ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags iron microspheres

Reply
Old 10th February 2012, 07:13 AM   #1321
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Yes, nanoiron at office fire temperatures.
......
It’s been shown that office fires can reach 1254C.
And that ferrospheres and volatile (vapor) lead are created at <1200C temperatures, less than the melting point of bulk iron (1535C) and bulk lead boiling point (1740C)- Melting point of bulk lead (327C) So Jones and C7 are wrong that iron temperatures need to be 1535C to produce ferrospheres and that lead has to boil to vaporize.http://suwic.group.shef.ac.uk/posters/p-ash.pdf

Due to the “melting point depression” phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression

First come to grips with the scientifically verified fact that ferrospheres and volatile (vapor) lead are created at less than the melting point of bulk iron (1535C) and bulk lead boiling point (1740C)
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
We are talking about the melting of iron and there is NO evidence that temperatures in the TT exceeded 1100oC. NIST said that temperatures of 1000-1100oC only lasted for about 15 min in any location.

ETA: What nano-iron? Read my post again:
Note they clearly said that Iron melted producing spherical metallic particles, not office furnishings burned producing spherical metallic particles.
???
Which part of nano sized iron is not iron. Which office furnishings do not contain iron nano sized particles.
You answered the wrong question.
The question was this:
Quote:
First come to grips with the scientifically verified fact that ferrospheres and volatile (vapor) lead are created at less than the melting point of bulk iron (1535C) and bulk lead boiling point (1740C)
Because Steven Jones is wrong.
Quote:
The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust (table 1) are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings (table 2). The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C ).
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

And also you are wrong.
My italics for F>C temperatures

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

Again you have it backwards. You are obsessed with the word "expected" and I have countered that several times.

I'm taking RJ Lee's statements at face value.
"iron melted during the WTC event producing spherical metallic particles."
and
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.


I don't have to prove that iron melts at 2800oF (1537C)and lead volatilizes at 3100oF, (1704C)those facts are known.

If you want to claim that the iron spheres were created and lead volatilized at a lower temperatures in the TT fires, you must show proof.
Proof shown.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Iron is heavy and fell out of the dust faster than anything else. The amount of iron in the dust gets proportionately less in more distant locations, hence the discrepancy.
Source?

Lead paint has been banned from New York for more than 40 years.
http://www.keoghcrispi.com/Practice-Areas/Lead-Paint-Poisoning.shtml

You are missing the point: Iron melted [at 2800oF] (1537C) during the WTC event producing spherical metallic particles.

These particles were deposited by the dust cloud.

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust. Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC [2800oF], (1537C)the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust.
These products are:
Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
C7 and Jones are wrong. Proof shown.
You are being obstinate
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 10th February 2012 at 07:21 AM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 07:17 AM   #1322
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
I would like to remind you all that the RJ Lee Group did a thorough study of the WTC dust using state of the art technology, and you all did not.
And we'd like to remind YOU (again!) that RJ Lee did not find anything unexpected. They raised a total of zero red flags. They don't agree with your idiotic conclusions.

If they did, they would have said something. They did not.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 05:45 PM   #1323
atavisms
Critical Thinker
 
atavisms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
Hi Oystein, The small iron spheres are made of formerly molten iron and are a signature feature of the thermitic (aluminothermic) reaction. Deniers have attempted to 'debunk' these as fly ash ignoring that flyash (found in concrete) are made up of oxides and the spherules are primarily elemental iron. They could only have been formed during the destruction of the buildings.
They are so prevalent in the dust that investigators for R.J Lee labeled them a 'signature feature of WTC dust.' (meaning if they are not present it is not WTC dust) That they were deposited (in Janette McKinley's apt for example) so far and wide in dust that covered all of lower Manhattan that morning is a strong (if not definitive) indicator that they formed during the destruction of the buildings. How else could they have formed? The most logical conclusion is that (just like we can see see molten metal pouring out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg just below the point where moments later that corner column (not hit by the plane) will come apart and begin the explosive demolition sequence. Molten metal being violently blasted outward (anywhere a cut was made which must have been in many places given the sizes of the columns seen strewn all over the debris fields. None more than 30' in length, or so) and surface tension formed the droplets of molten metal into small spheres as they flew through the air. This seems the most logical explanation given all the other evidence indicating demolition. You suggest they could have been in the building prior to it's demolition. Where? how?

Remember the massive (87' x 133') elaborately cross-braced 100% structural steel cores in these buildings that went from their bedrock foundations to the roofs.
Look what remained of these buildings. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...roundzero.html)

It is (overtly imo) illogical to assume that fire and gravity could account for what happened in lower Manhattan on 9-11 because the destruction of the Towers were so incredibly rapid and explosive, both blew up the same way despite being hit at such different angles by the planes, because WTC7 fell in a manner completely consistent with a controlled demolition and because investigators failed or refused to test for explosive residues (despite a clear procedural mandate to do so) we can safely and reasonably deduce that explosives were used. Not to mention all the other features and anomalies indicating additional energy sources were present.
__________________
“Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated”
-Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
http://smu.gs/jvzZxu

Last edited by atavisms; 10th February 2012 at 05:49 PM.
atavisms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 05:48 PM   #1324
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Oh look atavisms comes in 34 pages later and ignored the entire conversation up until now
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 05:58 PM   #1325
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
...
It is (overtly imo) illogical to assume that fire and gravity could account for what happened in lower Manhattan on 9-11 because the destruction of the Towers were so incredibly rapid and explosive, both blew up the same way despite being hit at such different angles by the planes,
Neither blew up. They collapsed in similar--but not identical--manners because they were basically the same building, undergoing very similar damage. Or did the fact that they didn't take the same amount of time to collapse escape you?

Quote:
because WTC7 fell in a manner completely consistent with a controlled demolition
Such as crossing buildings across the street in several directions, as well as large bangs audible for square miles around and other evidence consistent with explosives.

Quote:
and because investigators failed or refused to test for explosive residues (despite a clear procedural mandate to do so)
Where there is evidence of such, yes.

Quote:
we can safely and reasonably deduce that explosives were used.
Nonsense.

Quote:
Not to mention all the other features and anomalies indicating additional energy sources were present.
Nope.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 06:06 PM   #1326
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thank you for your analysis.

I would like to remind you all that the RJ Lee Group did a thorough study of the WTC dust using state of the art technology, and you all did not.



and they said the results were "expected".....why do you keep ignoring that part?????
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 06:10 PM   #1327
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
We are talking about the melting of iron and there is NO evidence that temperatures in the TT exceeded 1100oC. NIST said that temperatures of 1000-1100oC only lasted for about 15 min in any location.

ETA: What nano-iron? Read my post again:
Note they clearly said that Iron melted producing spherical metallic particles, not office furnishings burned producing spherical metallic particles.

No you are. You are assuming they meant pure iron when it is clear to everyone else this is very unlikely to be the case.....
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 06:29 PM   #1328
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
It is (overtly imo) illogical to assume that fire and gravity could account for what happened in lower Manhattan on 9-11 .
Well no it isn't if you knew almost anything about engineering and even if it was, it would change nothing about whether or not that's what happened because we simply have insufficient exposure to anything approaching the scale of the event in term of size, mass, velocities etc for our intuition to be of much value.

Lots of things happened on 911 that looked strange and unexpected to me but a little investigation into the engineering and physics showed me that what happened is pretty much what should have happened if events followed the generally accepted storyline.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 09:20 PM   #1329
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thank you for your analysis.

I would like to remind you all that the RJ Lee Group did a thorough study of the WTC dust using state of the art technology, and you all did not.


All the possible sources that y'all have come up with ignore this statement by the professionals who studied the dust:

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."

Note they clearly said that Iron melted producing spherical metallic particles, not office furnishings burned producing spherical metallic particles.

The common tactic here is to sidestep or jump over this fact and ask about thermite.
One step at a time please. First come to grips with the scientifically verified fact that iron melted.
Funny you should mention the R. J. Lee Group. Turns out Ron Wieck recently asked RJ Lee about the iron microspheres and their formation.

Hot off the press:

Quote:
From: Stephen Kennedy
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:34 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: RE: Iron Spherules in the WTC Dust Study

Dear Ron.

I attach a statement by Rich Lee in regards to the iron sphere issue. As you can well imagine, we at RJ Lee Group believe that it is extremely important that good science is done and that the public knows the difference between good and bad science. Rich and I will be available for a brief phone conversation with you if you wish. If so, you can suggest a time frame Monday or Tuesday (we’re in the Eastern time zone) as we will not be available this afternoon.

We wish you success in this matter.

Kind regards


Stephen Kennedy

Senior Scientist

RJ Lee Group

www.rjlg.com
Here's the statement, from Rich Lee:


Text Version:

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee


Recap:
Quote:
I would like to remind you all that the RJ Lee Group did a thorough study of the WTC dust using state of the art technology, and you all did not.
OK, here's the RJ Lee Group talking about the formation of iron microspheres in WTC dust. I didn't see anything about "thermite." Can you point out where Rich said "thermite" was the only explanation?
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 10:52 PM   #1330
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
C7, the Crow is on the top shelf of the fridge. The oven is set, make sure you cook it long enough. There's some good marinade left in the fridge. Make sure you pluck the feathers prior to dining, and have a great weekend!
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 11:01 PM   #1331
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Hi Oystein, The small iron spheres are made of formerly molten iron and are a signature feature of the thermitic (aluminothermic) reaction. ...
Not for the WTC. I hate to tell you this, but iron "rich" spheres are all over. I found sources for iron sphere, they found them next to the road. Cars, and trucks don't use thermite to run, we use gasoline because it has ten times the energy of Themite. If thermite was so great, we would use it for more than welding railroad ties together, or disabling weapons. Try researching thermite before falling for idiotic lies made up by an old personable loser who political biases made him make up the insane claim of thermite; Jones was wrong, and he fooled you into repeating lies.
Just in time to be wrong again. Why can't you get anything right?

Quote:
investigators for R.J Lee labeled them a 'signature feature of WTC dust
And you can't have better timing! You fail to ask RJ Lee about this before making up lies? Bad news for you. Each time you use R.J Lee, you debunk yourself and 911 truth.

Presented above by DaveThomasNMSR
Quote:
Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee
Thank DaveThomasNMSR, and Ronald Wieck. Did you make up your post from scratch, or plagarize it from 911 truth delusional sources?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 11:09 PM   #1332
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Yes, lookee that. RJ Lee is saying that extreme temperatures were needed to create the spheres. Blast-furnace-like temperatures that vaporize iron.

That they speculate a scenario that seems plausible to them is not surprising. We could even say, it is "expected."
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2012, 11:14 PM   #1333
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, lookee that. RJ Lee is saying that extreme temperatures were needed to create the spheres. Blast-furnace-like temperatures that vaporize iron.

That they speculate a scenario that seems plausible to them is not surprising. We could even say, it is "expected."
The iron spheres are expected in an office fire like the WTC towers.

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee


extreme, what number is that?
LOL, if you could do research...

Last edited by beachnut; 10th February 2012 at 11:25 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 12:56 AM   #1334
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thank you for your analysis.

I would like to remind you all that the RJ Lee Group did a thorough study of the WTC dust using state of the art technology, and you all did not.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, lookee that. RJ Lee is saying that extreme temperatures were needed to create the spheres. Blast-furnace-like temperatures that vaporize iron.

That they speculate a scenario that seems plausible to them is not surprising. We could even say, it is "expected."
Chris, Ergo, why are you arguing with us?

Argue with each other for a change.

DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 03:01 AM   #1335
cntdrv55
Thinker
 
cntdrv55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
That they speculate a scenario that seems plausible to them is not surprising. We could even say, it is "expected."
lol. They gots to be in on it too, right?

AMIRITE?!
cntdrv55 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 03:56 AM   #1336
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Chris, Ergo, why are you arguing with us?
This is very educational.

So you all are going with this?

The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds.
The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres.

He did not say anything about office contents causing the spheres.

In short he is saying:
It was hurricane blast furnace like winds up the elevator shafts that heated the steel framework to red hot or hotter which caused a thin layer of rust flakes to melt and some vaporized. The molten iron and vapors formed into the iron spheres.


Is that now your position on how the spheres were formed?

Do you think this process could produce enough spheres to make up nearly 6% of the dust?
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 04:56 AM   #1337
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Wow I mean just wow. The horse has spoken and the truthers are still trying to wriggle out of it and carry on their delusions.

Text posted again so that perhaps people will read and understand it.

Quote:
Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee
Truthers you are well beaten. He is saying that

a) it's not unique
b) the temperature needed is not 1535°C due to the fact that c)
c) these spheres are found in fly ash and temperatures in furnaces do not reach the melting point of iron.

Stop trying to argue here. If you've got something to say take it to RJ Lee.

I suggest to every debunker here to simply repost the letter from RJ Lee anytime truthers spout the microsphere BS.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 05:14 AM   #1338
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Lee also overlooks the iron oxide in the paint, which, when roasted in the presence of such a massive amount of hydrocarbons as the epoxy, would be reduced at a temperature far lower than can have been expected in the blow torch that was the impacted part of the cores.

To go back to the issue of lead, I might speculate with some margin of safety that the lead plates in the storage batteries formed some measure of lead salts which could then have formed a dry powder when the acid was boiled away. In that state, it should not have taken any great deal of heat to again drive of the S)3 and restore pure lead. Might this, plus the raging fires in WTC 6 account for a good part of the lead in the dust?
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 05:17 AM   #1339
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...
Is that now your position on how the spheres were formed?
...
It is RJ Lee's position.

For about 35,000 pages, you have now quoted RJ Lee again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again to drive home the point that the experts of RJ Lee imply temperatures in the towers that could not possibly have been reached by the conventional carbon fuel combustions in the very same towers.

Now you have been informed that your expert witness holds a different position, and one that directly refutes yours: Your expert witness is now on record as stating the opinion that the iron spheres they observed are easily explainable as the result of the conventional carbon fuel combustions in the towers.

Do you still maintain the position that your expert witness supports your opinion on the matter, or are you not now willing to concede that your often repeated claims in that regard have now turned out to be unfounded and unsupported and ought to be tossed out altogether?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 05:43 AM   #1340
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
By the way, I still maintain the following, perhaps unconventional, opinion:
  • The RJ Lee figure of 5.87% "iron spheres" must be misleading at best, and is perhaps flat-out wrong. It is at any rate NOT the percentage of iron in dust from the "WTC event"
  • That figure represents an extreme outlier among the extensive data sets we have on the prevalence of iron in WTC dust. Other studies have found means much closer to 1%
  • If iron content in the 130 Liberty St dust is indeed significantly elevated over that of dust sampled in nearby locations very shortly after 9/11, then the best explanation is iron deposits during the 9 months after the collapse, with nearby debris-cutting beimng the moszt obvious explanation
  • RJ Lee must be overlooking something. Which is no problem, there is no need to explain every empirical number without prima facie evidence that the value is suspicious with regard to their objectives (which was to aid property owners in their litigations with insurers viz building contamination from the WTC event)


I don't think that the fires in the towers elevated the iron sphere content of the dust to astonishing levels. Here is a rough estimation to explain why:
  • Only roughly 10%, or less of the collapsing structures had been subject to intense fires; the other 90% collapsed and added to the overall dust having stayed cool throughout
  • Only perhaps under 50% of dustifiable fire floor materials were heated sufficiently to create iron rich spheres, or even contained any iron
  • So we would expect only 5%, or less, of the total dust to have been of material subjected to sphere-shaping fires
  • The iron content of these 5% may be significant, but it is certainly less than 20%
Since we know that iron content in WTC dust riught after 9/11 was only slightly above 1% on average, and rarely exceeded 2% anywhere, we immediately know that there was no unusual amount of iron spheres in the dust. The outlier of the RJ Lee report cannot be explained by large amounts thermite in two or three towers, because then we would see such elevated levels everywhere. We don't. RJ Lee's high value is either an error, or misleading, or due to factors not immediately related to buildings' collapses and dustification.

Conclusion: Fires in the towers cannot be responsible for an increase in iron sphere content of WTC dust by 1% or more. Any percent value that exceeds 1% must have been present in the buildings before collapse, or have been deposited by other processes after the dust of the collapse had settled on 9/11. Thermite does not explain outliers.

Last edited by Oystein; 11th February 2012 at 05:50 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 05:53 AM   #1341
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,124
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
By the way, I still maintain the following, perhaps unconventional, opinion:
  • The RJ Lee figure of 5.87% "iron spheres" must be misleading at best, and is perhaps flat-out wrong. It is at any rate NOT the percentage of iron in dust from the "WTC event"
  • That figure represents an extreme outlier among the extensive data sets we have on the prevalence of iron in WTC dust. Other studies have found means much closer to 1%

I too think the Lee figure anomalous. The in-depth Lioy et al study has no mention of iron-rich spheres whatsoever.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 05:54 AM   #1342
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
c) these spheres are found in fly ash and temperatures in furnaces do not reach the melting point of iron.
Was there a coal fired power plant in the towers?

The kerosene burned up in the first few minutes. Most of the microspheres from the kerosene would have left the building with the smoke.

ETA: If there were hurricane force winds going up the elevator shafts they would have carried away any spheres created by flakes.

Last edited by Christopher7; 11th February 2012 at 06:05 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 05:59 AM   #1343
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Was there a coal fired power plant in the towers?

The kerosene burned up in the first few minutes. Most of the microspheres from the kerosene would have left the building with the smoke.
You’ve been cornered and pinned. The match is over. That chafing you feel is called lying to yourself.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:10 AM   #1344
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I too think the Lee figure anomalous. The in-depth Lioy et al study has no mention of iron-rich spheres whatsoever.
The Lioy team wasn't interested in the shape of their particles, as long as it wasn't a hazard. Particles dominated by the mundane elements of Fe, O, Si, Al and Ca are abundantly ubiquous and not a hazard. They come in many shapes. Spherical is one of these common shapes and totally not interesting. Lioy e.al. simply did not report on the shapes.

I believe a study is currently underway to re-evaluate some of the Lioy dust samples. I expect to find a mention of such spheres when that study will be published.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:13 AM   #1345
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Was there a coal fired power plant in the towers?

The kerosene burned up in the first few minutes. Most of the microspheres from the kerosene would have left the building with the smoke.

ETA: If there were hurricane force winds going up the elevator shafts they would have carried away any spheres created by flakes.
You need to read this post again, and do so fully and carefully - quite obviously you have not read it yet, or you have noot understood it, or you already forgot it again, or you are in conscious denial about it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1329

It contains a detailed opinion of your expert witness, RJ Lee, about the likely and mundande sources of iron spheres in the dust of the WTC event.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:14 AM   #1346
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
You’ve been cornered and pinned. The match is over. That chafing you feel is called lying to yourself.
So you think hurricane force winds won't carry iron microspheres?
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:25 AM   #1347
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Chris, Ergo, why are you arguing with us?

Argue with each other for a change.

I always love it when sophists are so eager to gainsay negative evidence that they actually contradict each other. Then they have to carefully talk around each other for a while.

Which reminds me of the time Oystein made several points, and Ergo or KreeL asked around to see how many debunkers agreed with him, never actually responding to the content of the post. It was hilarious how transparent he was. And kinda sad to see how many people fell for the derail.


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Was there a coal fired power plant in the towers?
Focusing on only the one point you think you can defeat? Very Ergo of you.

Quote:
The kerosene burned up in the first few minutes.
At which point everything stopped burning entirely?

Quote:
Most of the microspheres from the kerosene would have left the building with the smoke.
Unproven. And what about the micropheres from the office contents?

Quote:
ETA: If there were hurricane force winds going up the elevator shafts they would have carried away any spheres created by flakes.
Prove such winds were present and would've carried away such spheres.

Last edited by 000063; 11th February 2012 at 06:29 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:28 AM   #1348
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You need to read this post again, and do so fully and carefully - quite obviously you have not read it yet, or you have noot understood it, or you already forgot it again, or you are in conscious denial about it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1329

It contains a detailed opinion of your expert witness, RJ Lee, about the likely and mundande sources of iron spheres in the dust of the WTC event.
I read it. He said that hurricane force winds provided the oxygen needed to melt iron flakes.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:30 AM   #1349
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Was there a coal fired power plant in the towers?

The kerosene burned up in the first few minutes. Most of the microspheres from the kerosene would have left the building with the smoke.

ETA: If there were hurricane force winds going up the elevator shafts they would have carried away any spheres created by flakes.
Take it up with RJ Lee - their Fax number and address is on the bottom of the letter.

Let us know how you get on.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:31 AM   #1350
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I read it. He said that hurricane force winds provided the oxygen needed to melt iron flakes.
Okay. Now prove they would've carried away the spheres.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:38 AM   #1351
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Focusing on only the one point you think you can defeat?
I "defeated" all the points one at a time.

Originally Posted by C7
Most of the microspheres from the kerosene would have left the building with the smoke.
Quote:
Unproven.
Do you think microspheres would not be carried in the smoke by the up draft of the fire?


Quote:
And what about the micropheres from the office contents?
Same as above.
Mr. Lee did not mention office contents as being a factor.

Originally Posted by C7
If there were hurricane force winds going up the elevator shafts they would have carried away any spheres created by flakes.
Quote:
Prove it.
You need proof?

Last edited by Christopher7; 11th February 2012 at 06:40 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:39 AM   #1352
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I read it. He said that hurricane force winds provided the oxygen needed to melt iron flakes.
I specifically told you to read that post fully. Please do so now, and when you return, don't try to fool us by pulling a single line from the context.

RJ Lee said a lot more.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:41 AM   #1353
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...
Mr. Lee did not mention office contents as being a factor.
...
I seem to remember that you, Christopher7, quoted RJ Lee's reports as saying that office contents were a factor. For example computers containing lead.

Maybe you should try for consistency.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:56 AM   #1354
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Problem:
I can't think up a plausible source for the 5.87% iron spheres.

Solution:
Just say that the RJ Lee Group got it wrong!

Denial is so easy.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 06:58 AM   #1355
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Truthers you are well beaten. He is saying that

a) it's not unique
b) the temperature needed is not 1535°C due to the fact that c)
c) these spheres are found in fly ash and temperatures in furnaces do not reach the melting point of iron.
Well, then, we hardly need blast-furnace-like temperatures and hurricane-force winds tearing at the steel (over how long a time? Did they mention that?) to create iron flakes that would melt and vaporize, do we? I mean, why mention the elevator shafts at all?

In fact, perhaps it was the hurricane-force winds inside the building that brought the steel down. Why did no one think of this before? And why are these terrible winds never mentioned in the NIST report?

I mean, come on, guys.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 07:00 AM   #1356
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I seem to remember that you, Christopher7, quoted RJ Lee's reports as saying that office contents were a factor. For example computers containing lead.
I quoted RJ Lee saying that computers contain ~4 pounds of lead.

But there is no mention of iron spheres from office contents of any kind in the report or Rich's letter.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 07:00 AM   #1357
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, then, we hardly need blast-furnace-like temperatures and hurricane-force winds tearing at the steel (over how long a time? Did they mention that?) to create iron flakes that would melt and vaporize, do we? I mean, why mention the elevator shafts at all?

In fact, perhaps it was the hurricane-force winds inside the building that brought the steel down. Why did no one think of this before? And why are these terrible winds never mentioned in the NIST report?

I mean, come on, guys.
Take it up with RJ Lee - their Fax number and address is on the bottom of the letter.

Let us know how you get on.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 07:02 AM   #1358
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I "defeated" all the points one at a time.
No, you quoted one point and focused on that. Plain as day.

Quote:
Do you think microspheres would not be carried in the smoke by the up draft of the fire?
What I think is currently irrelevant. What you can prove, however, is not. Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof.


Quote:
Same as above.
Mr. Lee did not mention office contents as being a factor.
He said several other things which you're trying to spin, though.

Quote:
You need proof?
Yes, on account of this being a forum for skeptics.

I've seen hurricanes, actually walked around in a few. Sometimes they don't even move small branches on the ground, sometimes they break trees. "Hurricane speed" is an extremely wide definition, even assuming Lee was speaking literally.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 07:03 AM   #1359
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, then, we hardly need blast-furnace-like temperatures and hurricane-force winds tearing at the steel (over how long a time? Did they mention that?) to create iron flakes that would melt and vaporize, do we? I mean, why mention the elevator shafts at all?

In fact, perhaps it was the hurricane-force winds inside the building that brought the steel down. Why did no one think of this before? And why are these terrible winds never mentioned in the NIST report?
Because the elevator shafts were sealed so there could not have been a draft, much less hurricane force winds.

ETA: And the columns were wrapped with gypsum except where the planes hit.

Last edited by Christopher7; 11th February 2012 at 07:10 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2012, 07:04 AM   #1360
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, then, we hardly need blast-furnace-like temperatures and hurricane-force winds tearing at the steel (over how long a time? Did they mention that?) to create iron flakes that would melt and vaporize, do we? I mean, why mention the elevator shafts at all?

In fact, perhaps it was the hurricane-force winds inside the building that brought the steel down. Why did no one think of this before? And why are these terrible winds never mentioned in the NIST report?

I mean, come on, guys.
No assertions or evidence, empty sarcasm meant to address points no one actually made.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.