• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chris Mohr's YouTube Part 23 Epilogue: WTC Dust Update; Saying Goodbye to 9/11 Truth

Oystein said:
I am not forgetting the many questions you are already dodging, but I have two more:

Did the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust form from the red layer of the red/gray chips or from the gray layer?
Did they form by a thermite reaction with aluminium, and aluminium only?
Click to expand...

Oystein, what happens when Red Paint is heated by conduction under a layer of thick hydrocarbon soot with clorates and sulfates?
 
Criteria said:
You are an endless source of questions.

I am reminded of little children that repeatedly ask “why” but show little interest in hearing the answer.

Your questions have been answered
Click to expand...
Why are you lying, Criteria? Didn't your mother teach you that your angels cry when you tell a lie?

You have yet to respond to BenjaminTR's post #1188 and/or my post #1193, both originally posted about four weeks ago.

Also, in my post #1370 (15 days ago), I had asked you:

Mark Basile is hiding behind a gatekeeper, Ziggi, who protects and defends his doing NOTHING AT ALL for 3 years to the tune of $5000.
Are you cool with that, Criteria?
You know what the deal was:
Mark would select a few suitable chips (magnetic attraction; red-gray) (1 week)
Send them to an independent lab, perhaps more than one (1 day)
Wait for results to return (2 weeks)
Report the results (3 days)

Could have taken 3 weeks. Why are you not asking Ziggi to kick Mark's ass hard and repeatedly?


Lest you forget to click the first links above, a quick reminder what BenjaminTR was all about:
BenjaminTR said:
Based on Harrit's paper "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT" and its sources, I conclude that every item on Oystein's list is correct. Here's why.

First:
In "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT," Harrit only mentions one primer paint: Tnemec red. Figures 3 and 4 give information about its composition. Harrit does not name or list a single property of any other paint. All of his arguments refer to the properties of Tnemec red. Either his argument is fallacious, or he is assuming Tnemec red is the only primer paint that could have been present.

This assumption is false, not just because there could have been paint from other sources, but also because we know a LaClede primer paint was also use in WTC.

Second:
Harrit's paper is about whether "the red/gray chips" are paint. We can take "the red/gray chips" to mean "the red/gray chips studied in the Bentham paper." Addressing this assumption then requires analysis of the Bentham paper, which others in this thread and related threads have already done. For now, I will simply refer back to their arguments about this assumption and its falsity.

Third:
Harrit says (page 3), "Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4." (emphasis added) He explicitly states that the data sheet gives the composition of the proprietary pigment. I don't see another way to interpret this.

This assumption is false, as the data sheet (http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf) is for Tnemec Primer Red, not pigment.

Fourth:
In Table 1, there is a column labeled "Composition in wet paint." The value given for zinc chromate is 20.3%, which is the value for zinc chromate given in Sramek 1967. Thus, Harrit treats Sramek 1967 as if the wet paint mass is 100%.

This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Zinc chromate is this 20.3% of the pigment alone, not of the wet paint.

Fifth:
On page 3 Harrit says, "After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) ~ 40 %. If we subtract these from the composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint." (emphasis added) The value of 32.3% for thinners is taken from Sramek 1967. In order for subtracting this (along with the extra assumed pigment spirits) from 100% to give the hardened composition, we must assume Sramek 1967 treats wet paint mass as 100%.

This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Thinners are 32.3% of the vehicle alone, not of the wet paint.

Sixth: The conclusion follows from the above. Harrit overestimates how much of each pigment is present in the wet paint, and he overestimates how much of the wet paint mass evaporates away. These errors combine to produce an even greater overestimation of how much of each pigment is in the dry paint.

It is easy to verify each of these (especially the fourth and fifth, which alone justify Oystein's conclusion); it does not require specialist knowledge of chemistry.
Click to expand...
(But click back to his post for context - my explanation of Harrit's screwed-up assumptions and failed reasoning, which you could not refute, and still need to acknowledge as being spot-on)




Criteria said:
but like landmines, you keep planting them in the hope that the responder will slip and provide an erroneous answer, no matter how trivial, that can be mocked and ridiculed.
Click to expand...
No, with you Truthers, the fun begins when you provide straight, honest and true answers, as undoubtedly you must know - why else would you avoid giving straight, honest and true answers all the time? :)

Criteria said:
The iron-rich microspheres were produced from the red chip material after a thermitic reaction.

The thermitic reaction involved aluminum.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this answer, but I didn't ask you. I asked Ziggi. There is some context to the question that Ziggi provided, and I am not interested in chasing you till you agree fully, or disagree, with that context.

You, Sir, please concentrate on the questions that you have been running away from for so long. :)
 
Summary of open questions to Ziggi:
  1. In Dr. Farrer's TEM results, was there any indication whatsoever of elemental Al? Yes or No, Ziggi?
  2. In the interview with "Freefall Radio" on October 24, 2013, a certain Ziggi Zugam claimed that Mark Basile had already at the time oh so many resuls, he might end up writing several papers. Where are those results, more than 2 years later, Ziggi?
  3. Who appointed you as spokesperson and gatekeeper for Mark Basile, Ziggi, tasked with not allowing any questions about the $5000 donors gave in the belief Mark would send samples to independent labs without undue delay?
  4. Where are Kevin Ryan's FTIR results, Ziggi? Harrit et al wrote in their 2009 paper thar they would soon publish these results.
Also:
Ziggi said:
That´s because the expected audience for chemistry journals is assumed to understand the basics, as the word "conventional" in the phrase "conventional quantitative analysis" indicates.
Click to expand...
What does the adjective "conventional" actually mean, very specifically, in this context?
I.o.w.: In what specific way would the "quantitative analysis" have been different if it had not been "conventional"? Or what alternatives are there to a "conventional quantitative analysis" from XEDS data?
A failure to answer this will be interpreted as you totally speaking out of your arse as you very obviously then do not understand that part of the paper.

And then the latest:
Ziggi said:
The only reaction that forms iron spheres is the oxidation-reduction thermite reaction. ... we already know this red material is one major source for the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust, if not the only one.
Click to expand...
  • Did the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust form from the red layer of the red/gray chips or from the gray layer?
  • Did they form by a thermite reaction with aluminium, and aluminium only?
 
Criteria said:
The iron-rich microspheres were produced from the red chip material after a thermitic reaction.

The thermitic reaction involved aluminum.
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say that.

How can you and the authors of the Bentham paper be sure that during the WTC collapses the aluminium cladding didn't come in contact with the red painted rusted steel beams ?
 
Last edited:
Criteria said:
You are an endless source of questions.

I am reminded of little children that repeatedly ask “why” but show little interest in hearing the answer.

Your questions have been answered, but like landmines, you keep planting them in the hope that the responder will slip and provide an erroneous answer, no matter how trivial, that can be mocked and ridiculed.

The iron-rich microspheres were produced from the red chip material after a thermitic reaction.

The thermitic reaction involved aluminum.
Click to expand...

Yet you have no proof of such reaction under inert gas or vacuum, so carbon reduction
Might be the source of the microspheres not an Aluminothermic reaction!
 
A few comments here:
1) A couple years ago I reported that an anonymous forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied. I do consider, therefore, the phenomenon to be rare.
2) To my memory I never reported on Dave Thomas's initial experiment with steel wool, because he never measured the iron-rich content of the spheres he generated. But I certainly reported on the second one, with burning steel beams in a burn barrel and finding iron-rich microspheres in the range somewhere between the iron-richness of Basile's chips and the most iron-rich sphere of Harrit's. That showed real promise.
3) My video shows a number of possible sources of these spheres: whacking together rusty cannonballs when one is coated in aluminum foil (which could be a little like the outer aluminum cladding and aluminum office furniture and cars in the basement etc. colliding with rusty steel beams), the WikiAnswers experiment re iron oxide reduction using rust filings covered in sand and heated in a regular fire, etc.
4) I also took my question to a number of fire chemists, two of whom answered. One told me about adiabatic temperatures (the theoretical high temperature limit of any fire) and laser thermometers that show tiny areas where the temperatures of flames can come close to the adiabatic temperature (in these tiny areas, that temperature exceeds the melting point of steel). Miniature flakes of rust blown around by the raging winds could possibly pass through such micro-region and melt/iron oxide reduce. The other chemist mentioned eutectic mixes of aluminum and steel which reduced the temperature of the mini-melting of iron. Remember, there are no blobs of iron like you see after a thermitic reaction. Only lots of tiny iron-rich spheres.
5) RJ Lee, who first reported on these microspheres, does not believe they were thermitically caused and took the time to write letter explaining this well-understood phenomenon, and that it was to be expected in such a big fire.
6.) Some people think iron-rich spheres are common in campfires, so I tried to arrange an experiment with campfire ashes to see if iron-rich spheres could be found there. No luck, but it would be great to find out some day.
7.) Welding does create iron-rich spheres. There may be many sources for them in the WTC debris.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
A few comments here:
1) A couple years ago I reported that an anonymous forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied. I do consider, therefore, the phenomenon to be rare.
2) To my memory I never reported on Dave Thomas's initial experiment with steel wool, because he never measured the iron-rich content of the spheres he generated. But I certainly reported on the second one, with burning steel beams in a burn barrel and finding iron-rich microspheres in the range somewhere between the iron-richness of Basile's chips and the most iron-rich sphere of Harrit's. That showed real promise.
3) My video shows a number of possible sources of these spheres: whacking together rusty cannonballs when one is coated in aluminum foil (which could be a little like the outer aluminum cladding and aluminum office furniture and cars in the basement etc. colliding with rusty steel beams), the WikiAnswers experiment re iron oxide reduction using rust filings covered in sand and heated in a regular fire, etc.
4) I also took my question to a number of fire chemists, two of whom answered. One told me about adiabatic temperatures (the theoretical high temperature limit of any fire) and laser thermometers that show tiny areas where the temperatures of flames can come close to the adiabatic temperature (in these tiny areas, that temperature exceeds the melting point of steel). Miniature flakes of rust blown around by the raging winds could possibly pass through such micro-region and melt/iron oxide reduce. The other chemist mentioned eutectic mixes of aluminum and steel which reduced the temperature of the mini-melting of iron. Remember, there are no blobs of iron like you see after a thermitic reaction. Only lots of tiny iron-rich spheres.
5) RJ Lee, who first reported on these microspheres, does not believe they were thermitically caused and took the time to write letter explaining this well-understood phenomenon, and that it was to be expected in such a big fire.
Click to expand...

Rare, it occurs in almost every building fire just no reason for an Arson investigation to focus on Microspheres of Iron oxides.
They are a false lead.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Rare, it occurs in almost every building fire just no reason for an Arson investigation to focus on Microspheres of Iron oxides.
They are a false lead.
Click to expand...
Maybe so Chainsaw, but I want to report honestly what I'm told by experts. Dave Thomas's experiment with the primer paint on steel burning in a barrel makes what the forensic guy said sound surprising to me.
 
chrismohr said:
Maybe so Chainsaw, but I want to report honestly what I'm told by experts. Dave Thomas's experiment with the primer paint on steel burning in a barrel makes what the forensic guy said sound surprising to me.
Click to expand...

Your forensic guy told you the truth...:
A couple years ago I reported that an anonymous forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied. I do consider, therefore, the phenomenon to be rare.
Click to expand...

...And his comment is fully consistent with Dave´s experiments upon closer inspection: In recent days Dave´s two fire experiments (steel wool and barrel burn) have been addressed and refuted. Dave is now going back to the drawing board with new experiments.

1) The steel wool experiment did not actually show formation of iron spheres or iron-oxide spheres, it showed objects that look similar but are not the real thing:

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
You have been criticized for posting experiments where you gave the false impression that spheres were formed even though none were formed, and for not understanding the topic at hand. When you burned/oxidized your steel wool you did not understand that you were demonstrating an oxidation reaction that began with pure metal and ended up with an oxide, which is the exact opposite to the reaction shown by Harrit et al., and you did not understand that you only blew up parts of the steel wire like a balloon and formed objects that look similar to previously melted spheres but are not the real thing. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11022312&postcount=1563
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post You have pointed out some problems with the steel wool demo (not spherical, and probably iron oxide) which are probably relevant. That's why I have moved on
Click to expand...

2) The barrel burn did not prove formation of spheres, as was pointed out by me and Ivan Kminek 2 years ago:

Originally Posted by Ziggi ...You failed to prove that you could CREATE iron-rich spheres by burning painted steel beams and ... Ivan Kminek, acknowledged that...

Ivan Kmínek 2 years ago in reply to Ziggi Zugam
....could basically originate from e.g. steel barrel...

Quote: Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
..even had this sphere been present beforehand (as Ivan said it might
Quote: Originally Posted by Ziggi
...You finally acknowledge that Ivan said sphere might have been present before you even ignited that barrel burn which means you could not prove that sphere was formed in your fire, which was my point

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11011434&postcount=1467
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR
I still think that the spheres I found were most likely from the burned paint, but acknowledge there is some possibility they may have been pre-existing.
Click to expand...

Now Chris, are you going to acknowledge this on record as well?
 
chrismohr said:
Maybe so Chainsaw, but I want to report honestly what I'm told by experts. Dave Thomas's experiment with the primer paint on steel burning in a barrel makes what the forensic guy said sound surprising to me.
Click to expand...

Check out waste incinerators, they burn house hold waste, they are not force fan oxidated, and do not burn at temperatures exceeding 1200C, and they produce microspheres of Iron Oxides, and pure reduced Fe
There are several studies on those..
 
:p I
Ziggi said:
Your forensic guy told you the truth...:


...And his comment is fully consistent with Dave´s experiments upon closer inspection: In recent days Dave´s two fire experiments (steel wool and barrel burn) have been addressed and refuted. Dave is now going back to the drawing board with new experiments.

1) The steel wool experiment did not actually show formation of iron spheres or iron-oxide spheres, it showed objects that look similar but are not the real thing:




2) The barrel burn did not prove formation of spheres, as was pointed out by me and Ivan Kminek 2 years ago:




Now Chris, are you going to acknowledge this on record as well?
Click to expand...

A
The barrel burn was not an effective environment for microspheres formation because A, it did not establish the proper Reducing Atmosphere.
B it did not involve a chimney effect with hydrocarbons and sulfates, and chlorates.
Such chimney effects can reach temperatures in of over 1400C or better.
 
Ziggi said:
Your forensic guy told you the truth...:


...And his comment is fully consistent with Dave´s experiments upon closer inspection: In recent days Dave´s two fire experiments (steel wool and barrel burn) have been addressed and refuted. Dave is now going back to the drawing board with new experiments.

1) The steel wool experiment did not actually show formation of iron spheres or iron-oxide spheres, it showed objects that look similar but are not the real thing:




2) The barrel burn did not prove formation of spheres, as was pointed out by me and Ivan Kminek 2 years ago:




Now Chris, are you going to acknowledge this on record as well?
Click to expand...
Dave spent way more time looking for iron-rich spheres before his barrel burn than after, and found none until after... then it took him very little time. It is possible that the iron-rich spheres existed but with all his extra searching, he never found one pre-burn. He spent very little time (time was expensive on the equipment) looking for the microspheres post-burn.
It appears that there's a good chance he found iron-rich microspheres created in the burn. That's why I say this was a promising experiment. There is some possibility that they were there prior, as Ivan said. But even if that were the case, since thermite was not there ever ever ever, and you say iron-rich spheres can't possibly be created in an ordinary fire, this at the least proves that iron-rich spheres can be created in more normal ways than thermite. In other words, either way, iron-rich does not prove thermite.
Chainsaw, even if Dave's barrel burn wasn't the best way to create iron-rich spheres, he probably DID create them with an ordinary fire. The experiment still stands as a way of showing that Ziggi is wrong on this point.
 
chrismohr said:
A few comments here:
1) A couple years ago I reported that an anonymous forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied. I do consider, therefore, the phenomenon to be rare.
Click to expand...

Unlike the forensic chemist you cited above Mr. Mohr, it is truly amazing how many non-experts there are here who are willing to unequivocally argue in favor of a high expectation for iron-rich microspheres in virtually any arson fire.

jaydeehess said:
”All the lab work and chemical equations aside, the fires at the WTC complex during the month of September 2001 contained a myriad of materials and a spectrum of oxygen availability and temperatures. Reduced iron microspheres could have been produced without thermite.”
Click to expand...

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

Myriad said:
Iron particles tend to be reduced in hydrocarbon fires. …Anyhow, reduction of iron oxides in hydrocarbon fires happens routinely enough that archaeologists can find traces of ancient fires…
Click to expand...

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

Crazy Chainsaw said:
”Build it, then just place red paint chips inside, with any plastic hydrocarbon and pitch it in a wood fire, and you will see significant reduction by products ..
Once you duplicate what I have done I hope Ziggi likes eating crow.

PS. Ziggi if Jones couldn't win a debate against me over microspheres, what makes you think
You can?
Click to expand...

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

Crazy Chainsaw said:
”Now burn paper inside a red painted filing cabinet, and check for microspheres, you will find thousands.

The smoldering paper creates the perfect reduction environment for Iron oxide reduction.”
Click to expand...

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

DaveThomasNMSR said:
”..I have moved on - and revisited the topic with a very different experiment, namely burning painted beams to create iron spheroids. Your complaint on that experiment is that I can't be sure the nice irony spheroids I found were actually created by paint and fire, and that it might have been "contamination."

Oh, and "iron oxides". You have yet to deal with the obvious problem this concession on your part creates for 9/11 Truth: the Twin Towers were not a sterile lab environment, either, and truther reports of "iron spheroids can only be formed by Thermite" fall apart when one considers the many ways that these spheroids can be formed (grinding, cutting, burning, etc.).:
Click to expand...

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

At the World Trade Center on 9/11, a forensic chemist with or without extensive experience, would have had no difficulty finding iron-rich microspheres and the simple means of creating more (thermitic red dust chips).

Thank you Mr. Mohr for that expert citation. I wish you had referred to it more often.

I know you cited other experts but the huge volume of microspheres, cannot be accounted for by rusty cannonballs, aluminum foil, cars in the basement, Wiki’s iron filings in sand, fire chemists theorizing but not experiencing, raging winds, RJ Lees’s unsupported beliefs, campfires, and welding“
 
jaydeehess said:
All the lab work and chemical equations aside, the fires at the WTC complex during the month of September 2001 contained a myriad of materials and a spectrum of oxygen availability and temperatures. Reduced iron microspheres could have been produced without thermite.
So yes, yes, yes, Harrit should have done comparisons if he was going to claim they MUST indicate thermite.
Click to expand...

Criteria said:
”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”
Click to expand...
Not sure how that refutes what I said. Just how many underground , weeks long, office rubble fires has anyone investigated?
 
Criteria said:
You are being incredibly naive Georgio.

To paraphrase an old expression, the horses do not wish to be lead to water.

The establishment does not wish to poke at old sores. Even Mr. Mohr refuses to do more than the bare minimum and he was one of the few people willing to take their heads out of the sand and acknowledge the seriousness of the 2009 Bentham paper’s conclusions.

Take for example Dr. Millette’s study from 3.5 years ago, does it not bother you that his passion for investigating the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper expired so abruptly, just shy of making an observation that would have sent him back to the drawing board?

He went to all the trouble of isolating a pile of 9/11 WTC red chips, heated them at a temperature guaranteed to not allow them to self destruct, and then, when he no longer had any use for them, could not be bothered to look and see how they behaved if heated another +30 °C hotter as was done by the scientists whose work he was supposedly trying to recreate.

It takes a lot of hubris to be so sure of your preliminary results that you feel the easily performed most controversial test is not required.

Other than “9/11 Truth seekers”, I have not seen one of the ‘regulars’ here complain about Dr. Millette’s lack of scientific curiosity, or Mr. Mohr’s unwillingness to pursue the matter further.

Mysteriously (or politically), Dr. Millette refused to go that extra few feet, and his sponsor Mr. Mohr following the beat of the same drum, showed more interest in getting campfire ashes from DGM than asking Dr. Millette for his discarded chip samples. So really Georgio, what form of action representing “everything they possibly can to get this result repeated” do you think the scientists might have pursued that would overcome the 9/11 conspiracy phobias that permeate the scientific community?

Unlike the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper, people like Dr. Millette who performed various types of research on the 9/11 WTC dust for the U.S. government, must have access to a virtually unlimited supply of that dust. Good luck obtaining any.

Sure it would be convenient if the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper provided chips that they pre-qualified, but would it not be best if independent scientists working with 9/11 WTC dust provided by a neutral or even anti-2009 Bentham paper source (Dr. Millette), validated the paper’s findings? Who best to obtain agreement from if not your opposition?

Hopefully in the not too distant future Mark Basile will either provide validation or he will not.

If Mark succeeds in providing strong support for the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper, you can count on all of the amateur debunkers here to concoct a fresh batch of lies enshrouded in pseudo science to dismiss him.
Click to expand...
I've heard this complaint for a long time: that Millette didn't raise the temp to 430C and see what happened to his chips. Or, a variation: that he didn't replicate the experiments of the Harrit team, especially by not doing DSC measurements.
At first, I too was frustrated. I asked Millette to simply I.D. the chips, but when he gave me a list of the tests he was going to run, I mistakenly thought it would be a Harrit replication. I was wrong, but at first I wished I had gotten a full replication anyway. When I asked Millette about the DSC and the strong exotherm, he told me that this was not relevant to the materials identification protocol for unignited thermite. He was looking for elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the two main ingredients. He never found the elemental aluminum so he concluded, no thermite.
He explained to me in an email (which is in my video) that DSC can show some properties of a burning product, but it can't I.D. the substance. He said that Harrit et al found this exothermic reaction, but he said, if they think it's something special they will have to come up with a new hypothesis as to what it is "because it is not thermite."
It reminds me of a patient who comes in and says "Doc I have a lump, what it is it?" And the doc says, "We'll need to do a biopsy." The biopsy comes back, and the doc says, "It's benign, there are no cancer cells." The patient replies, no, you need to take my temperature! And the doc says, "if this lump is cancerous, it won't give you a fever anyway. If you have a fever, that's irrelevant to this lump. If you have a fever, you'll have to come up with another theory about its cause because it is not caused by cancer in this lump." What hubris, says the patient, storming out.
My one frustration is that so far I have been unable to find a "textbook" citation that says, THIS is the protocol for identifying thermite. I would certainly think that tests identifying the chemistry of a substance would be the #1 way to determine this. Millette's FTIR and TEM results (as well as other tests) showed no elemental aluminum.
I'm not even sure we can call these tests "experiments." Following a protocol is not doing an experiment. It's a series of prescribed tests, not an experiment. At this point, I believe that Millette followed standard protocol (and released ALL data), but I haven't found the textbook thermite identification protocol independent of him or anyone here. Anyone have a link to this?
But assuming Millette is right about the materials characterization he did, then cooking the chips is utterly irrelevant to identifying the chemistry of the red-grey chips!
 
jaydeehess said:
Not sure how that refutes what I said. Just how many underground , weeks long, office rubble fires has anyone investigated?
Click to expand...
Jaydeehess, Your reply may be what RJ Lee was talking about when he said these iron-rich spheres were to be expected in a fire of this magnitude. This was a huge, fast-moving fire, almost unprecedented in its ferocity. You could see the smoke from satellites; the plume was as big as all of Manhattan. Building Seven's fires raged unfought for over six hours. I have video of a firefighter saying he never saw anything like this, and that Building 7 was doomed to collapse as a result. I wonder if it's a mega-fire like this that can create iron-rich spheres, not so much in a house or typical office fire?
 
chrismohr said:
Jaydeehess, Your reply may be what RJ Lee was talking about when he said these iron-rich spheres were to be expected in a fire of this magnitude. This was a huge, fast-moving fire, almost unprecedented in its ferocity. You could see the smoke from satellites; the plume was as big as all of Manhattan. Building Seven's fires raged unfought for over six hours. I have video of a firefighter saying he never saw anything like this, and that Building 7 was doomed to collapse as a result. I wonder if it's a mega-fire like this that can create iron-rich spheres, not so much in a house or typical office fire?
Click to expand...

My post was meant to refer to ALL aspects of fires at the WTC site, whether the multifloor, immediate intense fire in the towers precollapse, the several hours of multifloor fires in WTC7 precollapse, or the weeks long rubblized office building fires post collapses.
I hope this is now clear to all.
 
chrismohr said:
.... There is some possibility that they were there prior, as Ivan said......Chainsaw, even if Dave's barrel burn wasn't the best way to create iron-rich spheres, he probably DID create them with an ordinary fire. The experiment still stands as a way of showing that Ziggi is wrong on this point.
Click to expand...

You are claiming two contradictory things, acknowledging that Dave did not prove he formed spheres in an ordinary fire and that his unproved formation of spheres in an ordinary fire proved me wrong. Again, can you acknowledge that Dave´s experiment did not prove formation of spheres and that therefore it did not contradict me or your fire expert?

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
....not understand that you only blew up parts of the steel wire like a balloon and formed objects that look similar to previously melted spheres but are not the real thing. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1563
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post You have pointed out some problems with the steel wool demo (not spherical, and probably iron oxide) which are probably relevant. That's why I have moved on
Click to expand...

Mohr, you forgot to acknowledge the non-formation of spheres in Dave´s steel wool experiment. You´ll fix that in a jiffy?

chrismohr said:
But even if that were the case, since thermite was not there ever ever ever, and you say iron-rich spheres can't possibly be created in an ordinary fire, this at the least proves that iron-rich spheres can be created in more normal ways than thermite. In other words, either way, iron-rich does not prove thermite.
Click to expand...

Wrong Mohr, you cannot prove the formation of spheres where you cannot prove they did not previously exist, as noted above.

Iron-oxide spheres can be created via burning in high temp furnaces that reach double the temps of open air fires or "ordinary fires" as you say, but then you have iron-oxide spheres. So not only is it not possible to create spheres in ordinary fire you end up with an oxide through an opposite process to that shown by Harrit et al.. but you don´t understand that yet.

If you think you do understand you can respond to the post that Dave avoids on his behalf:
But I have been struggling - unsuccessfully obviously - to make you understand the difference between that and the process shown by Harrit et al:

Quote:
This way you could end up forming spheres but since you would be burning/oxidizing the metal you would end up with an oxide as is the case with the fly-ash spheres from power plants. This is the opposite process to reduction. This is not about comparing the oxygen levels of spheres formed via different processes; This is about noting the type of reaction which means oxidation vs reduction.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggi said:
You are claiming two contradictory things, acknowledging that Dave did not prove he formed spheres in an ordinary fire and that his unproved formation of spheres in an ordinary fire proved me wrong. Again, can you acknowledge that Dave´s experiment did not prove formation of spheres and that therefore it did not contradict me or your fire expert?



Mohr, you forgot to acknowledge the non-formation of spheres in Dave´s steel wool experiment. You´ll fix that in a jiffy?



Wrong Mohr, you cannot prove the formation of spheres where you cannot prove they did not previously exist, as noted above.

Iron-oxide spheres can be created via burning in high temp furnaces that reach double the temps of open air fires or "ordinary fires" as you say, but then you have iron-oxide spheres. So not only is it not possible to create spheres in ordinary fire you end up with an oxide through an opposite process to that shown by Harrit et al.. but you don´t understand that yet.

If you think you do understand you can respond to the post that Dave avoids on his behalf:
Click to expand...
In the initial steel wool experiment, you claim (and Dave agrees you may be right) that iron-oxide spheres were created, not iron-rich spheres. I am not a scientist so I cannot independently verify your claim. All I can say with certainty is that Dave never measured the iron-richness of the spheres he created. You may be right that he just made iron-oxide spheres via a different process. But either way, the evidence is weak because he didn't measure the iron-richness of the spheres. And I have read nothing to contradict your claim, even here, so for now it tentatively stands. But my reason for not using it in my video is because without measuring the iron-richness of the steel-wool spheres, it's not nearly as good as his second experiment.
As for his second experiment, you have not addressed my claim that even if the iron-rich spheres were there before the burn (and he spent a fair amount of time looking and found none), the presence of iron-rich spheres proves that SOMETHING besides thermite created them. Others have said this too. Do you acknowledge that iron-rich spheres were found in Dave's second experiment, and if so, do you think they came from thermite? Because if you think they came from any other source, you can't use iron-rich spheres to prove thermite. What proves thermite is elemental aluminum, and Jim Millette says it is not there. Even Mark Basile has said it hasn't yet been fully proven.
As for your final paragraph to Dave: I understand that you claim that there are different processes of sphere creation. One process oxidizes the iron, and the other process reduces the iron oxide to or towards elemental iron. OK, I understand what you are saying so far. But you lose me when you say, "This is not about comparing the oxygen levels of spheres formed via different processes; This is about noting the type of reaction which means oxidation vs reduction." If you measure lower oxygen, then the process by definition is iron oxide reduction. If you measure higher oxygen, this by definition is oxidation. Am I missing something here?
 
chrismohr said:
In the initial steel wool experiment, you claim (and Dave agrees you may be right) that iron-oxide spheres were created, not iron-rich spheres. I am not a scientist so I cannot independently verify your claim. All I can say with certainty is that Dave never measured the iron-richness of the spheres he created. You may be right that he just made iron-oxide spheres via a different process. But either way, the evidence is weak because he didn't measure the iron-richness of the spheres. And I have read nothing to contradict your claim, even here, so for now it tentatively stands. But my reason for not using it in my video is because without measuring the iron-richness of the steel-wool spheres, it's not nearly as good as his second experiment.
As for his second experiment, you have not addressed my claim that even if the iron-rich spheres were there before the burn (and he spent a fair amount of time looking and found none), the presence of iron-rich spheres proves that SOMETHING besides thermite created them. Others have said this too. Do you acknowledge that iron-rich spheres were found in Dave's second experiment, and if so, do you think they came from thermite? Because if you think they came from any other source, you can't use iron-rich spheres to prove thermite. What proves thermite is elemental aluminum, and Jim Millette says it is not there. Even Mark Basile has said it hasn't yet been fully proven.
As for your final paragraph to Dave: I understand that you claim that there are different processes of sphere creation. One process oxidizes the iron, and the other process reduces the iron oxide to or towards elemental iron. OK, I understand what you are saying so far. But you lose me when you say, "This is not about comparing the oxygen levels of spheres formed via different processes; This is about noting the type of reaction which means oxidation vs reduction." If you measure lower oxygen, then the process by definition is iron oxide reduction. If you measure higher oxygen, this by definition is oxidation. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Apples to pumpkins, the towers clearly exhibited a reducing atmosphere, one in which a high Carbon fuel rich fire was present. That is evident in the thick black smoke issuing from the building, from the hydrocarbons in the buildings!
Harrit & Jones made a clearly false claim that Aluminum reduction of Iron oxide is the only possible way to form microspheres.
I have given a peer reviewed paper that clearly shows reduction occurring at less than 300C.

Since reduction is a process that disrupts the Iron oxide Crystalline structure, the iron has to reform a new structure when reduced, that structure will be a microspheres because of properties that effect Iron on the atomic level!

Ziggi and Criteria are defending a false claim, it is not nessary to have a vacuum or an inert
Gas atmosphere, just an atmosphere high in combusting carbon for low temperature reduction to take place!

Harrit made the claim without proof and validation that microspheres can only be formed in aluminum reduction processes, that is something that is falsified because they provided no evidence that low temperature reduction could not have formed microspheres by disruption of the Iron oxide Crystals, on the atomic scale!

With the earths atmosphere only 20% Oxygen a reducing atmosphere is easy for a high hydrocarbon fire to produce in a matter of seconds!
 
Meanwhile everyone, including Mr. Mohr, are ignoring this inconvenient truth;

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

At the World Trade Center on 9/11, a forensic chemist with or without extensive experience, would have had no difficulty finding iron-rich microspheres and the simple means of creating more (thermitic red dust chips).

If they are so common and so easily created, how extremely odd that a forensic chemist specializing in arson fires NEVER encountered iron-rich microspheres in any of his investigations.
 
Criteria said:
Unlike the forensic chemist you cited above Mr. Mohr, it is truly amazing how many non-experts there are here who are willing to unequivocally argue in favor of a high expectation for iron-rich microspheres in virtually any arson fire.



”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”



”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”



”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”



”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”



”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

At the World Trade Center on 9/11, a forensic chemist with or without extensive experience, would have had no difficulty finding iron-rich microspheres and the simple means of creating more (thermitic red dust chips).

Thank you Mr. Mohr for that expert citation. I wish you had referred to it more often.

I know you cited other experts but the huge volume of microspheres, cannot be accounted for by rusty cannonballs, aluminum foil, cars in the basement, Wiki’s iron filings in sand, fire chemists theorizing but not experiencing, raging winds, RJ Lees’s unsupported beliefs, campfires, and welding“
Click to expand...

Do Forensic Chemists test dust samples for thermite or do they just look for the visual evidence at the site of the fire initiation and test those?
Thermite leaves a unique signature in a fire a large mass of reduced iron.

Nano Areojel thermite might have popped popcorn on the steel, but the popcorn
would have done as much damage, and you still haven't come up with a logical theory
of how it would have been used.

Also Microspheres are associated with reduction events in Chimney effects and chemical
reactions unless a forensic chemist is looking for evidence of a Chimney effect fire,
there is no reason for him to consider microspheres as evidence and quite possible
for him not to have seen them in investigations he has done.

PS. Chimney effects as well as increased oxidation of the fires,
By the collapses can not be ruled out as a major source of the
Microspheres, because you have no evidence to do so!
Also unintentional reduction of Iron oxides with carbons in the red
grey chips at low temperature, can also not be ruled out, for the same
reason it could have occured during heating to ignition of the chips
In the DSC, an inert gas test and self oxidation of known samples of said
chips would rule out reduction of Iron by carbon.
However we all know you will never do one, so don't fault us because you don't
have the easy to obtain scientific evidence to back up your claims!:)
 
Criteria said:
Meanwhile everyone, including Mr. Mohr, are ignoring this inconvenient truth;

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

At the World Trade Center on 9/11, a forensic chemist with or without extensive experience, would have had no difficulty finding iron-rich microspheres and the simple means of creating more (thermitic red dust chips).

If they are so common and so easily created, how extremely odd that a forensic chemist specializing in arson fires NEVER encountered iron-rich microspheres in any of his investigations.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, criteria and Ziggy completely ignore how Iron rich microspheres can be formed.

So why would we expect to see iron microspheres when steel framed structures collapse ?

Oh that's right, THERMITE :confused: and that's as dumb as it gets.
 
Last edited:
Spanx said:
Meanwhile, criteria and Ziggy completely ignore how Iron rich microspheres can be formed.

So why would we expect to see iron microspheres when steel framed structures collapse ?

Oh that's right, THERMITE :confused: and that's as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...

Spanx,

Take a foot long 2" (ID)brass pipe, place two brass caps on each end,
Drill a 1/8 inch hole in one cap.
Place rubber, plastic, any pvc, rust and red paint chips.
Now place it with the pressure relief hole downward on a wood fire.
Guess what happens?
Guess what happens when the paint chips are heated near Aluminum?

Easy repeated experiment!

Ps. Do not let the hole in bottom get stopped up, replacing several fire brick in my wood
Furnace this after noon.
Better design is to use a larger hole, with a thin copper cone washer on the onside
Fastened by a brass screw from the outside.
This allows pressure to build as gasses inside create a reducing atmosphere, inside the
Pipe, duplicating the chemistry of a chimney effect, without the dangers and pollution inherent in a
Full scale chimney effect!
Do not open the reduction chamber until well cooled though any oxidation could cause a fuel
Air and iron oxidation, causing a fuel air blast.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Meanwhile, you and Ziggi are completely ignoring a number of inconvenient questions:

Criteria: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11026121#post11026121
Ziggi: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11026128#post11026128
Click to expand...

Oystein, apparently truthers are afraid of the truth.

On page 3 Harrit says, "After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment)
Click to expand...

They baked the Tremec in Japan, in a large oven, then shipped the steel acrossed the pacific ocean, after welding it in place it was recoated with Laclade, I would like Criteria to explain
How they welded steel without burning off the paint applied in Japan?
Or why a paint with pyrites would not produce microspheres like Laclade would?

Sloppy incompetent science is the trade mark of the truthers claims that or scientific tests
Paid for and never done, because the conclusion debunk the moronic of the incompetent,
Egotists!
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Spanx,

Take a foot long 2" (ID)brass pipe, place two brass caps on each end,
Drill a 1/8 inch hole in one cap.
Place rubber, plastic, any pvc, rust and red paint chips.
Now place it with the pressure relief hole downward on a wood fire.
Guess what happens?
Guess what happens when the paint chips are heated near Aluminum?

Easy repeated experiment!

Ps. Do not let the hole in bottom get stopped up, replacing several fire brick in my wood
Furnace this after noon.
Better design is to use a larger hole, with a thin copper cone washer on the onside
Fastened by a brass screw from the outside.
This allows pressure to build as gasses inside create a reducing atmosphere, inside the
Pipe, duplicating the chemistry of a chimney effect, without the dangers and pollution inherent in a
Full scale chimney effect!
Do not open the reduction chamber until well cooled though any oxidation could cause a fuel
Air and iron oxidation, causing a fuel air blast.
Click to expand...

To be honest, that's far too much energy to exert for criteria or Ziggy.

The closest I will get to an experiment will be chipping off rusted paint chips with a piece of aluminum, followed by heating the chips up with a heat gun.

Not much of an experiment but far better than setting up a fundraiser and keeping the money ;)

I could also claim I have found a super special nano-thermite
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Oystein, apparently truthers are afraid of the truth.
Click to expand...
I wear their grim resolve not to answer my questions as a badge of honor. It shows they are keenly and painfully aware of how devestating straight and honest answers would be to their trusty delusions.


Crazy Chainsaw said:
They baked the Tremec in Japan, in a large oven, then shipped the steel acrossed the pacific ocean, after welding it in place it was recoated with Laclade, I would like Criteria to explain how they welded steel without burning off the paint applied in Japan?
Click to expand...
Wha..??? :confused:
 
Spanx said:
To be honest, that's far too much energy to exert for criteria or Ziggy.

The closest I will get to an experiment will be chipping off rusted paint chips with a piece of aluminum, followed by heating the chips up with a heat gun.

Not much of an experiment but far better than setting up a fundraiser and keeping the money ;)
Click to expand...
In the spirit of sharing the work, I'd volunteer for that part of the study :D
 
Fore any body here who doesn't know, I have done experiments into the chemical reactions in the Towers including chimney effects, using a two cleaned 100 barrel oil tanks stacked on top of each other, and an 800 gallion clean water tank stacked on top of that, to provide a contained multi level fire, with tons of paper plastic and drywall.
No one else as far as I know has even attempted anything similar not even NIST.

I have even done experiments into debris flows, which though increased oxidation do to movement, produced temperatures over 1400C, including one reading by laser thermometer of 2290C.
Although this was not backed up by thermocouple data as were the 1400C temps.
Multilevel Chimney effects, and increased oxidation in the debris flows could have easily created
Both oxidized iron, and reduced Iron microspheres and microspheres, I found both, in the experiments, but was ignored By Dr. Paint Chip Jones, when I presented the evidence to him!
Now he is into his over unity fraud, and left the truther movement behind, oh and macrospheres probably were produced on 9/11/2001, but would not have been found in the dust because they do not disperse well in air!
Just summing up the experiments from 2007_2008.
The other experiment is just a safer less expensive way to do a reduction experiment, with out going to
The trouble of creating such a complex multistorey, multi stage fire event, in such a highly dangerous and expensive experiment!
 
Oystein said:
I wear their grim resolve not to answer my questions as a badge of honor. It shows they are keenly and painfully aware of how devestating straight and honest answers would be to their trusty delusions.



Wha..??? :confused:
Click to expand...

The steel was fabricated in Japan, and painted in Japan, the baked paint was to protect it from salt corrosion, during the voyage to the site in New York.

After welding in place a second different air dry primer was applied.

That's also when electrical contractors were working on the power systems, and contamination of paint with Aluminum dust could occur, Aluminum wire was popular in the 70s.
 
Spanx said:
To be honest, that's far too much energy to exert for criteria or Ziggy.

The closest I will get to an experiment will be chipping off rusted paint chips with a piece of aluminum, followed by heating the chips up with a heat gun.

Not much of an experiment but far better than setting up a fundraiser and keeping the money ;)

I could also claim I have found a super special nano-thermite
Click to expand...

A bensomatic torch high temp torch burning mephs gas with air in will ignite Aluminum and paint chips.
The tip utilizes a highly efficient chimney effect, no Oxygen or forced air required!

A chimney effect or increased oxidation, or chemical reactions, are the keys to Microspheres or macrosphere formation.
I am convinced that Paint chip Jones, and Cracked pot Harrit are intellectually dishonest!
 
CC, my question marks were mostly for your mentioning "Laclade" paint. Assuming you meant "LaClede" paint, that was nonsense - the LaClede Steel company had nothing to do with the Japanese steel:
"Laclede Steel manufactured the trusses for the composite floor panels for both WTC 1 and WTC 2 from steel they made and rolled at their mill in Alton, Illinois."​
(NCSTAR 1-3, page 15).
Their painting process was recommended as
"Steel joists, bridging and accesories shall receive one uniform coat of protective paint pefore shipment, applied by the electrophoresces [they mean "electrophoretic deposition"] or similar process, providing a dense coating with a minimum dry thickness of 1 mil [25 µm]"​
I take this to mean entire, ready fabricated (welded) trusses were immersed in a bath of water and epoxy-amine paint.
"The finish applied paint shall be subjected to a 350 °Fahrenheit [182 °C] baking for a minimum of 10 minutes."​
(NCSTAR 1-6B Appendix B)


Crazy Chainsaw said:
The steel was fabricated in Japan,
Click to expand...
Much, but not all of it.
True for most of the steel exterior column: Pacific Car & Foundry got the steel for 3 sides of the columns ("exterior (or web) and side (or flange) plates") from Yawata Iron, Japan, but "the interior web plate (plate 3) was fabricated from domestic steel" (NCSTAR 1-3, page 16).
This implies that only steel plates were shipped from Japan, they were assembled to box columns by PC&F in the USA. At their plant, I presume? And then shipped to the Manhattan construction site.

However: "Telephone interview with William Luecke. Montague Betts furnished rolled beams for the core of both towers as well as the antenna base for one tower. He remembered about 60 percent of the steel was American, and the rest was Japanese or British." (page 19).

Crazy Chainsaw said:
and painted in Japan, the baked paint was to protect it from salt corrosion, during the voyage to the site in New York.
Click to expand...
I found no reference for this upon a short search. Appears plausible, though.

Crazy Chainsaw said:
After welding in place a second different air dry primer was applied.
Click to expand...
Which welding, and which place do you refer to here? The wleding of steel plates to manufacture box columns at the PC&F plant, or welding at the WTC construction site?
How did you determine it was painted with a different primer? How did you determine the completed box columns weren't painted and baked whole at PC&F?

Perhaps other member with experience in steel construction can weigh in, too? I know practically nothing about industry standards here.
 
Criteria said:
Meanwhile everyone, including Mr. Mohr, are ignoring this inconvenient truth;

”a forensic chemist with extensive experience analyzing arson debris told me he had not seen iron-rich microspheres in the fires he had studied.”

At the World Trade Center on 9/11, a forensic chemist with or without extensive experience, would have had no difficulty finding iron-rich microspheres and the simple means of creating more (thermitic red dust chips).

If they are so common and so easily created, how extremely odd that a forensic chemist specializing in arson fires NEVER encountered iron-rich microspheres in any of his investigations.
Click to expand...

Your support for the fantasy thermite is quote-mining BS.

Where is your proof iron sphere are not formed in fires? Where? 911 truth does no research, they do quote-mining, and BS to support a fantasy of thermite.

14 years, no evidence.

Where is the damage to steel from thermite? in the fantasy world of Dr Jones, who is off in over unity circuits, or other BS - your experts are BS artists. 911 truth, where a fringe few are over qualified to support the lies, false claims and nonsense of 911 truth.

Dust studies down by reality based research found no thermite many years ago. Why do you support liars and the fools Jones and Harrit? \

Where in the Jones paper is there proof for thermite?

You have to avoid quote-mining, it is not evidence for much more than an inability to find real evidence. I have no idea why anyone would be looking for iron spheres in fires, it would mean nothing without other evidence. In Chemistry class, labs, we never did look for iron micro spheres, we did chemistry; thus what are you talking about by posting a single quote, with no idea what the guy did, and how he did his analysis. Total nonsense. Have you looked for iron spheres in major fires?

911 truth followers must of read a different paper by Jones, the one they published in a vanity journal has no proof for thermite.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
CC, my question marks were mostly for your mentioning "Laclade" paint. Assuming you meant "LaClede" paint, that was nonsense - the LaClede Steel company had nothing to do with the Japanese steel:
"Laclede Steel manufactured the trusses for the composite floor panels for both WTC 1 and WTC 2 from steel they made and rolled at their mill in Alton, Illinois."​
(NCSTAR 1-3, page 15).
Their painting process was recommended as
"Steel joists, bridging and accesories shall receive one uniform coat of protective paint pefore shipment, applied by the electrophoresces [they mean "electrophoretic deposition"] or similar process, providing a dense coating with a minimum dry thickness of 1 mil [25 µm]"​
I take this to mean entire, ready fabricated (welded) trusses were immersed in a bath of water and epoxy-amine paint.
"The finish applied paint shall be subjected to a 350 °Fahrenheit [182 °C] baking for a minimum of 10 minutes."​
(NCSTAR 1-6B Appendix B)



Much, but not all of it.
True for most of the steel exterior column: Pacific Car & Foundry got the steel for 3 sides of the columns ("exterior (or web) and side (or flange) plates") from Yawata Iron, Japan, but "the interior web plate (plate 3) was fabricated from domestic steel" (NCSTAR 1-3, page 16).
This implies that only steel plates were shipped from Japan, they were assembled to box columns by PC&F in the USA. At their plant, I presume? And then shipped to the Manhattan construction site.

However: "Telephone interview with William Luecke. Montague Betts furnished rolled beams for the core of both towers as well as the antenna base for one tower. He remembered about 60 percent of the steel was American, and the rest was Japanese or British." (page 19).


I found no reference for this upon a short search. Appears plausible, though.


Which welding, and which place do you refer to here? The wleding of steel plates to manufacture box columns at the PC&F plant, or welding at the WTC construction site?
How did you determine it was painted with a different primer? How did you determine the completed box columns weren't painted and baked whole at PC&F?

Perhaps other member with experience in steel construction can weigh in, too? I know practically nothing about industry standards here.
Click to expand...

The Core columns were fabricated in Japan dip painted, then ran though an oven to dry , then shipped across the Pacific ocean, hoisted into place, welded then painted again.
 
chrismohr said:
In the initial steel wool experiment, you claim (and Dave agrees you may be right) that iron-oxide spheres were created, not iron-rich spheres...... Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Are you being serious, or are you kidding? My comment to Dave said he did not create spheres in his steel wool experiment and Dave acknowledged that little problem:

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
....not understand that you only blew up parts of the steel wire like a balloon and formed objects that look similar to previously melted spheres but are not the real thing. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1563
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post You have pointed out some problems with the steel wool demo (not spherical, and probably iron oxide) which are probably relevant. That's why I have moved on
Click to expand...

The above exchange notes that a problem with the steel wool experiment is that those object that looked "similar to" spheres are "not the real thing" meaning not spheres, or "not spherical" as Dave put it. And my comment to you was that you forgot to acknowledge that no spheres were created:

Originally Posted by Ziggi Mohr, you forgot to acknowledge the non-formation of spheres in Dave´s steel wool experiment. You´ll fix that in a jiffy?
Click to expand...

No spheres were created in that experiment, not iron-oxide spheres and not iron spheres. No spheres at all. Do you understand?
 
Ziggi said:
No spheres were created in that experiment, not iron-oxide spheres and not iron spheres. No spheres at all. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

How do you know spheres weren't formed while falling through the air ?

I think what Ziggi is dying to say is...... There was no thermite reaction in that experiment :)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Not a chance. He's way too busy directing attention away from the failed Harrit paper and the Basile study that will never happen. ;)


Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain............... <insert impressive pyrotechnics>
Click to expand...

Its more like pay no attention to the clown distracting the kids, while the animal keepers clean up the mess the elephants made.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom