Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anyone want to bet he won't? They never do.....as per the other thread, surely this is a sign of mental illness.
 
ergo said:
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.... ?
Click to expand...

That the temperatures of well-ventilated carbon fuel fires like those in the twin towers are sufficient to explain an increased level of iron spheres.
 
Oystein said:
That the temperatures of well-ventilated carbon fuel fires like those in the twin towers are sufficient to explain an increased level of iron spheres.
Click to expand...

By melting rust flakes?

What temperatures are RJ Lee proposing for the melting and vaporization of these iron/rust flakes? Because they're still not going to do this under 1500 C. In fact, according to Jones, Jenkins, et al., iron oxide melts at an even slightly higher temperature than iron. RJ Lee speculate that "blast-furnace-like" temperatures were somehow reached in the hour and a bit the towers were burning. Are they suggesting the fires got hotter than 1100C? If so, what temperatures are they suggesting?

How do RJ Lee see this flake-melting phenom producing the 5.87% iron spheres in the very sample they studied from 130 Liberty? And what about the aluminum content reported by Jones and Jenkins et al? And what about the lead and molybdenum spheres?

There's a gazillion questions still not answered here.
 
By the way, Oystein, the samples RJ Lee used were from a variety of locations in the building, including above-ceiling spaces. Not likely that these were contaminated from steel-cutting activities hundreds of feet below and across the street, particularly since 130 Liberty was closed to activity after 9/11 and even covered with netting. And the 5.87% figure is an average over all the samples taken from the building.

I'm beginning to wonder if, in fact, the Steven Badger study is, or takes its data from, the RJ Lee study.
 
ergo said:
By melting rust flakes?

What temperatures are RJ Lee proposing for the melting and vaporization of these iron/rust flakes? Because they're still not going to do this under 1500 C. In fact, according to Jones, Jenkins, et al., iron oxide melts at an even slightly higher temperature than iron. RJ Lee speculate that "blast-furnace-like" temperatures were somehow reached in the hour and a bit the towers were burning. Are they suggesting the fires got hotter than 1100C? If so, what temperatures are they suggesting?

How do RJ Lee see this flake-melting phenom producing the 5.87% iron spheres in the very sample they studied from 130 Liberty? And what about the aluminum content reported by Jones and Jenkins et al? And what about the lead and molybdenum spheres?

There's a gazillion questions still not answered here.
Click to expand...

That's what getting an education is for......come back when you have one and are competent to comment on the work of experts.
 
ergo said:
By melting rust flakes?

What temperatures are RJ Lee proposing for the melting and vaporization of these iron/rust flakes? Because they're still not going to do this under 1500 C. In fact, according to Jones, Jenkins, et al., iron oxide melts at an even slightly higher temperature than iron. RJ Lee speculate that "blast-furnace-like" temperatures were somehow reached in the hour and a bit the towers were burning. Are they suggesting the fires got hotter than 1100C? If so, what temperatures are they suggesting?

How do RJ Lee see this flake-melting phenom producing the 5.87% iron spheres in the very sample they studied from 130 Liberty? And what about the aluminum content reported by Jones and Jenkins et al? And what about the lead and molybdenum spheres?

There's a gazillion questions still not answered here.
Click to expand...

So now it's turning into a Jones, et al. study against R.J. Lee?

ETA: I don't understand how the flakes from the work being done across the street could not still make it's way into 130. Even if there is netting, we're talking about a microscopic substance. As far as I know, it should be able to still make it through netting.
 
Last edited:
I think the suggestion is akin to complaining that your soup is too spicy because the man two tables away from you sneezed while he was shaking pepper onto his steak.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I think the suggestion is akin to complaining that your soup is too spicy because the man two tables away from you sneezed while he was shaking pepper onto his steak.
Click to expand...

No, it's not at all. That is one of the dumbest analogies I have ever heard.

You are saying that a net could stop microspheres from entering a building with absolutely no basis at all.
 
plague311 said:
So now it's turning into a Jones, et al. study against R.J. Lee?

ETA: I don't understand how the flakes from the work being done across the street could not still make it's way into 130. Even if there is netting, we're talking about a microscopic substance. As far as I know, it should be able to still make it through netting.
Click to expand...

And it not as if it doesn't get windy in NYC or that they sealed up the building after the dust got in......all the smashed windows etc probably stayed smashed for a long time after 911.....
 
As amusing as this discussion could be, it's irrelevant.

The RJ Lee samples were taken from all sections of the building, including from spaces where dust did not passively deposit. Unless you can show some schematic how these microspheres from the steel cutting hundreds of feet below, that need to also chemically match the spheres in the dust, made their way up and through the entire building in concentrations that altered the iron content far above those of any of the other studies, and also made their way into enclosed spaces, this is just grasping.

Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise; an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement, blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one. ;)
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
... , including from spaces where dust did not passively deposit. ... ;)
Click to expand...
You are using the same logic skills you used for the moon size debris pile silly physics.
There is no such place where dust can't settle. If dust can settle on 911, it can settle for 8 months after 911. Your lack of knowledge has no bounds.

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. 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. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

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, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee

 
ergo said:
Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise;
Click to expand...
So verinage is not possible? Color shocked!:eek:

an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement, blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one. ;)
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to anybody who has sat through a week of Fire Science 101.
 
So show us how it would under the existent conditions, Lefty.
 
Last edited:
The very reality of Verinage exposes Richard Gage as a fool, a fraud or most likely a contemptible combination of the two. Existent conditions? You mean the condition of massive compromise to the structural integrity of the building and an hour of raging fire? I'd argue those conditions qualify as considerable pre-weakening. You can disagree. But you can't say that once collapse initiated that it wouldn't continue to the ground.
 
Oystein said:
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%"
Click to expand...
The RJ Lee group analysis used the "TP-01: Protocol for the Monitoring of Non-Biological Indoor Environmental Contaminants" which consist of wipes and a dust lift.
The USGS crew collected grab samples.

This could account for the discrepancy. And/or more heavy particles were deposited in the gash area.

The dust cloud caused by the destruction of the towers was made of very thick dust that was forced throughout the building. A light breeze could only carry the tiniest iron spheres a significant distance and any light enough to make it to the Bank building would likely continue on.

You wrote a while ago in this thread that you think iron particles in the air would settle quicly and not move very far.
Click to expand...
The heaver [larger] ones.

Please venture a guess!
Click to expand...
No

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.
Click to expand...
It's not surprising that there would be more heavy particles deposited in the gash area.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
leftysergeant said:
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?
Click to expand...
Have some beer with your cow cookies while you read the rest of the post.

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.
Click to expand...
No one has done an experiment to demonstrate that theory.

But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that.

I sincerely doubt RJ Lee wrote that crap. He would know that the structural steel was primed.

wtccoresmall.jpg


C7 said:
Any microspheres created this way would be carried away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.
Click to expand...
Your assumption is baseless.
Click to expand...
It is self evident. Smoke is particulate matter. Iron microspheres are particulate matter.

How do you justify saying iron microspheres can be carried by a breeze but not in the updraft of a fire with all the other particulate matter?
 
Christopher7 said:
But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that.
Click to expand...
Some iron oxide forms in the forging and rolling processes. This is a black iron oxide that is reduced at lower temperature than is the red oxide. Some red oxide starts forming almost as fast as the steel is exposed to air with any humidity. The primer just seals it and stops the process right there.

It is self evident. Smoke is particulate matter. Iron microspheres are particulate matter.

How do you justify saying iron microspheres can be carried by a breeze but not in the updraft of a fire with all the other particulate matter?
Click to expand...

Even soot will fall out of a plume of smoke. Bear in mind that the fires were still raging and producing smoke when collapse started, so even your theory has enormous holes in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom