Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Christopher7 said:
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]
Click to expand...
I do not see the NIST report claiming that sreel melted.

There is no "official" claim that steel melted.

BTW, Hoffman is a dimwit.
 
Oystein said:
This information is most obviously false and got discarded immediately.
Click to expand...
You all are looking for a reason to discredit the RJ Lee Group so you can hand wave their saying "iron melted during the WTC event"
Please indicate precisely which of these points you do not accept, and give short reasons!
Click to expand...
No. I have responded to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7979614&postcount=771


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.
Click to expand...
I offered a possible explanation. I don't doubt their credibility, do you?
 
Christopher7 said:
You all are looking for a reason to discredit the RJ Lee Group so you can hand wave their saying "iron melted during the WTC event"
Click to expand...

Not at all, if they say iron microspheres are formed during office fires is expected then until I see credible evidence otherwise, I have no reason whatsoever to think they are wrong. Its your continued childish insistence that this means temperatures HAD to have been 2800F to do this and that this MUST mean exotic accelerants were used that we disagree with.
IF RJ Lee says they are "expected" and "exotic accelerants" are not expected (by any sane person, which hopefully includes those at RJ Lee, but very possibly not you) then RJ Lee report would seem to rule them out by default. Its simply your assumption that either 2800F is required to form them or your assumption that 2800F is not acheivable, that is incorrect.
 
They said both
1= iron melted
And
2= it was expected.
So c7, WHAT ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT?

please acknowledge that this was Expected.
 
Christopher7 said:
You all are looking for a reason to discredit the RJ Lee Group so you can hand wave their saying "iron melted during the WTC event"
No. I have responded to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7979614&postcount=771
Click to expand...

Masochistic lie.
10 numbered question. Everybody can see you didn't answer them, but dodged them. You even deleted then when you quoted me.

I replied to that post, and elaborated why 5 micrograms per cubic meter, though sounding like almost nothing, could accumulate significantly over the course of 9 months.

Please do better:

  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?

You should be able to pick out by number the proposal that is wrong in your opinion. It seems you can't, or else you would.



ETA:
And there is more that you are dodging. For example, I also wrote and asked:

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?
 
Last edited:
Fly Poster said:
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.
Click to expand...
same thing for me, had to go through a German proxy to see it, then I couldn't save the image or use the link to upload to photobucket, It is the picture of the building before it was cloaked in fabric and the entire area covered in thick dust.
 
Christopher7 said:
You all are looking for a reason to discredit the RJ Lee Group so you can hand wave their saying "iron melted during the WTC event"
No. I have responded to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7979614&postcount=771


I offered a possible explanation. I don't doubt their credibility, do you?
Click to expand...

Why did you edit out and ignore Oysteins questions? 6 years, Chris Sarns, and you are STILL a basking shark in a sea of ignorance, Just like Gravy said in my sig link LOL

shark_derp_durr_hurr-1.jpg
 
All this back and forth an what RJ Lee knew, believed, meant...

I just filled our their contact form at http://www.rjlg.com/contact-us.aspx and asked a few questions:

Dear Sirs,

as you are probably aware, there exists a tiny but sometimes vocal fringe of people who claim that the WTC towers were intentionally demolished by explosives or incendiaries such as thermite. Some point to phrases and passages of your 130 Liberty Street Damage Assessment, where you wrote that the "high temperatures" of the WTC event were "expected" to, and did, "melt steel", vaporize lead, and form spherical iron. A table lists a figure of 5.87% by weight iron spheres in the WTC dust. A debate I am currently having with such a 9/11 "truther" prompted me to write to you. Could you please indicate which of the following statements you consider true or false:

1. Iron spheres were exclusively created by temperatures above the melting point of steel, at some 1500°C/2800°F
2. You believed at the time you published the report (december 2003) that jet fuels had melted (turned into a liquid) structural steel and thus caused structural failure, and that is why you "expected" to find iron spheres in the dust
3. You were aware that office fires hardly reach temperatures above ca. 1000°C and can therefore not melt steel to produce spherical iron.
4. Consequently, you were aware that very large quantities of exotic incendiaries, such as thermite, must have attacked the structural steel of the WTC
5. The iron spheres you reported were predominantly elemental iron
6. The only process by which significant amounts of iron spheres in the dust of the WTC event could have been created is the melting of bulk amounts of steel.
7. RJ LeeGroup considers the results of their WTC dust study to be evidence that substances such as thermite are likely responsible for the collapse of the towers

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions. I'd be very happy if you could elaborate on your replies, and on the position of the RJ LeeGroup with regard to alternative explanations for 9/11, given your unique insights and expertise.

If you allow, I would like to post your reply in the forum of the JREF - James Rand Educational Foundation. The JREF is committed to promoting rational and scientific thinking and apply it to all sorts of superstitions and irrational belief systems, ranging from religious cults and beliefs in paranormal phenomena to conspiracy theorisms. The forum (which has a sub-forum dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories) can be accessed and read at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums

Again, thanks for your efforts!
Kind Regards
[my first and last name]
Germany​
 
Nice, oystein. Yet another example of honest people having to do the legwork of the dishonest. Now, c7, will you accept the response? Or will we have to obtain birth records, high school & college transcripts, and three character references from the respondent?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Not at all, if they say iron microspheres are formed during office fires is expected then until I see credible evidence otherwise, I have no reason whatsoever to think they are wrong. Its your continued childish insistence that this means temperatures HAD to have been 2800F to do this
Click to expand...
They said iron melted. It had to be 2800oF because that is the melting point of iron.

and that this MUST mean exotic accelerants were used that we disagree with.
Click to expand...
How do you explain the melting of iron? Office fires do not burn hot enough to melt iron.

IF RJ Lee says they are "expected" and "exotic accelerants" are not expected (by any sane person, which hopefully includes those at RJ Lee, but very possibly not you) then RJ Lee report would seem to rule them out by default.
Click to expand...
IYO
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
1. Iron spheres were exclusively created by temperatures above the melting point of steel, at some 1500°C/2800°F
2. You believed at the time you published the report (december 2003) that jet fuels had melted (turned into a liquid) structural steel and thus caused structural failure, and that is why you "expected" to find iron spheres in the dust
3. You were aware that office fires hardly reach temperatures above ca. 1000°C and can therefore not melt steel to produce spherical iron.
4. Consequently, you were aware that very large quantities of exotic incendiaries, such as thermite, must have attacked the structural steel of the WTC
5. The iron spheres you reported were predominantly elemental iron
6. The only process by which significant amounts of iron spheres in the dust of the WTC event could have been created is the melting of bulk amounts of steel.
7. RJ LeeGroup considers the results of their WTC dust study to be evidence that substances such as thermite are likely responsible for the collapse of the towers

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions. I'd be very happy if you could elaborate on your replies, and on the position of the RJ LeeGroup with regard to alternative explanations for 9/11, given your unique insights and expertise.

If you allow, I would like to post your reply in the forum of the JREF - James Rand Educational Foundation. The JREF is committed to promoting rational and scientific thinking and apply it to all sorts of superstitions and irrational belief systems, ranging from religious cults and beliefs in paranormal phenomena to conspiracy theorisms. The forum (which has a sub-forum dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories) can be accessed and read at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums
Click to expand...


Yikes. Embarrassing. As if RJ Lee has the time or interest to settle an internet debate, especially one that so obviously and impudently forces words into their mouths unless they expressly spit them out in rejection. I predict no response or a polite redirection that goes nowhere.

Oystein apparently thinks, like so many others here, that the whole world sides with 9/11 bedunkerism and that complete strangers are just itching to smack "conspiracy theorists" down. I guess we'll find out. ;)
 
Christopher7 said:
No one has offered an explanation of the statement "iron melted during the WTC event", just rejections of that statement and alternate explanations of when the iron spheres were created.
Click to expand...
Oystein is asking RJ Lee for an explanation of the "iron melted during the event" quote. As I have mentioned before, if they believed that iron melted as in 2800+ degrees F (and BTW they never gave a specific temperature, that is your inference), and if they then went on to say this was to be expected, they must have gotten something wrong. It doesn't add up. Did they not know that normal office fires usually burn at no more than 1400 degrees, never above 2200 degrees F for any length of time? Did they expect thermite?

A reminder that this is one study, a few sentences, which I believe they got wrong in some way or another. I can't accept as absolute authority a part of a report that has this specific contradiction.

This appeal to authority is so odd for a 9/11 Truth guy. You want us to accept this contradictory set of statements from a single dust study by a private company for an insurance investigation, but what do you think of the fact that every national structural-engineering body in the world, including the American Society of Civil Engineers and Britain’s Structural Engineering Institute, has accepted the technical findings of the 9/11 commission and FEMA and NIST reports. The multi-year Purdue study of 2009 and the Honolulu University studies also validated the NIST findings. Even the scientists such as members of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat who disagree with NIST on some points offer only minor variations in their theories about the collapse sequence of these buildings. This is authority supported by authority after authority on a vast international scale.
 
Christopher7 said:
No one has offered an explanation of the statement "iron melted during the WTC event", just rejections of that statement and alternate explanations of when the iron spheres were created.
Click to expand...
Do you think that structural steel elements are the only iron in the building? Get a clue.
 
chrismohr said:
A reminder that this is one study, a few sentences, which I believe they got wrong in some way or another. I can't accept as absolute authority a part of a report that has this specific contradiction.
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction and no reason to think they got it wrong IMO.

what do you think of the fact that every national structural-engineering body in the world, including the American Society of Civil Engineers and Britain’s Structural Engineering Institute, has accepted the technical findings of the 9/11 commission and FEMA and NIST reports.
Click to expand...
"Every" is a gross overstatement. Furthermore, NIST did not explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers as they were supposed to do so these organizations accepted an incomplete report.

The multi-year Purdue study of 2009 and the Honolulu University studies also validated the NIST findings. Even the scientists such as members of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat who disagree with NIST on some points offer only minor variations in their theories about the collapse sequence of these buildings.
Click to expand...
Refuting the NIST hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is not a minor variation. Dave Scott, who is a lawyer not a scientist but speaking for CTBUH, noted that "the fire on floor 12 had passed their peak", which is an understatement. It had burned out over an hour earlier making the NIST hypothesis impossible. Dave offered another hypotheses about thermal contraction.
If you want to debate this we should start another thread.
 
chrismohr said:
This appeal to authority is so odd for a 9/11 Truth guy....
Click to expand...


but not for 9/11 bedunkers, I guess :
every national structural-engineering body in the world, including the American Society of Civil Engineers and Britain’s Structural Engineering Institute, has accepted the technical findings of the 9/11 commission and FEMA and NIST reports. The multi-year Purdue study of 2009 and the Honolulu University studies also validated the NIST findings. Even the scientists such as members of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat who disagree with NIST on some points offer only minor variations in their theories about the collapse sequence of these buildings. This is authority supported by authority after authority on a vast international scale.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
chrismohr said:
every national structural-engineering body in the world, including the American Society of Civil Engineers and Britain’s Structural Engineering Institute, has accepted the technical findings of the 9/11 commission and FEMA and NIST reports.
Click to expand...
Christopher7 said:
"Every" is a gross overstatement.
Click to expand...

Really? Prove otherwise. Find me one National structural-engineering body that agrees with controlled demolition.

edit: If he says A&E911 I'm gonna wet myself.
 
Last edited:
cjnewson88 said:
Really? Prove otherwise. Find me one National structural-engineering body that agrees with controlled demolition.
Click to expand...


It's actually more like:
every national structural-engineering body in the world, including the American Society of Civil Engineers and Britain’s Structural Engineering Institute, hasve accepted the technical findings of the 9/11 commission and FEMA and NIST reports
Click to expand...


But I don't know of any official statement on the part of the ASCE that declares their support. As a large body, ASCE certainly can't speak for all its members.

It would also be hard to support the findings of both the NIST and the FEMA reports since they contradict each other, and the 9/11 Commission report was not an investigation of the structural collapses.

Also, CTBUH had a forum at one time in which members were expressing disagreement over the fire and gravity theory, and were soliciting discussion from their colleagues. The chairman at the time, David Scott, shut the discussion down and I guess closed the forum, since it's not there now. David Scott was a consultant on the designs for the new WTC, so he is not a disinterested party.

So, this is a dubious claim any way you look at it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom