Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Java Man said:
So?
Click to expand...
Your not very good at this are you?

If you knew your truther meme and had bothered to read the thread, you'd know your truther buddies claim that a temperature greater than 1535°C is needed to form iron microspheres. C7 rants about it. Others including Jones claim this is true too. Yet Oystein points out that one of the truther gods is quoted as saying that only 1100°C is required.

I'm going to ask one question of you seeing as you requested a minimal number of questions.

What minimum temperature do you think is required to form iron microspheres?
 
Sunstealer said:
What minimum temperature do you think is required to form iron microspheres?
Click to expand...

I'll take what the expert says. I'll also remind you that NIST didn't find such high temperatures. They just claimed it on the report. I mocked that quite a bit last year as the NIST Technique. Whereby you can pass an exam by just answering one question and getting it right. Thus given no evidence to any wrong questions in the exam all other unanswered questions would have been right had they been answered. Thus you really don't have any hard evidence for 1000+ temperatures.
 
Java Man said:
Yes I noticed you mentioned that not everything was on fire, that prompted my question. I guess that answers my question, you do believe the explosive would survive the fireball without igniting. How convenient for you. I guess the thermite wouldn't ignite either.
Click to expand...
Because it was a)never in the fireball in the first place, but knocked out of the building by the pressure wave, or b)was not in it long enough to ignite. Incidentally, my point doesn't hinge on whether the charges, whatever they were, caught fire and burned up, as you speculated. If they burned up from the fireball, they'd burn up in the office fire, and if they did not catch fire or did not burn up, they could be anywhere in a large portion of Manhattan, where anyone could pick them up. So either you have charges that would cook off, or charges somewhere random in Manhattan.

Who came up with this plan?

BTW the energy of the brick would be v^2/2, where v is most surely terminal velocity in m/s I'd guess around 40 m/s
Click to expand...
Okay. Does anyone know if that is enough to set it off?
 
Java Man said:
And why would it make the whole thing impossible?
Click to expand...

000063 said:
... If an charge would burn up from the impact explosion, it would burn up from the ensuing fires. If it wouldn't burn up from the impact explosion, someone would probably find it on the ground. Doesn't matter if it's thermite or an explosive.

Either someone finds it, or it can't withstand the fires. There is no Door No. 3....
Click to expand...
And unless they're total idiots, the conspirators would know this. They are not going to risk some random civilian in Manhattan stumbling upon the smoking gun.
 
000063 said:
Okay. Does anyone know if that is enough to set it off?
Click to expand...

No. If you'd looked up explosives when I asked you for the difference you'd realize they need a supersonic shockwave to go off. That's what the blasting cap does.
 
Java Man said:
I'll take what the expert says. I'll also remind you that NIST didn't find such high temperatures. They just claimed it on the report. I mocked that quite a bit last year as the NIST Technique. Whereby you can pass an exam by just answering one question and getting it right. Thus given no evidence to any wrong questions in the exam all other unanswered questions would have been right had they been answered. Thus you really don't have any hard evidence for 1000+ temperatures.
Click to expand...
And dodge.

You don't know. Admit it.

Java Man said:
No. If you'd looked up explosives when I asked you for the difference you'd realize they need a supersonic shockwave to go off. That's what the blasting cap does.
Click to expand...
So there's absolutely no chance the fall would detonate the explosives.
Thank you.

Wow, that worked out better than I thought. You really thought I didn't know that?

It's so cute how you're ignoring my points about what would happen to the explosives. And while we're in hypothetical mode, what happens if one is knocked off a beam but stays in the building, and is found by one of the survivors, like Brian Clark, on their way down? What if one finds it, realizes they're going to die, then writes a note about it and tosses it out the window? Or tries to protect it, throws the vital evidence out the window and hopes it makes it down?
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
And dodge.

You don't know. Admit it.
Click to expand...

I do know, it was discussed thoroughly last year.

000063 said:
So there's absolutely no chance the fall would detonate the explosives.
Thank you.

Wow, that worked out better than I thought. You really thought I didn't know that?
Click to expand...

Unlike you I won't make things up to defend my position. If it drops and doesn't pop and that implies it stays as evidence, so be it. You still have to show us that the explosive (which isn't an explosive) would not catch fire.
 
Java Man said:
I do know, it was discussed thoroughly last year.
Click to expand...
Then answer.

Unlike you I won't make things up to defend my position.
Click to expand...
What have I made up?

If it drops and doesn't pop and that implies it stays as evidence, so be it. You still have to show us that the explosive (which isn't an explosive) would not catch fire.
Click to expand...
By the fact that things got knocked out of the buildings and survived to the ground that didn't catch on fire, or were not exposed enough to fire to destroy them. I already said so. Even provided links.

000063 said:
Unless, of course, it did not burn up entirely before landing, or at all.

Several personal effects were found in the debris and area, including paper from the plane.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Personal_Effects_and_the_Crash-Proof_Passport
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

C4's flammability relates more to it surviving the fire than the impact and getting blown out of the building. By your own logic, if it can catch fire and burn up in a few minutes, then it would also burn when exposed to fire for an even longer period.
And as you can clearly see in the evidence above, not everything knocked out of the buildings was on fire. C4, for example, is a very stable explosive, and could probably survive the trip down without detonation. And even if it or whatever explosive did burn up, you'd still have the much less flammable detonator and wiring attached.

There is no way to be sure it would be destroyed or work, or to tell where it would end up, so it wouldn't be there in the first place, unless the masterminds are insane.
Click to expand...
To be fair, they could also be incompetent.

Also in those links was an account of some worms surviving the explosion on the Columbia, which exploded 40 miles up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992123.stm
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/01/nation/na-briefs1.3
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97654&page=1#.T2FFXxFmIsc

I'm not the one claiming it is and isn't an explosive whenever convenient. I'm saying that neither explosives not thermite are feasible, and you keep jumping from one to the other, from detonation from the impact to burning up, when I've pointed out that none of the options in any combination make sense.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Actually it was beachnut and his daddy who used it in vietnam. I'm just made reference to him in my initial post about C4 when I mentioned it was a debunker who claimed the flammability of C4.
Click to expand...

And it's TRUE. C4 WILL in fact BURN.

Here's some burning C4.



BTW, nice quotemine. Do try to quote the entire sentence next time.
 
Java Man said:
No. If you'd looked up explosives when I asked you for the difference you'd realize they need a supersonic shockwave to go off. That's what the blasting cap does.
Click to expand...

Nope. I can make an explosive right now, in my back yard, with aluminum foil, hydrochloric acid, and a soda bottle.

I can also make an explosive with a soda bottle, some gasoline, a lighter, and a gun.

I can also make an explosion with the turn of a key.

Fuel air explosions.

You're wrong, and I am not even an expert on explosives.
 
000063 said:
I'm not the one claiming it is and isn't an explosive whenever convenient. I'm saying that neither explosives not thermite are feasible, and you keep jumping from one to the other, from detonation from the impact to burning up, when I've pointed out that none of the options in any combination make sense.
Click to expand...

Lets see you start by saying the explosives would burn and render "the whole thing impossible" (not sure why you claim that as you haven't answered my question regarding that). Then when they need to make it to the street somehow now they can survive without going off. And now you center on explosives not thermite when you were all over the board on the fact that Gage said "thermite". Better yet things don't fully burn or get extinguished on the way down. But somehow enough makes it to WTC7 in such a way that it burns to the ground, yet the other buildings hit by debris don't burn down to the ground. Then your buddy comes and says it's not 1500ºC, but 1100ºC that's needed for the microspheres to form. Yet such temperatures were inferred by NIST and not actually observed in the collected debris. Unlike the microspheres which have not been inferred and quite on the contrary have been readily observed. And we haven't even gotten to the culprit of the thermite/explosive theory which is the absurdly high fall speed of the two towers.
 
Java Man said:
Will do, if I find anything of relevance next time you post.
Click to expand...

The rest of my post was absolutely relevant to the part you selectively quotemined. You have completely changed the meaning of my post, which is the TEXTBOOK definition of quotemining.

Don't be so obtuse. It wins you no points, and shows you as the loser (in this argument) you are.
 
Java Man said:
<useless drivel snipped> But somehow enough makes it to WTC7 in such a way that it burns to the ground, yet the other buildings hit by debris don't burn down to the ground.
<useless drivel snipped>
Click to expand...

Um, you've already been shown pictures of other buildings COMPLETELY gutted from fire.

Talk about being disingenuous.
 
Java Man said:
I'll take what the expert says.
Click to expand...
Which expert? Jeff Farrer?

Java Man said:
I'll also remind you that NIST didn't find such high temperatures.
Click to expand...

Well, but your expert, Jeff Farrer, says HE found WTC steel that had experienced such temperatures:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/439-jeff-farrer-phd.html
AE911T said:
When [Farrer] was able to later study samples of steel beams from the towers which had “obviously gone through some melting,” his expertise was critical in the discovery of different phases in the metal samples, including the steel, iron oxide, iron sulfide, and iron silicate phases. He explains that various techniques such as X-ray analysis and diffraction were used to determine the “…structure of the phases along with the chemistry.”

As a result of his research, Dr. Farrer “…came to the conclusion that in order to create these phases, [the metal would] have to reach a minimum of about 1100° C.”
Click to expand...

So NIST's theory is wrong because NIST found no evidence that any steel was subjected to 1100°C, but the expert is right who DID find steel that was subjected to 1100°C?

Ok, next question:

In your opinion, was there, or wasn't there, steel that was subjected to 1100°C?
 
Oystein said:
So NIST's theory is wrong because NIST found no evidence that any steel was subjected to 1100°C, but the expert is right who DID find steel that was subjected to 1100°C?
Click to expand...

Where did he find it? In some warehouse in China?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom