Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[leftysergeant]

Yes, the fires were hot enough to melt iron, but office fires burn at 1,000 degrees less than what is needed to melt iron. There would have to be an accelerant to attain the temperature needed to melt iron.

Dude, office fires are not limited to temperatures of 1000F. There are a lot of synthetic materials that burn a hell of a lot hotter than paper.

Further more, you seem to think that the ferrospheres have to have been created from some sort of bar stock or a thermite charge. This is an ignorant thing to think.

I have mentioned that, among the paper products that we KNOW would have been burned in great quantity were a lot of self-copying forms. The ferrospheres formed by burning this material would naturally contain a lot of silicon and aluminum.

It has also been pointed out that a lot of laser printer toners and copy machine toners contain nannoparticles of iron. If you burn a sheet of paper on which such toners were used, you will get ferrospheres.

 

[NoahFence]

I have already told you but it went in one ear and out the other with no intervening obstruction.

At that time the so called "experts" were saying that the jet fuel melted the steel.

Please try to absorb this information this time.


Your questions are moot and a distraction. I have already answered them.

"Iron melted during the WTC event."

But you refuse to believe the RJ Lee report.

ETA: You seem to think that the RJ Lee group is so stupid that they did not think of what you are talking about.

You're talking about two different groups. "So called experts" and RJ Lee.

Don't you think you should acknowledge that?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I have already told you but it went in one ear and out the other with no intervening obstruction.

Garbage in garbage out.....sane people filter woo, you should try it.

At that time the so called "experts" were saying that the jet fuel melted the steel.

what experts?

"Iron melted during the WTC event."

But you refuse to believe the RJ Lee report.

and you refuse to believe it when they say it was "expected"..........

 

[Christopher7]

Dude, office fires are not limited to temperatures of 1000F. There are a lot of synthetic materials that burn a hell of a lot hotter than paper.

I read somewhere that because of all the synthetics, office fires can get up to 2200^oF but I've also heard that fire codes are very strict in highrises. I found what NIST said - around 1800 to 2000^oF for about 15 minutes and then dying down some. The hotter the burn the shorter the time, as the fuel is consumed faster.

Further more, you seem to think that the ferrospheres have to have been created from some sort of bar stock or a thermite charge. This is an ignorant thing to think.

Right now I'm just talking about the fact that iron melted. We can debate what cause the iron to melt after settle that it did.

I have mentioned that, among the paper products that we KNOW would have been burned in great quantity were a lot of self-copying forms. The ferrospheres formed by burning this material would naturally contain a lot of silicon and aluminum.

It has also been pointed out that a lot of laser printer toners and copy machine toners contain nannoparticles of iron. If you burn a sheet of paper on which such toners were used, you will get ferrospheres.

But it's real hard to train them to come together and form red/gray chips.

 

[Christopher7]

You're talking about two different groups. "So called experts" and RJ Lee.

Don't you think you should acknowledge that?

Experts say jet fuel melted steel
[FONT=&quot]http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

[/FONT]I think that the RJ Lee Group said it was expected because of the experts were saying jet fuel melted the steel, but I can't say for sure. [They're brass, not crystal]

 

[Fizzard]

Who are you to say that the RJ Lee Group is wrong?

You guys don't know better than the professionals who studied the dust.

I agree with Christopher7. When the RJ Lee Group states something, with or without an explanation, we should accept that statement at face value.

I mean, you don't see Chris7 question anything in, say, the NIST reports, do you? Did he ever once presume to know better than the professionals at NIST? Did he ever fail to defer to their superior expertise and experience?

 

[NoahFence]

Experts say jet fuel melted steel
[FONT=&quot]http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

[/FONT]I think that the RJ Lee Group said it was expected because of the experts were saying jet fuel melted the steel, but I can't say for sure. [They're brass, not crystal]

From your link:

Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." aid structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

So is it safe to say we can remove you from the people who think "Inside Job" and "controlled demo"?

 

[Fizzard]

Experts say jet fuel melted steel

I think that the RJ Lee Group said it was expected because of the experts were saying jet fuel melted the steel, but I can't say for sure.

So in other words, you think that the RJ Lee Group incompetently believed the so-called "experts" who said jet fuel can melt steel, and formed its conclusions while believing this false information. Correct?

 

[carlitos]

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!

Really, just let it go. You're dealing with trolls, not folks interested in honest debate. Don't get worked up, just hit the ignore button.

 

[Fly Poster]

Maybe. But do you have a source that such startrekish places were studied by anyone, for example RJ Lee? I read their report differently.

Addendum 5.3, page 26:

Images accompany that description. We see that above-ceiling locations indeed appear to be somewhat closed to "normal" office dust, but no indication is offered that they expect to find WTC dust and no other.
But let's go on and see how they used these locations:

On page 23:

And now guess what? Table 3 contains the now infamous "Fe Sphere 5.87%" number!

So it would seem that this concentration was actually found not throughout the building, but specifically in accessible, below-ceiling spots in the gash of 130 Liberty St. These were locations particularly open to the elements and accessible to all sorts of dust!

Thanks, Christopher, for making this misleading claim! Debunking it made me aware that contamination of the 9/11 dust with post-9/11 clean-up-work dust is even more likely than I thought!


ETA: Here is a photo of the Building shortly after 9/11, clearly showing the gash:
http://hist.cersp.com/tsls/UploadFiles_2966/200604/20060403200727765.jpg

That link isn't working for me, just get a page with a Chinese logo in the top corner, can you check it again please Oystein? I would like to see that pic.

 

[Edx]

Experts say jet fuel melted steel
[FONT=&quot]http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

[/FONT]I think that the RJ Lee Group said it was expected because of the experts were saying jet fuel melted the steel, but I can't say for sure. [They're brass, not crystal]

Wow?

So the guys you claim are incompetent for saying jet fuel melted steel (a common statement in many fires) made RJ Lee, the absolutely unquestionable experts according to you, believe that jet fuel melted steel.

There are no words anymore.

 

[NoahFence]

Wow?

So the guys you claim are incompetent for saying jet fuel melted steel (a common statement in many fires) made RJ Lee, the absolutely unquestionable experts according to you, believe that jet fuel melted steel.

There are no words anymore.

As unlikely as it may seem, it appears to be an example of a truther contradicting himself.

Not sure if that's a first.....

 

[tsig]

I have already told you but it went in one ear and out the other with no intervening obstruction.

At that time the so called "experts" were saying that the jet fuel melted the steel.

Please try to absorb this information this time.


Your questions are moot and a distraction. I have already answered them.

"Iron melted during the WTC event."

But you refuse to believe the RJ Lee report.

ETA: You seem to think that the RJ Lee group is so stupid that they did not think of what you are talking about.

You seem to think they're in on a cover up.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But it's real hard to train them to come together and form red/gray chips.

Is it? RJ Lee seem to think its "expected" in a big office fire..............so apparently its really easy for them to be so trained.....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=Christopher7;7981632]Experts say jet fuel melted steel
[FONT=&quot]http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

for example www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281

Really where in that article do the "experts" say that. Wait its the authors of the article that say it, not the quoted experts, but lets see what the Authors are experts in......

Eugenie Samuel (now Eugenie Samual Reich) has a BA in Physics and Philosophy and had only just graduated when she collaborated in the article one day after 911. Now no doubt she is a clever lady but this is just a little out of her field.......

http://www.nasw.org/users/essreich/

And Damian Carrington? well he is just a Environment Journalist for the Guardian Newspaper with apparently no relevant qualifications at all....at least none that I could find.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Damian-Carrington/228691987147975?sk=info

or

Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports.
site: wildcat.arizona.edu page: wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/17/01_9_m.html

so he was just guessing............

or

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager [sic], speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
site: sunTimes.co.za page: www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp

so he was just guessing too and again this was written just the next day..............

or from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800C - hot enough to start buckling and collapsing.

so its clear that the use of the word "melting" was not meant literally.....

The protective concrete cladding on the cores would have been no permanent defence in these extraordinary circumstances - keeping the intense heat at bay for only a limited timespan.

and as we now know they had no concrete cladding, only drywall.....so clearly not an expert in the building in question.
Again this article was written only 2 days after 911


do you want me to go through the rest?......none I got too were technical papers....just news articles written by journalists and no doubt further edited by their paper.



So Chris are you now going to retract your comment that "experts" said that the steel melted?

 

[Oystein]

I have already told you but it went in one ear and out the other with no intervening obstruction.

At that time the so called "experts" were saying that the jet fuel melted the steel.

Please try to absorb this information this time.

This information is most obviously false and got discarded immediately. Some stupid Britsh journalist apparently wrote DAYS after 9/11 that jet fuel "melted" steel. It wasn't ever the opinion of any expert at all. If you disagree, please provide a source!
The RJ Lee Damage Assessment Report was issued in december 2003, other parts in May 2004. No one at that time seriously believed the stupid idea that jet fuel melted steel. If you disagree, please provide a source that at least one expert had that moronic belief in December 2003 or later.

You must believe that the RJ Lee people were stupid. Is that what you think?

Your questions are moot and a distraction. I have already answered them.

"Iron melted during the WTC event."

But you refuse to believe the RJ Lee report.

ETA: You seem to think that the RJ Lee group is so stupid that they did not think of what you are talking about.

I have told you several times before that my question are NOT about "the WTC event", i.e. the fires and catastrophic failures of 9/11, but the 9 months AFTER 9/11. Apparantly, this information "went in one ear and out the other with no intervening obstruction". Please try to get your head together and try this time to think about the clean-up operation after 9/11, and what iron-workers were doing to the crap steel (hint: cutting with extremely hot torches that melt steel), and how the OSHA measured elevated levels of iron fumes near the iron workers, and how the EPA measured, for months, elevated level of iron in the air above Liberty Street, and how that air was able to get into the Deutsche Bank Building because it had this huge gash and so many windows blown out, and once you wrap your head around this, applying a bit of brain power even, try to find the line that you can't agree with:

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!



And no, I do not think that the RJ Lee people are stupid. I think they overlooked, or did not care for, one contributing factor to the WTC Dust Signature. That doesn't make them nearly as stupid as assuming that jet fuel melted steel.

 

[Oystein]

That link isn't working for me, just get a page with a Chinese logo in the top corner, can you check it again please Oystein? I would like to see that pic.

The link was correct. I can't read Chinese and don't know what the problem is. Bandwidth? Censorship?

Anyway, just do an image search on Google with something like "130 Liberty Street gash", and you'll find a few good photos.

 

[beachnut]

http://wirednewyork.com/images/skyscrapers/130liberty/130liberty_8dec01.jpg

Damage from September 11, 2001, seen on December 2001, RJ Lee would not take samples until May 2002. The WTC Event for RJ Lee included the clean up dust. Months of dust, lots of exhaust from diesel engines, etc. Are iron-rich sphere in diesel exhaust?
http://hera.ugr.es/doi/15020903.pdf yep

Truther don't read this report...
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijpixe/13/1301n02/S0129083503000105.html

A gash was created in the north side of the Building; the plaza in front of the Building was crushed which exposed the Level A and Level B Basement areas and the first floor; approximately 1,500 windows were broken; and the Building was exposed to the elements as well as being filled with a combination of soot, dust, dirt, debris, and contaminants. ​

I bet some iron rich sphere are in soot. ​

For the first time viewing of the research deficient 911 truth Followers, who refuse to do original research and thinking...

​

Soot from cleanup work found by RJ Lee... ​

 

[Edx]

for example www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281

Really where in that article do the "experts" say that. Wait its the authors of the article that say it, not the quoted experts, but lets see what the Authors are experts in......

There certainly were "experts" who are quoted as saying fire melted steel, but that is the same for plenty of other fires so its not unusual to see the same thing reported on 911.

The main thing here is Christoper is telling us that some ignorant incompetent (according to truthers) said jet fuel melted steel and then the real experts - RJ Lee - just believed it.... which would make them ... yup... NOT EXPERTS!!

So we are back to people that truthers require to be incompetent and experts at the same time.

 

[Edx]

The link was correct. I can't read Chinese and don't know what the problem is. Bandwidth? Censorship?

Anyway, just do an image search on Google with something like "130 Liberty Street gash", and you'll find a few good photos.

Just google image search it.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=yF8oT-fpGMv38QPjnIWqAw