Micro Spheres in world trade center dust solved.

Oh yeah real funny Max!

* * *

Nothing is more curious
than the almost savage hostility
that humor excites
in those who lack it.

~George Saintsbury
 
Max Photon said:
* * *

Nothing is more curious
than the almost savage hostility
that humor excites
in those who lack it.

~George Saintsbury
Click to expand...


George Steinbrenner in a mosh pit is funny.

Your slanders of men and women serving in the military are not.
 
Am I the only one who finds implicit comparisons between the room air temperature reached by the fires (e.g. 800C or 1000C) and the temperature required to cause physical effects on a micro scale that could happen entirely within the hottest part of a small flame or even within a single white-hot impact spark (e.g. the formation or melting of an iron-rich microsphere) a bit silly?

Parts of a candle flame can easily reach 1400C. So, while the "temperature of the fires" on the spatial scale we use to consider phenomena such as heating of structural steel members did not reach the melting point of iron, this does not mean that higher temperatures could not exist within flames during the fire. They could and certainly did.

Try holding a match flame to some fine steel wool. Does the match flame have to be hotter than the melting point of steel, to explain what happens?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Am I the only one who finds implicit comparisons between the room air temperature reached by the fires (e.g. 800C or 1000C) and the temperature required to cause physical effects on a micro scale that could happen entirely within the hottest part of a small flame or even within a single white-hot impact spark (e.g. the formation or melting of an iron-rich microsphere) a bit silly?

Parts of a candle flame can easily reach 1400C. So, while the "temperature of the fires" on the spatial scale we use to consider phenomena such as heating of structural steel members did not reach the melting point of iron, this does not mean that higher temperatures could not exist within flames during the fire. They could and certainly did.

Try holding a match flame to some fine steel wool. Does the match flame have to be hotter than the melting point of steel, to explain what happens?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

The fine steel wool is a good point the point at which steel will oxidize is 1365c I believe, and steel wool has a lot of surface area, anything with that much surface area and made of steel could form the micro-spheres at 1365c.
However they would be quite limited, not as many as were seen in the air data.
There would literally have to have been tons of steel wool in the buildings. What you have stated though is true about the floor pans they have enough surface area that they can ignite, especially in the right chemical conditions, and release considerable heat directly to a critical area.
 
Pardon me, but do you have the temperature?

Myriad said:
Am I the only one who finds implicit comparisons between the room air temperature reached by the fires (e.g. 800C or 1000C) and the temperature required to cause physical effects on a micro scale that could happen entirely within the hottest part of a small flame or even within a single white-hot impact spark (e.g. the formation or melting of an iron-rich microsphere) a bit silly?

Parts of a candle flame can easily reach 1400C. So, while the "temperature of the fires" on the spatial scale we use to consider phenomena such as heating of structural steel members did not reach the melting point of iron, this does not mean that higher temperatures could not exist within flames during the fire. They could and certainly did.

Try holding a match flame to some fine steel wool. Does the match flame have to be hotter than the melting point of steel, to explain what happens?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...


Myriad, it appears to me that Jones makes or implies a very strong relationship:

Iron microspheres = proof of once-molten iron = proof of 1536C+ = proof of catalyst in WTCs.

This thread is discussing complications to the above simple model:

Iron microspheres are NOT proof of formation temperatures of 1536+, as there are - for example - chemical paths that produce spheres at much lower temperatures.

And to your point, in an environment as energy-laden and complex as the WTC towers, one would expect significant temperature variations between macro and micro domains. (I'd expect all temperatures between ambient T and the burning temperature of aluminum to be represented at some scale.)
 
Last edited:
Sabrina said:
What's funny about me having a security clearance? You think someone with a security clearance can't post on an internet forum? I'd bet you money that there are several people on here with clearances, some possibly higher than mine. Why the snide remark?
Click to expand...

Add to that the fact that there are probably a million+ people with some level of security clearance...
 
Max Photon said:
Myriad, it appears to me that Jones makes or implies a very strong relationship:

Iron microspheres = proof of once-molten iron = proof of 1536C+ = proof of catalyst in WTCs.

This thread is discussing complications to the above simple model:

Iron microspheres are NOT proof of formation temperatures of 1536+, as there are - for example - chemical paths that produce spheres at much lower temperatures.

And to your point, in an environment as energy-laden and complex as the WTC towers, one would expect significant temperature variations between macro and micro domains. (I'd expect all temperatures between ambient T and the burning temperature of aluminum to be represented at some scale.)
Click to expand...

:D You just figured out that Dr. Jones does not understand the physical chemistry involved in fire.
After all he says that thermite burning at 2800c can do what steel burning at 3000c can not that is cut steel.
That claim shows a dire lack of understanding of the laws governing thermodynamics, and never could have been true.
 
If we do got to Heaven when we die*, maybe God will endow each of us with super-intelligence so that we may reflect on our lives and see with clarity how stupid we were. We probably could all use that, but I think Max Photon, et.al., would derive the greatest benefit.






*Heaven better have the internet. I can't live without the internet. I'm sure Hell has the interenet. And I bet you don't have to worry about adware and viruses when you search for porn in Hell. Hmmmmm. Angels and bowling or no-risk porn surfing? Tough choice!
 
Last edited:
Edit: Double Post. WTF? Please delete.
 
Last edited:
CC on Jones, burning thermite, and burning steel

Crazy Chainsaw said:
After all he [Jones] says that thermite burning at 2800c can do what steel burning at 3000c can not that is cut steel.
Click to expand...


Not clear what this refers to. Please clarify. Over.
 
Last edited:
Max Photon said:
Not clear what this refers to. Please clarify. Over.
Click to expand...

The Column that Dr. Jones said could not be cut with a torch, the steel of the column was actually the fuel to do the cutting with a torch, where as thermite uses aluminum to give heat to iron and then that Iron heats the Column though contact.

The hottest temperature ever attained by a thermite device on steel is significantly lower than that obtained by a torch or an Oxygen lance, because the main cutting source of an oxygen lance is oxygen actually burning though the material to be cut, using it as fuel to do the cutting.

The best way to design a thermite device for cutting is design one that creates a gas flow that is oxygen rich and would use the material Iron as the fuel to cut though the column.
Sulfur will not do that it will only lower the melting temperature, super heated water in the vapor phase will, and it will cool the device where the thermite will not destroy the device before the cut is made.

Do not tell anyone though I do not want anyone knowing how I did it in the twin towers, I promised GWB. a perfect JOB. No traces and no evidence. ;):D
 
Crazy Chainsaw on the difference between thermite cutting and oxy lance cutting.

Crazy Chainsaw said:
The Column that Dr. Jones said could not be cut with a torch, the steel of the column was actually the fuel to do the cutting with a torch, where as thermite uses aluminum to give heat to iron and then that Iron heats the Column though contact.

The hottest temperature ever attained by a thermite device on steel is significantly lower than that obtained by a torch or an Oxygen lance, because the main cutting source of an oxygen lance is oxygen actually burning though the material to be cut, using it as fuel to do the cutting.

The best way to design a thermite device for cutting is design one that creates a gas flow that is oxygen rich and would use the material Iron as the fuel to cut though the column.
Sulfur will not do that it will only lower the melting temperature, super heated water in the vapor phase will, and it will cool the device where the thermite will not destroy the device before the cut is made.

Do not tell anyone though I do not want anyone knowing how I did it in the twin towers, I promised GWB. a perfect JOB. No traces and no evidence. ;):D
Click to expand...


Let me see if I read you correctly. You're saying:

In cutting by thermite, it is not the burning aluminum per se that does the cutting, but rather the molten iron melts the frozen iron, as warm water would melt an ice cube.

In cutting by oxy lance, the lance jets in O2, causing the steel to burn, and it is the burning steel, pushed by the jet, that actually cuts the frozen steel.

And I gather you are saying Jones was/is muddled on these concepts.


(CC, I think at the end you meant "and it will cool the device where the thermite WILL destroy the device before the cut is made.")


By the way, what is the initial temperature of the iron product that comes from a vanilla thermite reaction? I know it will vary by containment, but nevertheless, any ideas? I assume it considerably lower than the burning temperature of aluminum.


CC, thanks for clarifying.
 
Last edited:
Max Photon said:
Let me see if I read you correctly. You're saying:

In cutting by thermite, it is not the burning aluminum per se that does the cutting, but rather the molten iron melts the frozen iron, as warm water would melt an ice cube.

In cutting by oxy lance, the lance jets in O2, causing the steel to burn, and it is the burning steel, pushed by the jet, that actually cuts the frozen steel.

And I gather you are saying Jones was/is muddled on these concepts.


(CC, I think at the end you meant "and it will cool the device where the thermite WILL destroy the device before the cut is made.")


By the way, what is the initial temperature of the iron product that comes from a vanilla thermite reaction? I know it will vary by containment, but nevertheless, any ideas? I assume it considerably lower than the burning temperature of aluminum.


CC, thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

The O2 lance jet actually converts the frozen steel to fuel,
http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/burning_iron/burning_iron.htm
think of it as like taking a cigarette lighter to a plastic box.
Both the gases that come out of the lighter and the box are fuels.

The temperature that aluminum burns is 2800, the Iron comes out of the reaction at about 2000c, and begins cooling rapidly.
 
Max Photon said:
Learn how to spill.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Max, I like you. You're a smart guy. Why do you cling so to this laser idea of yours? I mean, I know its interesting to think about all sorts of ways to make things happen that are covert and cool like that; I do it myself. But I just don't leap from that to assuming that somebody actually did that imagined thing without some real concrete evidence - And unless I missed something you don't have any?

Meanwhile the Consensus Version of the even seems to have no holes in it at all that I can find (and I have looked) and there just seems to be no real need for an alternative explanation.

So, Max, can I get you to consider this? Its no shame to change your mind, and in this crowd, its a virtue.

-Ben
 
Crash that into your pipe and smoke it.

BenBurch said:
LOL!

Max, I like you. You're a smart guy. Why do you cling so to this laser idea of yours? I mean, I know its interesting to think about all sorts of ways to make things happen that are covert and cool like that; I do it myself. But I just don't leap from that to assuming that somebody actually did that imagined thing without some real concrete evidence - And unless I missed something you don't have any?

Meanwhile the Consensus Version of the even seems to have no holes in it at all that I can find (and I have looked) and there just seems to be no real need for an alternative explanation.

So, Max, can I get you to consider this? Its no shame to change your mind, and in this crowd, its a virtue.

-Ben
Click to expand...


Ben, have you been away for a light year (which is - like - a year)?

Ignition by laser got out-ranked by ignition by jet impact.


Max Virtue


ETA: For the those with low mental load capacity, the above references thermite fuse.

Thermite fuse (which ignited planted thermite) was ignited by jet impact (not by lasers).

Get it?

Planted thermite was linked and ignited by thermite fuse.

Thermite fuse was ignited by jet impact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom