Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Senenmut]

Sunstealer has done an excellent job in this thread showing that the red chips were indeed the anti-corrosive primer painted onto the steel beams. That primer is known to contain iron microspheres as a pigment. See NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D.

and did that primer react at 420 or 430c. i believe they tested that primer up to 600c if i remember correct.

 

[The Almond]

only the red grey chips DO NOT contain iron microspheres PRE IGNITION!!! get with the program almond!!

A quick perusal of that thread will show why this statement is wrong.

are ya saying its in the concrete from the wtc? or are you just blowing smoke?

You seem to be hung up on this. Let's look at your options:
1) The concrete contained no iron microspheres. If this is true, then we still have two very reasonable, non-thermite related sources for the iron microspheres. They were created by the fire or they were already there in the dust. Then end result is: no thermite necessary to explain the presence of those particles.

2) Concrete did indeed contain iron microspheres. They added to the presence of iron microspheres produced by the fire and the dust of the collapse. The tally would be 3 sources rather than 2.

That's it. Concrete is indeed a possible source of some of the iron microspheres. It is my professional opinion that the cement used to form the concrete floors in the WTC was supplemented with fly ash. This opinion is based on 4 years of experience designing and producing concrete mixtures. I have never, ever, made a concrete without fly ash or some other SCM. To do so would be idiotic. I've never seen a report stating that the WTC complex concrete did not have any fly ash in it.

 

[patchbunny]

Walkyrie, it's customary to comment on what you've posted. Or are you just going to post and run again?

Lemme guess.

 

[Sunstealer]

what makes you think iron microspheres were in the wtc concrete. jones crushed some up and low and behold, no iron microspheres. plus check out this article:

"Additional barriers deal with building codes and the need to adhere to existing standards. Years of effort and very aggressive champions are always needed to get a new material into common use. As an example, Hooper discussed the difficulty in persuading building officials to accept fly-ash residue from coal burning as a component in concrete. Adding fly ash makes concrete a more environmentally friendly material, but required federal legislation to overcome skeptics."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_200204/ai_n21311364/

Disengenuous as ever.

Owing to its pozzolanic properties, fly ash is used as a replacement for some of the Portland cement content of concrete.[18] The use of fly ash as a pozzolanic ingredient was recognized as early as 1914, although the earliest noteworthy study of its use was in 1937.[19] Before its use was lost to the Dark Ages, Roman structures such as aqueducts or the Pantheon in Rome used volcanic ash (which possesses similar properties to fly ash) as pozzolan in their concrete.[20] As pozzolan greatly improves the strength and durability of concrete, the use of ash is a key factor in their preservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Portland_cement

Fly ash concrete was first used in the U.S. in 1929 for the Hoover Dam, where engineers found that it allowed for less total cement. It is now used across the country.

http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Foundations/fly-ash-concrete

I find your tactics despicable. You try and show that it's difficult to get fly ash in cement by quoting a passage, but you have no idea what date or time that passage relates to. /spit. Read the above and weep.

Truthers - always distorting the truth for their own sad purpose.

 

[Sunstealer]

and did that primer react at 420 or 430c. i believe they tested that primer up to 600c if i remember correct.

No because if you had actually read the paper and my analysis you would understand that the chip they soaked in MEK was WTC primer paint, however, the samples a-d that were subjected to DSC were NOT WTC primer paint, but a different red paint. I've been saying it for 22 months and this week proved it using Jones' own data shown in one of his lectures!

Jeez get with the program bud, you are waaaay behind.

 

[Senenmut]

A quick perusal of that thread will show why this statement is wrong.

there are zero iron microspheres in the pre ignition chips.

You seem to be hung up on this. Let's look at your options:

only 2 options? alittle false dicotomy for anyone!!

1) The concrete contained no iron microspheres. If this is true, then we still have two very reasonable, non-thermite related sources for the iron microspheres. They were created by the fire or they were already there in the dust. Then end result is: no thermite necessary to explain the presence of those particles.

the rj lee report stated that:
"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)."

ok. do you admit to melting of iron or steel. extrapolate that 5.87% fe spheres and you got alot of melted steel!!

then you state "or they were already there in the dust". considering the rj lee report found only 0.04% in the background dust and 5.87 in the wtc dust, then your statement has a problem!!

2) Concrete did indeed contain iron microspheres. They added to the presence of iron microspheres produced by the fire and the dust of the collapse. The tally would be 3 sources rather than 2.

point out the fly ash in these pics:
"Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component."
so click on the above links and see if ya see any fly ash in the 5, 10, 100 micron range!!

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-02-IMAGE.jpg

10 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-03-IMAGE.jpg

100 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-05-IMAGE.jpg[/QUOTE]

That's it. Concrete is indeed a possible source of some of the iron microspheres. It is my professional opinion that the cement used to form the concrete floors in the WTC was supplemented with fly ash. This opinion is based on 4 years of experience designing and producing concrete mixtures. I have never, ever, made a concrete without fly ash or some other SCM. To do so would be idiotic. I've never seen a report stating that the WTC complex concrete did not have any fly ash in it.

only possilbe if it had indeed contained fly ash but alasssssss....no fly ash in the wtc concrete!!

 

[Senenmut]

No because if you had actually read the paper and my analysis you would understand that the chip they soaked in MEK was WTC primer paint, however, the samples a-d that were subjected to DSC were NOT WTC primer paint, but a different red paint. I've been saying it for 22 months and this week proved it using Jones' own data shown in one of his lectures!

Jeez get with the program bud, you are waaaay behind.

you came in alittle late. the almond was saying the iron microspheres were already in the red grey chips pre ignition. this is what the almond was saying:

Originally Posted by The Almond
Incorrect. They were present in the red chips to begin with. Iron oxide is used as a pigment.


then me-
hahaha.....man you are something else. are you trying to say they use iron microspheres (see fig 21 in the active thermitic paper) as a pigment? where do ya see iron microspheres in the red grey chips pre ignition?

 

[Senenmut]

Disengenuous as ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Portland_cement

http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Foundations/fly-ash-concrete

I find your tactics despicable. You try and show that it's difficult to get fly ash in cement by quoting a passage, but you have no idea what date or time that passage relates to. /spit. Read the above and weep.

Truthers - always distorting the truth for their own sad purpose.

fly ash was not used in the construction of the wtc.
find some fly ash for me.
"Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component."
so click on the above links and see if ya see any fly ash in the 5, 10, 100 micron range!!

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-02-IMAGE.jpg

10 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-03-IMAGE.jpg

100 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-05-IMAGE.jpg[/QUOTE]

 

[The Almond]

there are zero iron microspheres in the pre ignition chips.

Please understand, we're talking about 2 different materials subjected to two different tests. Sunstealer has shown this in exhaustive detail. Just because Jones didn't find microspheres in one does not mean that there were no spheres in the other. Got it?

only 2 options? alittle false dicotomy for anyone!!

the rj lee report stated that:
"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)."

ok. do you admit to melting of iron or steel. extrapolate that 5.87% fe spheres and you got alot of melted steel!!

Do you not understand that iron microspheres are produced in ordinary wood fires? Why must you continuously quote a report you do not fully understand?

then you state "or they were already there in the dust". considering the rj lee report found only 0.04% in the background dust and 5.87 in the wtc dust, then your statement has a problem!!

Do you not understand that, because RJ Lee found iron microspheres in dust prior to 9/11, that utterly destroys Jones's argument? That means that the sources for the iron microspheres can be explained entirely by fire and dust.

Let's try a thought experiment. You see a coin on the ground. You conclude that the coin comes from someone's pocket. That's perfectly reasonable. You could also conclude that a coin was dropped there by a bird. It would be unreasonable to say to someone, "Because I found a coin on the ground, it was dropped by a bird." Other reasonable explanations exist for the presence of the coin, so it's unreasonable to assume that only a bird could have dropped the coin.

Jones is blinded by his desire to prove that thermite destroyed the towers. He's certain that only thermite can cause iron microspheres to form, and that conclusion is nothing short of idiotic.

point out the fly ash in these pics:
"Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component."
so click on the above links and see if ya see any fly ash in the 5, 10, 100 micron range!!

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-02-IMAGE.jpg

10 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-03-IMAGE.jpg

100 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-05-IMAGE.jpg

Let me get this straight: You don't see any fly ash in those concrete samples, and your conclusion, drawn from 3 images, is that no fly ash existed in the WTC concrete? Is that correct?

only possilbe if it had indeed contained fly ash but alasssssss....no fly ash in the wtc concrete!!

So, because you can't find it, it doesn't exist. That type of reasoning is what has made you a truther.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And here we go again about finding iron oxide (rust) in the dust samples.

Is this circular reasoning or is this just another circle jerk thread?

 

[Sunstealer]

fly ash was not used in the construction of the wtc.
find some fly ash for me.
"Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component."
so click on the above links and see if ya see any fly ash in the 5, 10, 100 micron range!!
[5 microns]
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-02-IMAGE.jpg

Scale - Look at the Scale

For god's sake why are truthers so stupid? You don't actually know what you are looking at do you? Here's a clue.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-03-IMAGE.jpg

Now compare the scales. How big is the concrete particle? How big is the iron spherical? Senenmut - Why would you not expect the iron spherical to be inside the concrete particle?

Can you work it out Senenmut?

If anyone wants a laugh just scale the pictures until the white bars are the same lengths then look at how big the ironsphere is compared to the concrete particle.

10 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-03-IMAGE.jpg

Ditto - here's a helping hand. Do you like to be spoon fed Senenmut? Man this would be painful if it wasn't so funny.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04-IMAGE.jpg

100 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-05-IMAGE.jpg

I can see 3 potential sites in this one where "pull-out" of spherical particles could have occurred. Wow - all 3 sites are about right for the scale. What would we be looking for specifically Senenmut if we were looking for sites where particles could previously have been? Can you tell me?

 

[Sunstealer]

you came in alittle late. the almond was saying the iron microspheres were already in the red grey chips pre ignition. this is what the almond was saying:

Originally Posted by The Almond
Incorrect. They were present in the red chips to begin with. Iron oxide is used as a pigment.


then me-
hahaha.....man you are something else. are you trying to say they use iron microspheres (see fig 21 in the active thermitic paper) as a pigment? where do ya see iron microspheres in the red grey chips pre ignition?

no but there are rhombohedral Fe2O3 and the gray layer strongly appears to be steel.

Hold on - breaking headlines.

Nanothermite found in Oslo

Fig. 27 shows a sphere found in the WTC dust. Findings of such spheres should not come as a surprise, as they are abundant. It has long been a popular activity in science projects for children. I can not resist showing an example that we have collected with a handheld magnet in Oslo. A short discussion is given in endnote 4.

Spherical particle collected by strong handheld magnet on dust in Oslo. This is a little unusual in that the surface is very dendrittic(sic). Usually they are smother(sic). http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

So how did that get there if only thermite produces these particles? 1..2..3.. fake/disinfo, blah, blah, blah.

 

[Senenmut]

Please understand, we're talking about 2 different materials subjected to two different tests. Sunstealer has shown this in exhaustive detail. Just because Jones didn't find microspheres in one does not mean that there were no spheres in the other. Got it?

the red grey chips didnt have microspheres pre ignition.

Do you not understand that iron microspheres are produced in ordinary wood fires? Why must you continuously quote a report you do not fully understand?

ok, then this is how the microspheres formed:
rj lee report:
"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)."

Do you not understand that, because RJ Lee found iron microspheres in dust prior to 9/11, that utterly destroys Jones's argument? That means that the sources for the iron microspheres can be explained entirely by fire and dust.

iron microspheres in background dust 0.04%. microspheres in wtc dust = 5.87.

Jones is blinded by his desire to prove that thermite destroyed the towers. He's certain that only thermite can cause iron microspheres to form, and that conclusion is nothing short of idiotic.

his red grey chips produced iron microspheres.

Let me get this straight: You don't see any fly ash in those concrete samples, and your conclusion, drawn from 3 images, is that no fly ash existed in the WTC concrete? Is that correct?

show me a pic that does have fly ash in wtc concrete!

 

[Senenmut]

Scale - Look at the Scale

For god's sake why are truthers so stupid? You don't actually know what you are looking at do you? Here's a clue.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-03-IMAGE.jpg

Now compare the scales. How big is the concrete particle? How big is the iron spherical? Senenmut - Why would you not expect the iron spherical to be inside the concrete particle?

Can you work it out Senenmut?

If anyone wants a laugh just scale the pictures until the white bars are the same lengths then look at how big the ironsphere is compared to the concrete particle.


Ditto - here's a helping hand. Do you like to be spoon fed Senenmut? Man this would be painful if it wasn't so funny.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04-IMAGE.jpg

I can see 3 potential sites in this one where "pull-out" of spherical particles could have occurred. Wow - all 3 sites are about right for the scale. What would we be looking for specifically Senenmut if we were looking for sites where particles could previously have been? Can you tell me?

its not just the iron microspheres on looks at when looking at concrete made with fly ash!!!!

 

[Sunstealer]

Nice dodge!

And why would you expect a spherical particle like those shown to adhere to the surface of a concrete particle?

Care to address the issue of iron microspheres produced from combustion? Do you not think that a large fire containing all sorts of material could produce these spheres?

I also suggest you go and look at my posts in this thread debunking the Harrit et al paper yet again. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145296&page=14

That paper is toast.

 

[The Almond]

the red grey chips didnt have microspheres pre ignition.

I'll defer to Sunstealer on this one. The fact remains that iron was present in the samples as something known as micateous iron oxide.

ok, then this is how the microspheres formed:
rj lee report:
"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)."

You understand this process occurs in wood fires, right? Just tell me that you understand that the heat produced in an ordinary wood fire is sufficient to do this.

iron microspheres in background dust 0.04%. microspheres in wtc dust = 5.87.

Yes, a fire caused more iron microspheres to be present. What's your point? My point, which you continue to ignore, is that there are banal, uninteresting explanations for iron microspheres. The production of iron microspheres does not prove or even imply a thermite reaction.

show me a pic that does have fly ash in wtc concrete!

Let me see if I understand this. You looked at 3 pictures of concrete particles, and in your valued opinion as an expert, you decided that there were no fly ash particles. You then concluded that fly ash was not used in the construction of the WTC towers. Despite knowing that fly ash has been used in cement and concrete production for most of the 20th century, the only thing that will prove that fly ash existed in concrete is an electron micrograph showing fly ash particles. Arguing this point has almost no bearing on the larger issue of thermite, since two other reasonable sources exist for the particles whose presence is not in doubt. At best, you're hoping to win a minor ego trip victory, at worst, you're just arguing this point for the sake of arguing.

Does that about sum it up? Is that why you're so bent on this?

 

[Senenmut]

almond, i bet you can find the fly ash in this piece!

 

[The Almond]

almond, i bet you can find the fly ash in this piece!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_285444d7e8e6f46c77.gif[/qimg]

Really? That's your response?

 

[triforcharity]

How did those microspheres become trapped in the concrete in the first place?

When they mixed it at the concrete plant would be my guess.....

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I see no point in arguing with moronic Truthers about those rust deposits on 9/11.

They know that they don't have a prayer proving that the iron oxide came from thermite.

They don't have a clue that the salty atmosphere around Manhatten Island came from the North Atlantic Ocean. They have no clue that salt is an enemy to exposed steel. They have no clue that the water being pumped into the debris pile would create rust particles over months of exposure to the elements. They have no clue that cutting the remaining steel would leave trace amounts of iron deposits on the site.

Truthers don't give a damn about reasoning or evidence. They're here to argue for the sake of arguing.