Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

DGM said:
Actually you did not. He did consider the things you mentioned. I believe you can find his work at the JONES.

ETA: If memory serves he and Frank Greening went back and forth on this and finally came to a compromise.
Click to expand...
Please supply a link when offering evidence.
 
Oystein said:
I have slt on ignore. Has he told us yet what minimum value in °F or °C "extreme temperatures" imply, and how he knows that's what RJ Lee means?
Click to expand...

Super thinks RJ Lee actually said that impossibly high thermite melting temperatures (he gives the figure 2800F) were reached and that is what they meant when they said "high temperatures". He is saying that this is not truthers interpretation of their findings, but rather that RJ Lee actually meant that at the time they wrote the report.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
How is this discrepancy possible?
Click to expand...
Iron is heavy and fell out of the dust faster than anything else. The amount of iron in the dust gets proportionately less in more distant locations, hence the discrepancy.

Now, 1,2% iron in the dust created by crumbling buildings is indeed entirely expected.
Click to expand...
In fact, none other than Steven Jones found that the WTC concrete (bulk, unburned) contains 3.6% iron.
Click to expand...
Source?

Since Concrete made up a significant portion of the dust but maybe not the majority, it is unsurprising to find 1/3 of that iron concentration in concrete in the resulting dust, which is mixed with other dust from iron-poor materials (such as wallboard), but also enriched by the burning of iron-bearing substances such as - paint.
Click to expand...
Lead paint has been banned from New York for more than 40 years.
http://www.keoghcrispi.com/Practice-Areas/Lead-Paint-Poisoning.shtml

For all I care the question if these speres contain mostly just iron oxide (unsurprising), or a significant proportion of reduced, elemental iron (surprising), also makes some sense.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point: Iron melted [at 2800oF] during the WTC event producing spherical metallic particles.

These particles were deposited by the dust cloud.

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust. Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC [2800oF], the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust.
These products are:
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
 
superlogicalthinker said:
"Considering high temperature"

This is the part of the sentence that is preparing the reader for what they expected.

"the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust"

This is the part of the sentence that confirms what they expected due to the high temperatures they previously considered. The high temperature of 2800F.
It's that simple boys really. Kind of like Grade 7 physics. Simple.
Click to expand...


where do they say 2800F? or are you implying that's what they meant because you think the only way iron rich micro-spheres could be formed is at that temperature? Others have already shown that is NOT the case.
 
Christopher7 said:
These particles were deposited by the dust cloud.

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust. Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC [2800oF], the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust.
These products are:
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
Click to expand...


You two keep ignoirng what I say about this why?

A few of my posts you both have ignored...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7977499&postcount=606
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978603&postcount=689
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978862&postcount=708
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978888&postcount=713
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978811&postcount=704
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978629&postcount=692
 
Last edited:
I understand that this is difficult for the folks here at JREF so I'll simplify.

Iron melted during the event [fire and collapse] creating spheres.

Iron melts at 2800oF.

Therefore:

Temperatures reached 2800oF during the event.

And then:

The spheres were carried by the WTC dust cloud into the bank building.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
where do they say 2800F? or are you implying that's what they meant because you think the only way iron rich micro-spheres could be formed is at that temperature? Others have already shown that is NOT the case.
Click to expand...

you mean:

you think the only way previously molten iron rich micro-spheres could be formed is at that temperature?
Click to expand...
And yes i do in this case.
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
and you differ exactly how?
Click to expand...

You see how an argument/discussion works Super is that I say something and then you reply to what I said, then I reply to what you said and we have this back and forth.

Currently I have to repeat myself over and over because you keep ignoring what i said in response to you, where you just say the the same thing you initially said but with different fonts and colours. I already get what you're saying, you don't need to make it bold in pink in size 6. This is the part where you actually respond to what I said in response to you.

A few posts of mine you have ignored,.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7977499&postcount=606
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978603&postcount=689
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978862&postcount=708
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978888&postcount=713
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978811&postcount=704
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7978629&postcount=692
 
Last edited:
 
I am posting this as a serious question. I am, once again, not disputing the chain of custody, but is there any record of the happenings at 130 Liberty Street during the 9 months? When they collected this sample were there possible environmental changes going on? Was there welding or demolition going on inside the building?

I remember seeing that the dust was "collected from places that doesn't doesn't go." Whatever that means. I haven't seen the environment that the dust was in be addressed, and I feel it's relevant.
 
Edx said:
Super thinks RJ Lee actually said that impossibly high thermite melting temperatures (he gives the figure 2800F) were reached and that is what they meant when they said "high temperatures". He is saying that this is not truthers interpretation of their findings, but rather that RJ Lee actually meant that at the time they wrote the report.
Click to expand...

I agree that this interpretation is consistent with the words of the RJ Lee report. Is it not? Except for saying "thermite" outright.

I'll say it again and clearly: The RJ Lee report reports "iron speres" in high abundance ("iron speres", not "iron-rich speres"!), and they do say "iron was melted" and they do speak of "high temperature" ("high", not "extreme"!) many times. So yes, it appears that RJ Lee implies that (pure?) iron was subjected to a temperature "high" enough to "melt" steel, and yes, such a temperature is at least not far from 1500°C, and yes, that is far hotter than office fires are in fact expected to get, and no, we have no evidence that such temperatures were reached as a result of "ordinary" office fires.

I wish debunkers hat the confidence to admit that such a (literal) reading of the RJ Lee report is not outlandish.



The problem comes in when we consider the following facts:
  • Figuring out the precise reason why anything found in the dust formed was not an objective of their study - they just didn't study that.
  • We know as a definite fact that the 9/11 did not nearly contain 5.87% iron, so it is a fact that it did not contain 5.87% by weight iron spheres, nor did it contain 5.87% by weight iron pyramids, 5.87% by weight iron swords or 5.87% by weight iron letters "O", "Y", "S", "T", "E", "I", "N"
  • RJ Lee talks about fires and combustion often in the report, and sometimes makes specific reference to "fires in commercial office buildings", particular building contents that burned (e.g. page 2: "Building contents of the WTC included [list of things] ... and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."). Or page 5: "Particles of partially burned or melted plastic ... were commonly observed in WTC Dust due to the fire that accompanied the WTC Event". So throughout the document, context suggests that high temps were the result of fires, and fires were combustion of building content. Nowhere do they offer the slightest hint that "fires" could refer to anything else but the combustion of normal building contents!
In context, I think it is very reasonable to interprete RJ Lee this way: "The building was on fire, this (and not thermite) lead to high temperatures sufficient to create spheres of several kinds, including those with iron". No specific minimum temperature above those truly expected in commercial office fires needed.
 
Oystein said:
I agree that this interpretation is consistent with the words of the RJ Lee report. Is it not? Except for saying "thermite" outright.

I'll say it again and clearly: The RJ Lee report reports "iron speres" in high abundance ("iron speres", not "iron-rich speres"!), and they do say "iron was melted" and they do speak of "high temperature" ("high", not "extreme"!) many times. So yes, it appears that RJ Lee implies that (pure?) iron was subjected to a temperature "high" enough to "melt" steel, and yes, such a temperature is at least not far from 1500°C, and yes, that is far hotter than office fires are in fact expected to get, and no, we have no evidence that such temperatures were reached as a result of "ordinary" office fires.

I wish debunkers hat the confidence to admit that such a (literal) reading of the RJ Lee report is not outlandish.
.
Click to expand...


Well, it is outlandish, because they are essentially saying that RJ Lee admitted 911 was an inside job and no one, not even them, gives a crap about it.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
You keep ignoring us. You have a learning block in your head it seems.
Click to expand...

You have failed to respond to my critcism of your continued use of the quotes from the RJ Lee report. I havent ignored you, I have directly responded to you. I understand what you are saying and have described that to others that don't seem to understand. What exactly am I ignoring? You however have ignored consistently each time my repeated requests for you to tell me why your interpretation of the RJ Lee report can possibly be credible when it requires them to casually admit they know 911 was in inside job and then no one, not even them, cares about it. (apart from a few truthers of course)
 
Edx said:
No one is denying that there were high temperatures on 911!

But you claim that RJ Lee casually admit that they knew that it wasnt just high temperatures that were reached, impossible temperatures were reached and therefore they KNOW that it had to be an inside job. Isnt it interesting how blase they they are about it and none of them have followed up this report and no one apart from truthers has noticed this apparently "obvious" ground breaking research that - according to you - literally says that impossible temperatures were there on 911 that can only be explained by some kind of exotic incendiary, like thermite.
Click to expand...

I commented on this one already. silly debunkers.
 
Edx said:
[edited out huge size font]

There must be some kind of rule that says you cant keep spamming colors and huge fonts cluttering up a thread like this for no reason.

As I told you the last time. You claim that RJ Lee casually admit that they knew that it wasnt just high temperatures that were reached, impossible temperatures were reached and therefore they know that it had to be an inside job because theres no way else to explain it. Isnt it interesting how blase they they are about it and none of them have followed up this report and no one apart from truthers has noticed this apparently "obvious" ground breaking research that - according to you - literally says that impossible temperatures were there on 911 that can only be explained by some kind of exotic incendiary, like thermite.

You ever going to reply to this or what?
Click to expand...

What are you saying is an impossible temperature? Surely not 2800F, because RJ Lee told you it was there. Are you saying RJ Lee is wrong and you are right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom