Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Edx]

* 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.

I said there were building code changes that affected everyone in the construction industry because of the NIST recommendations. That is certainly correct. Are you claiming that there were no building code changes or are you really trying to move the goal posts?

Congrats on missing the point and quote mining as usual. You dont fail to behave exactly as expected. I was making the point that even though this is the most dicussed event in the last 10 years in these professional industries and subjects, you find no one apart from a fringe minority of nobodies that supports you or the claims you make. Where are all the scientists arguing that RJ Lee proves iron microspheres on 911 are suspicious or strange? Wheres the discussion in professional respected journals, or websites? Not even RJ Lee themselves seem to notice or care, not even in the report in question. RJ Lee are according to Christopher highly credentialed experts yet believe impossible things happened on 911 that jet fuel fire melted steel, all because they read someone say it on a newspaper article. So that either make them and the rest of the scientific and engineering community all either in on it, brainwashed or stupid.

 

[NoahFence]

The quote is from the May 2004 Signature Assessment report page 9.

The implication is: The melted iron and the vaporized lead confirm temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain.

Speculating on exactly how that occurred is a diversion and a waste of time. The only known source for those temperatures is some form of thermite - unless you know of another.

Um, the ONLY way to melt iron is thermite?

You're gonna stick with that?

 

[Myriad]

Iron-rich microspheres do not require temperatures above office fire temperatures to form. That is well known and easily proven.

One proof is that most coal contains no iron-rich microspheres. (There are books on the subject of inorganic contaminants in coal, including what forms the iron takes. No microspheres.) But most coal ash from coal-fired boilers does contain iron-rich microspheres. (There are books on that too; coal ash is a major environmental issue.) It's a normal expected component of fly ash.

Yet, the fires in coal-fired boilers usually don't reach temperatures above office fire temperatures. Certainly not the melting temperature of iron, which would catastrophically destroy most boilers.

That settles the matter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The implication is: The melted iron and the vaporized lead confirm temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain.

That's solely your implication, not RJ Lees or that of anyone else of any importance.

Speculating on exactly how that occurred is a diversion and a waste of time.

and there where you should have stopped, but no you just had to make a fool of yourself AGAIN......

The only known source for those temperatures is some form of thermite - unless you know of another.

Yet people melted iron and vaporised lead without using thermite for millenia.....

 

[000063]

http://www.nce.co.uk/major-projects...learning-from-the-unthinkable/8619487.article


[quotes]

That should be specific enough for any jackass truther troll to accept. Having their trolling ass handed to them AGAIN just like in the "black smoke=incomplete combustion" thread

He's either going to run away and come back in a few pages, ignore the actual content and make some remark about debunkers, ignore the post entirely, like he does with mine since I switched to this sig with two of his most embarrassing statements, or find some sentence he can creatively misinterpret by insinuation, since every time he makes an assertion he's wrong. Just like he's been proven wrong here.

 

[Justin39640]

The implication is: The melted iron and the vaporized lead confirm temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain.

Hate to point this out (again). This isn't a discussion about a fire that started in a wastepaper basket.

Speculating on exactly how that occurred is a diversion and a waste of time. The only known source for those temperatures is some form of thermite - unless you know of another.

Sheesh, I wonder how hot a computer gets when you drop a million pounds worth of building on it? Hmmmmmmmm.....

 

[Oystein]

The quote is from the May 2004 Signature Assessment report page 9.

Ok, confirmed

The implication is: The melted iron and the vaporized lead confirm temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain.

Speculating on exactly how that occurred is a diversion and a waste of time. The only known source for those temperatures is some form of thermite - unless you know of another.

Several means of attaining such temperatures are well known, given the fact that welders, for example, melt steel but don't use thermite 99% of the time.
There are other possibilities of course, such as:
- RJ Lee didn't mean that literally
- RJ Lee was mistaken.

I haven't received a reply from them yet, but haven't given up hope just yet.

 

[Miragememories]

"...Yet, the fires in coal-fired boilers usually don't reach temperatures above office fire temperatures. Certainly not the melting temperature of iron, which would catastrophically destroy most boilers.

That settles the matter."

Well first of all it should be easy, if true, for you to show proof to support your ridiculous statement that "the fires in coal-fired boilers usually don't reach temperatures above office fire temperatures".

Secondly, it has already been reported that the flyash used in the WTC concrete had its iron content removed.

In addition, Dr. Jones tested the WTC concrete and did not find evidence of iron-rich microspheres.

MM

 

[000063]

Well first of all it should be easy, if true, for you to show proof to support your ridiculous statement that "the fires in coal-fired boilers usually don't reach temperatures above office fire temperatures"....

Ridiculous, arguably. Incorrect? You very carefully do not say that it is, since you would have to provide evidence.

Continue to gainsay.

 

[Christopher7]

Iron-rich microspheres do not require temperatures above office fire temperatures to form. That is well known and easily proven.

One proof is that most coal contains no iron-rich microspheres. (There are books on the subject of inorganic contaminants in coal, including what forms the iron takes. No microspheres.) But most coal ash from coal-fired boilers does contain iron-rich microspheres. (There are books on that too; coal ash is a major environmental issue.) It's a normal expected component of fly ash.

Yet, the fires in coal-fired boilers usually don't reach temperatures above office fire temperatures. Certainly not the melting temperature of iron, which would catastrophically destroy most boilers.

Yes, coal will produce iron oxide spheres but how many tons of coal has to be burned to produce one ton of these spheres? At what temperature?

How many floors of "office contents" must be burned, and at what temperature, to produce a pound of iron spheres?

It has not been demonstrated that normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron spheres.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yes, coal will produce iron oxide spheres but how many tons of coal has to be burned to produce one ton of these spheres? At what temperature?

Again you want us to do your work....why are Twoofers so lazy. Its you that is obsessed by these "expected" spheres and think they mean something so its up to you to prove your case. Part of doing so is eliminating all other possible sources. (PS Coals not likely in the WTC's case unless its in the concrete)

How many floors of "office contents" must be burned, and at what temperature, to produce a pound of iron spheres?

Do the work......we don't care remember because they are "expected"

It has not been demonstrated that normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron spheres.

Nor have you demonstrated that they don't..........

 

[NoahFence]

Well first of all it should be easy, if true, for you to show proof to support your ridiculous statement that "the fires in coal-fired boilers usually don't reach temperatures above office fire temperatures".

Secondly, it has already been reported that the flyash used in the WTC concrete had its iron content removed.

In addition, Dr. Jones tested the WTC concrete and did not find evidence of iron-rich microspheres.

MM

Come on. You don't even try anymore. Did you ever??

1) Myriad has to show YOU proof to support a 'ridiculous' statement.

then the very next sentence shows you making an unsourced statement. "It was reported"

uh huh.

typical.

 

[NoahFence]

It has not been demonstrated that normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron spheres.

Excellent. Now, tell me where the normal office fire was on 9/11?

It sure wasn't in 1WTC or 2WTC or 7WTC. Maybe there was a fire in Staten Island somewhere that didn't get reported due to the events in Manhattan?

 

[A W Smith]

Yes, coal will produce iron oxide spheres but how many tons of coal has to be burned to produce one ton of these spheres? At what temperature?

How many floors of "office contents" must be burned, and at what temperature, to produce a pound of iron spheres?
It has not been demonstrated that normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron spheres.

Right back atcha Sarns, What was there 400,000 CY of Therm*te in the towers?

 

[leftysergeant]

Now thre's a dumb question.


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

So somebody placed thermite charges on all the computer monitors and that brought down the towers. Got it.

 

[fourtoe]

I first learned about "new civil engineer" magazine about 15 seconds ago.

I used that in-depth knowledge to find the link, and do the legwork for you, kiddo.

Maybe less time being uneducated and more time getting educated should be your goal?


Aw, who am I kidding? You won't go to that link, so I'll bring it to you:

Why do you have to ask this question, with all the abundant visual evidence showing it was?

Why don't you simply look it up yourself, and while you're at it, let us know when you find something.

Are you purposely being ironic?

 

[tsig]

delete

 

[ergo]

Are you purposely being ironic?

Why are you misrepresenting my post?

Here it is. Look who I was responding to. But you already knew that.

And yes, I was being "purposely" ironic.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, coal will produce iron oxide spheres but how many tons of coal has to be burned to produce one ton of these spheres? At what temperature?

Again you want us to do your work.

You have it backwards. We agree that coal fired power plants produce fly ash containing iron oxide spheres but so far no one has provided evidence that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete in the TT. Myraid must provide data to support his hypothesis that significant amounts of iron rich spheres would be created in an office fire. Until he does it's just supposition, not evidence.

Its you that is obsessed by these "expected" spheres

Again you have it backwards. You are obsessed with the word "expected" and I have countered that several times.

I'm taking RJ Lee's statements at face value.
"iron melted during the WTC event producing spherical metallic particles."
and
"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.

I don't have to prove that iron melts at 2800^oF and lead volatilizes at 3100^oF, those facts are known.

It has not been demonstrated that normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron spheres.

If you want to claim that the iron spheres were created and lead volatilized at a lower temperatures in the TT fires, you must show proof.

 

[ergo]

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

Steven Badger used the word as well, in his report (which is downloadable).

https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/7003/

The presence of lead oxides on particle surfaces indicates that the fires burned at extremely high temperatures that volatilized the lead, oxidized it and then condensed it on the surfaces of other particulate.

....

Intense heat associated with the WTC Event produced various combustion products that became integral constituents of the WTC Dust Signature. Such heat-affected particles were not observed in the Background Building samples, or in the samples collected from the WTC Towers prior to the WTC Event (Figure 26), indicating that they are products of the WTC Event. Typically observed heat-affected particles include spherical and vesicular particles of iron, aluminosilicate, and carbon (Figure 27).