Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[fourtoe]

Where it was possible to see in through the windows, several floors were clearly in flashover. 1000F+.

"Fully involved" works for me.

Flashover is a new word to me, I just looked it up on the same Wikipedia page I looked at to double check that "fully involved" was the correct term. Well well well, Flashover even has its own separate Wikipedia article.

So hey I am finding new information about 911 CTs! It just isn't being offered by the Truth Movement.

 

[Christopher7]

When bedunkers cite the code changes it is most often an attempt to argue some kind of universal validaton of the NIST collapse explanations: that codes organizations around the world somehow "recognize" the dangers of buildings plummeting to the ground from localised office fires. Which they haven't. And don't.

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. ~Navajo Proverb

 

[Christopher7]

"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse."

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. … Many of the materials, such as lead, …, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

The friction of things hitting each other in the collapse may have generated some heat and elevated the temperature of the dust but not enough to harm people enveloped by it or vaporize lead. The lead had to have been vaporized by an accelerant.

 

[leftysergeant]

The friction of things hitting each other in the collapse may have generated some heat and elevated the temperature of the dust but not enough to harm people enveloped by it or vaporize lead. The lead had to have been vaporized by an accelerant.

How does putting a thermite charge on top of a bank of batteries cause a building to fall down?

 

[Christopher7]

How does putting a thermite charge on top of a bank of batteries cause a building to fall down?

Now thre's a dumb question.


ETA: Most of the lead was in computers and other electronic equipment spread throughout the building.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If the dust cloud were heated to 3100^oF it would have killed everyone it enveloped.

WTF? Most of the dust cloud was generated by the 90 other floors which were not on fire so any high temps in the air or particles withing the burning floors would have been enormously diluted. furthermore most of the really hot material was ejected at the start of the collapse ie 800 feet up, so by the time it reach ground level and had mixed with vast volumes of cooler air its unlikely it was anything more than warm or uncomfortably hot.

 

[BasqueArch]

When bedunkers cite the code changes it is most often an attempt to argue some kind of universal validaton of the NIST collapse explanations: that codes organizations around the world somehow "recognize" the dangers of buildings plummeting to the ground from localised office fires. Which they haven't. And don't.

You don’t know what you are talking about.
As of October 3 2008

New International Building Codes Address Fire Safety And Evacuation Issues For Tall Structures

ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2008) — Future buildings—especially tall structures—should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall thanks to 23 major and far-reaching building and fire code changes approved recently by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The recommendations were part of NIST's investigation of the collapses of New York City's WorldTradeCenter (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001. The changes, adopted at the ICC hearings held Sept. 15-21, 2008, in Minneapolis, Minn., will be incorporated into the 2009 edition of the ICC's I-Codes (specifically the International Building Code, or IBC, and the International Fire Code, or IFC)

They have been incorporated intothe IBC 2009 code I and engineers use in the USA.

a state-of-the-art model code used as the basis for building and fire regulations promulgated and enforced by U.S. state and local jurisdictions. …

The new codes address areas such as increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings; increasing the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises; strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as "fireproofing"); improving the reliability of active fire protection systems (such as automatic sprinklers); requiring a new class of robust elevators for access by emergency responders in lieu of an additional stairway;…..

Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.

These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, mandating the use of a nationally accepted standard for conducting wind tunnel tests (routinely used for determining wind loads in the design of tall buildings), limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors in stairways, installing stairway communication and monitoring systems on specific floors of tall buildings, and requiring risk assessments for buildings with substantial hazard (such as buildings more than 420 feet high with occupant loads exceeding 5,000 persons).

Considered disproportionately costly for the benefits achieved

Changes to

U.S.ModelBuilding and Fire Codes
The following are the 23 model building and fire code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations now required by the I-Codes
……………….Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures
Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081003122707.htm

You don't know what you are talking about.

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. ~Navajo Proverb

Wake up C7
You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. ~Navajo Proverb

white man speak with forked tongue (Hollywood injun proverb)

 

[BasqueArch]

"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse."

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. … Many of the materials, such as lead, …, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

The friction of things hitting each other in the collapse may have generated some heat and elevated the temperature of the dust but not enough to harm people enveloped by it or vaporize lead. The lead had to have been vaporized by an accelerant.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant
How does putting a thermite charge on top of a bank of batteries cause a building to fall down?

Now thre's a dumb question.


ETA: Most of the lead was in computers and other electronic equipment spread throughout the building.

100 floors per TT (-10 for mechanical, lobby) at 32,000 sf net office area / 150 sf per office station= 213 office stations per floor x 100 floors x computer and monitor per office = 42,600 computers and monitors x 2 Towers = 85,200 thermxte bombs to blow up the lead.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Now thre's a dumb question.


ETA: Most of the lead was in computers and other electronic equipment spread throughout the building.

Now there's a dumb answer

why would you thermite a PC(s) to make building fall down??????

 

[Oystein]

"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse."
The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. … Many of the materials, such as lead, …, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

The friction of things hitting each other in the collapse may have generated some heat and elevated the temperature of the dust but not enough to harm people enveloped by it or vaporize lead. The lead had to have been vaporized by an accelerant.

You put quote marks around the first paragraph. What is that quoted from? The RJ Lee report titled "Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property / Report Date: December 2003 / WTC Dust Signature Report - Composition and Morphology / Summary Report" has a similar sentence, but without the word "extremely", on page 21:

The presence of lead oxides on the surface of
mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead
would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the
surface of mineral wool.

Your second paragraph is a faithful quote from the same report, page 21 also.

So I would like to know where exactly you dragged that loaded word "extremely" from!



Also, one wonder what temperatures, at minimum and expressed as a numerical value with the unit °F, °C or K, would "extremely high temperature" imply here? Then, given the fact that...

Most of the lead was in computers and other electronic equipment spread throughout the building.

...and the implication that these non-structural building components were heated to such "extremely high temperature", what would that mean with regard to

1. the energy needed to reach such "extremely high temperature" throughout the office spaces
2. the amount of thermite to supply this much emnergy
3. the heat radiation that would have emenated from the offices if indeed they had heated up to such "extremely high temperature". I understand that objects at 1500°C or hotter glow white hot. Is there any evidence that office contents were glowing white hot?

In summary, I don't think C7 has thought through the implications of his oft repeated claims.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Hehe, I don't follow this discussion closely, it's rather boring last days (and rather off topic in the case of ferrospheres which is the topic), but you are right, the word "extremely" doesn't appear in the whole report
But be careful, you can be accused by truthers that this word was deleted upon your request from all copies of the report on the net!

Otherwise, who cares about this lead? Even molten/liquified lead (not indeed really boiling) could be somehow spread in the form of some aerosol in the collapsing WTC mass... Just my guess, it's not really important (for me).

 

[NoahFence]

As EdX already knows, yet carries on blithely ignoring, NO BUILDING CODE CHANGES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ANYWHERE addressing progressive collapse.

You're wrong.

 

[NoahFence]

Now thre's a dumb question.


ETA: Most of the lead was in computers and other electronic equipment spread throughout the building.

LOL

Even more retarded. So how does putting thermite charges inside a CRT cause a building to collapse?

 

[chrismohr]

* yawn *

As EdX already knows, yet carries on blithely ignoring, NO BUILDING CODE CHANGES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ANYWHERE addressing progressive collapse. The only changes that organizations have adopted relate to fire safety and mostly evacuation. We've been over this, with Architect trying to cite some bogus "European" changes which still don't address progressive collapse and which he never substantiated.

Hi Ergo,
We're in an iron-rich microsphere thread but where can we go for me to ask you questions and challenge you about this claim? It's certainly completely different from what Richard Gage was saying (and Earl Staelin, another 9/11 guy I debated before Richard), who said that the code changes recommended by NIST were a waste of money because steel frames are made "indestructible" with fireproofing. In addition, I talked to a NIST scientist about this who told me the very long steel trusses found in Building 7 are being recommended against because of the dangers of thermal expansion in fire. I know, I digress, where can we take this? And then we have all the quotes PROVING code changes in the thread above!

 

[chrismohr]

WTF? Most of the dust cloud was generated by the 90 other floors which were not on fire so any high temps in the air or particles withing the burning floors would have been enormously diluted. furthermore most of the really hot material was ejected at the start of the collapse ie 800 feet up, so by the time it reach ground level and had mixed with vast volumes of cooler air its unlikely it was anything more than warm or uncomfortably hot.

This was my hypothesis too. In my debate with Richard Gage, Tom Kiely (a 9/11 Truth activist with a radio show) was our moderator (he did a good job BTW). As it turns out, he got caught in the dust cloud on 9/11 and reported to the entire crowd that the dust cloud was warm, but not scalding, just as you hypothesized (and I believe for the same reason you mention).

 

[Fly Poster]

Further to BasqueArch's point about where the lead is mostly located, it occurred to me that truthers often use Jonathan H Cole's experiment as an example of how the TT's and B7 were demolished with Therm*te. Problem here is that JHC's devices using thermate are very targeted, and surely would not vapourise lead elsewhere in the building, would not produce the amount of molten steel claimed, and to get back on topic: would not create the % of iron rich spheres cited?
Is it that if anything JHC's experiments show that the so called 'evidence' which he also points to in his YouTube vid, is a moot point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

 

[ergo]

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Heh.

So the excerpt below, cited by BasqueArch, contains the only relevant references to building code changes that seek to address this phenomenon of "progressive collapse", and the dangers of buildings plummeting to the ground from localized damage and one-hour office fires:

These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, mandating the use of a nationally accepted standard for conducting wind tunnel tests (routinely used for determining wind loads in the design of tall buildings), limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors in stairways, installing stairway communication and monitoring systems on specific floors of tall buildings, and requiring risk assessments for buildings with substantial hazard (such as buildings more than 420 feet high with occupant loads exceeding 5,000 persons).

BasqueArch neglects to provide a source for this quote, but it's from a NIST press release. Now, the question is whether you'll be surprised to learn that he left a critical sentence out, the one immediately preceding the above quote:

Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.

These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, mandating the use of a nationally accepted standard...etc...

Note to newbies: 9/11 "debunkers" lie. When they can't stretch the truth far enough, they simply resort to lying. Never believe what they have to say unless they provide a source for it. And then investigate the source.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Sorry, but you are mostly off topic

I beg you truthers, especially Chris7, to answer Oystein's very interesting question:

From where you have got the quote "The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse"?

This seems to be quite crucial here, since the whole discussion last few days was somehow connected to this quote of Chris7.
The same formulation appears in many truthers' pages, btw. But not in the copy of the report which is available here. The word extremely is missing there.

 

[ergo]

Hi Ergo,
We're in an iron-rich microsphere thread but where can we go for me to ask you questions and challenge you about this claim? It's certainly completely different from what Richard Gage was saying (and Earl Staelin, another 9/11 guy I debated before Richard), who said that the code changes recommended by NIST were a waste of money because steel frames are made "indestructible" with fireproofing. In addition, I talked to a NIST scientist about this who told me the very long steel trusses found in Building 7 are being recommended against because of the dangers of thermal expansion in fire. I know, I digress, where can we take this? And then we have all the quotes PROVING code changes in the thread above!

Hi Chris, Gage was likely talking about modest changes to fire safety and egress. One of the telling things about these code changes is that you don't really see much, if any literature as to how these code changes, implemented after the worst building "disasters" in history, are changing the industry. I've seen none.

As for BA's quotes, I've just shown that he was lying. The only changes that have been adopted so far relate to fire safety and evacuation. Changes which obviously address how unsafe the twin towers were in that regard.