Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another truther standard is to refer to facts as "the Easter Bunny"!
 
Christopher7 said:
tfk,
There you go. Bury your team denials with a looong worthless post arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

The fact that you think that the difference between yielding & melting, between plastic deformation & melting & between creep & melting is merely "semantics" is breath taking in its, how shall I put this delicately, "lack of correctiosity".

It's also a shame that you declined to take my little quiz. Another opportunity to learn something ... pffffft ... gone.

No, Chris, there is a real, bona fide lesson to be learned about the true nature of melting buried in those images.

Gotta give you guys points for consistency, tho. You never miss an opportunity to not learn something.

This little farce DOES explain one thing, tho. All this time, I've been saying that one cannot understand the true mechanism or timing of collapse initiation - a topic that seems to weigh heavily on truthers - without understanding creep ...

... and you thought I was talking about "melting" !!

No wonder you're so confused.
 
So far, the twoofers have given us no evidence that there were any pools of molten steel, although it should be obvious that there would be great quattities of aluminum melted in the fires but even that did not coalesce into any large ingots.


The only steel they show us that has clearly undergone a chemical attack looks like more like it was acid-etched or just plain rusted out.

They repeatedly ignore the fact that a good bonfire can reduce steel to a pliable substance, as demonstrated by "Sherman's Neckties," yet insist that there was no kind of fire other than a thermite charge capable of causing the core columns to fail.

Contact the driver of the short yellow bus. He missed some passengers.
 
ergo said:
Oystein, will think on a few questions and post later.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks.

Reminder to Christopher7, if he misses my earlier post in the frenzy:
C7, could you write down verbatimly questions which you would like Ron Wieck to pass on to the RJ Lee group?
 
I haven't been able to concentrate on this today, and I feel like a couple of days would be nice, but here would be my questions off the top of my head. I may revise or refine these later if we're not in a hurry. Perhaps Chris7 or others on our side of the debate could help pare down or refine:


Questions to RJ Lee:

To begin,

-- RJ Lee is reported to have stated in their 2004 Expert Report that: "The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool."

-- In their letter to Ron Wieck RJ Lee propose how such high temperatures may have been reached and that it was iron or rust particles (a little unclear which) flaking off the steel columns that melted in the high heat and created the spheres. RJ Lee do not mention what temperatures they are envisioning here.

-- Furthermore, NIST reports that steel temperatures did not exceed 600o C, and even at that temperature, it was in scattered locations and for brief periods (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

1) Is it RJ Lee's position that normal office fires (1000oto 1100o C) do not create these microspheres, especially iron and lead? Was there something unique about the WTC fires (i.e., > 1100o C) that would have created the spheres? What temperatures do RJ Lee consider to be "extreme" in the context of office fires?

2) Can lead and iron microspheres be created at temperatures below the melting point of iron and boiling point of lead? If so, by what process in the context of an office fire, and would they chemically resemble those found in the WTC dust? If not, how does RJ Lee propose that iron/iron oxide flakes would melt or volatilize at the temperatures produced by these office fires?

3) Related q: Are the iron microspheres in WTC dust unique to WTC dust?

4) Is RJ Lee aware that molybdenum microspheres were identified in the USGS report? What is RJ Lee's opinion on how molybdenum could have melted at the temperatures of office fires?

5) RJ Lee also apparently reported that aluminosilicate particles had taken on a rounded, porous structure as a result of boiling and evaporation. Dr. Steven Jones notes that the boiling temperature of aluminosilicates is around 2,760 °C.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

How does RJ Lee propose that these particles boiled or melted in the temperatures provided by the WTC fires?

6) Just out of curiosity, what is RJ Lee's opinion on why their dust samples had the higher counts of iron microspheres (5.87%, as a mean, I think) than any of the other reports on WTC dust? Was it from proximity to the debris pile?


Thanks to RJ Lee for being willing to clarify some of these statements, and for engaging those of us who have only lay knowledge in this area.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
4) Is RJ Lee aware that molybdenum microspheres were identified in the USGS report? What is RJ Lee's opinion on how molybdenum could have melted at the temperatures of office fires?
Click to expand...

Which USGS report? This one ?

If so, it makes no mention of elemental molybdenum and the only occurence of 'sphere' is where it's embedded in the word 'atmosphere'.
 
GlennB said:
Which USGS report? This one ?

If so, it makes no mention of elemental molybdenum and the only occurence of 'sphere' is where it's embedded in the word 'atmosphere'.
Click to expand...

Good point. That question should read:

Questions to RJ Lee said:
4) Is RJ Lee aware that molybdenum microspheres were identified by the USGS? What is RJ Lee's opinion on how molybdenum could have melted at the temperatures of office fires?
Click to expand...


Jones et al. said:
4.3. Molybdenum spherule in the USGS data set

Two of the authors pursued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action with the USGS to obtain any additional SEM/XEDS data from them which had not been previously published. The new data demonstrated, significantly, that the USGS team had observed and studied a molybdenum-rich spherule which was not mentioned in the earlier reports. A micrograph image shows a bright pill-shaped spherule labeled “20MOSPH-1.TIF” (below).
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Good point. That question should read:
4) Is RJ Lee aware that molybdenum microspheres were identified by the USGS? What is RJ Lee's opinion on how molybdenum could have melted at the temperatures of office fires?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Just back from finding the reference myself, but your question is still wildly wrong.

They identified one microsphere.

It wasn't molybdenum, it was "molybdenum rich" and other elements were identified in the sphere.

The melting point of a compound or mixture of compounds is a very different matter from the melting point of a single element within such a compound or mix thereof.

There is zero evidence of metallic, elemental Mo melting here, so your reference to its melting point is fallacious.
 
GlennB said:
It wasn't molybdenum, it was "molybdenum rich" and other elements were identified in the sphere.

The melting point of a compound or mixture of compounds is a very different matter from the melting point of a single element within such a compound or mix thereof.

There is zero evidence of metallic, elemental Mo melting here, so your reference to its melting point is fallacious.
Click to expand...


Well, this is basically your argument for all the microspheres, is it not? All of the microspheres are element rich as opposed to pure. With the exception, I understand, of some pure iron spheres. So why pick on the moly sphere? You're arguing that none of the spheres required higher than office fire temperatures to form. This is the question I want to ask of RJ Lee, because they're the ones who suggested extremely high temperatures for many of their observations.

But I would be happy to learn more about how elements in metallic compounds have lower melting or boiling temperatures than in their pure states. Perhaps the question to RJ Lee about how the iron/iron oxide flakes melted in the ambient heat could address this.
 
ergo said:
But I would be happy to learn more about how elements in metallic compounds have lower melting or boiling temperatures than in their pure states.
Click to expand...


Well, consider the salt in your kitchen. It 'contains' sodium and chlorine (though not in their elemental states. NaCl is a compound). Chlorine, at normal temperature and pressure, is a gas. To solidify chlorine requires temperatures around -100°C. Is the presence of chlorine in your table salt a sign that it was recently exposed to almost unimaginably cold temperatures? Of course not.

Similarly, the presence of Mo atoms in that sphere cannot be taken to mean the compound(s) in the sphere were ever exposed to temperatures that could melt elemental Mo.

On a related note, ferrous chloride (just for example) melts at 677°C, far lower than the melting point of elemental iron. Ferric chloride (slightly different configuration) melts at a mere 300° or so.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Great photos. What is the source of those photos? What kind of building and what was in it?

Molten is when something starts to loose its shape under force of gravity. That lightweight steel framework you posted was technically molten when it bent like that.
Click to expand...

Chris7 said:
someone said:
Were the elevator shafts airtight?
Click to expand...
They were hermetically sealed.
Click to expand...

Unless you guys are replying for comedic value, I can't see a reason to respond to the type of insane trollery above. I hope that the "molten houses" meme has some legs, but seriously - hermetically sealed elevator shafts? :cool:
 
ergo said:
Well, this is basically your argument for all the microspheres, is it not? All of the microspheres are element rich as opposed to pure. With the exception, I understand, of some pure iron spheres. So why pick on the moly sphere? You're arguing that none of the spheres required higher than office fire temperatures to form. This is the question I want to ask of RJ Lee, because they're the ones who suggested extremely high temperatures for many of their observations.

But I would be happy to learn more about how elements in metallic compounds have lower melting or boiling temperatures than in their pure states. Perhaps the question to RJ Lee about how the iron/iron oxide flakes melted in the ambient heat could address this.
Click to expand...
I made iron rich, iron oxide spheres with a lighter, last night. Look up flame temperatures. You don't try to be skeptical of 911 truth. You suck up their lies and regurgitate them.

Wow, you google up lies from 911 truth but you can't google up the truth about elements, flames, fire, or anything to save you from being a fool on 911 issues.

A failed truther looks up Molybdenum and finds it melts at 2896 K, 2623 °C, 4753 °F. You adopt the claim as wow, we need thermite, you failed.

Molybdenum trioxide (MoO3) is used as an adhesive between enamels and metals, sounds like the glue used to hold the gray layer to the red layer. Melts at 795C Boiling point 1155 °C. Oops! You 911 truth Followers love lies of thermite based on random facts thrown in to fool you.

What is it. You look up the boiling point of lead and say 911 truth is right, there was thermite? You make a leap of stupid.

Here is the lie, it has true stuff in it to fool you!
They say lead boils at 3,000 degrees, thus there was thermite. Lie, the vaporized lead has nothing to do with thermite.

Moly, they say it melts at 2623C, and thus thermite was used. How did the Moly get in the thermite?

Are there carbon spheres? RJ Lee shows a carbon rich sphere. Better get ready for this... at normal pressure carbon has no melting point! Super-duper-secret-nano-fantasy-thermite is needed to melt carbon. Carbon sublimates at 3915 K, 3642 °C, 6588 °F. Wow! A new thermite was made for the WTC fires! Wow, we can get our Pulitzer, using nonsense?

You are full of nonsense, your lack of knowledge runs your fantasy.

Lead is vaporized at 800-1100 F, but you don't know because you did not look up paint. Lead is vaporized when other chemical reactions take place at temperatures below the melting point of steel, can you find this reaction? Lead is in the coating of wires, on your Christmas light, etc. Lead was used in paints.

Lead is already on mineral wool used at the WTC. You miss the clues and go for the lies. Does your google fail to look up mineral wool?

It gets worse for 911 truth, they are ignoring the complex and simple chemistry taking place in the fires at the WTC. Fires followed by the release of E=mgh. All you need to figure out 911, some logic, math and physics. How many years will that take? What have you done for 10 years?

Anyone have a source for the Molybdenum, a page number? My bike has Mo in it.

Some metals, plastics and other materials were vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral wool.​
Click to expand...
Lead was in some of the plastics, it vaporized. How do you explain the carbon sphere? ​



911 truth takes random facts about elements and make up idiotic claims of thermite. Look up flame temperature.​

Why does paper burn when a big log does not burn when I use my lighter? Explain it please relative to the failed logic used by 911 truth to fool you into believing they found thermite. How did I make iron rich spheres in my back yard with a simple lighter? ​

PbMoO4, guess the melting point of this, and then look up the flame temperature of jet fuel, or wood, or office contents. The two for one thermite evidence lie stuff.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Similarly, the presence of Mo atoms in that sphere cannot be taken to mean the compound(s) in the sphere were ever exposed to temperatures that could melt elemental Mo.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this has been established, GlennB.

Adding elements to alloys and compounds alters the properties of the resulting materials. Molybdenum is added to things, e.g., stainless steel, armour, airplane parts, precisely for its high temperature resistance.

Microspheres are formed from molten droplets. The elements in the droplets have to be in liquid state in order for the spheres to form. The molybdenum sphere had other elements in it, such as aluminum, but its quantity compared to Al, for example, was 5:1, according to USGS, via Jones. It's not just a minor component.

Jones does state in his comments on this sphere that the presence of other elements could lower the melting temperature, but leaves it at that. He points out that the USGS did numerous spectra analyses on this one sphere.

RJ Lee might be able to provide some helpful insight into this.
 
Something in the towers contained wulfenite, whether as a ceramic glaze or as a paint pigment. Riddle solved.
 
ergo said:
I'm not sure this has been established, GlennB.

Adding elements to alloys and compounds alters the properties of the resulting materials. Molybdenum is added to things, e.g., stainless steel, armour, airplane parts, precisely for its high temperature resistance.
Click to expand...

Elemental Mo is added to things, but Mo compounds are also added to things. Elemental Mo is not the only plausible source for the Mo atoms in that spherule.

The Jones et al 'mistake' (and the fallacy perpetuated since then by many Truthers) is in supposing, from the outset, that the only possible source of Mo in the spherule was metallic Mo and that, therefore, the spherule must have been created by >2000°C temperatures. It ain't so, any more than supposing that a spherule containg ferric chloride must have been formed at or beyond the melting point of iron.

But - and here's the thing - where would you ever find elemental Mo, either in nature or the manufactured world? How could there ever be pure elemental Mo around the WTC for it to be melted by extreme temperatures? It's used in alloys and its compounds are used in other applications. I can see no way that elemental metallic Mo would be present at the WTC, in which case its melting point is moot.

Iron, aluminium, copper, lead, zinc .... they were all there as the original metal. Mo? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
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...

How could something encased in CONCRETE ever rust!?!?!?! I mean, it's SEALED IN CONCRETE!!!!

http://www.nachi.org/images10-2/Concrete-Reinforcing-Steel-Corrosion.jpg

I highly doubt that any moisture EVER got into the WTC........:rolleyes:

(Hint: Your argument is stupid. Things rust, even when protected. ESPECIALLY in a salt air environment.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom