Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

chrismohr said:
Oystein I snickered when you wrote that we can let this thread rest for three weeks now!
SLT and others, this thread is NOT about iron-rich microspheres. There's an old one (also created by Oystein), http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?t=187515&highlight=iron+microspheres&page=2

I wonder if we should take the microsphere battle back there? It surely isn't part of the red-gray chips argument! Or if Oystein doesn't want that thread polluted, a new one can be started up.
Click to expand...

*previous content deleted, found a better solution*

Chris,

I think the EPA-study of 2002 is not the subject of this thread, nor are any iron-rich microspheres found in any dust. The topic of this thread is still narrowly defined as "what is the origin of the red-gray chips in Harrit e.al.?". The new study about to be done by Jim Milette on new red-gray chips is thus on-topic here, as may be any criticism of Jim or his samples. Also, microspheres resulting from any tests done on red-gray chips may be on-topic here. But tests done on other kinds of particles, or microspheres that weren't created by burning red-gray chips but instead were just found in dust, are not. It follows, in my opinion anyway, that superlogicalthinker's post, and several replies, which are about an old study and about microspheres found in the dust, is in no way shape or form advancing the topic "what is the origin of red-gray chips".
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Oystein I snickered when you wrote that we can let this thread rest for three weeks now!
SLT and others, this thread is NOT about iron-rich microspheres. There's an old one (also created by Oystein), http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?t=187515&highlight=iron+microspheres&page=2

I wonder if we should take the microsphere battle back there? It surely isn't part of the red-gray chips argument! Or if Oystein doesn't want that thread polluted, a new one can be started up.

Anyway, as to the dust source questions, Dr. Millette will NOT be starting with "used" dust with altered Ph content or already burned or already chemically experimented upon or tampered with in any way. He has fresh samples because the original bags of WTC dust are still being stored by the labs that experimented on them, including his and also the labs of some of his associates. If he got a bag of dust from the EPA, he used only part of it. The unused dust is what he is using now.

And I'll say it one more time: I felt like an idiot asking Dr. Millette a SECOND TIME about the iron microspheres and why he saw them but didn't report them in his EPA study. He DID report large amounts of iron in the dust. The spherical shape of that iron-rich stuff had no bearing on its health risks to breathers of the dust after 9/11. It was a health hazards report, remember? Had they been 0.1"-long razor-sharp iron-rich particles I'm sure he would have mentioned that they would have been hazardous to breathe due to the fact they would have cut up one's lungs! SLT wrote, "There has been talk that the same scientists collaborated on the official WTC dust signature study and made the deliberate decision to not report iron spheres." Sorry SLT, the iron-rich spheres were no secret, from the RJ Lee Report on. I repeat: yesterday, when I asked him about this a second time, he simply said, "The EPA report was about the health hazards of the WTC dust, not the shape of the iron particles." He also acknowledged openly that he saw the spherical shape and will deal with it in his paper because it appears in the Harrit paper he is trying to replicate. I just don't see him hiding anything here. What more can you possibly want? What will it take for you to trust what he says, or at least to suspend judgment? You 9/11 Truth guys asked me to ask him about this twice, and I did, twice. I will not embarrass myself further by asking him a third time!
Click to expand...

Ok Chris I have decided to have faith in you. You have shown me you are at least trying to get the testing done. Still though.....they were strange. They didn't belong there. He should have reported them.

Someone asked for a photo of the spherical shape because they didn't beleive they were in that shape. No need for one now is there? Millette admits they were there.

Another point for the logical one! LOL
 
leftysergeant said:
Only if you establish that they were formed durinng the destruction of the towers. That is just silly.
Click to expand...

Lefty....don't be silly old boy... The RJ Lee Group was crystal clear in stating:
"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

So now they are the most important topic on the subject....eh lefts??????????????????
 
[ "what is the origin of red-gray chips".[/QUOTE]

Thats an easy one. They are little peices of nanothermite and some nanothermate that didnt explode, or as people call it over here, react in the, as RJ Lee put it, WTC event. Thats what they are.

The orgin is the very dedicated scientists and nanochemists of the American Military as they were the only ones who could have made it.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
[ "what is the origin of red-gray chips".
Click to expand...

Thats an easy one. They are little peices of nanothermite and some nanothermate that didnt explode, or as people call it over here, react in the, as RJ Lee put it, WTC event. Thats what they are.

The orgin is the very dedicated scientists and nanochemists of the American Military as they were the only ones who could have made it.[/quote]
peices from nanochemists. Are those tiny people? Lack of knowledge or ...

Why was carbon in the nano-thermite? You did not take chemistry, or read the thermite paper by Jones, the double failure two step to 911 truth Fantasyland.

The WTC event for RJ Lee was dust collected after May 2002. Oops.

You have clean up dust with your 911 dust. 10 years of failure, no Pulitzer, no clue for 911 truth.

Jones' failed paranoid conspiracy theorist found elements, and then claim thermite. They have Al, Fe, O, Si, C, Ca, and more, all which were already studied. Jones lies and claims thermite, when all they found was dust from the WTC collapse. RJ Lee collected samples after May 2002, which means all the clean up dust is included.

Rock wool
Vermiculite
Paint
etc, I can't believe anyone falls for Jones' delusion of thermite. No child left behind failed for 911 truth followers.

Is Iron in printer toner? Iron spheres come from diesel exhaust.

Anyone need Jones first delusional paper when he first made up thermite as the agent of MIB, NWO of EvilDoers, PM email, to me, your personal beachy
 
The Almond said:
Fe microspheres are a common component in fly ash, which is a by product of coal combustion. Most fly ash particles are glassy alumina silicates, and they will react with excess portlandite in hardened cement paste to produce CSH gel. A small portion of fly ash, which contains too much iron to be reactive, will do nothing but sit there for eons. These iron microspheres are just that.

Beyond that, iron microspheres are common components of all dust and ash samples. Wood ash, rice husk ash, and even ash from the combustion of diesel fuel will contain some of these iron rich particles. They are ubiquitous in nature.
Click to expand...

The floors are vacuumed many times during construction. They must be free of dust before any flooring can be laid down. There might be some iron microspheres inside the columns but not anything close to 6% of the weight of the WTC dust. There is no data on how many iron microspheres are created by welding so his whole argument is pure wishful thinking.

the spheres could be from fly ash, from the lightweight concrete, but fly ash is not always used and there is no evidence to establish that it was used in the TT.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you obviously have no clue that the red gray chip produces molten iron when they ignite it. When they start makin paint that does that???!!!
 
superlogicalthinker said:
And you obviously have no clue that the red gray chip produces molten iron when they ignite it. When they start makin paint that does that???!!!
Click to expand...
250,000 years ago. Why do you insist on failing? Do you try to do research, or what? wow, you are not doing good


iron has been in paint for 250,000 years


RJ Lee samples were made after May 2002, after thousands of tons of steel were cut into pieces, or peices, whatever 911 truth is using these days. How much iron is in printer toner? How many diesel generators were used during clean up? Iron spheres.

Does jet fuel produce iron spheres (yes/no)? Oops, I found some iron spheres in my back yard. Why do you ignore all the dust studies?

superlogicalthinker said:
... inside the columns but not anything close to 6% of the weight of the WTC dust. ....
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You are talking about samples in a specific building, done a specific way. All the WTC dust was not 5.87 percent iron. Please show your sources. You have no clue what you are talking about.
You are using one study, and you say all the dust was 6 percent iron. Show me your source all the dust was 6 percent iron spheres. At least the earth crust will be 6 percent iron, you got that right. It is ironic you think all the dust at the WTC is 6 percent iron, and the earth's crust is 6 percent iron. Wow, the earth crust is proof of super-nano-thermite... new screen and keyboard needed...
 
Last edited:
Oystein, does it make any sense to keep so apparently derailing, unlearned and even impudent posts of SLT here? Should you let these contributions here since they probably represent a brand new level of nanotruther's fanaticism? I hesitate now. (And you have him on ignore, so you shouldn't see e.g. that he is trying now to learn Sunstealer as metallurgist in metallurgy in the thread Chain of custody:cool:)

As I remember, as regards truthers, we have met here so far:
- Bill Smith, who had discussed politely and had been always able to ask questions in the fields in which he has no education.
- MM, who had irritated me to the level that I stopped any discussion with him. Still, he is not really arrogant and I appreciate that he contributed to the fund raising of the Jim's research.
- Liberty, who appears to get some elemental education in material science and who even suggested some comparatively relevant methods for detecting elemental aluminum in red chips.
- Senenmut, who had been able to cast some comparatively relevant questions (and to read the answers).

Now, we are dealing with SLT here. He doesn't really ask and read answers, he only attacks (and for this, he deserves even some sort of arrogancy from our side). What we could learn from his intrusion? That it would not be easy to convince some (considerable) portion of truthers even with the series of extremely detailed studies of WTC dust? We all know it very well.
If you want, Oystein, let the posts of SLT here as some "exhibition" of how truthers can be really stupid. But I would suggest to all others: pls, do not react here to any post of SLT which is not on-topic. This is a thread on the origin of red-gray chips found in the dust.
 
Last edited:
"WTC meteorites" - "available" sources of WTC concrete

In the "paint thread", I have several times mentioned that so called "WTC meteorites", stored in Hangar 17 (JFK Airport), contain some WTC steel floor trusses with (perhaps) some chips of the "Laclede primer paint" preserved on them. It would be of course very interesting to get such red paint chips and compare their composition/structure with that of the red chips separated from the WTC dust.

Those meteorites seem to be very interesting even for some truthers, who claim that they see clear signs of molten/melted concrete on them (which is probably the reason why they are not well hidden in some supersecret store of CIA/NWO/Illuminati etc. organizations responsible for 911 inside job):cool:.


But, I think that the same meteorites can (potentially) serve also for the solving a problem, which is quite imporant here: did the concrete used in the construction of WTC contain any fly ash (or similar material) as a source of infamous microspheres (including iron rich)? In the "meteorites", some parts of concrete should be preserved quite well and their analysis should answer what we want to know in this regard.

(Anyway it is quite clear that getting any samples from "meteorites" would not be really easy...)

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
...What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think you are overly generous and optimistic in pursuing truthers down this side track.

The record is simple. No matter how far you follow the truthers as they go way off track thay will still move the goalposts once you answer their question.

By all means enjoy pursuing your own interest in the chemistry stuff.

...but don't lose sight of the fact that the base claim this lot grew out of is the claim that there was CD at the WTC.

There has never been posted a prima facie case that CD could be plausible.

So Jones introduced thermite, arguably in order to bring some attention back to himself since Gage was stealing the limelight.

Still no plausible claim as how thermite could be used in a CD.

Then a marketing replay as Jones et al run "nano thermXte" which gets them another boost in attention. Then Jones disassociates himself from thermXte used for CD.

(there may be a link or two I missed in here)

Then microspheres as another shifted goalposts side track. Cross combined with "pulling it"....

So "What do I think?"

well, for starters why waste time feeding trolls --- it only encourages them at zero benefit to understanding WTC 9/11 collapses...:rolleyes:
 
The other day I came across this article by Greg Jenkins from the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" (JoNES). Greg is a physicist and has published at JoNES together with Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and others from that group, so I hope this will give him street credibility with those truthers who echo the microspheres line cued by Steven Jones and friends.

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

As the title suggest, this paper is not concerned with thermite, explosives or anything and is also not concerned with microspheres, but it does contain some interesting data on the amount of iron in 9/11 dust. Jenkins set out to disprove Judy Wood's DEW theory, which claims that a large proportion of the WTC steel was "dustified". He disproves it by looking very closely at the iron content in both the dust (settled as well as airborne) and the bulk debris, and concludes that there is no more iron in the dust than expected from a gravitational collapse.

He references extensive data on dust sampled in the days immediately following 9/11: Dust sample studies were done by USGS, McGee and the EPA. Aerosols were measured by the EPA and UC Davis and OSHA.

The results are pretty clear:
  • The USGS found on average 1.6% by weight iron in the dust (sampled sept 17 and 18 2001)
  • McGee found on average 0.8% by weight iron in the dust (sampled sept 12 and 13 2001)
  • The EPA also found on average 0.8% by weight iron in the dust (sampled sept 12 and 13 2001)

And now comes the bummer (my bolding :
"The percentage of iron by weight found in WTC bulk concrete based upon a measurement performed by Dr. Steve Jones11 of the MacKinlay sample was found to be ~3.2%."​
The footnote [11] references this:
11 Dr. S. Jones Bulk Concrete measurement: 1.2%, “Comparison of elemental concentrations observed in WTC dust, concrete and wallboard samples”, To be published in Journal of 9/11 Studies​
Colour me surprised, but I find no such paper in the JoNES. One wonders why... Maybe the result isn't convenient for someone who wants to push high iron content as a bogus argument?
Jenkins goes on to predict 1.2% iron in the dust from concrete alone, under the assumption that ~36% of the mass of the towers was concrete, and that the same percentage of iron from concrete would be found if the structural steel contributed equally to the dust composition (which of course it doesn't). More realistically, since (according to Jenkins, who in turn references G. Urich) 38% of the mass of the towers was steel, and we can expect Steel not to dustify, concrete is 58% of the rest of the mass, and 3.6% iron in concrete would translate to 2.1% iron from concrete in all the dustifiable rubble.


It seems that the nearly 6% that RJ Lee reported are an extreme outlier. The event that created dust on 9/11 did NOT leave 6% iron behind. Can we find an explanation for this outlier? I think we can.

First of all, we need to note that, while the weight percentages given above for other dust samples and for bulk concrete refer to the element iron, the number 5.87% in Table 3 of the RJ Lee report refers to particulate iron - iron spheres are not 100% elemental iron! They always contain some O and C, so to compare numbers, we'd have to account for oxides, carbides and other impurities in the iron spheres, and consequently lower that number of 5.87% somewhat. I don't have a good lead by how much and will leave it at that.

Secondly, as has been pointed out, the RJ Lee sample differs from the EPA, McGee and USGS samples. The following differences may play a role:
  • The RJ Lee samples are from 130 Liberty Street, a building that is across the street from Ground Zero and was damaged by debris from the towers, while the other samples hailed from many locations, some close, some farther from GZ. Consequently, it stands to reason that RJ Lee may have a relatively higher proportion of coarser and heavier particles in their samples. Iron spheres are heavier than other dust fractions
  • RJ Lee started sampling on June 08 2002, after 9 months of clean-up work on GZ, while the other studies had finished sampling by september 18 2001, a week after a collapses
The second point could be important, because, as Jenkins relates in his paper, iron content was increased in the aerosols (solids suspended in ambient air) near GZ because of ironworkers cutting up steel (OSHA study, p. 14ff). The EPA recorded iron content in the air for several months following 9/11. their data can be accessed from a database at http://www.wtcreadings.net/wtc/post0911.aspx from where I downloaded measurements from a sampling location at Liberty St and Trinity St, just one block away from 130 Liberty St. Average iron content was 5µg/m3. RJ Lee describe how the offices in 130 Liberty Street were open to the elements, with many windows broken and a gash in the facade, facing GZ. We may assume that the air inside these offices also contained at least 5µg/m3 iron on average at all time during these months, or (at a room height of 2.5m) 12.5µg/m2 of office floor. Since air speed is reduced in these rooms, but air still constantly exchanged, it is not unreasonable that some of that iron would constantly settle on the floor. If we assume that the iron content was able to settle on average once in 12 hours, the dust would accumulate 25µg/m2/day iron spheres, or about 7mg/m2 during the 9 months before RJ Lee did the sampling.

RJ Lee reports finding, on average, 8.62g/m2 of dust. So it would seem that iron fume from clean-up work did not contribute significantly to that amount - only about 0.1%.

This leaves me with two possible reasons for the increased amount of 5.87% iron spheres, compared to the 0.8%-1.6% iron reported by others:
  • Iron content is higher closer to GZ, including 130 Liberty St, due to the higher density and lower surface-to-volume ratio of iron spheres compared with average dust constituents
  • 5.87% iron-spheres is equivalent to a lower content of the element iron - maybe on the order of 2.5-5%
The first point could possibly verified by looking at data from the other dust studies with a view to finding a correlation between distance from GZ (and possibly direction on the compass, because of wind direction) and iron content.


# oysteinbookmark
 
Last edited:
As I understand it there is some debate over the concrete, and if it contained flyash, and therefore iron microspheres. I am wondering if we would be pushing our luck to ask Jim Millette for a sample, I would think a few people on here have access to equipment to do a quick study on it.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
In the "paint thread", I have several times mentioned that so called "WTC meteorites", stored in Hangar 17 (JFK Airport), contain some WTC steel floor trusses with (perhaps) some chips of the "Laclede primer paint" preserved on them. It would be of course very interesting to get such red paint chips and compare their composition/structure with that of the red chips separated from the WTC dust.

Those meteorites seem to be very interesting even for some truthers, who claim that they see clear signs of molten/melted concrete on them (which is probably the reason why they are not well hidden in some supersecret store of CIA/NWO/Illuminati etc. organizations responsible for 911 inside job):cool:.


But, I think that the same meteorites can (potentially) serve also for the solving a problem, which is quite imporant here: did the concrete used in the construction of WTC contain any fly ash (or similar material) as a source of infamous microspheres (including iron rich)? In the "meteorites", some parts of concrete should be preserved quite well and their analysis should answer what we want to know in this regard.

(Anyway it is quite clear that getting any samples from "meteorites" would not be really easy...)

What do you think?
Click to expand...

As I wrote in my previous posts, it seems that Steven Jones has analysed some bulk concrete from WTC debris that he apparently got from Ms. Janette MacKinlay, who also provided some dust to him. I'd have to search around a little to find out more about the origin and chain of custody of that piece of concrete. But at any rate, Greg Jenkins relates that Jones found the iron content to be ~3.6% - I for one am surprised it is that high.

This doesn't answer the question about flyash, and I have no information if any fraction of that iron comes in spheres. I am nit sure if Jones has ever published this data, as Jenkins expected he would. But still, it's a lot of iron...
 
Fly Poster said:
As I understand it there is some debate over the concrete, and if it contained flyash, and therefore iron microspheres. I am wondering if we would be pushing our luck to ask Jim Millette for a sample, I would think a few people on here have access to equipment to do a quick study on it.
Click to expand...

Jim has the equipment. It would cost money, in all fairness. Since this microspheres issue is in fact one of the very few issues from 9/11 twoofdom that I have not been able to account for to my own satisfaction, I might consider it worth a few extra bucks.
 
Oystein: thanks for the interesting analysis of iron concentration. As for fly ash/concrete, I forgot that not only WCT meteorites are potential sources of preserved concrete. Probably Jim Millette has some samples in stock... But can we push him (even with some additional funding) to transform his lab to the Laboratory for the Study of the Idiotic Conspiracy Theories?
(On the other hand, finding microspheres in crushed/milled concrete should be easy task for any lab equipped with some good microscopes. They are anyway guite "big", in the order of several microns.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom