Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[plague311]

You seem to have the reading comprehension of a 4 year old. I said the engineer was in on it, not the firefighters. This is just more pathetic intentional misinterpretation like Twinstead.

So how did the building get wired for demolition? How did the demolition components survive for 6+ hours in unbattled fires? What products could possibly be used in this way?

Answer these questions, they are simple and straight forward. Without being able to answer these questions any theory you have is garbage.

 

[Christopher7]

RJ Lee cannot be said to be high credible authorties that are unquestionably right one moment and then you completely ignore something else they said in the SAME REPORT

Another pathetic intentional misinterpretation.

They are correct in both statements, You guys are the ones doubting them.

 

[plague311]

Another pathetic intentional misinterpretation.

They are correct in both statements, You guys are the ones doubting them.

Ok, we have a great first step. You've made a statement, it seems. Now, back it up! Evidence, and an explanation please.

3, 2, 1...Go!

 

[Edx]

Another pathetic intentional misinterpretation.

They are correct in both statements, You guys are the ones doubting them.

How is it a misinterpreation? They said it was expected. That is the words they used.

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

So you rerquire RJ Lee to be incompetent and ignorant, don't you? Why else would they say something that is so incorrect?

How can iron rich spheres be expected and not expected at the same time?

 

[Christopher7]

So how did the building get wired for demolition? How did the demolition components survive for 6+ hours in unbattled fires? What products could possibly be used in this way?

Answer these questions, they are simple and straight forward. Without being able to answer these questions any theory you have is garbage.

When your false accusations are put asunder you subject shift to:

"Tell me what you could not possibly know or I will deny the evidence for temperatures fer in excess of what office fires can attain."

 

[plague311]

When your false accusations are put asunder you subject shift to:

"Tell me what you could not possibly know or I will deny the evidence for temperatures fer in excess of what office fires can attain."

Well that's a fancy way of saying , "I didn't say I know how it happened, I am just saying it happened."

I have made 0 false accusations in this entire thread, you, on the other hand, have been wrong in every post.

How could you not "possibly know" what happened but you still say it's demolition? Also, we discussed this, there are many factors to the fire that you are not bringing into the equations. Can you source the temperatures in building 7? That's what you're referring to, building 7. So, temps for building 7. Bring forth any evidence you have at all, and we'll start there. I am not asking you to do something irrational, just present some evidence that will support you.

 

[Christopher7]

How is it a misinterpreation? They said it was expected. That is the words they used.

Yes, they said it was expected considering the high temperatures reached. Your inability to understand what they said is unlimited. You are the one saying that they are wrong, not me.

 

[DGM]

Yes, they said it was expected considering the high temperatures reached. Your inability to understand what they said is unlimited. You are the one saying that they are wrong, not me.

Actually it's you. You ignore their explanation.

 

[chrismohr]

OK Chris 7 something MUST be wrong here:

1.) We both agree that if there were only natural fires at play, the maximum temperature of most of the fires would be between 1400-1800 degrees.
2.) Either there were a LOT of very hot incendiary devices to bring the temps over the melting point of concrete and steel or there weren't.
3.) RJ Lee said iron microspheres were to be expected. That means one of two things:
3a.) They don't know the melting temps of iron and steel and concrete and the limits of temperatures in normal fires. In this case their statement is a mistake. Surely you can't believe that they would say that vast amounts of incendiaries bringing temps into the range of over 3000 degrees F is "expected"? That would be VERY unexpected if they had thought this through correctly.
3b.) They "expected" huge amounts of iron-rich microspheres because they know they can be created at hot but lower-than-melting temperatures.
In both cases, there is no real support for your argument of super-hot thermitic incendiaries; the "to be expected" line throws a real wrench into the whole thing.
And BTW I don't KNOW that this will never be clarified. I was able to inspire a major dust researcher to do a replication of the Harrit/Jones/Ryan et al Bentham study, and everyone on both sides seemed to think that was an eternal stalemate.

 

[Christopher7]

Well that's a fancy way of saying , "I didn't say I know how it happened, I am just saying it happened."

In this thread I have presented scientific evidence of temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain. You are asking me to speculate about something else entirely so you can ignore this evidence and recite a rant from the deniers playbook. No sale.

 

[triforcharity]

Eat this:
Originally Posted by twinstead [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
No, the problem is people like YOU implying the first responders were "in on it", therefore complicit in mass murder, with NO evidence whatsoever to support it.

RedIbis reply
I never suggested anything of the sort. And your pathetic attempt at claiming so is nothing but pure desperation, with a large dose of poor reading skills.

And yet, you still don't understand.

RedIbis specifically states that he doesn't believe "they" fooled the first responders. So, where are the first responders who believe that what the various reports and investigations have concluded, are wrong?

Surely you'll show me dozens of people who were either at Manhattan, the Pentagon, or in Shanksville, who have said without a doubt that they don't believe the common narrative.

Because from what I have seen, not one actual first responder has stated so. So, that must mean that they've lied, which would conclude a cover up.

So, which is it?

 

[plague311]

In this thread I have presented scientific evidence of temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain. You are asking me to speculate about something else entirely so you can ignore this evidence and recite a rant from the deniers playbook. No sale.

No you haven't, you've spam recited the same statement that proves nothing at all. It actually contradicts what you are attempting to say.

I am not ignoring anything, that's your perception because you have no idea what you're talking about at all.

 

[Edx]

Yes, they said it was expected considering the high temperatures reached. Your inability to understand what they said is unlimited. You are the one saying that they are wrong, not me.

Yes expected temperatures. They said it was expected, they didnt say or imply anything about thermite or unexpected temperatures.

You suggesting they KNEW it was thermite but said nothing? How are they so blase about this? Its the same with people you say are experts reporting melted steel, you claim they are experts and yet somehow they dont know what melted steel means - ie. according to you it means thermite, but these experts don't think it means that and apparently have no idea that melted steel means thermite. Are you saying that RJ Lee knew impossible temperatures were there in Ground Zero and so therefore knows its thermite, but casually fail to mention any of that?

 

[triforcharity]

You seem to have the reading comprehension of a 4 year old. I said the engineer was in on it, not the firefighters. This is just more pathetic intentional misinterpretation like Twinstead.

You do realize that would mean the entire FDNY were idiots, right?

I mean, who would believe an engineer who specialized in highrise safety, who told them what would happen.

Pure, unadulterated, stupidity.

 

[Edx]

Reposting as I assume Christopher as missed it.

The firefighters were the ones saying it was probably going to collapse. They had engineers also look at it. There are dozens and dozens of examples of them talking about it.

But hey, why doesnt a single firefighter have a dissenting view to this engineer? Why didnt anyone question it in over a decade? Why cant you even find a firefighter that was surprised it collapsed? Why cant you find a firefighter that said they thought the collapse zone was unnecessary?

The firefighters have to be in on it OR they are simply mindless incompetent drones. Is that what you believe?

 

[Christopher7]

OK Chris 7 something MUST be wrong here:

1.) We both agree that if there were only natural fires at play, the maximum temperature of most of the fires would be between 1400-1800 degrees.

I would agree to the 1400 degrees. I know of no credible evidence for temperatures above that.

2.) Either there were a LOT of very hot incendiary devices to bring the temps over the melting point of concrete and steel or there weren't.

Leave off "or there weren't".

3.) RJ Lee said iron microspheres were to be expected. That means one of two things:
3a.) They don't know the melting temps of iron and steel and concrete and the limits of temperatures in normal fires. In this case their statement is a mistake.

I specifically said that they do know that iron melts at 2800 degrees.

Surely you can't believe that they would say that vast amounts of incendiaries bringing temps into the range of over 3000 degrees F is "expected"?

Of course not. The "experts" were saying that the jet fuel melted the steel. Perhaps the RJ Lee group believed them.

That would be VERY unexpected if they had thought this through correctly.

It was not their job to determine what caused the high temperatures. They were doing an environmental study.

3b.) They "expected" huge amounts of iron-rich microspheres because they know they can be created at hot but lower-than-melting temperatures.

No. You keep ignoring what they said: "iron melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles." not "the spheres were created by the friction of steel framework falling".

And BTW I don't KNOW that this will never be clarified.

It has been clarified. You just won't accept that. You know that RJ Lee has not responded to requests for info and there is no reason to think they will. Write them yourself and see or stop making that claim.

I was able to inspire a major dust researcher to do a replication of the Harrit/Jones/Ryan et al Bentham study, and everyone on both sides seemed to think that was an eternal stalemate.

That is another subject and it has no effect on the findings of the RJ Lee Group report.

 

[DGM]

No. You keep ignoring what they said: "iron melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles." not "the spheres were created by the friction of steel framework falling".

Your problem is you did not actually read the paper. You do know that searching a paper with "keywords" in not reading it? Do you remember a post you quoted them that contained the word "energy"?

That's a clue.

 

[NoahFence]

Why is the goddamned melting point of concrete relevant? Explosives can't and don't melt concrete! Explosives can't survive the impact. Period! truthers were proven wrong and stupid before the second plane even impacted. Morons. The whole lot of you.

 

[beachnut]

Yep. They do. But they are not in a tear drop shape and formerly molten which means 2800F which means demolition.

Your no plane claims make your other 911 truth claims worthless tripe. Teardrop particles? Where are the teardrop things. Spheres, and now teardrop junk. What are you talking about. Please source what you are talking about.

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

Nanothermite does.

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

Nanothermite does.

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

How did you avoid chemistry, physics and science?
teardrop?

What are you talking about?

There was no melted steel at the WTC. The WTC was made of steel, not iron. You don't know what the WTC was made out of. When will you research the WTC and learn something other than the failed moronic propaganda from the failed nut case movement of 911 truth?

teardrop?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111spheresthermitejones.jpg
Spheres from Jones fake thermite paper. Claim is these are spheres from commercial thermite. What is the teardrop junk you are talking about?

Plastic found in the WTC burns with 10 times the heat energy of Thermite.
Jet Fuel burns with 10 times the heat energy of Thermite.
Paper, more heat energy than Thermite.
The fantasy thermite Jones and his nuts on 911 claim or implied were used on the WTC, burn at 430C, they would have burned in the fires.
Fires burning in the WTC towers due to office contents more heat energy than 5,000 tons of Thermite.

When will 911 truth use evidence instead of delusions to form conclusions?

Where does the "teardrop" stuff come from? Source?

 

[plague311]

I would agree to the 1400 degrees. I know of no credible evidence for temperatures above that.

Credible, say they max at 1800.

Leave off "or there weren't".

Source? Anything that says you can prove this assertion outside of just saying it?

Of course not. The "experts" were saying that the jet fuel melted the steel. Perhaps the RJ Lee group believed them.

Any reason why they wouldn't believe them? I am not sure it melted much, but I do know it was weakened.

It was not their job to determine what caused the high temperatures. They were doing an environmental study.

Off topic, but why did troofers (not saying you) hop all over Dr. Millette when he didn't say the shape of the iron spheres in his old EPA report, but can now dismiss the RJ Lee group for doing the same.

No. You keep ignoring what they said: "iron melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles." not "the spheres were created by the friction of steel framework falling".

It has been clarified. You just won't accept that. You know that RJ Lee has not responded to requests for info and there is no reason to think they will. Write them yourself and see or stop making that claim.

Are you saying that there was no friction between the falling steel framework while it was falling? Or are you saying that the spheres couldn't have been created during the framework falling? It's fairly clear that the falling is part of the "event"