Need Help with Iron Microsphere Quotes

[DGM]

emphasis is mine

I do not accept that it is a commonly held belief that only thermite can account for iron microspheres.



It is important to determine the chemical signature of the microspheres when associating their existence with the presence of thermite.

Here is a summarized and reduced for brevity exchange between Dr. Frank Greening and Dr. Steven Jones regarding the cause behind the iron microspheres.

So far I have little substantive research contradicting Dr. Steven Jones's argument.

But I will keep looking.

MM

Here it is:



Suggestions and comments regarding improvements will be considered. Perhaps even a second edition?

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave

So MM, what do you think?

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

I do not accept that it is a commonly held belief that only thermite can account for iron microspheres.

Really?:

9: Vieles hängt von der Tatsache ab, dass Eisenreiche Sphäroide nach der Reaktion gefunden wurden sind, aber es gibt keine Diskussion über die graue Schicht oder über die Herkunft der Si-reichen Sphäroide. Eine Erhitzung verursacht viele Dinge und da es eine exotherme Reaktion ist, ist die Schlussfolgerungen über die Anwesenheit von Eisenreichen Sphäroiden (die, wie berichtet wurde, auch Sauerstoff enthalten) als Beweis für die Thermit-Reaktion nur dürftig.

ANTWORT: Eine wissenschaftliche Arbeit ist eine Reihe von experimentellen Daten und die beste Hypothese zur Erklärung der Beobachtungen.·Eisenreiche Sphäroide können nach einer Thermit-Reaktion beobachtet werden.·Eisenreiche Sphäroide sind aber noch nie außerhalb einer Thermit-Reaktion beobachtet worden.

to translate the bolded part: "Iron rich spheres can be observed after a thermite reaction. But iron rich spheres were never observed outside of a thermite reaction."

Well, I should be surprised about, what an obvious lie that is, but hey, this is the same man, that thinks, that because the WTC didn't exist in an argon atmosphere, he didn't have to ignite the chips under such an atmosphere to prove a thermite reaction.

 

[alienentity]

Here it is:



Suggestions and comments regarding improvements will be considered. Perhaps even a second edition?

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave

Well done, Dave! I do have one suggestion: in your summary of possible sources of iron can you include anti-corrosion paints which include very fine iron?

Since the strongest candidate for the source of the Jones/Harrit chips is some kind of paint, I'd like to see a reference made to it.

cheers

AE

 

[alienentity]

Really?:


to translate the bolded part: "Iron rich spheres can be observed after a thermite reaction. But iron rich spheres were never observed outside of a thermite reaction."

Well, I should be surprised about, what an obvious lie that is, but hey, this is the same man, that thinks, that because the WTC didn't exist in an argon atmosphere, he didn't have to ignite the chips under such an atmosphere to prove a thermite reaction.

Great gotcha quote. Will save that one... hehe.

 

[BasqueArch]

Here it is:



Suggestions and comments regarding improvements will be considered. Perhaps even a second edition?

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave

Thanks Dave, good work.

You showed that iron microspheres in the dust does not prove thermite was used, as the irrationals claim.
I wonder how many ways there are to not understand this.

 

[cjnewson88]

What a brilliant video. Totally smashed the micro-sphere theory. Any chances of "proving" the red/gray chips are actually paint?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Well done, Dave! I do have one suggestion: in your summary of possible sources of iron can you include anti-corrosion paints which include very fine iron?

Since the strongest candidate for the source of the Jones/Harrit chips is some kind of paint, I'd like to see a reference made to it.

cheers

AE

Great idea, thanks! I'll see if I can reassemble the film crew. They'll want double overtime, for sure.

Thanks also for the kind comments, cjnewson, basquearch, kevin, dgm!

Cheers, Dave

 

[GlennB]

Great idea, thanks! I'll see if I can reassemble the film crew. They'll want double overtime, for sure.

Thanks also for the kind comments, cjnewson, basquearch, kevin, dgm!

Cheers, Dave

Great video. And the credit at the end to your sponsor was especially naughty

 

[Oystein]

Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


1.
You burned elemental steel. Yes, that's a way to create iron-rich microspheres, but I don't know that anyone has a theory about such spheres at GZ that would involve the burning of elemental iron. There is a reason why you picked steel wool: Because it is such a thin material. Which steel at the WTC would have been as fine yet close to elemental?

2.
Metal fires can get a lot hotter that organic combustibles, on account of their oxides not being gaseous. You did not determine the temperature of the flame when you burned your sample. How can you be so sure it's only like 700°C?

3.
At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide.

4.
At 7:47, you claim that the office fires got a lot hotter than a BIC lighter flame. I believe this is wrong. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flame
Gas flames can burn up to 1500°C (methane) - 1700°C (propane).
All kinds of numbers abound on teh interwebz about the actual temp of ordinary lighters. The english Wikipedia has storm lighters "in excess of 1100°C", the French goes even to 1200-1500°C.
Just look at your BIC flame: It appears blueish at its base, indicating an oxygen-rich, hot flame. That would be much hotter than most flames in room fires.


Your conclusion is of course correct: Iron-rich spheres are not indicative of exotic. high-tech incendiaries and malicious intent, but can be produced under quite mundane conditions and are not as such proof of anything.

I still don't see though that we know real well where the iron-rich spheres that for example RJ Lee reported came from. Not from steel wool, that's for sure.

I suspect that such spheres are not normally formed from elemental iron, but from
a) combustion of chemical compounds that contain iron atoms (Myriad explained that this happens in ordinary wood fires, though I know no mass proportions)
b) Heating of very small particles of irom oxides, such as pigments, in orgamnic matrix (paint!)
c) Were present in the buildings to start with, e.g. in the flyash portion of lightweight concrete

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...

 

[Oystein]

Well done, Dave! I do have one suggestion: in your summary of possible sources of iron can you include anti-corrosion paints which include very fine iron?

Since the strongest candidate for the source of the Jones/Harrit chips is some kind of paint, I'd like to see a reference made to it.

cheers

AE

In the interest of unassailability: Few, if any paints at all, contain (elemental) iron particles - these would oxidize anyway in a blink of an eye. They commonly contain iron oxide.

Indeed, our best candidate to explain the iron content Harrit's red-gray chip is a primer formulation specified to contain about 16% by weight iron oxide, adhering to oxidized steel flakes from the WTC floor joists.

What a brilliant video. Totally smashed the micro-sphere theory. Any chances of "proving" the red/gray chips are actually paint?

Check out this thread:
Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

I think we made a very strong case there that the (so far) most likely source of the chips is the primer flaked off of the WTC floor joists which were produced by LaClede Steel Company and painted with their standard primer.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


1.
You burned elemental steel. Yes, that's a way to create iron-rich microspheres, but I don't know that anyone has a theory about such spheres at GZ that would involve the burning of elemental iron. There is a reason why you picked steel wool: Because it is such a thin material. Which steel at the WTC would have been as fine yet close to elemental?

2.
Metal fires can get a lot hotter that organic combustibles, on account of their oxides not being gaseous. You did not determine the temperature of the flame when you burned your sample. How can you be so sure it's only like 700°C?

3.
At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide.

4.
At 7:47, you claim that the office fires got a lot hotter than a BIC lighter flame. I believe this is wrong. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flame
Gas flames can burn up to 1500°C (methane) - 1700°C (propane).
All kinds of numbers abound on teh interwebz about the actual temp of ordinary lighters. The english Wikipedia has storm lighters "in excess of 1100°C", the French goes even to 1200-1500°C.
Just look at your BIC flame: It appears blueish at its base, indicating an oxygen-rich, hot flame. That would be much hotter than most flames in room fires.


Your conclusion is of course correct: Iron-rich spheres are not indicative of exotic. high-tech incendiaries and malicious intent, but can be produced under quite mundane conditions and are not as such proof of anything.

I still don't see though that we know real well where the iron-rich spheres that for example RJ Lee reported came from. Not from steel wool, that's for sure.

I suspect that such spheres are not normally formed from elemental iron, but from
a) combustion of chemical compounds that contain iron atoms (Myriad explained that this happens in ordinary wood fires, though I know no mass proportions)
b) Heating of very small particles of irom oxides, such as pigments, in orgamnic matrix (paint!)
c) Were present in the buildings to start with, e.g. in the flyash portion of lightweight concrete

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...

Very useful comments, Oystein - I will have to make a 2nd edition for sure. But perhaps not till after our band's fall gig is over. (Alumni band, we play 2x/year).

 

[Miragememories]

"Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


1.
You burned elemental steel. Yes, that's a way to create iron-rich microspheres, but I don't know that anyone has a theory about such spheres at GZ that would involve the burning of elemental iron. There is a reason why you picked steel wool: Because it is such a thin material. Which steel at the WTC would have been as fine yet close to elemental?

2.
Metal fires can get a lot hotter that organic combustibles, on account of their oxides not being gaseous. You did not determine the temperature of the flame when you burned your sample. How can you be so sure it's only like 700°C?

3.
At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide.

4.
At 7:47, you claim that the office fires got a lot hotter than a BIC lighter flame. I believe this is wrong. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flame
Gas flames can burn up to 1500°C (methane) - 1700°C (propane).
All kinds of numbers abound on teh interwebz about the actual temp of ordinary lighters. The english Wikipedia has storm lighters "in excess of 1100°C", the French goes even to 1200-1500°C.
Just look at your BIC flame: It appears blueish at its base, indicating an oxygen-rich, hot flame. That would be much hotter than most flames in room fires.


Your conclusion is of course correct: Iron-rich spheres are not indicative of exotic. high-tech incendiaries and malicious intent, but can be produced under quite mundane conditions and are not as such proof of anything.

I still don't see though that we know real well where the iron-rich spheres that for example RJ Lee reported came from. Not from steel wool, that's for sure.

I suspect that such spheres are not normally formed from elemental iron, but from
a) combustion of chemical compounds that contain iron atoms (Myriad explained that this happens in ordinary wood fires, though I know no mass proportions)
b) Heating of very small particles of irom oxides, such as pigments, in orgamnic matrix (paint!)
c) Were present in the buildings to start with, e.g. in the flyash portion of lightweight concrete

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell..."

Very useful comments, Oystein - I will have to make a 2nd edition for sure. But perhaps not till after our band's fall gig is over. (Alumni band, we play 2x/year).

Meanwhile the disinforming video can continue to misrepresent the truth.

Isn't that what 9/11 Truthers are always being accused of doing?

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Meanwhile the disinforming video can continue to misrepresent the truth.
Isn't that what 9/11 Truthers are always being accused of doing?

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

MM

Incorrect.

Video has been removed.
This is the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes. They find specks in the eyes of the unbelievers.

(Got to admit though that I am a bit surprised and disappointed that the video received four replies of praise, and half a dozend of you didn't find anything to criticize)

 

[Miragememories]

Incorrect.

Video has been removed.
This is the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes. They find specks in the eyes of the unbelievers.

(Got to admit though that I am a bit surprised and disappointed that the video received four replies of praise, and half a dozend of you didn't find anything to criticize)

Well that is good news.

Nice to know Dave has some integrity.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Incorrect.

Video has been removed.
This is the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes. They find specks in the eyes of the unbelievers.

...

Gonna do a second version, but Band Camp will keep me busy for a few days at least. Trying to trim the fat, too - 8 minutes is kinda long.

I wish YouTube could let you update an existing video, but that's asking for too much, I guess.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Gonna do a second version, but Band Camp will keep me busy for a few days at least. Trying to trim the fat, too - 8 minutes is kinda long.

I wish YouTube could let you update an existing video, but that's asking for too much, I guess.

Dave

It's not like you had already said that you would do a corrected version when MM called you a hypocrite.
Did he apologize?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...

So you (and Sunstealer) are sure enough that those microspheres were formed from attached (probably micaceous) iron oxide layers? I asked Sunstealer, but he had not answered...

If this is the most probable explanation (microspheres in "Bentham chips" were created by some smelting process from oxidized steel), I could try to find some older steel constructions protected by red primer paint here in Prague. Perhaps, such red-gray chips (red primer layers on flakes of gray oxidized steel) are quite common...

As I wrote in another thread, I should be able to recognize easily if the binder in the primer is epoxy, using infrared spectroscopy.
Then (as in the case of my imitation of "Laclede" primer for WTC floor joists), I can heat those red-gray chips in the oven up to 700 degrees C under air and do some microscopy (looking for shiny microspheres).

This should be quite easy "research task", but any observation of shiny microspheres could serve as some partial proof of "paint hypothesis" only for us, debunkers. And we are basically convinced enough that "Bentham chips" were particles of paints. Therefore, a question arises if such an effort could pay off somehow...

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Dave,

In a recent conversation with Richard Gage, he talked with me about your recent radio debate with him and said he didn't understand why you used steel wool as an example in your iron microspheres argument. Something about steel and iron being different. If I remember correctly, he also said that Steven Jones found the WTC iron microspheres to be different from other iron-rich spheres in that the percentage of iron in them was way higher than in other microsphere samples. Since I knew nothing about that Jones study the conversation didn't continue along that track.

 

[grandmastershek]

Hi Dave,

In a recent conversation with Richard Gage, he talked with me about your recent radio debate with him and said he didn't understand why you used steel wool as an example in your iron microspheres argument. Something about steel and iron being different. If I remember correctly, he also said that Steven Jones found the WTC iron microspheres to be different from other iron-rich spheres in that the percentage of iron in them was way higher than in other microsphere samples. Since I knew nothing about that Jones study the conversation didn't continue along that track.

Sounds about right. First its "iron rich spheres" which are paraded around as pure iron, then they become special iron spheres. Those goal posts must be really lightweight.