Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Myriad]

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?

Who says any "tons of coal" must be burned to produce a ton of iron-rich spheres? Certainly not me. My point is that extraordinarily high combustion temperatures are not required to produce them.

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

I don't know, but you could figure it out if you wanted. Start by researching the plant sources of paper pulp, and the typical concentration of ferritins in those plants. That would give you a rough idea of the concentration of ferrihydrites in paper. Then do the same for typical office wood products. Then look at iron oxide and iron sulfide contents of other expected office materials. (In most coal, most of the iron comes from FeS, so any FeS in other combustible materials would be a likely additional source.) Don't forget to figure in ambient environmental "background" sources such as construction activities and city traffic. This would require somewhat more effort than citing quotes mined by other truthers. Get to it, if you want to make an argument based on insufficiency of office contents at the site.

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

It has been demonstrated that unusually high combustion temperatures are not required to produce iron-rich microspheres. Therefore the presence of such microspheres is not evidence of unusually high combustion temperatures. That is why no one with any relevant expertise in fire investigation finds the iron-rich microspheres at ground zero to be unexpected or significant.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

What is it with you??? We don't have to prove ANYTHING as we are not the ones making the assertions re the Towers failure. We are skeptical of your assertions but I for one don't give a rats behind if you are skeptical of anything I or any other debunker says. You are obsessed with iron mircospheres and someone suggests that these are contained in fly ash which is a common part of concrete. For your theory to be accepted YOU have to eliminate that and all other possible sources of such particles or you have no case.

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

In your dreams. You just keep parroting the melting point of pure iron.
which hardly counters the opinions of experts that such things are expected.

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.



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.

I'm not claiming anything other than folks way more expert than either of us say such things are "expected". If you want to prove otherwise feel free.......but simply quoting the melting point of pure iron and the boiling point of lead is not the proof you imagine it is.

Stop being lazy. Get off your behind and investigate what happens in very large fires and get back to us when you have conducted a proper study of the subject. We'll wait

 

[The Almond]

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

This is demonstrably false. If I demonstrate it, will you abandon this line of inquiry?

 

[NoahFence]

Only a total idiot would classify anything that happened on 9/11 as "normal".

 

[DGM]

This is demonstrably false. If I demonstrate it, will you abandon this line of inquiry?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

This is demonstrably false. If I demonstrate it, will you abandon this line of inquiry?

Demonstrate it, pls, best with some references and pictures

 

[ergo]

This is demonstrably false. If I demonstrate it, will you abandon this line of inquiry?

If you could demonstrate it, wouldn't you have done so sometime in the last 25 pages of this thread? Or somewhere in the dozens of other threads on this topic? Or sometime in the last five years?

 

[Miragememories]

"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.
"

"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."

"Who says any "tons of coal" must be burned to produce a ton of iron-rich spheres? Certainly not me. My point is that extraordinarily high combustion temperatures are not required to produce them."

My point is, and you have obviously chosen to ignore anyone who effectively contradicts you Myriad, is that evidence that coal was not at all a factor, as prior to construction, the iron was removed from the coal-derived flyash in the WTC concrete.

Additionally, Dr. Jones has previously stated that he tested the WTC concrete for iron-rich spheres and he found none!

So Myriad, your line of argument is irrelevant and pointless.

Therefore you have not provided an office furnishings fuel-source argument, or a pre-existing-in-the-concrete argument, that legitimately explains the ~6% prevalence of iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust.

MM

 

[The Almond]

If you could demonstrate it, wouldn't you have done so sometime in the last 25 pages of this thread? Or somewhere in the dozens of other threads on this topic? Or sometime in the last five years?

These threads would last exactly 1 page if Truthers were capable of altering their opinions based on logic and facts. Monolithic threads, such as these are testaments to the eternal optimism of members of the JREF community (of the type, "Maybe this will convince them..."), and the obstinance of Truthers (of the type, "I don't understand this, therefore the opposite of what you say is true!")

But do, please, enlighten me, what piece of evidence could I present that would prove that the ash from ordinary fires will have a higher concentration of iron rich microspheres? If I present that evidence, will you abandon 9/11 conspiracy theories? I present this line of inquiry because I've spent 6 years on this forum guessing as to what evidence you, among others, were looking for. Despite spending the time presenting evidence that convinced me, or that would convince an expert in the field, I have yet to convince a Truther of even the patently obvious facts. No more games, you tell me, I'll go get it. When I produce it, you go away. Sound simple?

 

[Liberty]

Unless it was a chemical plant, any iron found in a fire site will be alloyed, not elemental (pure). Steels can commonly have as little as 0.10% carbon content, but also have fractional percentages of silicon and manganese at least. Since those elements are combined in a solid with melting point above 1000C, merely heating the metal to that temp will not produce elemental iron. the production of elemental (pure) iron is a chemical extraction and or electrolytic deposition procedure. Iron is not naturally found in its pure, elemental form. To obtain pure iron, its ore must be heated, deslagged, and either injected with oxygen (Bessemer process) or aarc melted at elevated temperature to produce low carbon steel. Any fire hot enough to melt iron would typically yield a coalesced mass, not the very small, uniform diameter spheres. Subsequent processing would be necessary to produce the spheres. Alternatively, one could dissolve in acid, treat chemically to remove impurities, and electrolytically extract the pure metal. Subseauent processing again required to produce the small spheres.

From journalof911studies:

"Sample 1 was collected from inside the Potter Building located at 38 Park Row in New York City. It was collected by a Ph.D. scientist on 9/14/2001, just three days after the 9/11/2001 and before any major steelcutting
operations had begun at ground zero. Rescue operations were on-going at the time of sample collection. Furthermore, the building is located about four blocks from ground zero and the sample was collected from dust that had worked its way inside the building, landing on an interior window sill. Thus, contamination from steelcutting operations at ground zero (which can produce molten steel spheres) can be ruled out with a very high degree of confidence. The iron-rich spheres collected in sample 1 are evidence of high-temperature melting and violent fragmentation during the WTC destruction and dust formation.

elements besides iron are often present in the spheres which yield chemical signatures distinct from that of structural steel (such as Al, Si, Cu, K, S; see Figs. 3 and 4). These chemical signatures provide additional evidence that the spheres did not result from steel-cutting operations during clean-up.

A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 Liberty Street shows a “mean of composition” of “Fe spheres” of 5.87% which is very high compared with “Fe spheres” found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% [1]. As the report notes, the WTC dust has unusual identifying characteristics – in particular, the WTC Extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction dust in this sample has nearly 150 times (5.87/0.04) the amount of iron-rich spheres as ordinary dust (where Fe spheres can arise from micrometeorites, for example)."

Therefore, the Iron-rich spheres USGS and others found, is quite interesting and should be investigated further. These types of particles as RJ Lee admitted, is of course nothing you see in “normal” interior office dust. Lead was also volatilized, the temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C. Molted Molybdenum was also found in the dust, Mo melts at 2,623 °C, although addition of other elements may lower the melting point of Mo somewhat, this extremely high temperatures has not been explained. The RJ Lee group believes also that aluminosilicate particles was boilied and evaporatted, which requires 2,760 °C.

 

[Myriad]

My point is, and you have obviously chosen to ignore anyone who effectively contradicts you Myriad, is that evidence that coal was not at all a factor, as prior to construction, the iron was removed from the coal-derived flyash in the WTC concrete.

Additionally, Dr. Jones has previously stated that he tested the WTC concrete for iron-rich spheres and he found none!

So Myriad, your line of argument is irrelevant and pointless.

Therefore you have not provided an office furnishings fuel-source argument, or a pre-existing-in-the-concrete argument, that legitimately explains the ~6% prevalence of iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust.

I made no claim of coal-derived iron in the WTC concrete. The fact remains that the production of iron microspheres in coal fires proves that unusually high combustion temperatures are not required to produce iron-rich microspheres.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[NoahFence]

is of course nothing you see in “normal” interior office dust.

Why do you people keep using that bolded word as if it has any relevance to 9/11?

 

[Sunstealer]

I made no claim of coal-derived iron in the WTC concrete. The fact remains that the production of iron microspheres in coal fires proves that unusually high combustion temperatures are not required to produce iron-rich microspheres.

Respectfully,
Myriad

In fact if you look into the incineration of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), which obviously contains no coal, you will find that Fe will be present in the fly ash and the bottom ash as microspheres in oxide form, usually Fe₂O₃. Fly ash has around 1-2% iron whilst bottom ash will be higher.

Operating temperatures for MSW incinerators are in the 800-1200°C range, well below the melting point of iron and for good reason.

Truthers - why do incinerators have operating temperatures below 1540°C?

I doubt a single truther can work out the obvious answer.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

My point is, and you have obviously chosen to ignore anyone who effectively contradicts you Myriad, is that evidence that coal was not at all a factor, as prior to construction, the iron was removed from the coal-derived flyash in the WTC concrete.

linky thingie?

Additionally, Dr. Jones has previously stated that he tested the WTC concrete for iron-rich spheres and he found none!

and how could we not trust him?

So Myriad, your line of argument is irrelevant and pointless.

Therefore you have not provided an office furnishings fuel-source argument, or a pre-existing-in-the-concrete argument, that legitimately explains the ~6% prevalence of iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust.

MM]

They were "expected" so why would we be looking to prove it? Wouldn't you be wanting to disprove that? what are you waiting for? I promise to read the paper when you get it peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal.....you'll be the first twoofer to manage this basic step.

 

[BasqueArch]

deleted

 

[Christopher7]

Only a total idiot would classify anything that happened on 9/11 as "normal".

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 Page 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

 

[LSSBB]

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 Page 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

Interestng, yet irrelevant. 9/11 was not normal.

No response to Sunstealer, eh?

 

[Edx]

Apparently truthers in this thread are just spinning their wheels reposting the same quotes and claims over and over as if no one has replied to it before. i guess thats thread over!

 

[Christopher7]

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

This is demonstrably false. If I demonstrate it, will you abandon this line of inquiry?

If you can provide credible documentation that a significant amount of iron microspheres like the one depicted in the EDS in the RJ Lee report can be produced from office contents of the fire involved floors of the trade towers and WTC 7 I would concede the point.

The solid waste incinerator produces iron microspheres but it is not a good comparison to office furnishings. Do you have any data on iron microspheres produced in an office fire?
Also, how many tons of solid waste must be burned to produce a ton of iron microspheres?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 Page 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

Just being Pedantic....but that was for WTC7.......so how do you know the dust with the microspheres came from there and not WTC1 and 2? Do you not consider it likely the fires in the WTC towers were considerably hotter? They had much better ventilation (higher up and 767 size hole) and much more accelerant (jet fuel) and much more fuel (greater floor area).