Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Why would evidence of extreme temperatures in WTC6 (supposing that is what the evidence implies) inform us in any way shape or form about nefarious substances used by dark forces to demolish the towers
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. The point is that there is melted concrete at the WTC site. There should have been testing for exotic accelerants


Who would waste large amounts of exotic incendiaries on WTC6 concrete, when there is no intention of demolishing the building, no evidence that it was demolished, and the concrete isn't structural and thus attacking concrete would not even help to accomplish demolishion?
Click to expand...

Your reaching. I would tend to think that the gun was trapped under the rubble, you know that pesky molten metal that just wouldn't go out, and the two became one.


Have Christopher7, superlogicalthinker, ergo Clayton or any of the other truthers who point to this oddity of the gun encased in what appears to be previously liquified (molten? dissolved?) concrete, ever thought this through? What does it mean in their minds? That the all-powerful, omniscient, perfectly effective NWO is superstupid sometimes? Or what? Please elaborate
Click to expand...

I don't beleive there is an NWO. Just rouge elements within the government
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Im not lying. It's in a museum. It's on topic because I am establishing temperatures which fire cannot account for to produce the ironrich microspheres.....which the RJ Lee group says were " created during the WTC Event"
Click to expand...

Why do you guys love to quote people that don't agree with you?

Here's what else the RJ Lee Report said....

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Click to expand...

Why would they say that?

If they are THAT incompetent that they don't know that iron microspheres can apparently only point to super nano thermite, yet they don't even think its suspicious but rather that its "expected", then how can you use anything they say as some kind of authority on the subject?
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Im not lying. It's in a museum. It's on topic because I am establishing temperatures which fire cannot account for to produce the ironrich microspheres.....which the RJ Lee group says were " created during the WTC Event"
Click to expand...

The revolver quote is in reference to WTC 6.

Slow down, and get your lies straight.
 
Christopher7 said:
Really? You know better than they do what they meant?
This is a very definitive statement:
"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."


Who are you to say that the RJ Lee Group is wrong?
Click to expand...

You got some balls or no brains to say something that stupid.

The RJ Lee Group report says the iron microspheres were "expected". So to repeat the same thing you just said to us..."who are you to say that the RJ Lee Group is wrong?". Seems to me you're the only one saying they're wrong.
 
Last edited:
If they are THAT incompetent that they don't know that iron microspheres can apparently only point to super nano thermite, yet they don't even think its suspicious but rather that its "expected", then how can you use anything they say as some kind of authority on the subject?
Click to expand...

They would not have accounted for 6% of the WTC dust. They were created "during" the destruction of the building. That means they were not present before the collapse when the fires were burning.

And Chris7 and I have shown there wwere temperatures that fire cannot account for through the beautiful exhibit at the NYPD museum.
 
Christopher7 said:
[qimg]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8669/meltedconcretecrop3.jpg[/qimg]

You just will not accept any evidence that proves temperatures far in access of what office fires can attain.
Click to expand...


"A tanker burst into flames on a freeway just outside Los Angeles, creating heat so intense that it melted a concrete overpass."

CBC NEWS - "Tanker Explosion Melts Concrete Overpass"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xn03fm_tanker-explosion-melts-concrete-overpass_news

Why do you guys claim something happening or reported on 911 is strange when we can see it happen in other normal fires that don't require any thermite?
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
Where do you think we said that? iron rich spherical particles are a common result of fires. Its you thats claiming that these are unusual, not us.
Click to expand...

Unless you are referring to foundries, you are well aware that iron-rich microspheres are not a common result of fires.

Of course you will keep repeating the same lies regardless of how many times they are pointed out.

MM
 
NoahFence said:
The revolver quote is in reference to WTC 6.

Slow down, and get your lies straight.
Click to expand...

So what? It was found at the site. Probably under the rubble pile. You can't get melted concrete in a fire. You need ridiculous temperatures for that. Ive posted the source already.
 
Edx said:

"A tanker burst into flames on a freeway just outside Los Angeles, creating heat so intense that it melted a concrete overpass."

CBC NEWS - "Tanker Explosion Melts Concrete Overpass"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xn03fm_tanker-explosion-melts-concrete-overpass_news

Why do you guys claim something happening or reported on 911 is strange when we can see it happen in other normal fires that don't require any thermite?
Click to expand...

It won't let me play it. I'm in Canada right now. But I'm positive that they are mis-stating what really happened. I'm sure that they meant it weakened it and it collapsed....but you will have to produce a picture ( as we did) if your rebuttal wishes hold merit.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
It won't let me play it. I'm in Canada right now. But I'm positive that they are mis-stating what really happened. I'm sure that they meant it weakened it and it collapsed....but you will have to produce a picture ( as we did) if your rebuttal wishes hold merit.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't misstating. Look around in this forum and you'll find innumerable references to that fire. You people are the liars, not us.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
It won't let me play it. I'm in Canada right now. But I'm positive that they are mis-stating what really happened. I'm sure that they meant it weakened it and it collapsed....but you will have to produce a picture ( as we did) if your rebuttal wishes hold merit.
Click to expand...

Of course they are probably wrong that concrete melted!! In the same way as in hundreds of other fires you can find people reporting melted steel. Yet you apparently believe every single statement on 911 about melted steel and concrete as if they can't be wrong. You guys quote people talking about melted steel (and here concrete) as if its very strange because it doesnt normally get reported in fires, but it does get reported in other fires all the time, which means the reports are not strange on 911, they are expected!

There's also the issue that truthers try and quote people they say are experts that (casually) meltion melted steel as if its quite normal, but due to their expertise you think you can use them as an authority to say for certian that there really was melted steel there, and yet these same people don't agree with you and just casually mention melted steel, but you say this must mean thermite was present but they don't seem to notice even when pointed out to them. This must make them totally incompetent, which means you can't possibly use them as an authority to prove melted steel on 911 in the first place. They can't be both at the same time.

The point is, why do truthers keep using people that don't agree with them? Like Christopher and you and the RJ LEE report which said, no doubt, that iron micropsheres were present. But they also said it was "expected". This makes them completely incompetent according to you, so how in the world do you justify trying to use them as an authority on the matter? Christopher even asked who are we to question them, yet he is the one that requires them to not have any idea what they are talking about !

EDIT: And btw, that picture that was posted is not verified melted concrete. Its just a plack on the wall that says it is. We have established that stuff like this is incorrectly reported all the time, there is also the fact that if its so obvious a fire without thermite can't do that to concrete then why the hell are all these people so blase about it? If they know what they are talking about enough to say that its definitely melted concrete then why don't they know what that means? And while we're on the subject, why are they allowed to have such an exhibit when according to you its so obvious that this melted concrete means thermite had to be present? Why didnt the black ops team swoop in and stop them and deny any such materials existed?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Of course they are misstating what really happened!! Yet you apparently believe every single statement on 911 avbout melted steel and concrete as if they can't be wrong. You guys quote people talking about melted steel (and here concrete) as if its very strange because doesnt normally get reported in fires, but it does get reported in other fires all the time, which means the reports are not strange, they are expected!

There's also the issue that truthers try and quote people they say are experts that apparently casually meltion melted steel as if its quite normal, but due to their expertise you think you can use them as an authority to say for certian that there really was melted steel there, and yet these same people don't agree with you, which must make them incompetent which means you can't possibly use them as an authority to prove melted steel on 911 in the first place.

Why do truthers keep uysing people that don't agree with them? Like Christopher and you and the RJ LEE report which said, no doubt, that iron micropsheres were present. But they also said it was "expected". This makes them completely incompetent according to you, so how in the world do you justify trying to use them as an authority on the matter?
Click to expand...

I can just see his face right now, trying to process all that. Too funny!

Clueless.
 
Christopher7 said:
Really? You know better than they do what they meant?
This is a very definitive statement:
"iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."
Who are you to say that the RJ Lee Group is wrong?

[qimg]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8669/meltedconcretecrop3.jpg[/qimg]

You just will not accept any evidence that proves temperatures far in access of what office fires can attain.
Click to expand...
OK a few things here:
I looked at a past thread re the Police Museum's evidence of melted concrete. Most of it was insults. There was one good point: if concrete melts, when it resolidifies does it become concrete again or something else?
Another point made less sense to me: the idea that water can do this, like melty-shaped concrete you see on the beach. But that would take too much time, I would think.
I certainly think that if slt, christopher7 et al can prove melted concrete, that would also prove temperatures hot enough to melt iron, so the concrete argument should be allowed in this thread in my opinion.
Bottom line: the iron-rich microspheres are not 100% solved either way. "My side" has hypotheses (printer toner, fly ash in concrete, welding from the 70s during construction, etc), but we have no proof to my satisfaction. This is why I asked Jim Millette for a sample of the concrete from WTC debris, so we can see if there are tons of microspheres in the concrete itself (as some have claimed). Since it looks like there are lots of microspheres in the dust, as much as 6% microspheres but maybe less, I just don't believe we have fully accounted for this high a quantity yet. I have less expertise than many people here, but I will say the question remains an open one for me.
I am 99% certain I am right about natural collapse. I continue to look into the 1% where my uncertainty is. In this case my list of possible sources for iron-rich microspheres has to include, however unlikely it may seem to me, the possibility that they were created by very hot thermitic agents. The police museum picture, while not proof for me, is at least admitted into evidence. Sorry to disappoint my friends here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom