Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

leftysergeant said:
Are you denying that there was fuel in the cores? I just told you where it came from.
Click to expand...
We are referring to the claim that the elevator shafts acted like chimneys. I said there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts so there would not be any iron spheres created in the elevator shafts, only on the floors where the planes hit. I acknowledge that the doors were blown off one of the elevator shafts in the lobby but the lobby was not on fire and did not contribute hot gases.

Where did hot gases enter elevator shafts? And when?

Source not supposition please.
 
Christopher7 said:
We are referring to the claim that the elevator shafts acted like chimneys. I said there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts so there would not be any iron spheres created in the elevator shafts, only on the floors where the planes hit. I acknowledge that the doors were blown off one of the elevator shafts in the lobby but the lobby was not on fire and did not contribute hot gases.

Where did hot gases enter elevator shafts? And when?

Source not supposition please.
Click to expand...

From what I'm reading:

You're missing the point. The gasses ARE the fuel. They are super hot but there isn't enough oxygen to ignite them. So as they flow towards a vent and mix with with fresh oxygen, they re-ignite, causing a backdraft that will be more than hot enough to produce iron spheres. We know from the article you say is moot that there was exposed steel with easily dislodged rust. Iron spheres in the shafts.

No? Anyone? lol

ETA: Oh and I think I see your confusion. When he says "Class A fuels", I believe he means the fire class not aviation fuel. Class A fire in the US is "ordinary combustibles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_classes
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
No, you are missing the point. You keep repeating the obvious but not answering the question.

When and where did the gases enter the elevator shafts?
Click to expand...

On 911, in the WTC, there are a boat load of elevator shafts, and some had extreme temperatures. Did you miss the fires? Did you miss the deaths? Did you miss the day cause and effect was taught in the second grade?

When - September 11, 2001.
Where - In the WTC Towers.
 
Justin39640 said:
There was like 10 floors of fires, take your pick. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension zero.

"there would not be any iron spheres created in the elevator shafts, only on the floors where the planes hit."

The elevator shafts were sealed above the crash area so there was no chimney effect.

Actually, there is no scientific support for the rust turning to iron spheres at temperatures below 2800oF.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8022080&postcount=1466
 
alienentity said:
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 of stainless steel making dust
PENG Ji, PENG Bing, YU Di
Vol. 14 N2 2 Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China Apr. 2004
Click to expand...

Yes, I also found this paper coincidentally. Written in 2004.

So are these authors suggesting that the vaporization of lead can now occur at temperatures 500 deg C lower than previously established?


It's not idle speculation, there's a ton of established science to prove it,
Click to expand...

Where's the rest of your ton?


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
Click to expand...

That is patently false. Why do you guys keep lying about this?


b) no evidence of the alleged 'thermitics' claimed by various truth cult leaders
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

Which is why bedunkers are paying James Millette to study the dust again?


c) no evidence that the fires were not normal in temperature given the conditions
Click to expand...

Except for the melted iron, molybdenum and vaporized lead.


Really, all this evidence kills the truther theories
Click to expand...

Lol. What "evidence" ? What "all" ??
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
...
That is patently false. Why do you guys keep lying about this?
...??
Click to expand...
You are gullible. You think these photos are melted steel.
Where is your thermite?
111notmeltedsteelabcdef.jpg

111notmeltedsteelabcde.jpg

111notmeltedsteela.jpg

111notmeltedsteelab.jpg

111notmeltedsteelabcd.jpg

111notmeltedsteelabc.jpg

Think corrosoin is melted steel? Fooled by photos of bent steel, and cherry-picked quotes.


The delusional part of being fooled by an idiotic web site... Here is "proof" of melted steel, 800 degrees short of melted.
He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted–it’s kind of like that.” He added, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot–perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”—”Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually”, By Jeffrey R. Young, The Chronicle, Dec 7, 2001
Click to expand...

You have proof, you and 911 truth are gullible. 19 terrorists did 911, and you can't get past the "melted steel" scam. When will you expose some insanity on Flt 77 and 93, like your moon size pile of debris.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, I also found this paper coincidentally. Written in 2004.

So are these authors suggesting that the vaporization of lead can now occur at temperatures 500 deg C lower than previously established?
Click to expand...

One report does not make or break an entire field of science. It just adds to the overall understanding.
Your understanding is approximately zero - you refuse to accept empirical science when it is properly quantified. Remember, YOU brought up the subject of 'extreme' temperatures, without bothering to provide
a) documentation
b) quantification of the term

Now you've been pwned on your own silly points. You are quite a tedious person. Reminds me why I usually ignore you. These temperatures are as 'extreme' as Mitt Romney is a 'severe' Conservative. Both terms are meaningless without appropriate context.


Why do you guys keep lying about this?
Click to expand...
There is zero empirical evidence for molten steel. It's the truth, not a lie. Molten steel has been reported at other fires, yet we know that it's not at all likely this is accurate. Still it is reported.... (by all means prove us all wrong and produce a metallurgical analysis which shows temps at 1500ºC or above - how ironic that you did just the opposite and didn't seem to notice. And how repetitive the exercise in exposing your lack of insight becomes..)

Now, if your standard of evidence is simply that someone reports seeing molten steel, then you MUST accept that molten steel is fairly ordinary. Because we can produce many such accounts outside 9/11.

Your call. Either anecdotal reports are 'da bomb' and 'da troof', or they're not.
Either way you lose. Checkmate.



Which is why bedunkers are paying James Millette to study the dust again?
Click to expand...
It's called empirical science, dude. Since Harrit et al. were incompetent to figure out what the chips are, better, more lucid minds are at work to settle the issue, using the best technology.

You got a problem with that? Why does that not surprise me? You'd just hate to be wrong, and hate to see science used properly... LMAO.




Except for the melted iron, molybdenum and vaporized lead.
Click to expand...
Empirical science shows that these fx are possible at temps of ordinary, standard fires.

Again, you lose the argument. I suppose it may give you some kind of perverse pleasure to labour irrelevant points without context, but believe me, you're not even slightly amusing to the outside observer.

Consider your questions answered, and you are now back on ignore. I'm not going to waste any further time with you. Enjoy your trolling. :D
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
That is patently false. Why do you guys keep lying about this?
Click to expand...
Why has nobody come forward with a picture of even one gob of once-molten-now-congealed steel? Why has no fire fighter of iron worker mentioned finding an iron pig the size of an Arliegh Burke Class Destroyer? My guess is that there aint any.
 
Last edited:
Let's try a thought experiment to see whether truthers can gain additional knowledge and then apply that knowledge.

I'm sure that even truthers know what water is so we'll use that.

Experiment

Fill a shallow dish to the height of 10mm with water.
Place the dish in a safe place.
Place a thermometer that records the upper temperature reached next to the dish.
Leave for a week.
Remove dish and measure the depth of water.
Record the maximum temperature on the thermometer.

What has happened? Well we all know, but truthers don't seem to.

How a truther thinks - It must be magic right? Perhaps a mouse was drinking from the water each night. Water boils at 100°C! (Quote Wiki) How can there be loss of water when the water didn't boil! Inside job!

Disclaimer (because truthers are just that stupid and will twist anything) - No I don't mean that if you did the same thing with liquid Pb that all the Pb would be gone after a week.

Learn what the word volatilize actually means. It does not mean boil, it simply means to turn to vapour. Evaporation, which is where the surface of a liquid vaporizes (rather than boiling which is where the bulk of the material vaporizes) is a mechanism of turning liquid to vapour.

The deposition of thin metal films by vapour deposition below the boiling point of the metal is well established.

If truthers actually learnt some science they would understand this.
 
Thanks, Sunstealer, this should be illuminating enough for some truthers:cool:

I'm not going to continue in this rather general debate without citations/specific examples.
Of course any chemical has "non zero" vapour pressure above its melting point and it is evaporated without boiling.
Of course many chemicals can be easily vaporized even as solids, since they can sublime. E.g. water in the form of ice sublimes and I have just found a reference that even metallic lead sublimes at low pressures even at room temperature. Also, some lead compounds (which can be formed during WTC collapses/fires) can sublime, I'm now lazy to look for it.
Of course carbon stuffs can reduce iron oxide below 1000 degrees C, as can be seen e.g. on this page regarding with experimental bloomery (typical working temperatures were between ca 900 and 1100 degrees there). Basically the same info follows from the Wiki entries on carbothermic reactions, bloomeries, etc.

But, Chris7 simply wants to show specific examples of ferrospheres formed during office/building fires, and nobody has put here such specific reference/pictures yet.

As regards me, I am still waiting if Jim Millette (or anybody else) finds some ferrospheres/metallospheres/"any-spheres" in the WTC concrete. If there are no such particles in this material, I would consider other probable sources, including fires in the elevator shafts, as suggested by JR Lee.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Reading comprehension zero.

"there would not be any iron spheres created in the elevator shafts, only on the floors where the planes hit."

The elevator shafts were sealed above the crash area so there was no chimney effect.
Click to expand...

So how is smoke and fire coming from most of the floors above the impact zone...........

article-1249885-083AA80E000005DC-387_470x627.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
When and where did the gases enter the elevator shafts?
Click to expand...
On the floors that were hit by the aircraft and set on fire. The sheetrock had been blown off. All those exhaust products from the fires are going to go somewhere. Usually, they go up.

This is stuff that you can watch happening on the video from the event, assuming you know the first thing about structural fires.
 
Christopher7 said:
We are referring to the claim that the elevator shafts acted like chimneys. I said there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts so there would not be any iron spheres created in the elevator shafts, only on the floors where the planes hit. I acknowledge that the doors were blown off one of the elevator shafts in the lobby but the lobby was not on fire and did not contribute hot gases.

Where did hot gases enter elevator shafts? And when?

Source not supposition please.
Click to expand...
I've linked to both USA Today and 911myths stating there were breaches on multiple floors, meaning air from those floors was drawn into the shaft. I've linked this twice now. Here's 911myths, and here's USA today.

Christopher7 said:
Reading comprehension zero.

...The elevator shafts were sealed above the crash area so there was no chimney effect.

...
Click to expand...
Weird. Lee doesn't say anything about the elevator shafts specifically above the crash area. Or were you taking "chimney effect" to mean it was literally like a chimney on the fire? Because Lee makes it clear they're talking about the air from the lower, not-on-fire floors being drawn up, not about the gases from the fire being drawn up.

Kind of odd how you switch to the elevator shafts above the fire after it's been shown that there were multiple breaches below, especially after you specifically referred to the floors below earlier.

Moving goalposts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom