Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Edx]

Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?

How did he debunk RJ Lee exactly? RJ Lee dont think there needs to be super high thermite temperatures required to create the microspheres, they dont agree with you.

 

[ergo]

"Extreme temperatures" were required to "volatize and vaporize lead". These were words RJ Lee used. Then in their Very Clear explanation to Ron Wieck they also speculated about "blast-furnace-like" temperatures, reminding us of the speculated "chimney" effect of the core structures.

Why would they bother with that if iron reduction processes can create these same microspheres with as little as 900 C ?

 

[ergo]

And doesn't NIST confirm that steel temperatures never exceeded 600 C ?

(I guess that's why we need the flakes...? )

 

[Edx]

"Extreme temperatures" were required to "volatize and vaporize lead". These were words RJ Lee used. Then in their Very Clear explanation to Ron Wieck they also speculated

"Extreme temperatures" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible temperatures only explained by thermite." Since they don't agree with you or bat at eyelid when they casually mentioned these things in the report at the time and havent mentioned since, maybe when they say "extreme temperatures" they arent really just casually admitting they know some exotic accelerant must have been involved.

And doesn't NIST confirm that steel temperatures never exceeded 600 C ?

No steel they had samples of and could test, and their results matched their models. And make up your mind. If no steel exceeded 600oC then that rules out thermite doesn't it? i also like how you use the NIST report, when you think they are in on a coverup. Its really strange how these guys just cant help blab about the conspiracy and publish things that debunk them, right? Strange how no one except you guys notice.

 

[DGM]

And doesn't NIST confirm that steel temperatures never exceeded 600 C ?

(I guess that's why we need the flakes...? )

Yes, What's your point?

This also falls into the "you're confused". Perhaps if you had paid attention in high school...........

 

[beachnut]

And doesn't NIST confirm that steel temperatures never exceeded 600 C ?

(I guess that's why we need the flakes...? )

Please source the statement. Why ask a question when you can present some knowledge; source and answer your own question.

The temperatures inside the WTC were above 600C.

NCSTAR 1-5A Ch 1-8.pdf -
Based on the melting temperature of aluminum, the fire gases leaving these windows must have been well in excess of 600 C.
page 204

Oops, more research than you have done on NIST.

Your post looks pathetic without sources. Are you repeating junk from 911 truth, or do you have references to NIST material you would like to share?
Are you trying to learn, or a troll like KreeL, or reduced to posting nonsense, simple typing practice for JREF? Is this hearsay, the kind of hearsay you like to SPAM, in this case "super-nano-SPAM", JREF with? Is 911 truth too lazy to read NIST and provide sources? How do you expect people to follow your logic, how you form your claims (albeit, claims disguised as questions so you don't have to support them) if you fail to include sources?

Either way, source your question, or source your implication.

 

[DGM]

Please source the statement. Why ask a question when you can present some knowledge; source and answer your own question.

The temperatures inside the WTC were above 600C.

I believe he's referring to the recovered steel. The fact this has nothing to do with what we're talking about, is way over his head.

 

[000063]

"Extreme temperatures" were required to "volatize and vaporize lead". These were words RJ Lee used. Then in their Very Clear explanation to Ron Wieck they also speculated

So when they "used words" earlier, were they speculating then as well, or only the latest letter? Because you're treating the parts of the earlier report that support you as holy writ, and the inconvenient bits as mere "speculation".

about "blast-furnace-like" temperatures, reminding us of the speculated "chimney" effect of the core structures.

Which, I believe, was also in the original report. I am open to correction, if you'd like to assert that it was not.

Why would they bother with that if iron reduction processes can create these same microspheres with as little as 900 C ?

You're trying to play both ends against the middle, setting them up as mutually contradictory, so you can point to the person who doesn't support the letter as evidence as it's fake, and if someone says the original report is wrong, you can deride them for not accepting the report.

And doesn't NIST confirm that steel temperatures never exceeded 600 C ?

(I guess that's why we need the flakes...? )

Would you care to make some sort of assertion? Any kind whatsoever? I thought not. Just more of trying to play one source against the other. Which is weird, because you don't believe the letter or NIST's report.

 

[leftysergeant]

And doesn't NIST confirm that steel temperatures never exceeded 600 C ?

No.

Their measuring device, the primer paint, is not calibrated to record anything higher than that.

 

[alienentity]

No.

Their measuring device, the primer paint, is not calibrated to record anything higher than that.

I believe it was 'metallographic analysis' that was used to determine the higher temps.

There was not enough paint left on the core steel to use that method except in a couple of cases: 'Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis' NIST

There was CERTAINLY NO EVIDENCE of melted steel anywhere.

 

[Miragememories]

"And doesn't NIST confirm that steel temperatures never exceeded 600 C ?"

"No.

Their measuring device, the primer paint, is not calibrated to record anything higher than that."

"Another argument depends on the thermal stability of the primer paint because you might wonder why should somebody paint the World Trade Center steel with a paint which reacts violently at 430 C. And even in the NIST Report, they used the thermal reactivity of the primer paint as a measure for the temperatures for which the steel beams had been exposed. They actually took a steel beam and put it into an oven and saw what happened to the primer paint upon heating. And if you keep the beam at 250 C, it starts cracking and its called mud-cracking because of how it looks. If you heat it further to 650 C, the mud-cracking becomes severe and beyond that temperature, what happens is scales are being formed because the organic binder actually starts charring. There are no basically organic compounds which are stable beyond 450 C. It has been converted to Carbon and it starts peeling off. And this experiment you can carry on to 800-900 C. I have done it myself. But these are pictures from the NIST Report. So, from looking at the mud-cracking of the paint, they could tell how hot the steel beams had been and I can tell you as a footnote, that they did not find any steel beams that had been beyond 250 C based on this way of measuring. What our point here is, what we found, takes off at 430 C but the primary paint is thermally stable. So that is why the red/grey chips are not primer paint."

So actually, testing of primer paint does go beyond 600 C.

It is just that with this testing method, as Dr. Harrit observed and you missed (makes you wonder who is the real dork), the NIST failed to find indications exceeding 250 C.

MM

 

[alienentity]

"Extreme temperatures" were required to "volatize and vaporize lead". These were words RJ Lee used. Then in their Very Clear explanation to Ron Wieck they also speculated about "blast-furnace-like" temperatures, reminding us of the speculated "chimney" effect of the core structures.

Why would they bother with that if iron reduction processes can create these same microspheres with as little as 900 C ?

What did they mean by 'extreme temperature'? You don't know, and you don't even care.

However, a quick search produced this information..
'The volatilization of zinc and lead mainly happen at about 1 000 ºC according to non‘ isothermal experiment'
Volatilization of zinc and lead in direct recycling ofstainless steel making dust
PENG Ji, PENG Bing, YU Di
Vol. 14 N2 2 Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China Apr. 2004

1 000 ºC corresponds with PROVEN temperatures of normal office fires.

It's not idle speculation, there's a ton of established science to prove it, and we know there were massive fires. Therefore these temps are expected.

Sadly for the leading 'theories' of 9/11 Truth, there is simply no empirical science to back up the claims:

a) no melted steel of any kind found anywhere from the WTC
b) no evidence of the alleged 'thermitics' claimed by various truth cult leaders
c) no evidence that the fires were not normal in temperature given the conditions

Really, all this evidence kills the truther theories dead in their tracks. They are nothing but disproven urban legends now. It is entirely unsurprising that the only persons left making the silly claims of 9/11 Truth are either

a) impervious to facts and uninterested in honest debate
b) completely ignorant of the facts and victims of the urban legends

There simply is no serious scientist who is pushing these theories. Not any scientist who is trained in the relevant areas, anyway.

 

[alienentity]

So actually, testing of primer paint does go beyond 600 C.

It is just that with this testing method, as Dr. Harrit observed and you missed (makes you wonder who is the real dork), the NIST failed to find indications exceeding 250 C.

MM

But using metallographic methods, they DID in fact find higher temperatures.

And, empirical facts about viscoplastic buckling are that a steel column can fail at 250ºC at between 50% and 75% of maximum load.
Zeng et al. (2003)

So, once again we have ample direct evidence thru paint exposure and metallographic methods that steel itself reached temps high enough to fail from viscoplastic buckling alone.

The sagging of the floor systems (another irrefutable fact which truthers avoid like vampires to garlic..) is yet another mechanism for steel column failure - by creating massive 'pull in' forces on the perimeter columns of both towers.
Again, the massive forces which created the inward bowing of the columns are not in question. They are self-evident and indisputable.

But this forces truthers to snipe around the edges of the issues, avoiding a direct affirmation of the basic facts, as they attempt to insert their crude myths into science and reason.

 

[beachnut]

So actually, testing of primer paint does go beyond 600 C.

It is just that with this testing method, as Dr. Harrit observed and you missed (makes you wonder who is the real dork), the NIST failed to find indications exceeding 250 C.

MM

Harrit did not read NIST?

 

[NoahFence]

Harrit did not read NIST?

no I'm sure he's read it otherwise he wouldn't know which parts to lie about

 

[Christopher7]

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.

Source?

Yada,yada,yada

You went on a rant and did not respond to the point at hand.

What is the source of your assertion that there was anything to burn in thwe elevator shafts?

 

[Justin39640]

You went on a rant and did not respond to the point at hand.

What is the source of your assertion that there was anything to burn in thwe elevator shafts?

His extensive knowledge on how fires work.

 

[Edx]

You went on a rant and did not respond to the point at hand.

What is the source of your assertion that there was anything to burn in thwe elevator shafts?

You quoted his answer in your response, how do you not notice?

"When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively."

IOW, there did not need to be anything to burn.

 

[Christopher7]

Funny you should mention the R. J. Lee Group. Turns out Ron Wieck recently asked RJ Lee about the iron microspheres and their formation.

Hot off the press:

From: Stephen Kennedy
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:34 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: RE: Iron Spherules in the WTC Dust Study

Dear Ron.

I attach a statement by Rich Lee in regards to the iron sphere issue. As you can well imagine, we at RJ Lee Group believe that it is extremely important that good science is done and that the public knows the difference between good and bad science. Rich and I will be available for a brief phone conversation with you if you wish. If so, you can suggest a time frame Monday or Tuesday (we’re in the Eastern time zone) as we will not be available this afternoon.

We wish you success in this matter.

Kind regards


Stephen Kennedy

Senior Scientist

RJ Lee Group

www.rjlg.com

Here's the statement, from Rich Lee:
http://www.nmsr.org/rjlee.jpg

Text Version:

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

Dave,
Apparently, Ron did not speak to Rich Lee. He got a response from Stephen Kennedy.
Since Ron can't post here would you ask him to give you the communication that led to this response.

 

[Christopher7]

You quoted his answer in your response, how do you not notice?

"When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively."

Where did those hot gases come from? And when?

Lefty is a big boy, lets let him speak for himself.