I have asked this question before and have yet to hear any other answer besides "what about it" and that is... What do you have to say about the SOUTH FACE of the tower??
Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
I have asked this question before and have yet to hear any other answer besides "what about it" and that is... What do you have to say about the SOUTH FACE of the tower??
Who here claimed that you were claiming?
Anyway, hasn't Richard Gage said many times that his organization has made such a huge impact?
The real question is... A huge impact on what?
A big impact on his income, it went from zero to $70,000, and his travel comes out of the big 300k fund to go on vacation (making presentations) in Europe next week or month. Gage is making money off of fringe CT nuts. If he is non-profit, we need to make it normal income and tax his presentation of lies.Who here claimed that you were claiming?
Anyway, hasn't Richard Gage said many times that his organization has made such a huge impact?
The real question is... A huge impact on what?
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Rebuttal Gage Part Seven
Part Seven: Iron Microspheres and Sulfidized Steel,
Can you guys take all this verbiage? Here's Part Seven. It was one of the tougher parts for me to prepare. Many of you will recognize yourselves in what I've said. Do let me know of there are any inaccuracies. Thanks as always.
Chris Mohr
Face: This is the seventh part of my exploration of Richard Gage’s claims for controlled demolition on 911 in his video Blueprint for Truth. So far, we have looked at the physics of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Now we will shift to two claims which involve the chemistry of the collapse: The iron microspheres and the suflidized steel in the debris. I got a lot of direct help from chemists, metallurgists, and 911 researcher and engineer Ryan Mackey in understanding Richard Gage’s claims in these matters.
11 Iron Microspheres
3.) Near the beginning of my March 6, 2011 debate, Richard Gage said I had to explain “The billions of previously molten iron microspheres or the debate is over.”
Richard Gage asserts that iron microspheres can be created only at temperatures over 2700 degrees, way more heat than an office fire. He sees it as evidence of very hot nanothermites detroying the structural supports of the Twin Towers. Let’s look at the claim that only controlled demolition can explain these iron microspheres and see if it is true.
The RJ Lee Dust Study of 2003 prepared for Deutsche Bank reported billions of iron-rich spheres, not pure iron spheres as Richard Gage claims. The melting temperature of a sphere with iron and other metals mixed together is lower than pure iron.
In our debate, Gage asserted that with the microspheres, “If you had thousands of cutter charges throughout the columns and beams in the buildings, under explosive conditions, that would be dispersed.” That’s a big if. Would these cutter charges be carved into the steel structures, because if so, that would create the stench of burning metal and incredibly loud noises. If not, they would be less precise in doing their work. Either way, cutter charges leave behind several unmistakable, tell-tale signatures, none of which are seen in any sample from Ground Zero:
Steel fractures showing extremely high rate-of-strain, which is positively detectable through crystallography
Significant deposits of copper on and around the cut surfaces
Infusion of copper into the steel grain structure
Abundant steel shrapnel, also with a unique strain signature, both embedded elsewhere in the structure and detectable in the dust
PICTUREs OF weldder, A more likely source goes back to the 1970s, when workers welded thousands of steel beams and splattered microspheres everywhere.
Slide of Reasons Even if they were created on 911, the RJ Lee study said, “Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC... Iron - rich spheres... would be expected to be present in the Dust.” Why would they say this if they did not know that iron-rich spheres could be created in a regular office fire?
SLIDE IRON MICROSPHERE IN FLY ASH Another possible source of iron-rich microspheres is fly ash in concrete. At the time of our debate I could not find proof of this assertion, but here it is. This is a photo and accompanying spectrum of an iron-rich microsphere in Tolk fly ash I obtained from a dust expert who has collected 400,000 dust samples from fly ash alone. This particle is an iron oxide of some type, but the particle also contains small amounts of calcium, silicon and aluminum.
Face: Since we're dealing with iron oxides, iron hydroxides, and iron eutectics, the assumption that "iron rich" spheres must come from fire temperatures capable of melting pure iron is invalid.
