• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

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.

Now if you can just make the step towards sanity and understand that since you have no evidence that they can't and experts say they are expected, then there is no point to concede in the first place.

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?


How is not a good comparison? what do you imagine would be in solid waste that would not be in the twin towers?

Also, how many tons of solid waste must be burned to produce a ton of iron microspheres?

how many tons of microspheres were there? how many would you put down to other expected sources?
 
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).
NIST estamated the fires in the TT to be about the same as WTC 7, ~1000oF for a short period of time. They said the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. You should know these facts.
 
C7 said:
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.
you have no evidence that they can't
:confused: You are asking me to prove a negative.

experts say they are expected
Considering the extreme temperatures. How many times are you going to ignore that?

How is not a good comparison? what do you imagine would be in solid waste that would not be in the twin towers?
It's a different composition than would be found in a office.

how many tons of microspheres were there? how many would you put down to other expected sources?
No one has established any other sources, they have just speculated.
 
NIST estamated the fires in the TT to be about the same as WTC 7, ~1000oF for a short period of time.

where do they say that? and why do you assume they are right about that but wrong about everything else?

They said the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. You should know these facts.

Where did I say otherwise? Do you not consider a fire ignited over three or four floors all at the same time (by the jet fuel) likely to be different from that of an advancing fire front as in WTC7
 
:confused: You are asking me to prove a negative.

Not at all, I was playing word games with you. You are the one claiming that this has to cause that when you have neither proved the first nor the second to actually be the case.


Considering the extreme temperatures. How many times are you going to ignore that?

define "extreme"........It was an extremely big fire in an extremely big building with extremely good ventilation and extremely badly damaged fire proofing and an extemely hindered fighting fighting effort. I do not find the description of the temperatures as extreme even remotely suspicious.

It's a different composition than would be found in a office.

In what significant way? Please detail this claim......

No one has established any other sources, they have just speculated.

and your sooper nanny thermXte is what if not speculation????:rolleyes:
 
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

I click the link, and the words "normal" and "approach" are no where to be found.

I'd be most interested to see the extent of your quote-mining, but cannot due to your inability to even link right.
 
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. :rolleyes:

Ergo I honestly am not sure what you are talking about. I thought that since you quoted what I asked you that you were responding to me...

Really, I don't get how I misrepresented your post and if you weren't responding to me who were you responding to...
 
I click the link, and the words "normal" and "approach" are no where to be found.

I'd be most interested to see the extent of your quote-mining, but cannot due to your inability to even link right.
Yeah, Chris, the link that you posted ends with .pdf but doesn't link to a .pdf. I looked through the links and found this final report but is dated to be in 2008. The 30 page doc they have links on the bottom of that page is "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)"

Would that document have any relevance to your claim about normal building fires?
 
Considering the extreme temperatures. How many times are you going to ignore that?
Here are the quotes regarding temperature and heat from (Dr - I assume he has his PhD now) Badger's paper that you quote with regard to extreme temperatures.

The WTC Dust Markers typically appear angular or pulverized as a result of the extreme force of the collapse of the Towers, or spherical in shape resulting from the high temperatures associated with the ensuing fires.

Lead, copper, mercury and zinc were derived from combustion and pulverization of WTC materials such as computer parts, electrical systems,
ductwork, fluorescent lights, thermostats, and office furniture.

A large number of organics were produced during the explosion and collapse of the WTC Towers. Ensuing fires created combustible components for months. Some of the materials that were subjected to elevated
temperature were building materials, jet fuel, fuel oil, and more than 100,000 gallons of PCB-containing transformer oil. As a result, WTC Dust has been found to contain organics such as dioxins/furans, PCBs and PNAs. These toxic compounds were detected in WTC Dust at levels many times higher than that in the background buildings.

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.

Indicators of high temperature (e.g., spherical iron/metal/silicate and vesicular carbonaceous particles resulting from heated plastics) (Figure 327 and Figure 328).

Dust contains particles characteristic of severe stress, high-energy impact, and/or high temperatures that typically do not occur in this type of office building [4 Albany Street building]

Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature (Figure 356 E and Figure 356 F)

WTC Dust Markers exhibit characteristics of particles that have undergone
high stress and high temperature.

The WTC Dust Markers typically appear angular or pulverized as a result of the extreme force of the collapse of the Towers, or spherical in shape resulting from the high temperatures associated with the ensuing fires.

The source of the WTC Markers can be directly linked to the WTC Event by the composition and morphology of the particles; the asbestos, mineral wool and gypsum were used in the WTC Towers’ construction material, and the heat affected particles result from the fires that ensued following the WTC Event.
WTC Dust Markers include: chrysotile asbestos, pulverized gypsum, fragments of mineral wool, vermiculite, metals, organic components, particles that were generated by the high heat of the fires and coated particles.

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).

Why do you quote mine? It's obvious that he is talking about the fires. If you want clarification then why don't you get it from the source? Why not ask the author directly?
 
Here's something else Badger said:

The initial devastation created by the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) Towers resulting from the September 11, 2001 bombings

;)
 
Here are the quotes regarding temperature and heat from (Dr - I assume he has his PhD now) Badger's paper that you quote with regard to extreme temperatures.



Why do you quote mine? It's obvious that he is talking about the fires. If you want clarification then why don't you get it from the source? Why not ask the author directly?

for some reason truthers think everybody is too stupid to see their dishonesty. Its remarkable. They are convinced that they're clever. Unreal.
 
Why do you quote mine? It's obvious that he is talking about the fires. If you want clarification then why don't you get it from the source? Why not ask the author directly?

Sunstealer, given that the purpose of Badger's paper was to establish that there is a signature for WTC dust, and that it can be detected in sites that have been recontaminated, is there some purpose to your highlights here? Badger was not charged with, nor took on any obligation to comment on why the microspheres exist. He simply reports that they do exist, and what process created them. A report that confirms the others.
 
Sunstealer, given that the purpose of Badger's paper was to establish that there is a signature for WTC dust, and that it can be detected in sites that have been recontaminated, is there some purpose to your highlights here? Badger was not charged with, nor took on any obligation to comment on why the microspheres exist. He simply reports that they do exist, and what process created them. A report that confirms the others.
What a strange comment.

It matters not what he was charged with, however, he does report on the microspheres and the process that creates them, i.e the fires.

Yes that's right, "he simply reports that they do exist and what created them", namely the fires which is why I've highlighted them.

I've highlighted the report so that readers can see that he refers to the fires many times in regard to what was found. Notice the absence of the word thermite/thermate.

Somehow you truthers choose to ignore this fact and quote mine his thorough analysis.

Do you disagree with him? If so why.
 
What a strange comment.

It matters not what he was charged with, however, he does report on the microspheres and the process that creates them, i.e the fires.

Yes that's right, "he simply reports that they do exist and what created them", namely the fires which is why I've highlighted them.

I've highlighted the report so that readers can see that he refers to the fires many times in regard to what was found. Notice the absence of the word thermite/thermate.

Somehow you truthers choose to ignore this fact and quote mine his thorough analysis.

Do you disagree with him? If so why.

I'm not sure what logical fallacy it is that you keep making, but you seem to have a hard time with the suggestion in all the reports that these spheres were created by extreme temperatures. I have no doubt that Badger and RJ Lee (I gather Badger, in fact, works at RJ Lee) and the USGS do understand the implications of what they're reporting, and no doubt have personal opinions about it that they did not and would not include in the report. We know that the USGS analysis of the molybdenum sphere was accessed only by an FOIA request, and was not included in the report released to the public. Why would that be?

I have no doubt that these researchers understand what it is that they are reporting. In your world view, those who don't speak out about 9/11 must, by default, support the official story. We know that not to be the case.

If someone were to request from them an analysis into how the spheres could have formed in office fires and to consider several different hypotheses around it, they might come up with different conclusions. I believe this is what Chris Mohr is trying to clarify.

The point of citing these reports, as far as I can tell, is simply to get you folks to accept the fact that, according to these expert sources, extreme temperatures were needed to produce the spheres. If you find that so unbelievable, I would think you would want to question these sources yourself, instead of haranguing "truthers" about it.
 
The iron microspheres are unremarkable.


Period.

The amount of things you people think are a big deal that, for the intelligent, rational people aren't a big deal, is a pretty large list.
 
I'm not sure what logical fallacy it is that you keep making, but you seem to have a hard time with the suggestion in all the reports that these spheres were created by extreme temperatures. I have no doubt that Badger and RJ Lee (I gather Badger, in fact, works at RJ Lee) and the USGS do understand the implications of what they're reporting, and no doubt have personal opinions about it that they did not and would not include in the report. We know that the USGS analysis of the molybdenum sphere was accessed only by an FOIA request, and was not included in the report released to the public. Why would that be?

I have no doubt that these researchers understand what it is that they are reporting. In your world view, those who don't speak out about 9/11 must, by default, support the official story. We know that not to be the case.

If someone were to request from them an analysis into how the spheres could have formed in office fires and to consider several different hypotheses around it, they might come up with different conclusions. I believe this is what Chris Mohr is trying to clarify.

The point of citing these reports, as far as I can tell, is simply to get you folks to accept the fact that, according to these expert sources, extreme temperatures were needed to produce the spheres. If you find that so unbelievable, I would think you would want to question these sources yourself, instead of haranguing "truthers" about it.
well we know what logical fallacy YOU are committing ergo.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#crucial_experiment
 
I'm not sure what logical fallacy it is that you keep making, but you seem to have a hard time with the suggestion in all the reports that these spheres were created by extreme temperatures. I have no doubt that Badger and RJ Lee (I gather Badger, in fact, works at RJ Lee) and the USGS do understand the implications of what they're reporting, and no doubt have personal opinions about it that they did not and would not include in the report. We know that the USGS analysis of the molybdenum sphere was accessed only by an FOIA request, and was not included in the report released to the public. Why would that be?

I have no doubt that these researchers understand what it is that they are reporting. In your world view, those who don't speak out about 9/11 must, by default, support the official story. We know that not to be the case.

If someone were to request from them an analysis into how the spheres could have formed in office fires and to consider several different hypotheses around it, they might come up with different conclusions. I believe this is what Chris Mohr is trying to clarify.

The point of citing these reports, as far as I can tell, is simply to get you folks to accept the fact that, according to these expert sources, extreme temperatures were needed to produce the spheres. If you find that so unbelievable, I would think you would want to question these sources yourself, instead of haranguing "truthers" about it.

Holy crap! It wasn't an office fire. It was an airliner crash followed by a horrendous fire.

ETA: Twice!
 
Last edited:
Further to my above post,

To quote a different Steven Badger (incredibly enough) of Zelle Hofman Voelbel & Mason, who represented plaintiffs in recent litigation against Larry Silverstein:

"Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public."
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom