Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Christopher7]

Christopher is now in the tricky position of arguing RJ Lee believe things they specifically say they don't believe.

Given all the speculation and obvious critical flaws in the hypothesis in the letter, I doubt very much that is was written by RJ Lee.

"The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds."

Hurricane force speeds?

Only the elevator that had its doors blown off in the lobby would act as a chimney. The elevator shafts were lined with drywall so there is nothing to burn and there would be no heating of the steel columns in that elevator shaft.

"What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres."

That thin layer of iron oxide would not produce a great deal of spheres and could only happen in the area where the plane hit and the fire protection was dislodged.

Any microspheres created this way would be carried away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

 

[Christopher7]

The iron content of the WTC dust, from thorough mix of building materials and solid combuistion residues, is well below 2% on average. We have many data sets confirming this.

I've heard you say this a lot. Please post the source.

And then we have exactly one outlier - a sample drawn after 9 months of cutting up kilotons of steel.

We have been over this several times.

The amount of iron microspheres in the air was miniscule and only a very small amount of these would adhere to surfaces as the air moved thru the building. Furthermore, this air would not be blown into many inaccessible places in the building where the dust from the collapses was forced under pressure.

 

[KreeL]

Explain? Is the concept of the "chimney effect" also a sandwich meat?

Why don't you explain? Based on your past performance I won't hold my breath.

You know what baloney is. I'm 100% sure. I don't even need a source for that. However, a claim that looks like baloney given the design of the towers should be able to at least realize what you are posting can't be true.

Thanks for the chuckles.

KreeL

 

[beachnut]

Lead in Mineral Wool Insulation
"Mineral wool insulation manufactured before 1970 has been found to have lead particles. According to industry sources, lead slag is no longer used in the manufacture of mineral wool, although lead can be ... http://www.haz-map.com/leadfact.htm http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_v/otm_v_3.html

911 truth can't look up how mineral wool is made. How truthy.

lead came from the WTC too, the collapse

 

[Oystein]

I've heard you say this a lot. Please post the source.

Yes, I and you asked for the source, and I gave you the source. Do you remember? Here it is:
Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
Jenkins in turn cites studies by the EPA, McGee and the USGS.
Page 7, USGS: "The data clearly shows that only 1.6 +/- 0.7 %-weight of iron is found in the dust."
Page 10, McGee: "McGee average %-weight Fe content 0.8 +/- 0.4%"
Page 11, EPA: "EPA average %-weight Fe content 0.8 +/- 0.4%"

Make sure you take a close look at the maps of sampling locations, the tables with more detailed results, and take note of the calendar dates when the sampling was done. I also recommend looking up the references provided by Jenkins.


C7, please acknowledge that you now know that WTC dust immediately after 9/11 did NOT contain even nearly 6% iron, that the mean is consistently close to 1% in several studies, that not even a single sample at a single location came near 6%, and that therefor the RJ Lee value of 5.87% is an extreme outlier and not explainable by a large amount of thermite in the towers. And that you now consider the possibilities that this outlier could be an error, or not mean what you think i means, or can be best explained be the deposition of additional iron durng the 9 months after the collapse dust had settled on 9/11.


Later in the paper, he works with additional data about airborne iron (aerosols) measured in the months after 9/11. Using his references, I found a database of the EPA data and downloaded the measurements at a location on Liberty Street; from that raw data is my value for aberage iron content of air on Liberty which may have precipitated into RJ Lee's dust.

We have been over this several times.

Yes I remember how you handwaved it.

The amount of iron microspheres in the air was miniscule and only a very small amount of these would adhere to surfaces as the air moved thru the building. Furthermore, this air would not be blown into many inaccessible places in the building where the dust from the collapses was forced under pressure.

You wrote a while ago in this thread that you think iron particles in the air would settle quicly and not move very far.
So do you agree, or disagree, that iron particles can fall out of the air and settle into dust?
How long would it take, on average, for an iron particle to fall out of the air in an office buildung that has the windows open? Please venture a guess!

Remember I did the work and showd my assumptions? Do you remember that you did not refute a single of my assumptions, and corrected none of my work?

If you read the RJ Lee report in context, you will find that this Table 3, that reports 5.87% iron spheres, refers not to inaccessible locations in the Building, but to accessible surfaces in the open Gash in the front of the building.

 

[leftysergeant]

Only the elevator that had its doors blown off in the lobby would act as a chimney. [/FONT]The elevator shafts were lined with drywall so there is nothing to burn and there would be no heating of the steel columns in that elevator shaft.
Cow cookies. Somebody just ran a multi-ton aircraft and a bunch of loose office furnishings into that drywall. How much of it do you figure is still intact?

That thin layer of iron oxide would not produce a great deal of spheres and could only happen in the area where the plane hit and the fire protection was dislodged.

Lee seems to have missed the fact that there was an enormous amout of iron oxide in the paint, and that the paint was subjected to heat sufficient to produce wrought iron by the bloomery method. Further, I think we have totally established that there was a chimney.

Any microspheres created this way would be carried away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

Your assumption is baseless. Soot will settle out of smoke and is a lot lighter. I would also like to point out that the towers were extremely large steel needles which, unless they were totally deguassed before assembly, would generate at least some magnetic field. This would trap at least some of the iron sphereules.

 

[leftysergeant]

In is not the same as on.

"The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of


high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization,

3182^oF


oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool."

Dude! At what temperatures do you think rock wool is made? Think about it.

 

[leftysergeant]

You know what baloney is. I'm 100% sure. I don't even need a source for that. However, a claim that looks like baloney given the design of the towers should be able to at least realize what you are posting can't be true.

People's estimation of your ability to reason from known events to predictable outcomes change for the worse every time you post something this absurd. Anybody who knows boo about drywall knows that there was not much of it left over about five floors, and that it had been severely damaged over several more first from the impact of tons of moving stuff and then from the deflagration of the jet fuel.

As for the "sealed" elevator shafts, consider this. A "sealed" shaft would not allow the elevator car to move against the air pressure that would be created and the passengers would all suffocate quickly should a car become stuck between floors.

Thanks for the chuckles.

 

[000063]

"Hurricane force winds" = baloney

Come on. Show proof or quit making up sandwich meat.

Except he never says that. He says air and other gases were moving at hurricane speeds. Nothing about winds.

Why would they be sealed? We already know a aviation fuel explosion occurred in them on impact (all the way down to the basement level) so its likely there were many open or damaged elevator doors etc in the 80 floors or so below the fire.

And I've already linked to evidence of such, which our good friends seem to be ignoring.

To me it seems like you're using a report as evidence and at the same time, from the same report, from the same part, you're disagreeing with him (cause he's explaining where the observed spheres came from) and the fact that their research supports fire induced collapses as well.

Doesn't that seem... odd to you??? ...

Well, it's not like it's out of character for Chris.

You know what baloney is. I'm 100% sure. I don't even need a source for that. However, a claim that looks like baloney given the design of the towers should be able to at least realize what you are posting can't be true.

Thanks for the chuckles.

KreeL

It's almost as if you didn't read my two links specifically describing damage to the elevator shafts and doors on multiple levels, giving it a plentiful supply of oxygen from several floors, and that while the elevators were staggered, the shafts themselves often ran the length of the building. Or did you not know about the explosions in the basement and lobby from the shafts at about the time of the crash?

 

[chrismohr]

Wow. Argument over. Thanks Ron Wieck for getting such a clear answer from Rich Lee. I just added it to my YouTube video number 9 on iron-rich spheres. Chris7, both you and I have admitted to being mistaken in the past. This time you were mistaken. Rich Lee does NOT support your interpretation of his report, and personally took the time to explain why. Your mistake: quoting the RJ Lee report to support your theory when it does NOT. Man up and admit it. I've done the same many times in this debate. It clears the air and then you can move on.

 

[Edx]

Given all the speculation and obvious critical flaws in the hypothesis in the letter, I doubt very much that is was written by RJ Lee.

Yea....and you have to make up some weird story about how an offical response from RJ Lee isnt really the opinion of RJ Lee.

Theres a reason RJ Lee never bat an eye lid about the iron microspheres at the time or since. So you have to believe they somehow "know" the truth but somehow don't care, oh and allow official responses not reflect their opinion.

 

[ergo]

Wow. Argument over. Thanks Ron Wieck for getting such a clear answer from Rich Lee.

And just so we're all clear, this clear answer is what?

That extreme temperatures were needed to produce the spheres and Rj Lee can only speculate as to how that occurred, and.... ?

 

[Edx]

And just so we're all clear, this clear answer is what?

That extreme temperatures were needed to produce the spheres and Rj Lee can only speculate as to how that occurred, and.... ?

The answer is RJ Lee do not believe the things Chris says they believe. You can decide not to accept what they say, but don't tell us they believe impossible temperatures destroyed the towers.

 

[DGM]

And just so we're all clear, this clear answer is what?

That extreme temperatures were needed to produce the spheres and Rj Lee can only speculate as to how that occurred, and.... ?

Yeah, extreme like in well vented high rise or trash incinerator,not hot enough to melt iron. Sorry for your poor reading comprehension.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Given all the speculation and obvious critical flaws in the hypothesis in the letter, I doubt very much that is was written by RJ Lee.

Perhaps its not but that would stikll not make your comments any the better......

Hurricane force speeds?

Thats only 74mph
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/sshws.shtml

Only the elevator that had its doors blown off in the lobby would act as a chimney. [/FONT]The elevator shafts were lined with drywall so there is nothing to burn and there would be no heating of the steel columns in that elevator shaft.

So how do you how many shafts that is? And do you really think the dry wall was designed to survive a massive fuel air explosion? The over pressure caused by that would likely open large holes in in. And in case you didn't know a chimney does not have to be on fire for it to act as a chimney


[

That thin layer of iron oxide would not produce a great deal of spheres and could only happen in the area where the plane hit and the fire protection was dislodged.

baseless assertions

Any microspheres created this way would be carried away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

Baseless assertion

 

[Justin39640]

Wow. Argument over. Thanks Ron Wieck for getting such a clear answer from Rich Lee. I just added it to my YouTube video number 9 on iron-rich spheres. Chris7, both you and I have admitted to being mistaken in the past. This time you were mistaken. Rich Lee does NOT support your interpretation of his report, and personally took the time to explain why. Your mistake: quoting the RJ Lee report to support your theory when it does NOT. Man up and admit it. I've done the same many times in this debate. It clears the air and then you can move on.

 

[000063]

Only the elevator that had its doors blown off in the lobby would act as a chimney. [/FONT]The elevator shafts were lined with drywall so there is nothing to burn and there would be no heating of the steel columns in that elevator shaft.

I've already linked to the USA Today report and 911Myths page specifically describing how several of the shafts ran the length of the building, and breaches occurred in multiple places other than the ground-floor lobby, such as bathrooms next to the shafts.

[KreeL]'s asserting that the shafts were sealed. Which is weird, because I specifically recall something about an explosion in the lobby being used as evidence of explosives by Truthers. Of course, an elevator dropping from severed cables could possibly have damaged the doors. According to USA today, fire was moving between shafts, and exploding in elevator lobbies and bathrooms next to the shafts. While the elevators themselves were staggered, the shafts themselves often went the length of the building.

So much for the seal. So in addition to the Oxy in the shafts proper, there were multiple breaches throughout their length. Hence, chimney effect.

It even specifically describes it as working "like chimneys".

Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.

But, please, keep scrambling to find reasons why the people who wrote the report you believe the evidence of but not the conclusions of is wrong.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I've heard you say this a lot. Please post the source.

We have been over this several times.

The amount of iron microspheres in the air was miniscule and only a very small amount of these would adhere to surfaces as the air moved thru the building. Furthermore, this air would not be blown into many inaccessible places in the building where the dust from the collapses was forced under pressure.

I've heard you say this a lot. Please post the source.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Wow. Argument over. Thanks Ron Wieck for getting such a clear answer from Rich Lee. I just added it to my YouTube video number 9 on iron-rich spheres. Chris7, both you and I have admitted to being mistaken in the past. This time you were mistaken. Rich Lee does NOT support your interpretation of his report, and personally took the time to explain why. Your mistake: quoting the RJ Lee report to support your theory when it does NOT. Man up and admit it. I've done the same many times in this debate. It clears the air and then you can move on.

Good try, Chris, but sadly, most likely doomed to failure.

... science is progressive because science has certain built-in self-correcting features: experimentation, corroboration, and falsification. These characteristics make scientific paradigms different from all other paradigms, which include pseudoscience, non-science, superstition, myth, religion, and art. The reason that pseudoscience, non-science, superstition, myths, religion, and art are not progressive is that they do not have the goal or the mechanism to allow the accumulation of knowledge that builds on the past. Progress, in this cumulative sense, is not their purpose. This is an observation, not a criticism. Individuals in these paradigms do not stand on the shoulders of giants in the same manner as scientists. While there is change in myths, religions, and art styles, it is not progressive change. Artists do not improve upon the styles of their predecessors, they change them. (Materials and techniques may improve, but these changes are incorporated to enhance the skill of the artist, not to help the style of art progress.) Priests, rabbis, and ministers do not attempt to improve upon the sayings of their masters; they parrot, interpret, and teach them. Pseudoscientists do not correct the errors of their predecessors, they perpetuate them.
...
- Michael Shermer

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You know what baloney is. I'm 100% sure. I don't even need a source for that. However, a claim that looks like baloney given the design of the towers should be able to at least realize what you are posting can't be true.

Thanks for the chuckles.

KreeL

long winded argument from personal incredulity...........