Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

So that would be a no for any National structural-engineering bodies supporting controlled demolition?

Thought so.

Thanks.
 
cjnewson88 said:
So that would be a no for any National structural-engineering bodies supporting controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

Controlled demolition is still a fairly radical proposal to support, considering the current anti-inquiry climate. You're not going to get endorsement from an entire body. Just like not every member of ASCE supports the fire n' gravity theory.
 
ergo said:
You're not going to get endorsement
Click to expand...

There's a reason for that ergo, because the smallest amount of research, understanding and common sense makes the controlled demolition theory an impossibility.
 
Christopher7 said:
This thread is about Iron-rich spheres.
Click to expand...

Still?? ;)

What are the bedunkers having problems understanding?

Really, all we need to do is wait for RJ Lee to respond to Oystein, and then all will be resolved. Right?
 
Well cool! So let's wait a few days, eh?

I don't have my hopes too high that they will give me a substantial reply - it wouldn't be the first that a professional body doesn't give a rat's arse about our insignificant problems here at this sub-forum devoted to the delusions of an insignificant, unprofessional fringe. But asking didn't cost a thing, so hey...
 
beachnut said:
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

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...
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111bank.jpg[/qimg]​

Soot from cleanup work found by RJ Lee... ​
Click to expand...
A question about this picture. I am assuming the dark color of this building was more or less its original color. I'm assuming the whole building wasn't blackened by soot?
 
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...

Have you asked RJ Lee about it? Its their report and your assertion. Oh wait, its taken a debunker to do that....why is it anytime real work is required the twoofers shy away?
What did you want from us other than refutations of your assertions? yes it will be interesting to know exactly why iron microspheres are created in big fires but its not really of any importance to us as we don't believe sooper nanny thermnight was used. You just cherry picked "iron melting" and ignored "expected". Until you can show that its not "expected" then you have no case and we owe you nothing.
 
So, do any of you twoofers want to comment on why it is significant that lead was vaproized?
 
leftysergeant said:
So, do any of you twoofers want to comment on why it is significant that lead was vaproized?
Click to expand...

I am not a twoofer, but I can answer why it could easily appear to be significant.

First of all, we all know and talk about RJ LeeGroup's "WTC Dust Signature Report - Composition and Morphology" of 130 Liberty St (December 2003), but their full report has more parts than that, and several appendices with data, most of which doesn't seem to be readily available on the internet any longer. Here is a page that once linked to many parts:
http://www.asthmamoms.com/worldtradecenterresources.htm
The links to the PDFs are broken, but you can access them from the WayBackMachine at http://www.archive.org/index.php
Try these links (I post them here for posteriority) on the WayBackMachine:
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...int Presentaiton to LMDC/LMDC.Data Review.pdf
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...DustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 .../WTC Dust Signature.Asbestos.Final.121503.pdf
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Metals and Organics.Final.121503.pdf



One of these RJ Lee reports, the "Signature Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property Expert Report WTC Dust Signature", states on page 12:
RJ Lee said:
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.
Click to expand...
So contrary to what I wrote earlier about lead being freed as vapour by the burning of organic compounds that contain lead, RJ Lee supposed that metallic (I suppose that implies elemental) lead vaporized.

Now, lead has a very high boiling point of 1749°C / 3180°F, and below that, while molten, a very low vapour pressure of, for example, 100 Pascal at 1229K / 956°C / 1753°F. Since normal air pressure is near 1000 Hectopascal = 100,000 Pascal, I believe this means that near the upper end of office fire temperatures, lead could only produce a vapor concentration of (order of magnitude) 0.1% in air. I did some googling on possible and hazardous concentrations of lead vapor due to, for example, soldering, and generally found that elemental lead, even if molten, simply does not volatilize significantly until it comes at least close to its boiling point. Airborne lead generally comes from dust, i.e. mechanical processes, not from heat.

I hasten to add that I know hardly anything about the physics and thermodynamics of gasses. It's just the gist that I got from an hour or so of intensive googling and reading.


With that in mind, it would indeed appear that RJ Lee says
- Lead source was elemental, metallic lead
- Lead was vaporized by heat
- Lead must therefore have come at least close to boiling
- Metallic lead must therefore have come close to 1749°C, which is indeed way higher than anything we expect in 99% of building fires.

Now as I see it, there are several ways to explain this:
  1. RJ Lee's assumption that metallic lead was vaporized by heat is somehow mistaken and perhaps my original idea of burning organic lead compounds explains it better
  2. I am mistaken in my assessment of the physical properties of lead and the vapor pressure of molten lead at normal fire temperatures leads to enough lead vapor to explain the amount of condensed lead that RJ Lee observed
  3. The truthers are right and there must have been temperatures well in excess of 1500°C, unobtainable by office or jet fuel fires, leaving us in need of another explanation such as thermite
 
sheeplesnshills said:
I don't think they did. They are right about the "melted" and "expected" you are simply wrong about what that means.
Click to expand...
OK Sheeples,
Chris7 just told me that there is no contradiction, without explaining why. You also say there is no contradiction between reporting "melted" iron/steel and saying this would be "expected." What do YOU think RJ Lee meant by these two statements? C7 thinks that by just stating that there is no contradiction I can understand what he means. Maybe you'll be more willing to explain why YOU think there is no contradiction.
Click to expand...
 
Oystein said:
Well cool! So let's wait a few days, eh?

I don't have my hopes too high that they will give me a substantial reply - it wouldn't be the first that a professional body doesn't give a rat's arse about our insignificant problems here at this sub-forum devoted to the delusions of an insignificant, unprofessional fringe. But asking didn't cost a thing, so hey...
Click to expand...
Oystein,
If they DON'T reply, ask me again in a couple weeks and I'll ask Jim Millette for a personal referral.
 
Oystein said:
.........


With that in mind, it would indeed appear that RJ Lee says
- Lead source was elemental, metallic lead
- Lead was vaporized by heat
- Lead must therefore have come at least close to boiling
- Metallic lead must therefore have come close to 1749°C, which is indeed way higher than anything we expect in 99% of building fires.







Now as I see it, there are several ways to explain this:
  1. RJ Lee's assumption that metallic lead was vaporized by heat is somehow mistaken and perhaps my original idea of burning organic lead compounds explains it better
  2. I am mistaken in my assessment of the physical properties of lead and the vapor pressure of molten lead at normal fire temperatures leads to enough lead vapor to explain the amount of condensed lead that RJ Lee observed
  3. The truthers are right and there must have been temperatures well in excess of 1500°C, unobtainable by office or jet fuel fires, leaving us in need of another explanation such as thermite
Click to expand...

I can't think of where lead was used in conjunction with the structural steel. In those days lead was used to solder copper water lines. So perhaps thermite was used to blow up the the bathrooms.
Lead painted structural primer is a possibility if it was used.
Metals have a lower melting point as their particle size becomes smaller.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
sheeplesnshills said:
OK Sheeples,
Chris7 just told me that there is no contradiction, without explaining why. You also say there is no contradiction between reporting "melted" iron/steel and saying this would be "expected." What do YOU think RJ Lee meant by these two statements? C7 thinks that by just stating that there is no contradiction I can understand what he means. Maybe you'll be more willing to explain why YOU think there is no contradiction.
Click to expand...

Because I'm a Mech Eng, not a Chem or materials Eng and I assume that RJ Lee are experts in their field (why they got the job). I lack the knowledge about how iron microspheres may be formed so defer to those experts who would know, ie RJ Lee. They say such particles are "expected" in big fires, 911 was one hell of a big fire so the particles were "expected" to be found there.
Now unless thermite or other magical "exotic accelerants" are routinely used withing big fires then I have no reason to assume their use on 911 either.

The trick, as Dirty Harry put it, is to know ones limitations. I know mine and Chris7 does not. There is none of the other evidence that would come from Thermite (containers, fuses, timers, cut columns, residue on beams etc etc etc) so I have no reason to question RJ Lees findings. Chris7 simply fastens onto one characteristic of a pure metal and is insisting this must mean something when in reality he is so far out of his field that the farmer has stopped looking for him..............
Click to expand...
 
BasqueArch said:
I can't think of where lead was used in conjunction with the structural steel. In those days lead was used to solder copper water lines. So perhaps thermite was used to blow up the the bathrooms.
Lead painted structural primer is a possibility if it was used.
Metals have a lower melting point as their particle size becomes smaller.
Click to expand...

Every electronic device in the WTC would have had lead in them. RoHS was not yet in effect at that time so lead solder and lead with almost every component would have been released in the fire. I work in the Computer industry and was involved in the business of getting almost all lead (and cadmium etc) out of all the component parts.......it was in almost everything to some degree.......

Given the size of the buildings there were likely to be tons of lead from that source alone.

Further more there was at least one large UPS installation in WTC (IIRC) with tons more and in a facility that likely was fully charged and released large amounts of energy when the fire reached it or when the building fell.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Have you asked RJ Lee about it? Its their report and your assertion. Oh wait, its taken a debunker to do that....why is it anytime real work is required the twoofers shy away?
What did you want from us other than refutations of your assertions? yes it will be interesting to know exactly why iron microspheres are created in big fires but its not really of any importance to us as we don't believe sooper nanny thermnight was used. You just cherry picked "iron melting" and ignored "expected". Until you can show that its not "expected" then you have no case and we owe you nothing.
Click to expand...
Iron melts at 2800oF. This is a fact, not an assertion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom