunkers and generally rational skeptics) owe this real reserach to ourselves:cool:
 
chrismohr said:
Chris7 wrote:
The pulverization started at the very beginning. Watch the videos. It's the same at the beginning as it was all the way down.

This is not true. Watch the towers coming down. At first there is just a little bit of dust coming out, then more, then more still. In an explosive CD, it starts with big dust plumes right away. Here the dust ejections build up because the speed of the collapse is gradually increasing. I did look at the videos. This is what I saw.
Click to expand...

Chris.....c'mon man, the towers was a top down destruction. You can see it.
Otherwise there would not be a canappee of a dust cloud covering up the last few seconds of the collapse.

Top down.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Chris.....c'mon man, the towers was a top down destruction. You can see it.
Otherwise there would not be a canappee of a dust cloud covering up the last few seconds of the collapse.

Top down.
Click to expand...

You do realise that most of the "concrete pulverisation" in a explosive demolition is NOT from explosives right?
 
Last edited:
Just going to repost this as apparently the truthers in this thread keep quoting RJ Lee as if they help their case.

Edx said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Chris's duke it out again!

C7: Only the color changes from black to gray but we will have to agree to disagree on that.

So you don't see less dust ejection in the first second than in the third second?

There are two things you did not comment on:

The explosions on the west side, above the impact point. Those are not caused by a collapse.

What you and I see is horizontal movement of materials. You interpret that as explosions. I interpret that as possibly 1/2 million feet of air per floor pushing stuff unevenly away from the perimeter

The top part is falling to one side yet the ejections are the same on both sides. That defies the laws of physics.


I thought Richard Gage called this a symmetrical almost freefall drop into its own footprint! Irregularities like this are to be expected in a natural collapse and are evidence of my theory. The chaotic interactions of buckling beams and broken up slabs of cement etc. are way to complex to analyze and create irregularities you don't see in a CD.

You are not willing to accept that they know what they are talking about. You are not willing to accept any evidence of molten steel/iron.

An unwarranted generalization. A debunker recently called me gullible for be willing to consider elements of the CD theory. I don't embrace it but I have "admitted it into evidence" until further info is available.


No, it does not support both sides as I have noted several times.

"..is to be expected" has been used to support the debunkers' side and you know it. All I am saying is more clarification is needed, people have asked RJ Lee, no answer has been forthcoming.

You are assuming that the RJ Lee Group doesn't know what they are talking about. That is denial. The problem is in your refusal to accept these scientific facts.


You can be SOOOOO irritating! All I said is these statements need more clarification. Comprende?

And BTW you are correct about "9/11 conspiracy theory." David Ray Griffin said it best... 9/11 Truth advocates believe in an alternative conspiracy theory from the standard one. This is why I think Richard Gage is wrong to call himself "not a conspiracy theorist." He is. You are. So am I. No one in their right mind could conceive of one individual pulling off 9/11 alone! So you see we agree on some things, occasionally, sometimes, sort of.
 
Christopher7 said:
The explosions on the west side, above the impact point. Those are not caused by a collapse.
Click to expand...

baseless assertion. I can equally say there were not caused by explosives.

The top part is falling to one side yet the ejections are the same on both sides. That defies the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Which law of pysics would that be? If you don't know and cannot show how they defy that law you are making yet another baseless assertion.

You are not willing to accept that they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

And you are not will to accept that they may NOT know what they are talkng about. What of it?

You are not willing to accept any evidence of molten steel/iron.
Click to expand...

There is no credible evidence of large scale molten steel and or iron so I do not accept it.

No, it does not support both sides as I have noted several times.

They know that iron melts at 2800oF and lead vaporizes [volatilize] at 3182oF. Those are the high temperatures they are considering.

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.

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

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.

Those statements are not contradictory. You are assuming that the RJ Lee Group doesn't know what they are talking about. That is denial. The problem is in your refusal to accept these scientific facts.
Click to expand...

You are making assumptions about what they "know" and also assuming that they do not know why what they see and report is perfectly normal and "expected". Your ignorance on a subject does make other peoples statements say what you want them to say.
And you wouldn't recognize a "scientific" fact if one hit you in face.....
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Yep. They do. But they are not in a tear drop shape and formerly molten which means 2800F which means demolition.
Click to expand...

Wrong...oxidized steel does not require that temp. You're quoting temps for pure steel. Keep swinging for the fences.

FYI-Not to mention what temps do you think metal fabrication would reach? You know, the ones we would expect to happen in a steel building.

"superlogical"<---LMAO!
 

We never said that. It's Larry Silverstien who implicated the fire deptartment. You know thw quote I'm sure.[/QUOTE]

facepalm01.jpg
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Chris.....c'mon man, the towers was a top down destruction. You can see it.
Otherwise there would not be a canappee of a dust cloud covering up the last few seconds of the collapse.

Top down.
Click to expand...

Whats a canappee?:D How is that you can "super logically think" but cannot spell or even use spellchecker?:boggled:
 
Christopher7 said:
No

Numerous people remarked that everything had been turned to dust. That is about all that wasn't turned to dust.
Near the bottom of the pile. The bottom floors and basement were the only part other than the steel that was not pulverized to dust.

The pulverization started at the very beginning. Watch the videos. It's the same at the beginning as it was all the way down.
Click to expand...

Really? I found a mail cart.

concreteremains2.jpg


And a car.

Oh! And LARGE chunks of CONCRETE too!!

Imagine that. C7 is lying again.

How many times have I posted this EXACT picture?

20?
 
Christopher7 said:
You did not read or understand this:
RJ Lee Group report 2004
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.

This did not occur during the cleanup.

ETA: Like so many here, you think you know better that the RJ Lee Group. You don't.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the chimney effect?

Same basic principle. Absolutely plausible that a similar effect was able to bring more dust into the building after the collapses.

WRT: The RJ Lee report: They said the levels were EXPECTED.

Were they wrong?


Christopher7 said:
Do you think the NYPD Museum is lying?
Click to expand...

I think the plaque is wrong. Not so much lying. You, that's another story......
 
Quote:
QUOTE] You guys have no issues with saying the entire FDNY is in on it.
Click to expand...
superlogicalthinker:
We never said that. It's Larry Silverstien who implicated the fire deptartment. You know thw quote I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Richard Gage disagrees with you. Add the media and NYPD also.

WTCBuilding #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
Click to expand...
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Chris
Did you address this point in your videos?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom