Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Ivan Kminek said:
I have made again some attempts to copy pages from this paper with SEM and XEDS spectra of some spheres and they are stored here: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/flyash5.png/ and here http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/flyash6.png/
Click to expand...
Those images are useless. Too small to read and no reference as to where the spheres came from or who wrote the paper.
Please try again

Chris


ETA: On second thought, fagidaboudit. You tried to pass off a blatant fraud with an unreadable image and then one where I had to strain the see the numbers on the EDS. A scientist would not get the elements wrong.

We're done. I would not trust anything you posted without a URL so I could go see it for myself.
Vaya con Dios
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Dude, Bankers' Trust was down-stream of the turbidity flow from the collapse of WTC 7, with WTC 6 in between them. Don't even try to tell me that that did not put some lead into BT.
Click to expand...
It added trace amounts but not enough to alter the balance of contaminates between the places where passive dust settles and places where the pressurized dust cloud forced the dust into areas like: "[FONT=&quot]in a motor that was sealed prior to being disassembled for inspection."[/FONT] [Badger]

RJ Lee 2004
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.


ETA: How do you justify metals floating on the breeze but not leaving the building in a strong updraft with the smoke?
 
Last edited:
Chris7: As regards this blatant fraud, you meant this Chinese paper? It seems to me that there was no "fraud" there, just erroneous labeling of XEDS peaks (and I have overlooked it). Aluminum and silicon (and iron) compounds are anyway regular components of fly ash, according to Wiki, why I should have any doubts here?

As regards this American paper, I have linked it correctly above. You don't have any access even to its title, authors and abstract through ScienceDirect? If you would like to read it in detail, just visit some library or buy it. I don't care.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
...
ETA: On second thought, fagidaboudit. You tried to pass off a blatant fraud with an unreadable image and then one where I had to strain the see the numbers on the EDS. A scientist would not get the elements wrong.
Click to expand...

Hmmm let's see...
Steven E. Jones...
Here: http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

Do you see the screenshot, my Figure C? It's from a presentation held by Steven E. Jones, where he proved (correctly) that chips (a)-(d) were not column primer. Now look at that graph on the right, and the lables in the middle - the large peak between K and Ca - do you see that? It's a "C". Is that really C? Nope, it isn't. C has only one peak, and its on the far left.

Such a fraud Mr. Steve Jones, he is! I hope you are now properly done with that fraudster! :D
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Chris7: As regards this blatant fraud, you meant this Chinese paper? It seems to me that there was no "fraud" there, just erroneous labeling of XEDS peaks (and I have overlooked it). Aluminum and silicon (and iron) compounds are anyway regular components of fly ash, according to Wiki, why I should have any doubts here?
...
Click to expand...

I suspect the labels on the peaks are correct, but the scale on the x-axis is wrong. This can sometimes happen if you superimpose the scale on the graph and are not careful. The relative distances between the Al-Si-S group of peaks, Ca and Fe is about right, but the graph doesn't start at 0 keV on the left but maybe 1.25.

Something similar happened in the Harrit e.al. paper in figure 7, where the axises, scales and labels are not part of the image, but superimposed on the graph. You know this is so when you highlight the graph and copy it to an imaging software such as Paint: You'll get the graph without the scales. Now, in Figure 7, the graph for (a) is slightly compressed horizontally compared with (b)-(d). If they had only one scale marker for all four subgraphs, then 7(a) would show the peak at the wrong location.

What I am saying is, that is likely an editing error, and not deliberate.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Chris7: As regards this blatant fraud, you meant this Chinese paper? It seems to me that there was no "fraud" there, just erroneous labeling of XEDS peaks (and I have overlooked it). Aluminum and silicon (and iron) compounds are anyway regular components of fly ash, according to Wiki, why I should have any doubts here?

As regards this American paper, I have linked it correctly above. You don't have any access even to its title, authors and abstract through ScienceDirect? If you would like to read it in detail, just visit some library or buy it. I don't care.
Click to expand...
I missed the URL. My bad.
I can't read the elements and I don't have the time to go to the library and look it up. Could you crop them?

Putting aside the aluminosilicone sphere because it is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

If your point is: you get different readings when looking at different spots then one of them does and one does not. However, neither look like the sphere in the RJ Lee report and they lack the O spike of thermite.
 
Christopher7 said:
...If your point is: you get different readings when looking at different spots then one of them does and one does not. However, neither look like the sphere in the RJ Lee report and they lack the O spike of thermite.
Click to expand...

If you mean "the O spike of everything", I think I can explain that: Those Chinese graph are cut off left of the Al spike. O and C landed on the cutting room floor. Maybe because they are everywhere.

The interesting speheres are anyway those with (seeminly) too little O ;))
 
Oystein: as usually, you are right: x-axes are apparently shifted in XEDS spectra in this Chinese paper. It is apparent (among others) from the position of Fe peak, which should be at ca 6.4 KeV, but it lies at ca 5.3 KeV in Fig. 4.
I simply didn't check the x-axis and I fully relied on the notation of peaks (contrary to Chris7, who was more careful). It's a shame for the Chinese authors that they didn't corrected those errors.

Anyway, peaks denoted as Al, Si and S still very probably belonged to these elements.

Chris7: since you are not linking or citing here anything in support of your thermite theories , you are of course not risking any such error or "not ideal citation"; and therefore, you can easily establish yourself as a kind of "scathing reviewer". Enjoy it, anyway:cool:

Btw, to all: do you also encounter quite serious problems with the connection to JREF last days?
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
Btw, to all: do you also encounter quite serious problems with the connection to JREF last days?
Click to expand...
They log you out after 5 or 10 minutes with no activity. Other than that the only problem i have is with the JREFers themselves. :D

My thermite theories?

I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em. There was molten steel/iron in the debris pile. The folks here deny that but that's just what they do. The NYPD Museum has a gun encased in concrete that melted and flowed around everything in it's path. Iron melted and lead vaporized.

What we have here is a preponderance of evidence for temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain, local denial notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
So your position is:
As the office contents burned the trace amounts of iron in them formed into microspheres and fell to the floor, despite the air turbulence and updraft that carried other particulates away as smoke?

I offer the iron microspheres in the stack of the solid waste incinerator as evidence that they would be carried away in the smoke.

What evidence do you have that these iron microspheres fell to the floor while air was rapidly rising and smoke was pouring out of the building?
Click to expand...
Bottom ash. Look it up -same thing happens in waste incinerators - not all of the material ends up as fly-ash (i.e. going up the chimney).

God it's painful - spoon feeding a 6 month old is less tiresome.
 
Christopher7 said:
Not surprisingly, when referring to the iron spheres, NIST sidesteps the iron spheres and says that there is "no conclusive evidence to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7" but they do not say that there is no evidence and make no attempt to explain the iron spheres.
Click to expand...
You assume that
a)the iron microspheres were evidence, conclusive or otherwise of "highly reactive pyrotechnic material"
b)the iron microspheres need explanation.

Clearly, NIST does not share this opinion.
 
Christopher7 said:
Those images are useless. Too small to read and no reference as to where the spheres came from or who wrote the paper.
Please try again

Chris


ETA: On second thought, fagidaboudit. You tried to pass off a blatant fraud with an unreadable image and then one where I had to strain the see the numbers on the EDS. A scientist would not get the elements wrong.
We're done. I would not trust anything you posted without a URL so I could go see it for myself.
Vaya con Dios
Click to expand...
Because no scientist ever makes mistakes, right? Any one who does get something wrong has to be lying? What about one who gets things wrong and refuses to admit it? Does that mean the original mistake was dishonest?

Christopher7 said:
...
What we have here is a preponderance of evidence for temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain, local denial notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Prove it. You are now arguing that such temperatures are physically impossible. What those temperatures are, oddly enough, has varied wildly in your posts.
 
Christopher7 said:
They log you out after 5 or 10 minutes with no activity. Other than that the only problem i have is with the JREFers themselves. :D

My thermite theories?

I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em. There was molten steel/iron in the debris pile. The folks here deny that but that's just what they do. The NYPD Museum has a gun encased in concrete that melted and flowed around everything in it's path. Iron melted and lead vaporized.

What we have here is a preponderance of evidence for temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain, local denial notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Here is an magnified Fig. 4 from this American paper, but notation of peaks is still quite small here. I really don' care, since the comparison of one ferrosphere from one power plant with another ferrosphere reported by Jones and his strange friends of course can't prove anything. Are you able to understand that they are quadrillions of such ferrospheres on this planet, with dramatically different look, structures and composition?

As for your litanies ala "There was molten steel/iron... blahblah"... are you serious? You demand scientific proofs for our claims, we of course demand the same!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom