• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

LSSBB said:
Ha, semantics. You like to toss some meaningful words around? Then back up your statement that thermite residue will keep steel/iron liquid for weeks.
Click to expand...

You ask for numbers? Let's see how much those numbers can save you when the Truth Police come knocking at your door. And I don't mean this kind of Truth Police. I mean the kind run by 9/11 Truthers who run the government and have taken away your guns.
 
Christopher7 said:
Circular reasoning. How can you say there was no evidence of explosives if you don't look for it?
Click to expand...
But I just...I did...

:eye-poppi

One of the trademark signs of explosive detonation is barotrauma. None present. In addition, even the very quietest explosive would've been audible across New York.

I don't have to go looking for signs I've been shot to notice the bullet hole in my chest.

One owner had bomb sniffing dogs. His dogs were trained to detect barium but not thermite without barium. The dogs were looking for people not explosives. There is no guarantee that there were no explosives of any kind and plenty of eyewitness testimony that there were explosives, your denial notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
No, there is eyewitness testimony of explosions, not explosives, and thermite is not itself an explosive.

Dumb question. You seem to think you must have proof before looking for evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm asking you if there is any possibility you are wrong. Nice evasion.

This is more circular reasoning. There was a strong possibility that there was thermite so checking for it is called for.
Click to expand...
You just went from "clear sign" to "strong possibility".

It's not circular reasoning to ask you, who says a "real investigation ...considers all the possibilities", about the possibility that you are wrong. In fact, it is exactly in line with your own definition of a "real investigation".

More circular reasoning. You think it is unprovable therefore you refuse to properly investigate to see if it's true.
Click to expand...
If something can't be proven, it can't be proven true or false.

Irrelevant? It would take an investigation to determine if what they saw was molten steel but we shouldn't test to see if it's steel because we are not sure.
Click to expand...
Weird. You were claiming the witness accounts of molten steel as certain proof of its presence a few posts ago. What changed?

I also like how you had to cut a single sentence in two to make it a straw man.
The "Meteorite" and other artifacts like Sample #1 from WTC 7 could be tested to confirm the existence of molten steel.
Click to expand...
Argument from lack of evidence.

You THINK it's not necessarily from thermite therefore you rule it out.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

All this is just circular denial. Like NIST, your creativity only works in one direction - thinking up reasons to deny the evidence and why we should not investigate any of it.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between denying evidence and having different interpretations of what it signifies. You're trying to conflate the two. You are also ignoring, again, that you are wrong about the debunker position. You made claims about what it was, I contradicted you, and you seem to accept what I said the position is without admitting you were wrong.

Just because something is a possibility does not mean it's a good one. I could be hit by a meteorite right now, but I don't spend much time worrying about it.

Here's a question; is there any chance whatsoever that the molten metal the witnesses saw wasn't steel, but thermite was still present? "All possibilites", remember?

I noticed the quote-mining, BTW.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Do you think smoldering fires could melt steel/iron and keep it keep liquid for months?
Click to expand...
That's not defending your assertion, that's denyinga possibility. That's not even an assertion, just gainsaying what you think Lefty's position is instead of responding to what he actually said.

You deny the existence of thermite residue in the dust so you don't have to consider that as a possibility. When you pile denial upon denial it's all very easy.
Click to expand...
Aren't we a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
tfk,
There you go. Bury your team denials with a looong worthless post arguing semantics.
Click to expand...
You made a claim that the definition of X is Y. It has been shown the definition of X is not Y. You hand-wave the post showing that as "semantics".

You are intellectually dishonest.
 
ergo said:
The obvious problem here is that Ron Wieck didn't know what questions to ask.
Click to expand...

@ ergo + Christopher7:

Could you please write down - verbatim! - which questions you would wish Ron Wieck to ask of RJ Lee?
Thank you!
 
Scott Sommers said:
If only Lefty would understand that this is EXACTLY what you'd expect from a thermite demolition. For God's sake, the man is a professional firefighter. I understand he even teaches classes in fire science.
Click to expand...
Actually, Tri is the professor. My experience was mostly military.
 
Christopher7 said:
Do you think smoldering fires could melt steel/iron and keep it keep liquid for months?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Nobody has ever offered any ecvidence that such a thing occurred anyway. Clearly, there were noi large pools of steel. Bass and lead and, probably a few large luimps of aluminum, but no large ingots of steel were recovered and photographed.

You deny the existence of thermite residue in the dust so you don't have to consider that as a possibility. When you pile denial upon denial it's all very easy.
Click to expand...

Nobody has shown me that they act at all like thermite, as opposed to paint. The one that I have seen somebody film didn't even burn like thermite. Looked more like the way shoe polish burns.
 
Christopher7 said:
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...

No, he didn't. He saw concrete and he saw steel fused together and assumed that the metal welded the mass together.

Apparently the dork is not aware that concrete no longer looks like concrete when you heat it to temeratures that would melt steel.
 
Christopher7 said:
That is the kind of hand wave NIST does, like not looking for explosive residues because they don't expect top find any. You cannot assume that it had nothing to do with the collapse until the investigation is finished. A real investigation looks at all the evidence and considers al the possibilities. Molten metal weeks after the event is a clear sign of thermite.
Click to expand...
Christopher7 said:
This is really what the iron spheres debate is about. There is no other known explanation for the iron spheres or molten steel/iron in the debris pile. That is why government loyalists vehemently deny all evidence of molten steel/iron.
Click to expand...

Still wrong.

Thermxte melts steel:
That picture of the claw picking up hot steel proves the steel was not melted, was red hot due to the pile fires and is proof it could not have been thermite burning for weeks because:
(Cole's experiments)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3aBwfkphns
(1) Powdered thermxte: A number of experiments, including one by Cole show that powder in an open container burns quickly, cannot melt steel, cannot make it red hot, cannot even damage it. (7:45 min)

(2) Painted on sol-gel thermxte: There’s not enough energy for a thin layer of T-paint to melt steel, make it red hot, or even damage it.

(3) Thermxte in a container: (8.30 min) Cole’s experiment shows that the only means to damage the structural steel is to contain the thermxte in a device attached to the steel that focuses the heat through a slit. The slit in this steel container itself melts, and the container survives. Another tube device, open at one end burns a hole in the structural steel.. None of these devices were found in the debris. They only quickly melt an area the size of the slit and don’t produce “rivers of molten steel”, as seen in Cole’s video.
The slag and damage around the burnt area next to these devices would remain as a suspicious clue of this use. No suspicious devices, telltale damage or slag was found by first responders or the engineers that inspected and selected the WTC steel kept. No triggering devices were found. There’s no method known of using thermxte that can melt large areas of steel, producing “rivers of molten steel” for weeks on end.

Confusion between melted and softened:

We know that others share Chris7's confusion between melted and softened steel. We know that over 200 acres of burning organic materials melted some of the 2,600 tons of aluminum airplanes and exterior cladding, and that witnesses cannot distinguish molten aluminum from molten steel from softened steel.

The Ground Zero Cross- Crushed, torn metal is misidentified below as “melted”.
The example below is one of a few where a description of “molten steel” can be compared to corresponding visual evidence.

A column with two original welded beams and torn bolted splice ends, column top torn bolted splice end 3 feet above the beams per plans, with a piece of the aluminum exterior column cover crushed over one of the arms is discovered and described as “melted together”.

(0:50) “This cross … melted together with the intense heat … heat literally melted them together…The piece of metal that draped over it was molten metal that had literally fallen over one of the arms.”

And a closer view of the cross


Fires melted aluminum but not steel :
We know that cars in the basement caught on fire melted the aluminum wheels , scorched but did not melt the thin steel body of the cars.Aluminum - 30 tons of aluminum from each plane that burned at impact plus approx. 236 columns aluminum covers x 110 floors (12’ high) x 100 lbs each = 1,300 tons of aluminum covers= 1,330 tons minimum of aluminum = 2,660,000 pounds of aluminum per tower (not counting other sources of aluminum such as glass interior framing, aluminum door frames, furniture) exposed to melting temperatures (melt 1220F, 660 C) in the pile and at the original impact site
I found a video of melted car aluminum wheels in the garage under WTC. But not the steel body.

This video was deleted by “wearechangenj” soon after my post. I tried, but could not find it. It was a tour by a few individuals in hardhats in the garage under the towers. Key words - pools of aluminum under the WTC proves …

This is really what the iron spheres debate is about. There is no other known explanation for the iron spheres or molten steel/iron in the debris pile.
Click to expand...
How can Chris7 say this with a straight face. Iron spheres not created by thermxte exist in all background buildings tested by RJLee and are produced from iron compounds exposed to the temperatures of the burning towers and pile.

Conclusion:
There is no mechanism by which thermxte can melt large amounts of steel (“rivers of molten steel”) weeks after the collapse, aluminum exposed to the fires melted, steel glowed red hot from the >200 acre organic pile fire temperatures, iron spheres existed and were liberated by the collapse and created from temperatures <1200C.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
That is the kind of hand wave NIST does, like not looking for explosive residues because they don't expect top find any. You cannot assume that it had nothing to do with the collapse until the investigation is finished. A real investigation looks at all the evidence and considers al the possibilities. Molten metal weeks after the event is a clear sign of thermite.

This is really what the iron spheres debate is about. There is no other known explanation for the iron spheres or molten steel/iron in the debris pile. That is why government loyalists vehemently deny all evidence of molten steel/iron.
Click to expand...

Molten steel + iron microspheres = thermite?
 
Christopher7 said:
Do you think smoldering fires could melt steel/iron and keep it keep liquid for months?

You deny the existence of thermite residue in the dust so you don't have to consider that as a possibility. When you pile denial upon denial it's all very easy.
Click to expand...

So the thermite blew the building up, kept the steel liquid and there was still enough left over to find it in the dust. How much was there to start with?
 
Christopher7 said:
You are talking to yourself and words cannot fully express my revulsion for you and your ilk.

The truth will eventually be known and when that happens may God reward you according to your deeds.
Click to expand...

God had a hand in it too? Wow, this thing just keeps on getting bigger and bigger.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are talking to yourself and words cannot fully express my revulsion for you and your ilk.

The truth will eventually be known and when that happens may God reward you according to your deeds.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Hey, I'm not making a hobby out of a national tragedy, kiddo.

Back to your, eh hem... "arguments":

Circular reasoning. How can you say there was no evidence of explosives if you don't look for it?
Click to expand...

Thousands of people poured over every inch of that site for months on end. If anything looked out of the ordinary, we'd know about it.

UNLESS

You're saying that everybody involved with the recovery / cleanup efforts were in on it?

Is that what you're saying?
 
Chris7,
Ron Wieck sent an email to the RJ Lee Company asking for clarification on the iron microspheres question in the context of this debate and 9/11 Truth assertions about what RJ Lee meant re the iron-rich microspheres. He got an email back with the attached letter from Rich Lee and an offer to talk by phone. I haven't heard about any followup phone conversation.
 
BasqueArch, using the steel cross hoax to debunk melted steel at the WTC is like debunking the Easter bunny.

Oystein, will think on a few questions and post later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom