Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

twinstead said:
Every media on Earth? You realize there is a big wide world of engineering organizations, law enforcement agencies, and major media outlets outside the US, right?
Click to expand...

I tried using this exact point to explain why, if any of the troofer evidence is true, some of the 'less than pleased with america' countries wouldn't pick it up? Would it not be in the interest of less than friendly nations to prove our government completely corrupt?
 
twinstead said:
Every media on Earth? You realize there is a big wide world of engineering organizations, law enforcement agencies, and major media outlets outside the US, right?
Click to expand...

The CIA controls them all, unless they publish pro-truther things, in which they somehow manage to not be controlled by the CIA, and the CIAites just sit fuming and all frustrated-like. Oh, and the Joos. It has to be true, 'cuz of this dude who says things Truthers like.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Every media on Earth? You realize there is a big wide world of engineering organizations, law enforcement agencies, and major media outlets outside the US, right?
Click to expand...

They are all in on it as well.

DUH. Even Russia Today, which has truthers on. Its all pretend!!

RJ Lee is too, thats why they said something stupid like iron microspheres are expected. I wonder why they admitted they found it at all! Good thing for us these guys are so stupid! The truth will come out any day now!
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
The CIA controls them all, unless they publish pro-truther things, in which they somehow manage to not be controlled by the CIA, and the CIAites just sit fuming and all frustrated-like. Oh, and the Joos. It has to be true, 'cuz of this dude who says things Truthers like.
Click to expand...

You forgot, All the rest are, "dis-info", because they are afraid to lose their jobs.

;)
 
DGM said:
You forgot, All the rest are, "dis-info", because they are afraid to lose their jobs.

;)
Click to expand...

'I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; 'but it isn't so, nohow.'

'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

Super Logic.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Lol, you have a picture? And how are you so certain you know what the picture is OF? Because the police department put a plack behind it?

And btw a lot of different materials can and do melt in fires and are fully expected including many metals, not sure if you know this.
Click to expand...

I think you mean plaque.
 
Christopher7 said:
You just will not accept any evidence that proves temperatures far in access of what office fires can attain.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty misleading statement. A truer statement would include "average office fires". So we have on one end of the spectrum, the World Trade Center as pretty much the worst case scenario. The other end is a waste paper basket fire.

Not to mention, HUNDREDS of offices were lit on fire, simultaneously. Nothing average about this event. It was truly unique. Stop comparing it to "average" fires.

IDK about you guys but the disgust I feel from blatantly misleading statements (amongst other things) about an event that killed so many is what drives me to try and fight the stupid. I don't find much actual entertainment value in debunking. Makes me sick sometimes what I read. I've said it before, sometimes, I get so disgusted I have to just close my browser.

Only dating sites are worse. On a few occasions I was so disgusted I had to shut down my whole computer and walk away lol.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Chris Mohr:

"Since it looks like there are lots of micro spheres in the dust, as much as 6% micro spheres but maybe less, I just don't believe we have fully accounted for this high a quantity yet."

Sounds like a debunker thinks it's "unusual".

You like to pass the ball eh?
Click to expand...

So now wanting to account for something is the equivalent of finding it "unusual"??? It only becomes "unusual" to me at least, IF it cannot be accounted for......and then only as a curiosity to anyone other than a twoofer. Chris can speak for himself but he has already admitted he does not know enough on this subject to know what is "usual" or "unusual".
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Where did the water come from on 9/11? Sprinklers? I know they shut off in 7 but what about the towers?
Click to expand...

Water could come from water main risers. They were sheared off by the impact of the planes and there are multiple reports of water flowing down at least some of the stairs as a result. I don't recall, but its likely all water pressure was not lost until the first tower fell and sheared the mains at ground level.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Ya I won that one. I cited a link that says it did.
Click to expand...

images.jpg
 
Hi Sheeples,
Did you know I spent several weeks last summer in Aspen enjoying the music festival... and Charlie Sheen was my neighbor? I almost ran into him on my bicycle when he walked into the street without looking. He looked at me like he wanted to kill me.
And as far as me and the amount of iron-rich spheres in the dust, it seems like a high number but yes, as a nonscientist 1) I have no authority to make assertions on this matter, I just ask questions 2) I am looking for a more definitive and clear answer for why there were so many of them. I won't rule out any possibility until it becomes more clear... very different from me saying yes to the thermite explanation, a position I have NOT taken.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
As I said earlier I watch all your stuff. I happen to have inside knowledge, that a few truthers are working on refuting you. Last I heard they were through about 15 of your videos. They wish to wait until all are complete before they surface on You Tube.

Anyway, I would like to challenge you to a new thread I want to open. I wish to propose a debate with you (and everyone) on the free fall acceleration of WTC 7. In your video, you basically cite the NIST report saying that all the columns fell inside first and then the exterior shell fell at free fall. That is am impossability.

I will present the argument that a single column failure could not have lead to the entire collapse of the building.

Challenge.
Click to expand...
Hi SLT,

I have been working with TruthMakesPeace, a 9/11 Truth activist, for several months now. He and Richard Gage are working with other 9/11 researchers to rebut all 235 points I made in my videos. I hope that's the one you are talking about. It will be a well-organized, respectful series of brief counter-rebuttals. I will then be able to make comments on those. It's all well-organized. If there's another one, they should know about this one which has Gage's blessings, so one united rebuttal can go out which represents well the AE911 position. There are some people like Jeremy Hammond I won't engage in discussions with because he calls me either ignorant or willfully dishonest, and then it degenerates into a debate about me and not about the subject at hand.

Remember, I had two motivations for doing all this 1) to rebut claims made by Richard Gage which I believe are not backed by science and 2) to model respectful disagreement. So people who are disrespectful towards me will find their responses unanswered.

Speaking of debates, right now in the 9/11 world, in two or three weeks the preliminary results from James Millette's studies will be coming out. There will be lots of work around that. Then there will be this mega-re-rebuttal, which by the way will include lots on Building 7 (lots of people on your side HATE my explanation of the freefall collapse...
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0

So I am going to say no to your challenge, even though I believe you would be respectful. I just don't have time to do it justice in two forums. And BTW, out of fairness I am sticking around awhile after the Millette study and the re-rebuttals come out to be available for more answers. But my goal is to go into 9/11 semi-retirement. After these two things wrap up, I think I will have done all I can do. The muse calls me and I'm composing music much more these days!
 
Myriad said:
A few points:

-- The "melted concrete" encasing the gun is more likely crushed concrete and glass, that was sintered back into a more or less solid mass by heat. Look that word up if you're not familiar with it. It's important.

-- It is well known in the field of archaeology that ferromagnetic residues are created and left behind by ordinary wood fires. This fact is used to find fireplaces and evidence of destruction by fire in archaeological site surveys, using magnetometers. The only known ferromagnetic substance found in detectable amounts in wood ash is iron-rich microspheres, according to numerous studies of wood ash. This adds up to strong evidence that iron microspheres are produced in wood fires. I proposed a plausible mechanism for this (including where the iron comes from, and how the spheres are formed by condensation without reaching the melting temperature of bulk iron), back on page 1 of this thread.

-- Coal does not contain iron microspheres, but coal ash does. Coal burning as commonly practiced does not reach temperatures sufficient to melt bulk iron. This supports the previous point, as the mechanism for production of iron microspheres in coal fires, which is a known and proven phenomenon, would also be expected to occur in wood and wood product (e.g. paper) fires.

-- By contrast, iron microspheres of the type found, composed of iron oxides, are inconsistent with the thermite theory of either thermite reaction product or structural steel melted by thermite being turned into droplets by mechanical agitation. Thermite residue is reduced iron (the thermite reaction is exactly the reduction of iron oxide into elemental iron) and any structural steel melted by thermite would also be reduced iron. Iron oxide would be found as a layer on the surface, with pure iron inside. This is not observed.

There is no mystery about the presence of the microspheres (only some uncertainty on how much of them were pre-existing contaminants from various sources and how many came from the fire) and their presence does not support any proposed thermite hypothesis.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
Every one of these points was helpful to me, so thanks very much Myriad. I looked up sintering and that process does seem to possibly explain the concrete phenomena. And yes, there are many examples of concrete/cement sintering easily found on google. But I have not seen any response to this post from SLT or MM or others. I challenge you to look carefully at what he says and acknowledge or carefully rebut what he has written. It is clear enough for a layperson like me to understand.

And BTW I remember something Almond once told me: if a bunch of stuff burns and the iron remains, you will find a higher percentage of that iron in the remaining debris. Therefore, a higher percentage of iron can be at least partially explained by fire burning the carbon-based stuff away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom