Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Ivan Kminek said:
Here is an magnified Fig. 4 from this American paper, but notation of peaks is still quite small here.
Click to expand...
Nice work, thank you.

I really don' care, since the comparison of one ferrosphere from one power plant with another ferrosphere reported by Jones and his strange friends of course can't prove anything. Are you able to understand that they are quadrillions of such ferrospheres on this planet, with dramatically different look and composition?
Click to expand...
Honestly, this is not my area of expertise but I can understand the basics.

As for your litanies ala "There was molten steel/iron... blahblah"... are you serious?
Click to expand...
Yes

You demand scientific proofs for our claims, we of course demand the same! But you have absolutely nothing except Bentham paper.
Click to expand...
There are numerous eyewitness reports of molten steel. There is a photo of a grapler picking up a semi solid glob of molten metal with stuff dripping off the bottom. RJ Lee Group says iron melted and lead vaporized during the WTC event. The NYPD Museum has confirmed molten concrete. I don't need no stinkin EDS to believe thermite did it. There is no other explanation, unless you know of one.

ETA: There are photos of melted beams.

Listen to the iron worker at 2:05
"The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire at the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrinZM9b2Q&feature=player_embedded
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
sheeplesnshills said:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

ETA: If you want to debate these points, start another thread.
Click to expand...

You raised the subject not I. And I asked you, not chris sarns, what was wrong in the NIST report. Again choose the point YOU think is the best representation of your claim and show why that is the case. If you cannot do so it just shows you do not understand the subject and are merely parroting what someone else said.
Click to expand...
 
Christopher7 said:
Listen to the iron worker at 2:05
"The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire at the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames."
Click to expand...

It's a spectacular story but total nonsense. Macroscopic steel cannot "burn" in the normal sense of the word. Sprinkle iron filings into a gas flame, however, and the rate of oxidation is so great that it gives the appearance of 'burning', resembling a kid's sparkler.

Steel members don't do this. If it were true then iron foundries and steel fabrication plants would be in deep trouble :rolleyes:
 
Christopher7 said:
Do you see any fires after the beginning of the collapse?
Click to expand...

So why was the debris still on fire after the collapse?:confused: And not seeing something inside a building from the outside of the building doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most babies learn this through the peek a boo game, why didn't you?
 
Christopher7 said:
Denial. The first point is: The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier, but you should start another thread if you want to debate the numerous frauds in the NIST report that I listed.
Click to expand...

Not numerous frauds, just choose one. You raised the subject so its not unreasonable to ask you to show you have any competence to comment on it.
You said NIST lied......now you show that to be the case or admit that you cannot.
 
Christopher7 said:
The last of the smoke was pushed outside the building at the beginning of the collapse along with the air the fire needed to burn. The fires were snuffed out. The only iron microspheres would be the ones adhering to things they came in contact with.
Click to expand...

Or the ones in all the ashes......
 
LSSBB said:
See here for a good uncovering of one major battery site that explains one of the observations. Knowing the massive financial business needs for UPS, there were undoubtedly many more, in addition to more common small scale UPS systems
Click to expand...


How did Chris not know about that one:rolleyes:.......perhaps he need stop and do a bit more research before trying to tell others what to believe......
 
Christopher7 said:
As it turned out, I was right. There was no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST appendix L report. :D

I was also right about a diesel fuel fire not being a possible factor in the collapse.

You guys fought me tooth and nail for 2 years. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Click to expand...

So what is your problem in choosing your strongest point and showing how you were correct? it should be easy...........
 
Christopher7 said:
Not surprisingly, when referring to the iron spheres, NIST sidesteps the iron spheres and says that there is "no conclusive evidence to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7" but they do not say that there is no evidence and make no attempt to explain the iron spheres.
Click to expand...


because, duh, they were "expected":D I'm pretty sure they didn't check for pixie dust or Unicorns Poo......any idea why?
 
Christopher7 said:
It's been a long time commin'

Using the numbers from the British solid waste plant for the amount of bottom ash and the Korean numbers for the percentage of iron:

1 metric ton = 2205 pounds in

275 kg = 606 pounds bottom ash

4.85% = 29.4 pounds of iron per metric ton of solids.

What form is that in? Is it rough or spherical?
Click to expand...

Answer this.

How did the explosives survive the impact and fireball, and remain useful an hour later?

All your mumbo jumbo about spheres is IRRELEVANT.

What's more? You know it.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Unless it was a very small fire it would continue to smoulder under the debris.
It wasn't a small fire.
Click to expand...

When the trade center towers burned and collapsed, tons of concrete, glass, furniture, carpets, insulation, computers and paper were reduced to enormous, oxygen-poor debris piles that slowly burned until Dec. 19, 2001.
http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm


Actually, it was the molten metal that kept the "fires" burning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom