Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[triforcharity]

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."

So, what is his position WRT the iron spheres?

And why would it matter? He's a lawyer.

PS. Citation needed.

 

[NoahFence]

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."

I'm sure it hasn't been.

Just not the parts you think of.

FYI - explosives couldn't survive the impact, so who cares at what temp. microspheres are created?

 

[Christopher7]

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?

That URL used to go to the Approach Summary published 12-18-07. It has been redirected to a main page with no link to the document. So I made a screen shot of the copy I have on file.

This began when I used the term "normal office fires" and NoahFence replied

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

But getting back to the point at hand:

Can normal office fires of ~1000^oF create a substantial amount of iron spheres like the example in the RJ Lee report?

Until this is documented, the hypothesis that the building contents did create a significant amount of iron microspheres is just supposition.

sheeplesnshills,
There is no physical evidence that the fires actually reached these temperatures, they are just NIST's calculations based on some assumptions. If you had researched the NIST report you would already know that they estimated 1,800-2,000^oF.
I haven't found the 1,800 to 2,000^oF quote yet but I found this:
NCSTAR 1-5F pg 129
"At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 ^oC was about 15 to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 ^oC or below."

 

[fourtoe]

That URL used to go to the Approach Summary published 12-18-07. It has been redirected to a main page with no link to the document. So I made a screen shot of the copy I have on file.

[qimg]http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6366/page6ew.jpg[/qimg]


This began when I used the term "normal office fires" and NoahFence replied
But getting back to the point at hand:

Can normal office fires of ~1000^oF create a substantial amount of iron spheres like the example in the RJ Lee report?

Until this is documented, the hypothesis that the building contents did create a significant amount of iron microspheres is just supposition.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it only argues that they were "normal office fires" in the hypothesis NIST had about the collapse of WTC7 and so far as I looked, it does not use that phrase (at least) in the final report, which is the 130 page pdf in the link I gave in my previous post?

You should probably stop citing the working hypothesis and find your evidence in the final report, instead.

 

[ozeco41]

...You should probably stop citing the working hypothesis and find your evidence in the final report, instead.

Even that suggestion partly accepts C7's quote mining trickery. BUT he has posted the context from which he quote mines the reference to normal building fires.

So why not simply stop the stupid word games and read the context in which NIST said "normal building fires" AND what they contrasted with "normal".

 

[Oystein]

Besides, the Twin Towers surely were the source of the vast majority of the dust in 130 Liberty St, with them jointly having roughly 5 times the mass of WTC7 and being significantly closer. So one would be looking for a quote of "normal office fires" in the final reports on WTC1+2, or perhaps in the RJ Lee reports.

Then again, of course the fires were largely "normal office fires" in that they affected normal offices with normal contents. Some differences to most "normal office fires", of course: Much larger area burning at the same time (fires were started by highly extraordinary amounts of liquid accelerant); unfought from beginning to end; perhaps the open layout and the fact that the planes punshed out huge holes for better ventilation served to feed the flames.

"Normal office fires" of course are fully able to produce iron microspheres.





No reply from RJ Lee yet

 

[BasqueArch]

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?

The silence is deafening. Will C7, MM or ergo step up to the plate on this one?

 

[Christopher7]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it only argues that they were "normal office fires" in the hypothesis NIST had about the collapse of WTC7 and so far as I looked, it does not use that phrase (at least) in the final report, which is the 130 page pdf in the link I gave in my previous post?

You should probably stop citing the working hypothesis and find your evidence in the final report, instead.

That is the quote I remember because that's when they finally abandoned the diesel fuel hypothesis that I had shown to be impossible.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3144012&postcount=4028
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3119659&postcount=3973

They paraphrased me 13 times in the final report.


So what is the temperature of a "normal" office fire?

ETA:

You should probably stop citing the working hypothesis and find your evidence in the final report, instead.

You should stop using that thread bear canard. NIST made a statement in a publication and I can quote them. The fires did not change even if they decided to change their characterization of them.

 

[Christopher7]

The silence is deafening. Will C7, MM or ergo step up to the plate on this one?

You missed this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7992530&postcount=999

 

[Christopher7]

So why not simply stop the stupid word games

Indeed, why don't YOU stop the stupid word games and address the point:

Can normal [or whatever you want to call them] office fires of ~1000oF create a substantial amount of iron spheres like the example in the RJ Lee report?

 

[000063]

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're moving the goalposts.

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?...

Considering that he just asked what you would do if he produced said data, and you decided to move the goalposts (Appeal to Perfection), I doubt you would accept it anyway.

Indeed, why don't YOU stop the stupid word games and address the point:

Can normal [or whatever you want to call them] office fires of ~1000oF create a substantial amount of iron spheres like the example in the RJ Lee report?

You still haven't answered the question of what you would do if that evidence is provided.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Badger's thesis is in conflict with the RJ Lee report.

RJ Lee Group report 2003 Pg 16
Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust.
These products are
Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents


RJ Lee Group report 2004
Pg 4 [pdf pg 5]
The pressure differential was caused by the onrush of the WTC Dust cloudthat was created by the collapse of the WTC Towers with a low pressure inside Building components and high
pressure outside. A huge pressure difference was created that caused large quantities of dust laden air to move through unplanned pathways. Individual components or devices with internal spaces effectively acted like a vacuum cleaner pulling the dust into them with great force.


This did NOT happen during the clean up.


Pg 6
As a result of microscopic and chemical analysis of the components of the WTC Dust, it was determined that the average level of contaminants were present in direct proportion to one another throughout the Building

Pg 12
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.


From Badger's thesis:
Pg 34
The pressure wave forced dust into buildings and infiltrated equipment [FONT=&quot]... [/FONT] Figure 32 shows the pervasiveness of the dust infiltration in a motor that was sealed prior to being disassembled for inspection. This situation is clearly different from a typical office environment where any contamination of equipment would occur by passive deposition on surfaces rather than penetration into sealed components and interior areas of equipment.

 

[tsig]

That is the quote I remember because that's when they finally abandoned the diesel fuel hypothesis that I had shown to be impossible.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3144012&postcount=4028
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3119659&postcount=3973

They paraphrased me 13 times in the final report.


So what is the temperature of a "normal" office fire?

ETA:
You should stop using that thread bear canard. NIST made a statement in a publication and I can quote them. The fires did not change even if they decided to change their characterization of them.

You want him to stop playing this?

http://www.threadbeargame.com/

 

[Christopher7]

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're moving the goalposts.

Only if you consider asking Almond to back up his claim with data "moving the goalposts".

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?...

Considering that he just asked what you would do if he produced said data, and you decided to move the goalposts (Appeal to Perfection), I doubt you would accept it anyway.

Asking for relevant data is not moving the goal posts.

You still haven't answered the question of what you would do if that evidence is provided.

Yes I did. Go back and read the first quote on this post.

 

[A W Smith]

they are talking "normal office fires" in the context of fuel. not pressure vessels or diesel fuel, They are not talking temperature.

 

[A W Smith]

Indeed, why don't YOU stop the stupid word games and address the point:

Can normal [or whatever you want to call them] office fires of ~1000oF create a substantial amount of iron spheres like the example in the RJ Lee report?

Can a therm*tic reaction, Which was not observed by the way. Produce substantial amounts? Given this, what quantity or therm*te would be needed to produce these iron spheres in this large scale? Do you see where your conspiracy falls flat on its face? Yes i know you will still bask in your ignorance. My sig still fits you to a tee Chris Sarns.

 

[000063]

Only if you consider asking Almond to back up his claim with data "moving the goalposts".

I consider avoiding his question moving the goalposts.

Asking for relevant data is not moving the goal posts.

Yes I did. Go back and read the first quote on this post.

No you didn't. You said you'd accept evidence different from that he said he would provide in the hypothetical situation outlined in his question.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7992530&postcount=999

You said "It has not been demonstrated that normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron spheres." Almond claimed that your claim was "demonstrably false", and asked you what you would do if he proved it to be so. You said you would accept evidence that proved X with relation specifically to the WTC, not a "normal office fire". Specifically,
a) Credible documentation
b) significant amount of iron microspheres
c) office contents of the fires only on the fire-involved floors of WTC 1,2, and 7
d)as depicted in the EDs in the RJ Lee report

That's quite different from your original claim. It's effectively the difference between claiming "people don't eat apples" and when someone contradicts you, saying "that John Smith of Cairo, Illinois did not eat apples at 5:32 PM yesterdaywhile eating lunch in the Mutual Insurance Building on Sycamore Street".

Almond was claiming to be able to prove either
a)that it's been proven normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron microspheres.
b)normal office fires produce a significant amount of iron microspheres.

The phrasing is ambiguous. Either one would be disastrous to your argument(B would be proven while proving A, in fact), hence the sudden specificity. You said what you would do if he proved another claim, one vastly different from the one he was referring to.

 

[000063]

Indeed, why don't YOU stop the stupid word games and address the point:

Can normal [or whatever you want to call them] office fires of ~1000oF create a substantial amount of iron spheres like the example in the RJ Lee report?

Still being remarkably specific. This is a standard sophist tactic; make a broad claim, and when people start calling them on it, they raise the bar until they reach something that can't be proven, and declare it proof. Of course, many of them are unable to realize when their claims have been shut down, and will continue to make them over and over.

 

[Christopher7]

Can a therm*tic reaction, Which was not observed by the way. Produce substantial amounts? Given this, what quantity or therm*te would be needed to produce these iron spheres in this large scale?

We are discussing your [collective] theory of how the iron spheres were created. All I'm trying to establish on this thread is that temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain melted iron and vaporized lead during the destruction of the TT and WTC 7.

We can discuss therm*te on another thread.

ETA: 000063, let Almond speak for him/her self.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

That is the quote I remember because that's when they finally abandoned the diesel fuel hypothesis that I had shown to be impossible.

You showed! LOL They words you were looking for were "you guessed".

ETA:
You should stop using that thread bear canard. NIST made a statement in a publication and I can quote them. The fires did not change even if they decided to change their characterization of them.

I love it when Twoofer debunk themselves......Chris do you see where you did that?