Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Christopher7]

Not through me, it came from Ron as you thought. Has anyone heard if Ron made that phone call to Rich Lee?

Did you use your credentials as a journalist to get Ron access to the RJ Lee Group or did you learn about this when it was posted?

 

[000063]

Yes, through Ron. Haven't heard back from him yet. Of course your question is not, and will not be, included.

Didn't you ask something about Chris changing his mind even if the answers were ones he didn't like?

 

[tsig]

I presented evidence but you are blind to it. Iron oxide microspheres are part of fly ash which is what goes up the chimney is power plants and solid waste incinerators. This proves that iron microspheres will be carried away with the soot. It also proves that some will adhere to surfaces. This verifies the obvious that Lefty and Dave pointed out. Some of the soot, containing iron spheres, will adhere to walls and other surfaces.

Do the micro-spheres ever come down?

 

[chrismohr]

Did you use your credentials as a journalist to get Ron access to the RJ Lee Group or did you learn about this when it was posted?

I had nothing to do with this. Ron hosts a cable TV show and he used his own credentials as a journalist. I was glad to see him do it but I found out about it after the fact too.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I had nothing to do with this. Ron hosts a cable TV show and he used his own credentials as a journalist. I was glad to see him do it but I found out about it after the fact too.

Me too. I trust Ron really did get it from R. J. Lee, and was happy to bring that forward to the conversation.

Hey, got me a new avatar!

 

[Oystein]

Didn't you ask something about Chris changing his mind even if the answers were ones he didn't like?

Oh yes I did! Hmmm!

C7 is a funny person. I was wondering why he had not replied to this, but then noticed that instead of replying, he later edited the post I had criticized. Perhaps it causes him physical pain to admit he made an error?

 

[Christopher7]

I had nothing to do with this. Ron hosts a cable TV show and he used his own credentials as a journalist. I was glad to see him do it but I found out about it after the fact too.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You have stated:
"The bigger question is how I read both the RJ Lee report and the recent attached letter from Rich Lee. As a journalist, I am not wild about either. OK, I'll say it: both could have been written more clearly, because both leave room for laypeople to misinterpret what they are saying. Not only is his use of language unclear, sometimes he makes statements that he doesn't back up with specific data."

So you acknowledge that the letter is not clear and there is no data to backup the hypothesis.

Will you acknowledge that the letter does not resolve the argument?

And that we need a definitive statement from RJ Lee as to what temperatures the data does or does not confirm to resolve the issue?

 

[leftysergeant]

We are discussing the hypothesis in the letter which says dislodged rust melted and vaporized to form the iron microspheres.

In the context of the OP, we have to consider all of them, whether they are just FeO₂or FeO₂+Si or MoPbO₂ or whatever. We are discussing whether idiots like Jones and little Dickie Gage may have overlooked something obvious when they made their absurd assertion that the sphereules had to be a thermite product. Lee's assertion that they were from oxidized rust from the columns themselves is plausible, but just barely. I would not accept an assertion that this was the only, or even primary source. The means by which the material came into being may, in the long run, be immaterial to and outside the scope of Lee's mission. He was not looking for thermite or the cause of the fires, because that was obvious to most people with an IQ approximating room temperature.

Lee's primary concern was what was in the dust, whether that was a health risk and how it got to be where it was collected inside a building.

Several of us have, in fact, suggested other sources, none of which need exclude any of the others. Beachnut, for instance,has pointed out that rock wool is sometimes made from lead slag. Lead slag could be a source of the molybdenum-containing sphereules, certainly of some of the largely-lead ones. The residues of burnt primer would, of neccessity, contain iron reduced from FeO₃ to FeO₂ or even to pure Fe, along with a lot of kaolinite, with which it could form sphereules.

I have my own favorite, which is self-copying paper, containing very fine iron powder and kaolinite. We are talking about close-to-nano-sized particles, which, if you follow the same reasoning that describes how nano-thermite is able to achieve peak temperatures so quickly, could also be expected to more readily melt and resolidify when the paper burns.

Another source of very fine particles of iron would be the thousands, if not millions, of flexible magnets printed with logos or advertisements for the financial firms in the buildings. (For some reason, every financial services firm with which I have had an dealings seems to love printing adverts of refrigerator magnets.) I am sure that the rubberized matrix would produce substantial heat when it burns, and I shuld be quite interested to look at some of the residues under a good microscope. We might find some old acquaintances there.

Now, to once again address why I think you over-estimate the percentage of the sphereules that would be wafted away with the smoke, let me point out that many organic substances do not vaporize or liquify in a fire. Some epoxies will just form a spongey mass from which no further energy can be extracted, keeping any pigments, even if in a molten and/or chemically reduced form, trapped there. The same, from what I have seen, can be said for the flexible magnets. Paper very commonly leaves a great deal of ash when it burns. Very heavily sized paper will leave behind an ash that would weigh far more when combustion of most of its organic components is completed. Papers in file cabinets which have been roasted at a high enough temperature may also leave behind an inorganic ash that will never enter the flow of air because it is never exposed.

So, here we have a lot of iron-rich material sitting there roasting in the fire and going nowhere until the collapse of the building runs everything through the grinder.

 

[Edx]

I wrote to RJ Lee a week ago and I am awaiting his reply.

Pick . Up. The. Phone.

 

[000063]

In the context of the OP, we have to consider all of them, whether they are just FeO₂or FeO₂+Si or MoPbO₂ or whatever. We are discussing whether idiots like Jones and little Dickie Gage may have overlooked something obvious when they made their absurd assertion that the sphereules had to be a thermite product....

The funny thing is that Chris was the one saying NIST should consider "all probabilities", but when I asked him, he ignored my question about whether there was a possibility that the spheres were not signs of thermite but thermite could still be present.

Whenever someone goes "we must consider every possibility!" that rarely seems to include the possibilities they personally don't like.

 

[Fly Poster]

Do the micro-spheres ever come down?

Good point, a study in done Barcelona on soot found the soot samples were different during peak traffic hours, the exhaust smoke very quickly settles, as would happen with C7's "carried away in the smoke" spheres. The study also supports Oystein's claim that the 5.87% for iron content would not be a standard for all the dust.

"In Barcelona, the presence of metal nanoparticles
was quite variable from sample to sample, with percentages between 25% and 91%, associated to slightly smaller
sizes to those of the monomers (Adachi and Buseck, 2010) and to higher concentrations during traffic peak hours."

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4514.pdf

I actually think that most of the particulate matter would be in the ash and soot in the building, but if some particles do get carried away in the smoke, they certainly don't vanish.

ETA: "To prove that theBuilding has been contaminated with the fallout from the WTC collapse, RJ
Lee Group undertook a statistical sampling approach in collecting samples
from various regions of the Building and analyzed them for the types and
levels of contaminants."
-R J Lee.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks for clearing that up.

You have stated:
"The bigger question is how I read both the RJ Lee report and the recent attached letter from Rich Lee. As a journalist, I am not wild about either. OK, I'll say it: both could have been written more clearly, because both leave room for laypeople to misinterpret what they are saying. Not only is his use of language unclear, sometimes he makes statements that he doesn't back up with specific data."

So you acknowledge that the letter is not clear and there is no data to backup the hypothesis.

Will you acknowledge that the letter does not resolve the argument?

And that we need a definitive statement from RJ Lee as to what temperatures the data does or does not confirm to resolve the issue?

Hi C7, the letter is not clear about about rust and high winds, and there is no data within the letter to back up the hypothesis. The main point of the letter, however, is very clear: Rich Lee does not believe for a second that temperatures in excess of 2800 degrees are needed to produce these iron microspheres. That much is crystal clear.

Do you acknowledge that:

1.) You can't use the RJ Lee Report any more to support your claim that ONLY 2800+ degree temperatures can create iron-rich microspheres because he clearly said that this is not their position?
2.) That you were wrong to quote RJ Lee over and over again as ironclad proof of your claim, and do you now withdraw the Who are you to challenge what RJ Lee said assertion?

If you think more clarification is needed from RJ Lee, ask for it. You are fighting a secondary point (rust and wind) and ignoring the main point of Rich's letter (sub-2800 degree temps create iron-rich micropsheres. Your claim that the letter may be fabricated should be your first thing to check anyway. You asked the question, I and most others accept its authorship. If you think it may be phony, you're wasting your time arguing about its content.

 

[Fly Poster]

1.2 WTC Event Dust Constituents
Building materials from which the WTC Towers were constructed include
structural steel, asbestos-containing insulation material, other insulating
fibrous material (mineral wool and glass fibers), cement and aggregate
(concrete), wallboard, ceiling tiles, ducts, wiring, paint, plate glass, and
other components. Building contents of the WTC included computers and
other electronic equipment, fluorescent lights, furniture, office supplies, and
a myriad of other items. The brittle and friable components of these materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires.

- R J Lee



Now I am interested in what exactly R J Lee considers to be the event in which the dust and particulate matter were created, because he appears to include the ensuing fires post collapse as part of the event.

Oystein is it too late to get another question put to R J lee?
Did his samples contain particulate matter from the ground fires fallout and clean up, and can he specify what he means by WTC event?

Cheers.

 

[BasqueArch]

- R J Lee

Quote:
1.2 WTC Event Dust Constituents
Building materials from which the WTC Towers were constructed include
structural steel, asbestos-containing insulation material, other insulating
fibrous material (mineral wool and glass fibers), cement and aggregate
(concrete), wallboard, ceiling tiles, ducts, wiring, paint, plate glass, and
other components. Building contents of the WTC included computers and
other electronic equipment, fluorescent lights, furniture, office supplies, and a myriad of other items. The brittle and friable components of these materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires. - R J Lee

Now I am interested in what exactly R J Lee considers to be the event in which the dust and particulate matter were created, because he appears to include the ensuing fires post collapse as part of the event.

Oystein is it too late to get another question put to R J lee?
Did his samples contain particulate matter from the ground fires fallout and clean up, and can he specify what he means by WTC event?

Cheers.

WTC1,2,7
Another overlooked large source of small iron particles would be the two layers of light gauge slab wire mesh and some of the larger rebars used in all the office floor slabs reinforcing, and light gauge slab metal pans. IIRC Bazant calculated that about 14% of the kinetic energy generated by the collapse would account for the comminution of the concrete into the size distribution of the particles observed.

I've seen closeup pictures of the pile with no evidence of the wire mesh or metal pans surviving but some of the rebars remaining. It's likely that most of the wire mesh was ground into smaller iron particles, depending on the energy applied to it due to its height above ground.
Beachnut , do you have those two pictures of the WWF and rebar in the WTC slab and closeup of the pile concrete dust and boulders? I searched but couldn't find them.

Iron compounds are ubiquitous in construction materials.
Here they are separated from dollar bills and cereal. Compare the volume of cereal and dollar bill (not the liquid) to the volume of the iron particles extracted.


.....

 

[ergo]

Hi C7, the letter is not clear about about rust and high winds, and there is no data within the letter to back up the hypothesis. The main point of the letter, however, is very clear: Rich Lee does not believe for a second that temperatures in excess of 2800 degrees are needed to produce these iron microspheres. That much is crystal clear.

No, they do not state that, Chris. Why would they speculate about rust flakes if microspheres can be created in normal fires? Why do they need hurricane force winds and blast-furnace-like temperatures if ordinary fires produce these things? Why come up with such an unusual theory in the first place? Why would it be needed?

This is why we are asking further questions of them.

 

[leftysergeant]

No, they do not state that, Chris. Why would they speculate about rust flakes if microspheres can be created in normal fires? Why do they need hurricane force winds and blast-furnace-like temperatures if ordinary fires produce these things? Why come up with such an unusual theory in the first place?

It c ould also be that they are not as aware as some of us what fuels were in the fire and what residues they would leave behind when they burned.

I think they bit off a little more than they could properly chew here.

 

[Christopher7]

It c ould also be that they are not as aware as some of us what fuels were in the fire and what residues they would leave behind when they burned.

I think they bit off a little more than they could properly chew here.

You offer only speculation with no data.

I still say RJ Lee would not come up with such an unusual, speculative, baseless hypothesis that would not create and deposit a significant amount of spheres anyway.

If I haven't heard back by Monday, I'll try again.

 

[fourtoe]

A far bigger obstacle for the 9/11 Truth movement is dealing with the false pronouncements of leaders like Richard Gage, who continue to spread the false claim that iron-rich spheres could 'only' be formed by thermite.

Yet as Dave Thomas and many others have easily demonstrated, these can be formed by ordinary processes of combustion. Gage's main claim is falsified empirically.

Try tackling that one, truthers!!

Has this letter from RJ Lee been mentioned to Richard Gage?

 

[chrismohr]

You offer only speculation with no data.

I still say RJ Lee would not come up with such an unusual, speculative, baseless hypothesis that would not create and deposit a significant amount of spheres anyway.

If I haven't heard back by Monday, I'll try again.

Go back to post 1812. I did answer your questions to me, and asked you very similar questions as well. I'd be very interested in answers.

 

[jaydeehess]

"Substantial" is vague. ...................I clearly clarified my position as "Some of the iron microspheres would cling to walls and surfaces but the majority would be carried away with the other particulate matter"

LOL
""Some" is so much definative than "Substantial"