Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Christopher7 said:
They were hermetically sealed. I don't have the quotes handy but there were dampers that worked automatically to cut off the shafts in case of fire. I don't know exactly how they worked but the designers took precautions to prevent the elevator shafts from becoming chimneys.
Click to expand...

A pretty neat trick, with cables running down the centre :rolleyes:

Now the doors might have been reasonably airtight but the shaft? <cough>

You've been reading CT websites again, haven't you? Naughty boy.
 
Christopher7 said:
They were hermetically sealed. I don't have the quotes handy but there were dampers that worked automatically to cut off the shafts in case of fire. I don't know exactly how they worked but the designers took precautions to prevent the elevator shafts from becoming chimneys.
Click to expand...

Hermetically sealed??!? So what happens when someone opens the door to the elevator?

I find it curious that you "don't have the quotes handy" yet you get your panties in a bunch every time someone paraphrases a firefighter, or types something out of memory without citiation.

This is called being dishonest. What's good for you is good for the rest of us. So I'm assuming you'll no longer require us to cite every small tidbit of information?
 
GlennB said:
And abovetopsecret, and elsewhere :rolleyes:

It's the Truther way. Read it, believe it.
Click to expand...
The elevator shaft area is in fact separated from the rest of the building. The stairwell is also separated with the addition of intermediate separations at floor levels (This maybe every couple of floors). These are independent from each other.

I worked for quite sometime in Boston's tallest (at the time) building. You want a scary view? Stand in the elevator core area (on the top floor) on a windy day. Something about the cables swaying. :eek:

ETA: You always seem to get this blast of air in the face when you open the access door (elevator core area) on the top floors. I don't know why. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I still cant believe that Chris has defined "molten" as a twisted and bent piece of steel.:D:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Folks,

by the way: The important message that RJ Lee gave to Ron with their short reply was "There were freaking large fires, d'uh! Why would you think fires are not enought to put all sorts of stuff in the dust?". They present their opinion that ordinary fires are sufficient to explain everything. This renders RJ Lee witnesses against C7, who previously recuited RJ Lee as witnesses for his delusions. Everyone can see that, except, seemingly, C7.

However, on the science and the details, their story of hurricane winds ripping of the poor rusty steel is almost certainly nonsense.

It most probably nonsense to be talking about elemental iron and elemental lead. Much more probably, we are talking about all sorts of compounds of iron and lead. These compounds may have vastly different physical properties than the elements - such as lower melting and boiling points, or vapor pressures.

Lead is a stabilizer in PVC, making up as much as 2% by weight of that plastic. When PVC burns, the organics are turned into gas (HCl! Highly corrosive!), the lead remains in form of organic or inorganic compounds. Chlorides of various metals have boiling points easily within the reach of office fires. There were tons of PVC on each floor.

Folks, we really shouldn't be talking elements when in the heat of office fires chemistry produces millions of substances.


Does that mean RJ Lee is fundamentally wrong? Or incompetent? No. Fundamentally, they are saying that fire conditions were easily extreme enough to make vapors containg lead or spheres containing iron a very mundane thing indeed. I think they dumbed down their answer to a level they think appropriate for a layman like Ron, while at the same time managing their time economically.
 
Oystein said:
I think they dumbed down their answer to a level they think appropriate for a layman like Ron, while at the same time managing their time economically.
Click to expand...

[truther] So you're calling Ron, dumb? They don't have time to address the critical issues that are gripping the world,[/truther]


:D
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Could the winds have gotten to 75 MPH within the shafts when the planes ripped across them or in the backdraft?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you write such an enigmatic question in response to the sentence you quoted :confused:
 
Oystein said:
I don't understand why you write such an enigmatic question in response to the sentence you quoted :confused:
Click to expand...
This is curious. I however don't see any reason that airflow through the shafts feeding the fires couldn't get to those speeds. I'm not saying that rust was being blasted off of anything. The shafts would certainly provide a high velocity airflow.
 
ergo said:
That was Beachnut renaming the image. I certainly hope you're not getting your opinions from the names of jpegs.
Click to expand...

So you think those twisted steel pictures I posted is melted too ergo? because in that case your definition of "molten" sure is wide!! :D
 
Oystein said:
The important message that RJ Lee gave to Ron with their short reply was "There were freaking large fires, d'uh! Why would you think fires are not enought to put all sorts of stuff in the dust?". They present their opinion that ordinary fires are sufficient to explain everything.

However, on the science and the details, their story of hurricane winds ripping of the poor rusty steel is almost certainly nonsense.

.... Does that mean RJ Lee is fundamentally wrong? Or incompetent? No. Fundamentally, they are saying that fire conditions were easily extreme enough to make vapors containg lead or spheres containing iron a very mundane thing indeed. I think they dumbed down their answer to a level they think appropriate for a layman like Ron, while at the same time managing their time economically.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting attempt at damage control.

You are, on the one hand, attempting to re-insert the idea that ordinary fires can create these spheres, while rejecting RJ Lee's attempt to explain how that might have occurred.

You seem to want to claim that extreme temperatures were present, but that they were also an "ordinary" aspect of the fires. RJ Lee does not present this view. They clearly felt the need to explain how extreme temperatures, "blast-furnace-like" temperatures, could have been produced by normal office fires, and you just rejected that explanation. So you're back to square one, after all this. :D
 
Edx said:
So you think those twisted steel pictures I posted is melted too ergo? because in that case your definition of "molten" sure is wide!! :D
Click to expand...

No, Ed, as I intimated in my reply, the twisted 'I' beams you show are twisted I beams. They are not melted columns.
 
ergo said:
No, Ed, as I intimated in my reply, the twisted 'I' beams you show are twisted I beams. They are not melted columns.
Click to expand...

Okay its just Christopher7 thinks they are molten/melted. Maybe you missed that.

Now tell me what is so different about your pictures? They are just compressed, they do not look melted.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
I don't understand why you write such an enigmatic question in response to the sentence you quoted :confused:
Click to expand...

More explicitly (perhaps): you stated hurricane winds as nonsense. I was not so sure, and that actual hurricane velocity winds may have been possible, either with combustive explosions within the shafts, or via winds induced by either direct compressive or venturi effects as the planes tore accross the elevator shafts. I do not at this time have the modelling resources to establish a viable simulation, so this is just conjecture.
 
Christopher7 said:
When we present one you refuse to believe it.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b1_1176644395

You will now recite from the deniers playbook "But Voorsanger is an architect, what does he know?" He probably heard that from a qualified person but he doesn't have to be an expert to see that the meteorite is the result of melting steel, your denial notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

I see no one bit on this one.

Christopher7 said:
.....Molten is when something starts to loose its shape under force of gravity. ......
Click to expand...
I thought that was called "getting older".
 
ergo said:
"Compression" while red hot, eh? :D How does that create the forms we see...
Click to expand...

They were shaped like that while red-hot, probably standing upright,in the fire in the pile, supporting the weight of other objects.

There is no question as to whether the fires got hot enough to make steel maleable and ductile. They clearly did.

What marks your failure, however, is the fact thatyou have not shown us as pool ofcast iron or a single piece of steel which could have contributed to such. Surely, the pieces we have seen here had nothing to do with creating a "pool " of steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom