Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

That is how I interpret it and I think RJ Lee would be surprised that anyone interpreted it any other way. I was just challenging the twoofer logic in their posts where a melting point of iron and their accepted upper temperature figure for office fires must equal thermite.

 

[plague311]

For a period of time following the WTC Event, the Building owner, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the “Bank”), was precluded by the City of New York
from entering the Building. After the Bank gained access to the Building, the
Bank retained the services of engineering firms to assess the physical
damage. Additionally, an environmental firm was retained to conduct
limited sampling for asbestos, heavy metals, and biological contaminants.
In April of 2002, RJ Lee Group was retained by the law firm of Pitney Hardin
Kipp & Szuch LLP, on behalf of the Bank, to oversee and investigate the
presence, type, amount, and extent of environmental contaminants in the
Building

I guess that partially answers my question, however, I am more curious what happened between the bank gaining access to the building, and April of 2002.

I am not too lazy, or inept to find the report or read it. The report just isn't giving me the clarity that I was looking for. When did they gain access to the building? Did anything at all happen in the building between the time they were allowed in it, and the time that RJ Lee came in for the test?

Was there damage that had to be attended to immediately that would require demolition using torches, etc. inside the building? Thanks, I'll keep looking around to see if I can find more information.

 

[Oystein]

I guess that partially answers my question, however, I am more curious what happened between the bank gaining access to the building, and April of 2002.

I am not too lazy, or inept to find the report or read it. The report just isn't giving me the clarity that I was looking for. When did they gain access to the building? Did anything at all happen in the building between the time they were allowed in it, and the time that RJ Lee came in for the test?

Was there damage that had to be attended to immediately that would require demolition using torches, etc. inside the building? Thanks, I'll keep looking around to see if I can find more information.

I read their summary as implying that no such work was done in the Building before the conclusion of the environmental studies. Even if, the Addenda (p 25ff) explain how they selected sampling locations in the Building that appeared undisturbed, and controlled the composition of each sample with statistical methods to identify problematic datasets in need of more control I suppose that would have enabled them to detect local disturbances and contamination if any had been present. The null-hypothesis ought to be "no such work had been done in the Building on a significant scale".

 

[plague311]

I read their summary as implying that no such work was done in the Building before the conclusion of the environmental studies. Even if, the Addenda (p 25ff) explain how they selected sampling locations in the Building that appeared undisturbed, and controlled the composition of each sample with statistical methods to identify problematic datasets in need of more control I suppose that would have enabled them to detect local disturbances and contamination if any had been present. The null-hypothesis ought to be "no such work had been done in the Building on a significant scale".

There are a ton of questions that I have in relation to the environment, not just inside the building but all around, that I don't think I'll get answered. Given all the damage that surrounded the entire area, and the fact that you stated the 6% is higher than average by a lot, and the 9 month period in between the damage and the sample, I feel like I'm missing something. Which I am sure I am.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

try and answer the question this time. What is an impossible temperature??

I have no idea....its not my field of science or engineering. I suspect RJ Lee know a lot more about this than you or I so if they say its "expected" then in the absence of very convincing evidence, the I'll believe that it was.

Millions care around the world. You and your logical fallacies.

And billions do not....but in any case fact is not a democracy.....a fact is a fact no matter how many people believe that it is or is not true.

Again, what temperature do they state......and this is why we need an investigation with subpoena power.

Couldn't you simply write to them and ask them? Or perhaps do the research yourselves? Gage could miss a world tour and provide plenty money for such a test. bet he won't though.....

 

[Oystein]

The dust cloud pushed the WTC dust into places where regular dust does not go.

Maybe. But do you have a source that such startrekish places were studied by anyone, for example RJ Lee? I read their report differently.

Addendum 5.3, page 26:

Sample Location Selection
Upon arrival in the predetermined grid location, a below-ceiling undisturbed area was selected. The sampling areas included, for example, file cabinets, tables or credenzas. In the same vicinity of the below-ceiling sample, an above-ceiling sampling area was selected. These areas were often the tops of drop ceiling lights.
Most above-ceiling and below-ceiling samples were taken from horizontal surfaces; however, a suitable horizontal surface from which to sample was not always available, in which case samples were taken from vertical surfaces.

Images accompany that description. We see that above-ceiling locations indeed appear to be somewhat closed to "normal" office dust, but no indication is offered that they expect to find WTC dust and no other.
But let's go on and see how they used these locations:

On page 23:

The statistical analysis indicates that the dust in the below ceiling space in the gash is different from that observed in Background Buildings. The material collected in the gash is consistent with building materials derived from the destruction of the WTC; the carbon-rich particulate is abundant in typical office buildings. The data clearly shows statistically significant differences with the mean values in the two classes of particles, hence the WTC Dust can be distinguished from Background Building dust.
[TABLE 3 is here]
The probability of the statistical evaluation of the above data demonstrates that the WTC Dust and background dust have different sources.

And now guess what? Table 3 contains the now infamous "Fe Sphere 5.87%" number!

So it would seem that this concentration was actually found not throughout the building, but specifically in accessible, below-ceiling spots in the gash of 130 Liberty St. These were locations particularly open to the elements and accessible to all sorts of dust!

Thanks, Christopher, for making this misleading claim! Debunking it made me aware that contamination of the 9/11 dust with post-9/11 clean-up-work dust is even more likely than I thought!


ETA: Here is a photo of the Building shortly after 9/11, clearly showing the gash:
http://hist.cersp.com/tsls/UploadFiles_2966/200604/20060403200727765.jpg

 

[plague311]

Maybe. But do you have a source that such startrekish places were studied by anyone, for example RJ Lee? I read their report differently.

Addendum 5.3, page 26:

Images accompany that description. We see that above-ceiling locations indeed appear to be somewhat closed to "normal" office dust, but no indication is offered that they expect to find WTC dust and no other.
But let's go on and see how they used these locations:

On page 23:

And now guess what? Table 3 contains the now infamous "Fe Sphere 5.87%" number!

So it would seem that this concentration was actually found not throughout the building, but specifically in accessible, below-ceiling spots in the gash of 130 Liberty St. These were locations particularly open to the elements and accessible to all sorts of dust!

Thanks, Christopher, for making this misleading claim! Debunking it made me aware that contamination of the 9/11 dust with post-9/11 clean-up-work dust is even more likely than I thought!


ETA: Here is a photo of the Building shortly after 9/11, clearly showing the gash:
http://hist.cersp.com/tsls/UploadFiles_2966/200604/20060403200727765.jpg

Well done

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe. But do you have a source that such startrekish places were studied by anyone, for example RJ Lee? I read their report differently.

Addendum 5.3, page 26:

Images accompany that description. We see that above-ceiling locations indeed appear to be somewhat closed to "normal" office dust, but no indication is offered that they expect to find WTC dust and no other.
But let's go on and see how they used these locations:

On page 23:

And now guess what? Table 3 contains the now infamous "Fe Sphere 5.87%" number!

So it would seem that this concentration was actually found not throughout the building, but specifically in accessible, below-ceiling spots in the gash of 130 Liberty St. These were locations particularly open to the elements and accessible to all sorts of dust!

Thanks, Christopher, for making this misleading claim! Debunking it made me aware that contamination of the 9/11 dust with post-9/11 clean-up-work dust is even more likely than I thought!


ETA: Here is a photo of the Building shortly after 9/11, clearly showing the gash:
http://hist.cersp.com/tsls/UploadFiles_2966/200604/20060403200727765.jpg

 

[DGM]

And now guess what? Table 3 contains the now infamous "Fe Sphere 5.87%" number!

So, short story. What would be the average concentration in the dust? My guess, slightly less than ~2%?

 

[LSSBB]

So, short story. What would be the average concentration in the dust? My guess, slightly less than ~2%?

What is the shape of the distribution and the variance, also.

 

[Christopher7]

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
On pages 6-12, Jenkins summarizes what the USGS, McGee and EPA found in the dust just days after 9/11
The mean concentration over a period of several months following 9/11 was about 5µg/m³.

That's 5 millionths of a gram per cubic meter. Being that tiny, most microspheres would just pass right on thru. It would take quite a while to deposit a gram from air passing thru the building but it's a moot point.

The RJ Lee Group said the iron melted, hardened into spheres and "traveled with other components of WTC Dust" into the building under pressure.

You are missing the point: Iron melted at 2800°F during the WTC event producing spherical metallic particles.

That's what you claim, but don't prove.

The RJ Lee Group proved it. What part of "iron melted during the event" don't you understand?
The event was the collapse.

You guys don't know better than the professionals who studied the dust.

I read that. And they are probably right: The office building fires that accompanied the WTC event created iron-rich microspheres that were deposited in the bulk of the dust inside 130 Liberty St.

Office fires cannot melt iron and this is the last time I'm going to go round with you on this.

Toner or paint or anything like that will not produce quantities of iron spheres. That's all just speculation. Produce the data or stop making the claims.

 

[LSSBB]

Toner or paint or anything like that will not produce quantities of iron spheres. That's all just speculation. Produce the data or stop making the claims.

No, no, no, no. You don't weasel your way out of this one. YOU have to prove that the only source could be what you claim it is, and YOU have to match the observations to your theory. YOU are the one here trying to claim explosives from these findings.

 

[NoahFence]

Office fires cannot melt iron and this is the last time I'm going to go round with you on this.

Nothing about 9/11 was normal and you know it.

And...

Promise?

 

[plague311]

No, no, no, no. You don't weasel your way out of this one. YOU have to prove that the only source could be what you claim it is, and YOU have to match the observations to your theory. YOU are the one here trying to claim explosives from these findings.

I say let him take off, it's been laid out for him in the simplest of terms now, and he just...doesn't...get it. There is no way he's going to because he doesn't want to. He'll continue to repeat the same line over and over again because he doesn't understand what it means.

I say good riddance...

 

[Christopher7]

No, no, no, no. You don't weasel your way out of this one. YOU have to prove that the only source could be what you claim it is, and YOU have to match the observations to your theory. YOU are the one here trying to claim explosives from these findings.

I don't have to prove it, it's not my "claim". The RJ Lee Group studied the dust and that was their conclusion. You can go into denial if you want but you don't know better than they do.

 

[DGM]

The RJ Lee Group proved it.

Why don't we cut to the chase. Are these guys clueless, cowards or "in on it"? Their report does not suggest any sort of suspicious acts.

Back to you with your explanation or accusations.

 

[Oystein]

So, short story. What would be the average concentration in the dust? My guess, slightly less than ~2%?

What is the shape of the distribution and the variance, also.

I don't know if more detailed data and analysis from the RJ Lee study is publicly available. Does anybody know? I am currently looking at their WTC reflections:
http://www.wtcreflections.rjlg.com/science/
interesting, but of course not systematic data.
Still, look at the graph on the bottom left, which shows the typical markers of WTC dust, with a caption "Mineral Wool, Spherical Iron, ... High-temp Al/Si ... Sources: cement, ceiling tiles, fireproofing..."
And other caption and video explaining that lead was in burning computers.
I also didn't realize before that RJ Lee's work around GZ was more comprehensive, and spanned a longer time, than what is reflected in the Damage Assessment of 130 Liberty Street. And it doesn't really appear like they are particularly baffled by the presence of iron spheres or lead deposits.

But remember that reporting iron was not an ultimate objective of their study - iron spheres are not a hazard. Iron spheres are merely one of the markers that help to statistically differentiate between WTC dust and background (non-WTC) dust.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The RJ Lee Group said the iron melted, hardened into spheres and "traveled with other components of WTC Dust" into the building under pressure.

I note you missed out that this was "expected"....why did you do that?

 

[Oystein]

That's 5 millionths of a gram per cubic meter. Being that tiny, most microspheres would just pass right on thru. It would take quite a while to deposit a gram from air passing thru the building but it's a moot point.

Yep. Does "9 months" count as "quite a while" in your book? I did the calculations:
YOU said earlier that iron spheres would quickly fall out of the air so that they are significantly less abundant at a somewhat larger distance. I understood you mean farther away in lower Manhattan - is that the gist? Then we are talking about scales of hundreds of meters, which translates into minutes of wind blowing down the street.

So would you agree that the same spheres would fall out of the air in a 5/6th enclosed room such an office that has the windows smashed in? If you think that the iron can fall out within minutes outside, would you agree that it can fall out within an hour when half trapped inside, where there is less wind? I hope you do, if you value being perceived as honest. So. 5µg/m³ air is 12.5µm/m² office floor in a room that's 2.5 meters high. If you let this much settle in one hour, and if the air gets constantly replenished with 5µg/m³ from outside, you will find that in 9 months = 9*30*24 hours = 6480 hours an amount of 6480*12.5µg = 81,000µg = 81mg will settle per m². That's close to 1% of the 8.6g/m² dust they found on average.

Maybe you are now ready to try answering this:

1. Do you accept that the air near GZ contained aerosols?
2. Do you accept that the air near GZ contained iron in its aerosols?
3. Do you accept that the concentration of iron in the air near GZ was (typical, or mean, value) 5µg/m3?
4. Do you accept that this concentration is significantly higher than in typical inner city air, and that the source for the extra iron is most likely the nearby GZ?
5. Do you accept that iron workers cutting up steel debris produce iron-rich microspheres and release them into the air?
6. Do you accept that this iron work may account for a significant proportion of the measured increase of iron-rich aerosols in the air above GZ, given the fact that measured iron concentration near iron workers was significantly higher than near other workers on GZ?
7. Do you accept that aerosols, including iron, are prone to falling out and settling as dust?
8. Do you accept that the air inside the offices of 130 Liberty street, which had 1500 windows broken, exposing the offices to the elements, was constantly replenished with air from outside?
9. Do you accept that this fresh air was also laden with iron-rich aerosols?
10. Do you accept that these iron-rich aerosols are prone to falling out and settling into the dust even in the offices of 130 Liberty St?

Please indicate precisely which of these points you do not accept, and give short reasons!

If you accept them all, I guess you know your mechanism and are now ready to admit that there was indeed a mechanism "to deposit them in and on top of the building". Please acknowledge!

The RJ Lee Group said the iron melted, hardened into spheres and "traveled with other components of WTC Dust" into the building under pressure.

The RJ Lee Group proved it. What part of "iron melted during the event" don't you understand?
The event was the collapse.

You guys don't know better than the professionals who studied the dust.

Office fires cannot melt iron and this is the last time I'm going to go round with you on this.

Toner or paint or anything like that will not produce quantities of iron spheres. That's all just speculation. Produce the data or stop making the claims.

Reading the report in context - how they describe what "the WTC event" is, and what the fires and conflagrations and high temperatures are all about, and now browsing their reflexions on WTC on their homepage, it becomes increasingly clear that RJ Lee is convinced the high, iron-melting, lead-vaporizing temperatures arose from the burning of office building contents such as plastics, computers, fibers, and from cement.

It seems that you either haven't read the report for comprehension, or that you believe that you know better than the professionals who studied the dust, or that think these professionals are covering up murder. Which of these is it, Christopher?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The RJ Lee Group proved it. What part of "iron melted during the event" don't you understand?
The event was the collapse.

Where do they say the event only included the fire and collapse (and why did you omit the fire???...)

You guys don't know better than the professionals who studied the dust.

You mean the guys that said it was "expected"

Office fires cannot melt iron and this is the last time I'm going to go round with you on this.

Baseless assertion and please stop it is getting embarrassing watching you make such a fool of yourself.........

Toner or paint or anything like that will not produce quantities of iron spheres. That's all just speculation. Produce the data or stop making the claims.

So you can make unsubstantiated claims but we cannot? Are you denying that toner will create spheres or just that they won't create enough? and how are you calculating what "enough" is? Is it one ton, ten tons, 1000 tons, a million tons?