In conclusion, if the iron-rich spheres had been created by controlled demolition, there would have been telltale signs in the steel girders that were never found. And there are several other possible explanations for their appearance in the rubble that are consistent with the physical evidence.
12 Sulfidized Steel
Face: Let’s look next at the sulfidized steel found in th debris. Richard Gage cites Jonathan Barnett in FEMA’s APPendix C from late 2001. Richard Gage says he “Found sulfidization and intergraular melting.” This, he believes can come only from thermate, which is thermite plus sulfur. Thermate is quieter and less explosive than nanothermite, so he believes it may have been used in the implosive collapse of Building 7, which we will soon discuss at length. Let’s try to understand what sulfidized steel is, what Appendix C actually says, and if Richard Gage’s assertion about it is true.
Sulfidized steel is a eutectic mixture of steel and sulfur, where sulfur invades the boundaries of the steel onb a granular level. The mixture is "eutectic" because the ingredients mutually impede crystal formation. Once the lowest melting temperature is reached, the entire mixture may be treated as liquid. Think of water ice well mixed with frozen alcohol -- once you melt the alcohol, the entire thing is a slurry; you do not have to reach the melting temperature of ice. The melting point of steel is over 2700 degrees, but the melting point of eutectic sulfidized steel is 1740 degrees, well within the temperature range of an office fire.
Sulfidizing of steel doesn’t happen easily. It can happen if thermate is used to melt steel, and you can see thermate doing just that by looking on YouTube, where thermate takes seven or eight seconds to melt through a steel beam. How such a slow process can be used to pull off a precise and instantaneous controlled demolition is a problematic question for Richard Gage.
Another big problem for Richard is that there is so little sulfidized steel in the debris. One piece wasa horizontal beam from the 53rd floor of one of the towers and was not considered relevant for NIST’s collapse study since the collapse began many stories higher. Another piece may have come from somewhere in Building 7. That’s about it. The few examples were all horizontal beams, not columns. This can’t explain a global collapse. And if you think it was all shipped away so we couldn’t see that it was everywhere, 911 firefighter Vincent Palmieri testified to me personally that “I saw many steel girders with burn marks on them, girders bent in the fires... I understand that there were a few steel pieces that were corroded by sulfur, but in the massive debris piles I worked on I never saw a single example of sulfidized steel.” Not one, out of hundreds of thousands of columns and beams in the debris!
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
The “Intergranular melting” FEMA talks about is nothing like melting as we know it. The steel was not rendered molten. The component that had the lowest melting point became part of the "slag". The technical terms for the sequence of what happened was intergranular melting, high temperature corrosion via sulphidation, oxidation, and decarburisation leading to a liquid Iron Oxide Suflur mix from grain boundary melting in a very, very small quantity, around 20 microns wide. It is a slow, microscopic process during which no bit of the steel became molten in the sense of dripping liquid. Instead, the steel just wears off grain by grain. This happened over a period of at least 8 days. Corrosion of beams can continue in the weeks following the collapse in the hot debris pile, once it is started, as stated in the FEMA Appendix C. High-temperature eutectic corrosion simply cannot be used as evidence for molten steel. It is not. Non-metallurguists will likely misconstrue this intergranular melting as "whooo, steel got hot and melted away like ice in the sunshine".
Reason # The chemical microstructures formed by the sulfidation would not have survived the 4500 degree temperatures thermite reacts at. A thermite reaction would've obliterated those structures. The presence of those microstructures along the edges of the corroded areas actually disprove the use of thermate because they would have been obliterated by the thermitic reaction. If these pieces of sulfidized steel were created with thermates, then we would have also seen a lot of aluminum oxide, which we don’t see. Those who assert that the white smoke visible in the fires was the aluminum boiling off may not realize that the boiling point of aluminum oxide is 5,390 degreees F. That's 1000 degrees above the hottest temperatures of thermate. Not only is there no aluminum oxide and no way to account for its absence, there is no Sulphur in the Harrit/Jones/Ryan et al paper. It's not there - therefore no thermate.
The 911 mystery is how the steel became sulfidized in the first place, and no one knows with certainty. As I’ve shown, it is not a mystery that is solved by positing thermates.
Metallurgist Jonathan Barnett, professor at the Center for Fire Safety Studies in Worcester, Massachusetts discovered the sulfidized steel. He wrote in FEMA’s Appendix C, “The severe corrosion and erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed .”
In a personal email, Jonathan Barnett wrote,
"The Possible sources of enough sulfur:
-Heating oil (extr high probability)
-Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust (extr high probability)
-environmental sources such as acid rain (high)"
Barnett is fully aware that the findings are corrosion due to sulfidation attack. He helped determine that in the Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson reports: None of these 3 authors believe thermate was a likely source. Sisson was quoted on BBC in 2008, saying "I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."
[SLUFIDATION FROM GYPSUM AFTER ALL: How created? ***http://www.cswdc.co.uk/emissions-data.html?id=35 CSWDC Waste Management Company Website]
Barnett’s claim that gypsum wallboard near the steel could have provided the sulfur seemed to contradict that fact that gypsum is relatively inert chemically, which is why it is used as a fire shield around structural steel. But recently I read the CS WDC Waste Management website, which explains certain environmental hazards. They wrote,
“How is Sulphur Dioxide formed?
“Sulphur is present in the waste stream from batteries, plastics, waste oil, and gypsum-filled wallboard. It is released into the combustion gases during incineration and reacts with the oxygen in the air to produce sulphur dioxide.”
We know that Sulphur Dioxide was at ground zero at dangerously high levels, so I now agree that gypsum wallboard burned at high temperatures could indeed have created sulfur dioxide in high concentrations, which in turn could have begun the sulfidation process of the steel.
Other scientists have proposed Fluorine gas from Halon type fire extinguishers or Freon from A/C’s creating Fluorosulfuric acid (HFSO3) is a superacid, about a thousand times stronger than sulfuric acid , which might explain the rarity and severity of the corrosion.
In our March 6 debate, Richard Gage claimed, : "NIST chose to ignore or obfuscate the sulfidized steel." Well, I took a lot of time to learn about this and explain it. The bottom line is that I just can’t see any way that a few pieces of sulfidized steel beams could have had anything to do with the collapse one way or another. NISTdidn’t ignore it; they mentioned it expressly in NCSTAR1-3C, along with new geometric analysis that further demonstrates the sulfidization occurred post-collapse, and is therefore irrelevant for their study of what caused the collapses. FEMA had already referred the sulfidized steel question to WPI for further study. NIST felt they had no more reason to investigate the sulfidized steel than they had to do an extensive study on the air pressure of the car tires in the garage; it was too rare a phenomenon to be a causative factor in the collapses.
Conclusion:
I was impressed at first with the arguments around sulfidized steel and the iron microspheres. Two years ago, I was impressed with some of Richard’s arguments around the physics of the collapse. But at this moment, there is only one scientific assertion in the 911 Truth movement which still has the potential to change my mind, and that is the 2008 experiment purporting to prove that unexploded thermitic material was found in the World Trade Center dust. That’s what we’ll be talking about next.
Strong evidence will be needed to convince me, and as of June 2011, I feel that the results remain inconclusive at best. In the meantime, from a purely scientific point of view, I feel that the call for yet another 911 investigation can’t succeed until some much stronger evidence is put forth. The overwhelming consensus among scientists and structural engineers favors natural collapse. I do not wish to see scientific consensus overridden by a political investigation. Creationists with a strong religious base, and global warming deniers with powerful economic interests, are having success in doing end runs around scientific consensus with intense political maneuvering. As you will see, I support more thermitic dust experiments to attempt to change the scientific consensus around the controlled demolition theory first. If that happens, then an investigation will be inevitable.
So far, the science behind the controlled demolition theory has not impressed me. The only reasons I can think of for another 911 investigation are political in nature, and we will return to that question at the end of this video.
Part Seven: Iron Microspheres and Sulfidized Steel,
Can you guys take all this verbiage? Here's Part Seven. It was one of the tougher parts for me to prepare. Many of you will recognize yourselves in what I've said. Do let me know of there are any inaccuracies. Thanks as always.
Chris Mohr
Face: This is the seventh part of my exploration of Richard Gage’s claims for controlled demolition on 911 in his video Blueprint for Truth. So far, we have looked at the physics of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Now we will shift to two claims which involve the chemistry of the collapse: The iron microspheres and the suflidized steel in the debris. I got a lot of direct help from chemists, metallurgists, and 911 researcher and engineer Ryan Mackey in understanding Richard Gage’s claims in these matters.
11 Iron Microspheres
3.) Near the beginning of my March 6, 2011 debate, Richard Gage said I had to explain “The billions of previously molten iron microspheres or the debate is over.”
Richard Gage asserts that iron microspheres can be created only at temperatures over 2700 degrees, way more heat than an office fire. He sees it as evidence of very hot nanothermites detroying the structural supports of the Twin Towers. Let’s look at the claim that only controlled demolition can explain these iron microspheres and see if it is true.
The RJ Lee Dust Study of 2003 prepared for Deutsche Bank reported billions of iron-rich spheres, not pure iron spheres as Richard Gage claims. The melting temperature of a sphere with iron and other metals mixed together is lower than pure iron.
In our debate, Gage asserted that with the microspheres, “If you had thousands of cutter charges throughout the columns and beams in the buildings, under explosive conditions, that would be dispersed.” That’s a big if. Would these cutter charges be carved into the steel structures, because if so, that would create the stench of burning metal and incredibly loud noises. If not, they would be less precise in doing their work. Either way, cutter charges leave behind several unmistakable, tell-tale signatures, none of which are seen in any sample from Ground Zero:
Steel fractures showing extremely high rate-of-strain, which is positively detectable through crystallography
Significant deposits of copper on and around the cut surfaces
Infusion of copper into the steel grain structure
Abundant steel shrapnel, also with a unique strain signature, both embedded elsewhere in the structure and detectable in the dust
PICTUREs OF weldder, A more likely source goes back to the 1970s, when workers welded thousands of steel beams and splattered microspheres everywhere.
Slide of Reasons Even if they were created on 911, the RJ Lee study said, “Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC... Iron - rich spheres... would be expected to be present in the Dust.” Why would they say this if they did not know that iron-rich spheres could be created in a regular office fire?
SLIDE IRON MICROSPHERE IN FLY ASH Another possible source of iron-rich microspheres is fly ash in concrete. At the time of our debate I could not find proof of this assertion, but here it is. This is a photo and accompanying spectrum of an iron-rich microsphere in Tolk fly ash I obtained from a dust expert who has collected 400,000 dust samples from fly ash alone. This particle is an iron oxide of some type, but the particle also contains small amounts of calcium, silicon and aluminum.
Face: Since we're dealing with iron oxides, iron hydroxides, and iron eutectics, the assumption that "iron rich" spheres must come from fire temperatures capable of melting pure iron is invalid.
In conclusion, if the iron-rich spheres had been created by controlled demolition, there would have been telltale signs in the steel girders that were never found. And there are several other possible explanations for their appearance in the rubble that are consistent with the physical evidence.
12 Sulfidized Steel
Face: Let’s look next at the sulfidized steel found in th debris. Richard Gage cites Jonathan Barnett in FEMA’s APPendix C from late 2001. Richard Gage says he “Found sulfidization and intergraular melting.” This, he believes can come only from thermate, which is thermite plus sulfur. Thermate is quieter and less explosive than nanothermite, so he believes it may have been used in the implosive collapse of Building 7, which we will soon discuss at length. Let’s try to understand what sulfidized steel is, what Appendix C actually says, and if Richard Gage’s assertion about it is true.
Sulfidized steel is a eutectic mixture of steel and sulfur, where sulfur invades the boundaries of the steel onb a granular level. The mixture is "eutectic" because the ingredients mutually impede crystal formation. Once the lowest melting temperature is reached, the entire mixture may be treated as liquid. Think of water ice well mixed with frozen alcohol -- once you melt the alcohol, the entire thing is a slurry; you do not have to reach the melting temperature of ice. The melting point of steel is over 2700 degrees, but the melting point of eutectic sulfidized steel is 1740 degrees, well within the temperature range of an office fire.
Sulfidizing of steel doesn’t happen easily. It can happen if thermate is used to melt steel, and you can see thermate doing just that by looking on YouTube, where thermate takes seven or eight seconds to melt through a steel beam. How such a slow process can be used to pull off a precise and instantaneous controlled demolition is a problematic question for Richard Gage.
Another big problem for Richard is that there is so little sulfidized steel in the debris. One piece wasa horizontal beam from the 53rd floor of one of the towers and was not considered relevant for NIST’s collapse study since the collapse began many stories higher. Another piece may have come from somewhere in Building 7. That’s about it. The few examples were all horizontal beams, not columns. This can’t explain a global collapse. And if you think it was all shipped away so we couldn’t see that it was everywhere, 911 firefighter Vincent Palmieri testified to me personally that “I saw many steel girders with burn marks on them, girders bent in the fires... I understand that there were a few steel pieces that were corroded by sulfur, but in the massive debris piles I worked on I never saw a single example of sulfidized steel.” Not one, out of hundreds of thousands of columns and beams in the debris!
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
The “Intergranular melting” FEMA talks about is nothing like melting as we know it. The steel was not rendered molten. The component that had the lowest melting point became part of the "slag". The technical terms for the sequence of what happened was intergranular melting, high temperature corrosion via sulphidation, oxidation, and decarburisation leading to a liquid Iron Oxide Suflur mix from grain boundary melting in a very, very small quantity, around 20 microns wide. It is a slow, microscopic process during which no bit of the steel became molten in the sense of dripping liquid. Instead, the steel just wears off grain by grain. This happened over a period of at least 8 days. Corrosion of beams can continue in the weeks following the collapse in the hot debris pile, once it is started, as stated in the FEMA Appendix C. High-temperature eutectic corrosion simply cannot be used as evidence for molten steel. It is not. Non-metallurguists will likely misconstrue this intergranular melting as "whooo, steel got hot and melted away like ice in the sunshine".
Reason # The chemical microstructures formed by the sulfidation would not have survived the 4500 degree temperatures thermite reacts at. A thermite reaction would've obliterated those structures. The presence of those microstructures along the edges of the corroded areas actually disprove the use of thermate because they would have been obliterated by the thermitic reaction. If these pieces of sulfidized steel were created with thermates, then we would have also seen a lot of aluminum oxide, which we don’t see. Those who assert that the white smoke visible in the fires was the aluminum boiling off may not realize that the boiling point of aluminum oxide is 5,390 degreees F. That's 1000 degrees above the hottest temperatures of thermate. Not only is there no aluminum oxide and no way to account for its absence, there is no Sulphur in the Harrit/Jones/Ryan et al paper. It's not there - therefore no thermate.
The 911 mystery is how the steel became sulfidized in the first place, and no one knows with certainty. As I’ve shown, it is not a mystery that is solved by positing thermates.
Metallurgist Jonathan Barnett, professor at the Center for Fire Safety Studies in Worcester, Massachusetts discovered the sulfidized steel. He wrote in FEMA’s Appendix C, “The severe corrosion and erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed .”
In a personal email, Jonathan Barnett wrote,
"The Possible sources of enough sulfur:
-Heating oil (extr high probability)
-Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust (extr high probability)
-environmental sources such as acid rain (high)"
Barnett is fully aware that the findings are corrosion due to sulfidation attack. He helped determine that in the Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson reports: None of these 3 authors believe thermate was a likely source. Sisson was quoted on BBC in 2008, saying "I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."
[SLUFIDATION FROM GYPSUM AFTER ALL: How created? ***http://www.cswdc.co.uk/emissions-data.html?id=35 CSWDC Waste Management Company Website]
Barnett’s claim that gypsum wallboard near the steel could have provided the sulfur seemed to contradict that fact that gypsum is relatively inert chemically, which is why it is used as a fire shield around structural steel. But recently I read the CS WDC Waste Management website, which explains certain environmental hazards. They wrote,
“How is Sulphur Dioxide formed?
“Sulphur is present in the waste stream from batteries, plastics, waste oil, and gypsum-filled wallboard. It is released into the combustion gases during incineration and reacts with the oxygen in the air to produce sulphur dioxide.”
We know that Sulphur Dioxide was at ground zero at dangerously high levels, so I now agree that gypsum wallboard burned at high temperatures could indeed have created sulfur dioxide in high concentrations, which in turn could have begun the sulfidation process of the steel.
Other scientists have proposed Fluorine gas from Halon type fire extinguishers or Freon from A/C’s creating Fluorosulfuric acid (HFSO3) is a superacid, about a thousand times stronger than sulfuric acid , which might explain the rarity and severity of the corrosion.
In our March 6 debate, Richard Gage claimed, : "NIST chose to ignore or obfuscate the sulfidized steel." Well, I took a lot of time to learn about this and explain it. The bottom line is that I just can’t see any way that a few pieces of sulfidized steel beams could have had anything to do with the collapse one way or another. NISTdidn’t ignore it; they mentioned it expressly in NCSTAR1-3C, along with new geometric analysis that further demonstrates the sulfidization occurred post-collapse, and is therefore irrelevant for their study of what caused the collapses. FEMA had already referred the sulfidized steel question to WPI for further study. NIST felt they had no more reason to investigate the sulfidized steel than they had to do an extensive study on the air pressure of the car tires in the garage; it was too rare a phenomenon to be a causative factor in the collapses.
Conclusion:
I was impressed at first with the arguments around sulfidized steel and the iron microspheres. Two years ago, I was impressed with some of Richard’s arguments around the physics of the collapse. But at this moment, there is only one scientific assertion in the 911 Truth movement which still has the potential to change my mind, and that is the 2008 experiment purporting to prove that unexploded thermitic material was found in the World Trade Center dust. That’s what we’ll be talking about next.
Strong evidence will be needed to convince me, and as of June 2011, I feel that the results remain inconclusive at best. In the meantime, from a purely scientific point of view, I feel that the call for yet another 911 investigation can’t succeed until some much stronger evidence is put forth. The overwhelming consensus among scientists and structural engineers favors natural collapse. I do not wish to see scientific consensus overridden by a political investigation. Creationists with a strong religious base, and global warming deniers with powerful economic interests, are having success in doing end runs around scientific consensus with intense political maneuvering. As you will see, I support more thermitic dust experiments to attempt to change the scientific consensus around the controlled demolition theory first. If that happens, then an investigation will be inevitable.
So far, the science behind the controlled demolition theory has not impressed me. The only reasons I can think of for another 911 investigation are political in nature, and we will return to that question at the end of this video.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
It was on the south side
and it had nothing to do with the fraudulent NIST hypothesis and fire simulation.Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
If you don't know by now you are incapable of retaining information.
This is a subject shift and argumentum ad nauseam.
This is denial silliness. Demand something that does not exist and use that to deny the obvious. Trying to say that what all those people saw was something other than molten steel/iron is grasping at straws. It only proves that you refuse to accept anything that refutes the official theory.
Post 998
Ummmmmm, WHAT was on the south side?
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
As Al Gore would say, an inconvenient truth.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Strawman. Mr. Gage does not say "pure iron", he said "iron-rich" [at 1:24:56 in the debate]. This sort of misquote and attack dishonesty is rampant in so called "debunking" papers.
Irrelevant to the spheres. The eutectic melting due to sulfur occurred in Sample #1 from WTC 7, not the spheres.
It is the most likely explanation IMO.
Nano-thermite has the advantage of cutting with 4500oF molten iron as well as explosive pressure so the explosion would not have to be as large or as loud.
You are free to form your own opinion based on your lack of knowledge of the possible ways nano-thermite could be engineered and your profound desire to think up reasons why it could not have been explosive.
You have no knowledge of construction. Dust is cleaned up periodically. Floor slabs must be vacuumed before flooring can be installed. There would not be billions of iron microspheres from the construction.
Furthermore you are ignoring the clear and unambiguous statement in the RJ Lee report that the spheres were created during the event.
A misinterpretation. They did NOT say office fires, they just said "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC"
Fly ash contains iron oxide. The RJ Lee Group knows the difference between iron and iron oxide and the spheres found in the dust were iron, NOT iron oxide. If they were iron oxide, they would have been labeled iron oxide. Figure 21 is labeled "spherical iron particle".
You refuse to accept the fact that iron was melted during the event, not the clean-up, and lead was vaporized during the collapse. The iron microspheres and lead covered fibers were deposited by the dust cloud that penetrated places other dust did not penetrate.
RJ Lee Report 2004 Pg 15
Under ordinary circumstances dust in a building would have multiple sources and occur in a random distribution with no recognizable geographical pattern. Furthermore, the dust in occupied, unoccupied, and inaccessible locations would be expected to be different in composition because occupied spaces are frequently cleaned and use conditioned air; unoccupied spaces are not routinely cleaned and are not often climate controlled, and inaccessible spaces (e.g., wall cavities, above ceilings) often contain construction material debris. Despite these environmental differences the dust in the Building was found to be the same in occupied, non-occupied and inaccessible spaces.
The dust in the below gash sector relative to the top of the Building is 10 times higher than the average concentration at the top whereas the lead and other metals are comparable to each other in the two sectors.
The dust was deposited by the dust clouds created by the collapse of the towers.
You're hung up on a misgiven interpretation there Chris. Was it free, elemental iron or not? That's all you need to know. If it is oxygen-rich, then it isn't.
Yes but do you know what they're actually talking about Chris? You appear to think that the RJ Lee group is arguing that these iron-rich spherules were not something one would expect from office fires. But wouldn't you call that a misrepresentation of what's being said though?
To me it reads as if they're simply stating that these spherules would not normally be present in pre-fire dust as opposed to byproducts of office fires. The point they are making (RJ Lee) is that some particles they found involved melting and depositing onto bits of construction materials. And... in an "ordinary" fire where the structure doesn't collapse, these two would never mix, so you don't get to see them then. Ergo, because this blend of fire products and collapse debris products were specific, this particular dust could be traced to the WTC, and not to some other fire or event in New York City.
Then again, if you think that is incorrect, go ahead and send them an email. I'm sure they would clarify it for you, Chris.
Not correct, there would countless of them between truss-spacings et al where you'd be hard pressed to find routine vacuum-cleaning, heh.
But see, that's the thing isn't it? There's no evidence for nano-thermite at all. Why invoke thermite when what we observe does not require that bit of extraordinary composition?
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Keep reading this until you understand what it says:
Pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).
All your BS double talk that tries to say iron was not melted during the event is just pathetic denial.
RJ Lee did not say the iron (or steel) was melted in normal office fires.
They said:
“Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC"
i.e. at least 2750oF
Last edited:
First of all, that's an iron-oxide particle, it's not free, elemental iron. Of course you realise that too don't you? They even state the following:
This is what we've been talking about Chris. There's no elemental iron there at all.
Secondly. The term "melted" does not imply anything else than what they effectively describe, sheddings from surface tension. When the term melting/melted is used one can't assume it exclusive deals with the highest-order temperature where the given metal ordinarly would turn into a liquid. That's misleading. Melting is a process, for example a piece of metal begins to lose its integrity and moves onto becoming licorice'esque steel. The final stage is where the melting point normally transforms the transforms into a liquid-state. Iron-microspheres just like those can be produced through melting but below the ordinary temperature where the metal uniformly turns into a liquid. The melting point tends to hold for macro-amounts of the material, therefore it can be considerably lower when particle size becomes tiny (nm range et al, which incidentally is one the reasons why nanothermite reacts faster like so). Chris, if you have very fine dust of iron and heat it to somewhere below 1500 degrees Celsius, they could melt and form spheres.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Why don't you write RJ Lee and tell him he got it wrong?
BS deleted. Give it up please. You are talking trash and you know it.
The RJ Lee statement could not be more clear or more absolute.
Iron melted during the WTC event.
Iron melts at 2800oF
I don't see where they got it wrong Chris.
You honestly believe that don't you?
Yes? So, nothing suggests it reached the melting point of 2800oF
Yes that's its melting point, i.e when the definite transformation-phase into a liquid is reached. The surface can shed off particles before that point, which one could refer to as melting if one wants, but it has nothing to do with the ordinary point of melting being reached. What I find telling here, Chris, is that you seem to have no clue whatsoever about these distinctions. You think a word has absolute terms and only relates to one figure. Why? You have no evidence to back it up, and for reasons I clarified the RJ Lee findings suggest nothing of the sort.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
No, it most certainly is not. How did all this steel become molten? You do realize that hydrocarbon fires burn at a max of about 2,000 deg. F, right?
No, it means I refuse to accept that laymen could identify molten steel over another metal conclusively.
Not to mention that a trained metalurgist even stated that it would be very difficult for HIM to do it.
Would you care to take a stab at one of the pictures?
LOL!! A breeze!! You do realize that statement is incredibly stupid, right? That is not how it works in the real world. You do realize that a breeze would make the fire hotter, right? You do realize that, right? Right?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
That is ridiculous.
That is utter BS. Show a source or cut the crap.
The number is not exact. So what? It is the accepted temperature for iron melting and it's far above what office fire can attain so the variation is not significant.
Please, you clarified what RJ Lee reported? Go to Phoenix.
Last edited:
So every one of AE911's signatories has seen the evidence? Is that the implication here?
It's meaningful to me that I had gammon steak and egg on naan for breakfast. That doesn't mean it's meaningful to anyone else.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
I have heard that but I have only seen actual test results confirm 1800oF.
Denial drivel. You cling to the extremely remote possibility that they all saw something other than molten steel because you cannot deal with the the consequences of temperatures in excess of 2700oF because they can only be attained by some form of thermite.
Why bother. You will not believe me and make a stupid insulting remark. It's a child's game y'all like to play.
Like all deniers, you find the dumbest interpretation and rail about how dumb it is.
I think you guys take a course in "dumb" before joining the team.
A breeze blowing thru a fire will cause it to burn hotter but a breeze blowing thru an area that has burned out will cool it down.
All this is just a diversion to avoid having to admit that the fire had gone out in the area of the collapse over an hour before the collapse which means the NIST hypothesis and fire simulation are fraudulent.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I see Chris refuses to change his tune, even after all these years. I see that non-ferrous metals are either extremely rare, or hardly ever melt, and that any piping, HVAC ducting, wiring, other metal furniture and fittings, or the aluminium cladding over the outside of the WTC either didn't actually exist, are very unlikely to have melted despite experiencing temperatures well above their melting points, or can't have been seen after melting by any witnesses. Given another ten years, maybe he'll be able to explain why this is so unlikely. Those of us with mere science degrees and no carpentry experience just aren't clever enough to figure it out, I suppose.
Dave