Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

superlogicalthinker said:
sheeplesnshills said:
Considering high temperatures.....and I have established beyond a reasonable doubt that the temperatures were present DURING the destruction and the spheres were created DURING the destruction from the RJ Lee report.

This eliminates the clean up theory, and all the other theory's which are not referenced by the RJ Lee Group.

I'll post the quote again, so you all can misunderstand it.....again.

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.
Click to expand...

There is simply no way to be more wrong than that.
Click to expand...
 
carlitos said:
This whole thing is much ado about nothing. I create "iron-rich microspheres" every time I touch my car's brake pedal. That they are present in a freaking giant building collapse in New York City is not news.
Click to expand...

But the amount of iron rich spheres is what is being questioned.
 
Christopher7 said:
No one has shown that large quantities of microspheres can be produced by rubbing two pieces of steel together. The spheres made up nearly 6% of the dust. The RJ Lee Group said "iron melted ... producing spheres", not "friction created the spheres". Deniers always try to find an alternate explanation for the evidence, no matter how implausible, and insist that's what happened.
Click to expand...

I see people (not just you, Christopher) still focus on RJ Lee and their (nearly) 6% of "iron spheres" and keep forgetting an important point I made earlier:

The 6% iron spheres of the RJ Leer report are not nearly representative of the dust created by the WTC event on 9/11!​

Here's why:
Several teams of researchers (EPA. USGS, McGee) sampled dust at various locations around GZ and all reported on the iron content. None of them had even one sample that even came close to 6%. Iron contents ranged from 0.5% to slightly more than 4%, with a mean around 1.2%
The RJ Lee number is thus very clearly an outlier. "Outlier" means "not representative".

Iron did not make up 6% of "the" dust created and deposited by the WTC event! That figure is about 5 times too high!​

How is this discrepancy possible? I can think of several reasons:
  1. More iron spheres were deposited in the 9 months after 9/11 until RJ Lee collected samples. Iron work on GZ is a plausible source
  2. Some other, yet unidentified prozess, that took place at an unknown time frame, concentrated iron spheres in the dust
  3. RJ Lee's method or terminology differs in unspecified ways from that of other research groups such that the figure of 6% has no meaningful interpretation in our discussion
It's possible of course that there are other explanations that I can't think of, and it's also possible that more than one of these explamations is correct. Only one explanation ist not possible: The idea that extreme temperatures at the beginning of, and during, the collapses melted steel and loaded the dust plumes with 6% of iron spheres. This did not happen, or 6% would have been comfortably in the range of readings at all the other locations sampled by the various other studies. It wasn't.




Now, 1,2% iron in the dust created by crumbling buildings is indeed entirely expected. In fact, none other than Steven Jones found that the WTC concrete (bulk, unburned) contains 3.6% iron. Since Concrete made up a significant portion of the dust, but maybe not the majority, it is unsurprising to find 1/3 of that iron concentration in concrete in the resulting dust, which is mixed with other dust from iron-poor materials (such as wallboard), but also enriched by the burning of iron-bearing substances such as - paint.


We consequently ought not fight so vehemently about the amount of iron.



The debate ought to boil down to
"Do we expect "spherical" to be the predominant shape of iron-rich particles in the dust from a fire-induced building collapse (and why), or are more exotic explanations like thermite necessary?"​
For all I care the question if these speres contain mostly just iron oxide (unsurprising), or a significant proportion of reduced, elemental iron (surprising), also makes some sense.

I believe most participants here have already stated their several speculations, some have repeated them several times, and all have failed to convince anybody. I guess there is no need to repeat any speculation, unless you can back it up with convincing documentation. This goes to all debunkers as well as the truthers (and no, I don't mean these words to be derogatory, they are just convenient shorthand for a concept we are all well aware of; you all know which side of which fence you are on).
 
DGM said:
Sounds like you're looking for ways to support your belief.
Click to expand...
You are referring to the guy who "did the math" to prove there was enough energy to pulverize everything. I just pointed out the flaws in his reasoning.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are referring to the guy who "did the math" to prove there was enough energy to pulverize everything. I just pointed out the flaws in his reasoning.
Click to expand...
Actually you did not. He did consider the things you mentioned. I believe you can find his work at the JONES.

ETA: If memory serves he and Frank Greening went back and forth on this and finally came to a compromise.
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Considering high temperatures.....and I have established beyond a reasonable doubt that the temperatures were present DURING the destruction and the spheres were created DURING the destruction from the RJ Lee report.

This eliminates the clean up theory, and all the other theory's which are not referenced by the RJ Lee Group.

I'll post the quote again, so you all can misunderstand it.....again.

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.
Click to expand...

[edited out huge size font]

There must be some kind of rule that says you cant keep spamming colors and huge fonts cluttering up a thread like this for no reason.

As I told you the last time. You claim that RJ Lee casually admit that they knew that it wasnt just high temperatures that were reached, impossible temperatures were reached and therefore they know that it had to be an inside job because theres no way else to explain it. Isnt it interesting how blase they they are about it and none of them have followed up this report and no one apart from truthers has noticed this apparently "obvious" ground breaking research that - according to you - literally says that impossible temperatures were there on 911 that can only be explained by some kind of exotic incendiary, like thermite.

You ever going to reply to this or what?
 
Last edited:
I didn't realize that RJ Lee collected their samples so far after the fact. This just reinforces the begnin nature of these spheres, given the equipment, type of equipment, and amount of steel and concrete at the site.

Why are we so concerned about iron microspheres now? I mean, there were no explosives. None. That was proven the instant after impact, so who cares?
 
Christopher7 said:
That would be you folks.

This msg will self destruct in 10 min.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the mission impossible thing is.

You were saying that you wanted an "independent investigation with supoena power" to look into this.

Who?

Where?

On what authority? (WHO would issue the subpoenas?)
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
There were many news reports that day of fires cooling because of the smoke getting "lighter and lighter". I am no fire expert, but I'm pretty sure that smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire and means it's going out, which would mean(I would think) it's getting cooler.

So the type of smoke does tell the approximate temperature of a fire according to this news report at 0:21 sec of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Click to expand...

Man you have no idea who that person speaking even is, he is probably just some random news reporter giving his opinion. He even says that they are close to putting the fire out, where is that supported by any of the firefighters on 911? That is in fact a completely backward assesment, unless you want to claim the firefighters are all liars again. He is talking out of his ass. The news gets things wrong all the time, especially on 911. Strangely these are also the same people YOU claimed are controlled by the media and yet you are using this to support you again without even knowing who the guys is talking. Amazing. Go look at actual fire experts and training manuals, such as this one which actually states "Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.". The colour of fire does not tell you anything about the temperature of the fire. Sorry you're just wrong. Even Christopher who claimed the same thing you did earlier actually admitted he was wrong, which considering its Christopher is a big deal for him. There have been loads of threads about this and even one very recently still on the first page. But I'm going to again steal a few links fron gumboots post in that thread. Is this fire oxygen starved? How about this one? Or here, here,, here, and here.

So back to RJ Lee, to keep this on topic. Its the same deal there as with the media in this clip. The media are all controlled by the CIA, yet you say this time this random guy talking proves that there was no inferno and the smoke colour tells you the temperature. At the same time. With RJ Lee you claim they know that it was an inside job because they proved impossible temperatures created iron microspheres that could have only been created with thermite. And yet for some reason they are so blase and casual about it and never come out and say what you say they are saying, none of the people involved ever follow up such ground breaking research and no one in the professional world noticies. Why is it all these experts you cite dont actually believe you or follow you? Why were RJ Lee able to release such obvious evidence that thermite destroyed the towers and why doesnt anyone but truthers notice something you say even the writers knew when they wrote it, that somehow still dont know what it means, even after you say their research shows they already know impossible temperatures were reached on 911? So just like the firefighters, they must either be dumb ass conspirators, or they must be totally incompetent which means they cant really be experts in the first place.

Im sure all that will be ignored just like you do everything else.
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
There were many news reports that day of fires cooling because of the smoke getting "lighter and lighter". I am no fire expert, but I'm pretty sure that smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire and means it's going out, which would mean(I would think) it's getting cooler.
Click to expand...

Nope. It could be getting hotter just as easily, but not yet have reached ignition temperature for the plume. Anybody with a wood stove or open fire has experienced this countless times.

In this way, regions of the WTC that had yet to ignite would have been producing a lot of smoke while certainly getting hotter.

Meanwhile certain fuels (including many synthetics) will always produce a lot of smoke, no matter how ample the air supply might be. You've been told this already, several times. Why not listen for once?
 
DGM said:
I think we're back to the dreaded math again. You are aware there was a large surplus of energy in the collapse*? What do you believe happened to this surplus? Remember the laws of physics (you can't violate them).


* Gregory Uhich (sp?) showed this.
Click to expand...

I have no inclination to read back on your current exchange with C7, I just want to point out one thing: The potential energy of the erected buildings, liberated by the collapse and briefly turned into KE before finding its final resting place on the ground, mostly did work to deform and fracture material (yep, practically all the pulverisation is explained by that), but pretty little of it turned into heat. That heat translates into a very tiny increase of temperature. To put some numbers to it in a thought experiment: Strip the tower of everything that is not steel, so you are left with the the steel frame, floor decking, rebar. The center of mass of that steel structure would be at maybe 40% of the height of the tower, or 167m. A given kg of steel would thus, on average, have a potential energy of PE = m*h*g = 1kg * 167m * 9.8m/s2 = 1637 J

Iron has a molar heat capacity of 25.1J/mol/K. 1 mol of iron is 0.055845kg, so heat capacity by mass is 450J/(kg*K)

If you apply 1637J of heat to 1kg of iron, you warm it by 1637J / 450Jkg-1K-1 = 3.54°C.

Since most of the potential energy in fact goes into other energy sinks, the building material warms up by much less than 1°C on average.


It is of course possible that, through random distribution, very small bits heat up momentarily by much more than that, but reaching the melting point of anything interesting is exceedingly unlikely. That is simply not a way to create high temperatures. (part of the reason is that collision velocities remained rather low; final speed of the collapse front was under 100m/s. I'd sooner believe that the plane crashes may have melted or vaporized very small amounts of perhaps aluminium).


That leaves us with occasional sparks created by friction, but overall, spheres created from mechanical work of the collapses would be totally insignificant in the masses of dust and debris.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
There were many news reports that day of fires cooling because of the smoke getting "lighter and lighter". I am no fire expert, but I'm pretty sure that smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire and means it's going out, which would mean(I would think) it's getting cooler.

So the type of smoke does tell the approximate temperature of a fire according to this news report at 0:21 sec of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Click to expand...


That where you should have stopped..........and so should the guys on the youtube. They were filling in TV time thats all. If you have ever been involved in a news story you would know they get stuff wrong very frequently. They live in terror of the silent minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom