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.
Reply
Old 1st April 2014, 06:15 AM   #1
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
One More Look at Iron-Rich Spheres

I am taking another very close look at the iron-rich spheres in the wtc dust and am looking for only the best-quality information available on the subject. There have been some surprises along the way... and the entire subject is so esoteric, most of the information available on it comes from either 9/11 Truth sources or here at JREF. I want independent sources.

A few questions:

1) How common are iron-rich microspheres really? I have sent out all kinds of emails to metallurgists, and one guy yesterday who also does forensics said he has never in his life seen iron-rich microspheres in the debris of an arson fire.
2) At what temperature does iron reduction happen (citations please) in small or even nano-sized flakes of rust?
3) At what temperature can iron-rich microspheres form (citations please)?
4) Harrit/Jones claim that even though their readings show both iron and oxygen, that their iron-rich spheres are actually pure iron with a very thin coating of iron oxide. Is there any data to support this, or are the spheres just a more homogenous partially-reduced mix of iron and iron oxide?
5) At what temperature can tiny flakes of iron oxide melt (Dave Thomas claims 900 C, and I have even heard 430 C)?
6) The consensus here seems to be that iron-rich spheres can happen in regular fires. I'm having a hell of a time finding independent verification of this. The best I have is Dave Thomas's experiment, finding iron-rich spheres after burning primer paint on steel in a barrel. Sadly, our friend Ivan passed away before testing his own possible iron-rich spheres in a similar experiment. Is there a textbook or any other source that an independently verify and quantify this phenomenon?
7) RJ Lee found vast quantities of iron-rich mirospheres in the dust inside the Deutsche Bank in the spring of 2002. He talks about melting iron but he also says this is to be expected in a fire as intense as the WTC fires. Tentative conclusion: his raw data is good, his explanations don't help either side much. I have another letter out to him to try to get more clarification.
8) The 9/11 Truth claim is that iron oxide spheres are created by coal burning/fly ash and other conventional means, but NOT elemental iron spheres. This appears to be true.
9) I went to WikiAnswers and found out that iron oxide can be reduced to iron with a regular fire surrounded by sand. Seems like no big deal. Of course, this explanatrion doesn;t show the iron-rich spheres one way or another, just iron reduction.

Be patient with me. In my Shakespeare classes in school we never studied this stuff.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 1st April 2014, 06:28 AM   #2
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Iron rich spheres are commonplace, and nothing more than a buzz-word for moronic truthers to latch onto in a failed effort to either sound intelligent, or to con people.

/thread
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 1st April 2014, 07:15 AM   #3
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Here are a few things from the Millette thread recently posted I am importing:

"SmeltingWP [in the smelting process] Iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538C" . Thank you Glenn, that's about 100 degrees above the commonly accepted upper limit of a carbon-based fire (petroleum, wood, etc) but not completely "out there."

And from Myriad: " And that's for reduction all the way to elemental iron. That happens in stages with each stage of reduction requiring higher temperatures. I recall, in a previous post on this topic, concluding that in an ordinary poorly-ventilated wood fire, reduction of other iron oxides and ferrihydrites (the latter of which occur as nanoparticles in lignins in plant materials including wood and some papers) to Fe3O4 (magnetite) was likely, while reduction to FeO (wustite) or elemental iron would require more extreme conditions.

Magnetite looks shiny and metallic, even though it's still an oxide.

This accounts for the use of magnetic scanning to detect otherwise invisible traces of ancient fires, which is a common practice in archaeology.

http://www.bartington.com/Literature...rchaeology.pdf


Quoting from this: Weakly magnetic iron oxides in the clay and silt particles are transformed into highly magnetic oxides through burning. When the organic matter in a soil burns at ~600-700 C it produces a reducing atmosphere which can change hematite to magnetite, and probably maghemite on re-oxidation as the burn ceases. Thus hotspots of magnetic susceptibility in ground surveys can help locate large fires, hearths and kilns (Figure 1), and spikes in magnetic susceptibility in vertical sections can point to burned or habitation layers (Figure 2).

I haven't been able to find a paper describing the resulting magnetite particles (i.e. whether or not they form spheres or any other characteristic size or shape). It's not an issue in archaeology, especially if the subsequent weathering to maghemite changes the particle shape anyhow. However, I have been able to generate metallic ferromagnetic spheres in my own fireplace, by burning wood grown in my own yard."

Thank you too, Myriad. But to my knowledge, I don't know if the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust and the ignited red-grey chips is magnetite. Based on the iron and oxygen measurements, they seem to be one of two things: either elemental iron with a thin coating of iron oxide, or a more homogenous mix of partially reduced iron oxide (iron-rich). Or am I completely wrong here?

NoahFence if iron-rich spheres are so commonplace, why am I having such a hard time finding them in the literature and why didn't that metallurgic forensics guy say he sees them all the time in his arson investigations?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 1st April 2014, 07:16 AM   #4
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
duplicate post
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 1st April 2014 at 07:17 AM. Reason: duplicate post
chrismohr 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 1st April 2014, 07:25 AM   #5
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Stop giving these idiots your time, Chris.
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 1st April 2014, 07:34 AM   #6
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,921
Just one clarification: magnetite is a partially reduced iron oxide. It's Fe3O4. More precisely, it's FeO•Fe2O3.


ETA: I also found several sources that specify that the iron-rich spheres in coal ash are primarily magnetite. I'll have to look them up again, although a Google search for "magnetite coal ash" might pay off quickly.

The obvious question to ask regarding the iron spheres in coal ash is, where does the iron come from? It's pretty clear from the amounts produced that it must come from the coal (and not, for example, from flakes of rust off of coal miners' pickaxes or from the insides of boilers). Then how did it get into the coal? From the biological material that coal is made of. That's what led me to the macromolecules of ferrihydrite carried in ferritins. My hypothesis is that the magnetite spheres in coal ash are a reduced condensate (because coal does not contain iron-rich spheres per se) of those iron-oxide macromolecules.

If that's the case, then burning of other ferritin-bearing biological materials at similar temperatures to coal boilers would be expected to produce the same result. I think the passage I quoted above is mistaken about the ferromagnetic traces of fires coming only from iron oxide in burned soil, because the same traces are found in hearths and kilns that do not burn the soil. (However, it would be very difficult to distinguish between iron from the wood, and iron from surface contamination of the wood fuel with dirt.)
__________________
A zmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 1st April 2014 at 08:05 AM.
Myriad 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 1st April 2014, 10:12 AM   #7
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,084
my sense is that the collapse involved a lot of mechanical abrasion. And that included steel, iron and rust... And the abrasion could result in very fine dust... why not? Why wouldn't some of this fine iron dust in micro size be heated, melted and form a sphere from surface tension... and then cool? This seems plausible. But what do I know...
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 1st April 2014, 10:34 AM   #8
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
my sense is that the collapse involved a lot of mechanical abrasion. And that included steel, iron and rust... And the abrasion could result in very fine dust... why not? Why wouldn't some of this fine iron dust in micro size be heated, melted and form a sphere from surface tension... and then cool? This seems plausible. But what do I know...
For what it's worth my thought is along these lines.

I think the combination of the concrete floor slabs grinding against the steel creating sparks would be the cause of the micro-spheres.
Spanx 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 1st April 2014, 10:37 AM   #9
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,720
Quote:
8) The 9/11 Truth claim is that iron oxide spheres are created by coal burning/fly ash and other conventional means, but NOT elemental iron spheres. This appears to be true.
Source? Are you saying this is evidence for thermite, or the support of Jones insane fantasy? An off-topic not proved statement?

Jones and his cronies never found pure iron - did you read the paper?

The WTC did not contain 6 percent iron rich spheres. The WTC dust iron content was exactly the same average as soil background at the WTC.

The RJ Lee study is not valid for anything except one building. The interior of one building for contaminates up to May 2002; not indicative of samples from 911. RJ Lee study is from inside a building, and includes pre, and 8 months of post 911 dust. RJ Lee did not say steel melted.

You are chasing Jones delusional insanity on Thermite.

Jones made up the fantasy thermite was used on 911, 4 years after 911 when he went; pick your favorite
1. insane.
2. Likes to fool people with BS
3. Hates war, so he blames USA for the murder of thousands, cause he is insane.
4. Wants to give a free pass to 19 thugs who murdered thousands on 911.
5. Has no clue, as Jones lives in a fantasy world.

Jones lied about thermite - makes the iron rich spheres (which we can find in our backyards with a disk drive magnet) BS.

Jones started the fantasy of thermite 4 years after 911. Faked a paper to prove it to nuts who are mindless followers. A fake paper worshiped by idiots on the Internet. A fake paper published in a vanity journal.

Jones endorses the thermite in the ceiling tiles, one million ceiling tiles... What a loon.

Last edited by beachnut; 1st April 2014 at 11:42 AM.
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 1st April 2014, 04:07 PM   #10
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Beachnut, my sources so far begin with the metallurgic forensics guy who says he hasn't seen iron-rich spheres from fires. That surprised me. I have also been given these links to look at and maybe others here would like to look at them too:

1) a paper from the USGS on the contents of coal. It says the that the major iron-bearing compounds in coal are pyrite (iron-oxide/sulfur) and siderite (carbonated iron-oxide) and traces of magnetide but not pure iron. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1143/html/text.html
2) Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenosphere fly ash spheres are created at 1500C to 1750C.
3) This paper http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/...nalCode=enfuem says "The SiO2/Al2O3 ratio decreases with increasing ash cenosphere size, accompanied with an increase in the sum of TiO2 and Fe2O3 contents. Thermomechanical analysis further shows that ash cenospheres of different size fractions cannot achieve full melting at 1600 C, suggesting that the formation of these ash cenospheres requires higher temperatures. Further analysis based on ash chemistry of individual cenospheres suggests that the optimum particle temperature for cenosphere formation is 1640–1850 C."
4) Here's a reviewed "fly ash characterization paper" that says the spheres are created in a furnace above 1400C. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...16236106001906.
5) You can buy pure iron flakes, and the manufacturer says melting point = 1535C
http://www.americanelements.com/femflake.html. Now, these flakes may be too big to have a nano-melting point or whatever, I don't know.

Beachnut as you know I decided years ago to respond to Richard Gage et al the hard way, which is to really research from every possible angle every claim they make. I thought I was finished and was about to put out my bye-bye YouTube video when all of this information came my way. I have looked at this information and these links, and will not weigh in with my own opinion on them yet, until I get a bigger picture.

Now there is other information I have found as well, of course, but for now I am taking a closer look at this information and hope some people here with knowledge will as well. These links (and my conversation with the metallurgic forensics guy) make me reconsider our common claim that iron-rich microspheres are no big deal, they're common, happen all the time... Now I'm not so sure.

If it is proven to me that iron-rich spheres are created at only 2750 degrees-plus does that mean I believe in the thermite theory? Of course not. There is Millette's study, the absence of huge piles of aluminum oxide everywhere, the ability of firefighters to walk on the debris two hours after the collapses, the absence of blinding lights, the fact that thermite would be unnecessary because a better explanation is natural collapse, the incredible logistical difficulties of using thermite for such a precise demolition, the countless contradictions of a product that doesn't ignite in hot fires but does ignite in the Harrit/Jones lab at 430C, etc etc etc. But I don't understand the iron-rich spheres as well as I thought I did. Anyway, I don't want to misspeak on this issue.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 1st April 2014, 04:15 PM   #11
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
my sense is that the collapse involved a lot of mechanical abrasion. And that included steel, iron and rust... And the abrasion could result in very fine dust... why not? Why wouldn't some of this fine iron dust in micro size be heated, melted and form a sphere from surface tension... and then cool? This seems plausible. But what do I know...
This is kind of what I thought too. But wow it's hard to find anything in the literature that confirms the creation of iron-rich microspheres at ordinary fire temperatures. Not something I had really done until now.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 1st April 2014, 04:16 PM   #12
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Beachnut, my sources so far begin with the metallurgic forensics guy who says he hasn't seen iron-rich spheres from fires. That surprised me. I have also been given these links to look at and maybe others here would like to look at them too:

1) a paper from the USGS on the contents of coal. It says the that the major iron-bearing compounds in coal are pyrite (iron-oxide/sulfur) and siderite (carbonated iron-oxide) and traces of magnetide but not pure iron. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1143/html/text.html
2) Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenosphere fly ash spheres are created at 1500C to 1750C.
3) This paper http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/...nalCode=enfuem says "The SiO2/Al2O3 ratio decreases with increasing ash cenosphere size, accompanied with an increase in the sum of TiO2 and Fe2O3 contents. Thermomechanical analysis further shows that ash cenospheres of different size fractions cannot achieve full melting at 1600 C, suggesting that the formation of these ash cenospheres requires higher temperatures. Further analysis based on ash chemistry of individual cenospheres suggests that the optimum particle temperature for cenosphere formation is 16401850 C."
4) Here's a reviewed "fly ash characterization paper" that says the spheres are created in a furnace above 1400C. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...16236106001906.
5) You can buy pure iron flakes, and the manufacturer says melting point = 1535C
http://www.americanelements.com/femflake.html. Now, these flakes may be too big to have a nano-melting point or whatever, I don't know.

Beachnut as you know I decided years ago to respond to Richard Gage et al the hard way, which is to really research from every possible angle every claim they make. I thought I was finished and was about to put out my bye-bye YouTube video when all of this information came my way. I have looked at this information and these links, and will not weigh in with my own opinion on them yet, until I get a bigger picture.

Now there is other information I have found as well, of course, but for now I am taking a closer look at this information and hope some people here with knowledge will as well. These links (and my conversation with the metallurgic forensics guy) make me reconsider our common claim that iron-rich microspheres are no big deal, they're common, happen all the time... Now I'm not so sure.

If it is proven to me that iron-rich spheres are created at only 2750 degrees-plus does that mean I believe in the thermite theory? Of course not. There is Millette's study, the absence of huge piles of aluminum oxide everywhere, the ability of firefighters to walk on the debris two hours after the collapses, the absence of blinding lights, the fact that thermite would be unnecessary because a better explanation is natural collapse, the incredible logistical difficulties of using thermite for such a precise demolition, the countless contradictions of a product that doesn't ignite in hot fires but does ignite in the Harrit/Jones lab at 430C, etc etc etc. But I don't understand the iron-rich spheres as well as I thought I did. Anyway, I don't want to misspeak on this issue.
Who is this metallurgic forensics guy?

Chris, I think you're totally at fault for keeping this nano thermite idiocy on the front burner and wonder about the motivation.
tsig 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 1st April 2014, 04:22 PM   #13
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,819
Hi,
I don't normally wander by these threads, but I notice that the reference seems to be to "iron-rich microspheres", rather than "microspheres of elemental iron with other stuff thrown in". To me, that indicates only that the microspheres are comprised of an iron-rich compound or compounds, which should be nothing particularly unusual.

Am I missing something of significance in my supposition above?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 1st April 2014, 04:51 PM   #14
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"This is kind of what I thought too.

But wow it's hard to find anything in the literature that confirms the creation of iron-rich microspheres at ordinary fire temperatures.

Not something I had really done until now."
It is hard to find this literature because the literature does not exist.

Microspheres rich in elemental iron, cannot be created at ordinary fire temperatures.

Which is why their common existence in the 9/11 WTC dust, and being able to ignite a material in the 9/11 WTC dust which created them, was such an major finding in the the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
Miragememories 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 1st April 2014, 05:14 PM   #15
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,720
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It is hard to find this literature because the literature does not exist.

Microspheres rich in elemental iron, cannot be created at ordinary fire temperatures.

Which is why their common existence in the 9/11 WTC dust, and being able to ignite a material in the 9/11 WTC dust which created them, was such an major finding in the the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
Finding dust that burns? lol, it is all over my house.
Prove it is not in the literature. Go ahead, make our day - did google come up short?
Jones found no elemental iron in the dust. Must be a lie from some 911 truth follower you googled, and spreading lies is what 911 truth followers do. The paper is a fraud in a vanity journal because real journals would not publish fraud if they catch it in time. Jones' paper conclusion was fake, easy to see if anyone can read the paper.
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 1st April 2014, 06:33 PM   #16
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Who is this metallurgic forensics guy?

Chris, I think you're totally at fault for keeping this nano thermite idiocy on the front burner and wonder about the motivation.
The metallurgy/forensics guy is remaining anonymous.
Blame me. You won't be the first. But I'm not going public and saying something about the iron-rich spheres that may be inaccurate. My motivation? To be as truthful as I can when I speak in public, and to know I did the best I could to really look at things that are presented to me. Judges listen carefully to accused murderers and give them a fair hearing. Do you blame them? I think it's good that they do, since not everyone who is accused is guilty. And not everything Harrit/Jones says is necessarily untrue either.
And Beachnut, obviously I can't prove a negative. Actually what I'm saying is, I've been unsuccessful in finding info about iron-rich microspheres burning at regular fire temperatures. Does anyone have links to such literature? Yes, so far google is coming up pretty short on this one for me. All I get in the standard literature is references to iron-rich spheres melting at very hot temperatures, and any spheres created at lower temps being iron oxide not elemnental iron. Of course you're right about Jones and Millette finding no elemental aluminum, but that is not my question.
Does anyone have a specific response to the links I just put out? Are they true, false, incomplete, irelevant, valid for this purpose?
Come on guys you can do better than just attack me. MM has made a specific claim, that such literature (re iron spheres melting at lower temps) does not exist. Is he right or wrong?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 1st April 2014, 07:33 PM   #17
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Hi,
I don't normally wander by these threads, but I notice that the reference seems to be to "iron-rich microspheres", rather than "microspheres of elemental iron with other stuff thrown in". To me, that indicates only that the microspheres are comprised of an iron-rich compound or compounds, which should be nothing particularly unusual.

Am I missing something of significance in my supposition above?
I think the answer to the last question is in fig. 21 of the Bentham paper.

Problem is that figures 25, 26 and 28 of the same paper show no such thing, and may well fall into the category you mention.
pgimeno 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 2nd April 2014, 01:30 AM   #18
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,720
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
... Come on guys you can do better than just attack me. MM has made a specific claim, that such literature (re iron spheres melting at lower temps) does not exist. Is he right or wrong?
I can make iron rich spheres with steel wool and a lighter. MM believe in the fantasy of CD and thermite; you can ignore him and 911 truth, and Gage. They all believe in fantasy, and they have to supply the proof; yet all they have is talk.

I found real reference on line to iron spheres, it was an exercise in research. But do I write it down so I can debate a clown like Gage who makes money spreading delusional lies about 911 and mocking those who died?

Richard Gage is a... nut, or did he luck out being a paranoid CTer who can travel and buy new suits, and debate his fantasy with you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...iEF_story.html

At least Gage and his iron spheres, or are they Jones', can fool the mental giants like the Boston Bombers, and other idiots who fail to think for themselves and love to follow.

Have you ever worked in or taken shop? My parent made me take shop, typing, physics, chemistry, calculus, etc. The iron spheres claims related to thermite are proof of extreme ignorance.

There was no damage to any steel from thermite on 911. Makes the iron spheres Gish Gallop extra credit Gishy.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...a-dying-breed/

Gage looks like that guy who got his followers to kill themselves - all Gage asks for is that they stop thinking for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...Applewhite.jpg

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd April 2014 at 01:41 AM.
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 2nd April 2014, 02:57 AM   #19
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,084
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
This is kind of what I thought too. But wow it's hard to find anything in the literature that confirms the creation of iron-rich microspheres at ordinary fire temperatures. Not something I had really done until now.
The deal might be that fire alone would not create them. What WOULD is the combination of enormous amount of abrasion from the collapse of hundreds of thousands of tons of building.

If this combination is required there would likely be no historical record of finding concentrations of iron micro spheres if one looks for them in fires alone.

As a general comment I suspect that the outlier or anomalous observations from 9/11 are ALL related to such complex interactions of materials in the building not seen before because we don't have huge fully occupied and buildings with all their utilities intact at the time of collapse. Who knows how much acid was in UPS systems or gun powder in weapons in those buildings.. or fuel in tanks? What happened to the natural gas that was in the pipes in the WTC?

In all CDs the buildings are stripped and often curtains put on to contain things. There is no precedent for a fully occupied with contents... high rise building being demolished OR collapsing. So we are really in new territory here and its perfectly understandable to find things we've never seen before. And probably virtually impossible to model... or predict.... even after the fact.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 2nd April 2014, 06:42 AM   #20
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Beachnut, I took shop, physics, calculus etc in high school. Never studied iron-rich spheres tho. If I ask pretty please can you give me citations that show iron-rich spheres at lower temps? Don't worry Gage is not debating me any more.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 2nd April 2014, 06:49 AM   #21
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
If I ask pretty please can you give me citations that show iron-rich spheres at lower temps?
They've been shown to appear in experiments. Why would we think the ones found by Dave are any different than the ones reported by Harrit/Jones? Because they said so? They can be found after burning steel wool (I think Dave did this too).

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 2nd April 2014 at 06:52 AM.
DGM 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 2nd April 2014, 07:11 AM   #22
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It is hard to find this literature because the literature does not exist.

Microspheres rich in elemental iron, cannot be created at ordinary fire temperatures.
Which is why their common existence in the 9/11 WTC dust, and being able to ignite a material in the 9/11 WTC dust which created them, was such an major finding in the the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
What exactly leads you to believe anything that happened on 9/11 was "ordinary"?

It is this type of hyperbole and stupidity that is going to make it impossible for you people to learn.
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 2nd April 2014, 08:29 AM   #23
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They've been shown to appear in experiments. Why would we think the ones found by Dave are any different than the ones reported by Harrit/Jones? Because they said so? They can be found after burning steel wool (I think Dave did this too).

Hey DGM, remember when you said this?

Quote:
Have you ever seen a spark when you hit a metal object with another metal (or things of similar hardness)object?

Want to guess what happens when that "spark" cools? Science is fun.
I've wasted an hour trying to find the YouTube that I've seen before, showing that flint on steel produces... iron-rich microspheres!

If anyone can find this video, please post!
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 2nd April 2014, 08:30 AM   #24
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They've been shown to appear in experiments. Why would we think the ones found by Dave are any different than the ones reported by Harrit/Jones? Because they said so? They can be found after burning steel wool (I think Dave did this too).

Yup.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
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 2nd April 2014, 08:44 AM   #25
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post

If anyone can find this video, please post!
It's not a video but it's a simple procedure where anyone can produce iron-microspheres.

http://www.northwestjournal.ca/IX3945.htm
Spanx 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 2nd April 2014, 08:52 AM   #26
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
It's not a video but it's a simple procedure where anyone can produce iron-microspheres.

http://www.northwestjournal.ca/IX3945.htm
That's exactly the one I was looking for! No wonder I couldn't find it on YouTube - it wasn't a video!

Thanks Spanx, *=1.0E+06.
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 2nd April 2014, 08:56 AM   #27
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
It's not a video but it's a simple procedure where anyone can produce iron-microspheres.

http://www.northwestjournal.ca/IX3945.htm
Good one!

The Truthers have no claim anyway, unless they can provide statistical analysis of their microspheres and their chemical makeup vs. other populations of microspheres and their chemical makeup, and reject the null hypothesis that their is no difference. Right now, their claim is Unproven.


ETA: Further, they need to duplicate the experiment with known thermite and fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 2nd April 2014 at 08:58 AM.
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 2nd April 2014, 09:16 AM   #28
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Good one!

The Truthers have no claim anyway, unless they can provide statistical analysis of their microspheres and their chemical makeup vs. other populations of microspheres and their chemical makeup, and reject the null hypothesis that their is no difference. Right now, their claim is Unproven.


ETA: Further, they need to duplicate the experiment with known thermite and fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What you're proposing is that they do actual science. They've got the Bentham paper, what more science is needed?
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives 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 2nd April 2014, 09:35 AM   #29
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
It's not a video but it's a simple procedure where anyone can produce iron-microspheres.

http://www.northwestjournal.ca/IX3945.htm
Ah.. but are they elemental iron-mircospheres??

GOTCHA!

The BWOTD strikes again!
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 2nd April 2014, 02:37 PM   #30
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Now we're talking! Thanks so much for the fire steel/flint example. Here's another link which shows a microscopic analysis of tiny spheroids being created as far back as 1780:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_(fire)
"Molten sparks" described here: http://www.instructables.com/id/7-Me...int-and-Steel/
http://www.firesteel.com One review: "Who wouldn't want to start a fire with molten metal?"
Another explanatioon of how molten steel creates the fire: http://www.eseeknives.com/flint-and-steel.pdf
"The sparks are literally globs of flying, molten metal": http://www.grannysstore.com/Wilderne...ntandsteel.htm
"you strike flint and steel together [and create] really little melted bits of the steel." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-flint.htm
"Captured Sparks... These tiny spheres are formed as molten, white-hot steel flies ..." http://www.worldofprophecy.com/smf/i...ic=3810.0;wap2
"When you strike a flint onto steel it shave off tiny, tiny bits of molten steel....those molten bits fall ..." http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/i...p?topic=5111.0

It is common knowledge in the steel/flint world that this ancient process actually creates MOLTEN steel on a micro scale! It's explained in this fashion over and over again.

JSanderO, I didn't quite know at first what to make of your comment: "The deal might be that fire alone would not create them. What WOULD is the combination of enormous amount of abrasion from the collapse of hundreds of thousands of tons of building."

But now it seems that your hypothesis has a real-world example to give it more credibility: since simple abrasion of flint on steel with only the force of a single human arm can create tiny molten steel sparks and iron microspheres (which have been known and drawn since at least 1780), it is not much of a stretch to imagine tiny steel sparks by the billions being created from the unimgainable friction of the collapsing Twin Towers, perhaps even helped along by the fact that some ten acres of floors per building were afire during the collapse. Thanks much Spanx, Dave and others. Until now I simply could not find an example of the creation of iron-rich spheres in the 900C range (if we get proof of that, so much the better, but so far I've come up empty). This extreme friction hypothesis actually acknowledges that these spheres need to be created by melting steel, but this can be accomplished at billions of friction points on a micro scale, not from the wholesale melting of steel beams.

Now wasn't that fun? And I did it without even having to resort to Dave's experiments, which actually demonstrate the formation of iron-rich spheres at ordinary fire temperatures. Nice to have multiple possible explanations of this phenomenon.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 2nd April 2014, 02:49 PM   #31
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post

Now wasn't that fun?
Next time you're hanging around a camp-fire. Hold an old rusty painted can in the flames. That snapping and popping you see and hear is likely creating the same spheres that Harrit/Jones found. They burned an organic material attached to rust.

It'd bet money they don't get the spheres forming in an inert atmosphere.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 2nd April 2014, 03:15 PM   #32
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,084
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post

JSanderO, I didn't quite know at first what to make of your comment: "The deal might be that fire alone would not create them. What WOULD is the combination of enormous amount of abrasion from the collapse of hundreds of thousands of tons of building."

But now it seems that your hypothesis has a real-world example to give it more credibility: since simple abrasion of flint on steel with only the force of a single human arm can create tiny molten steel sparks and iron microspheres (which have been known and drawn since at least 1780), it is not much of a stretch to imagine tiny steel sparks by the billions being created from the unimaginable friction of the collapsing Twin Towers, perhaps even helped along by the fact that some ten acres of floors per building were afire during the collapse. ....

Now wasn't that fun? And I did it without even having to resort to Dave's experiments, which actually demonstrate the formation of iron-rich spheres at ordinary fire temperatures. Nice to have multiple possible explanations of this phenomenon.
Chris...
My "theory" was simply a thought "experiment". We also need to account for the enormous amount of heat of the massive 1,500,000 ton debris pile. Someone can compute how much energy out would take to raise that mass 1 F... but there were plenty of reports that the pile was quite warm and took weeks or month to lose all that heat. Where did that heat come from? Some from fires.. but surely fires could not produce the amount of heat contained in the pile. I would assert that it was from FRICTION.. the friction which abraded the materials of the building. Only the hardest ones seem to survive in recognizable form... steel beams... everything friable was ground up. Even bending metal can release heat. I would assert that the main abraders were the hard steel, glass and so forth... And as we know from using sandpaper... the hard materials also suffer surface degradation. That is were the fine grain size iron and steel likely came from. Add some heat to micro sized particles which might be pretty round from the grinding to begin with and it's not unreasonable that they melt and with surface tension become spheroid. It's the only shape that is predicted because of surface tension.

Abrasion was the main process which destroyed the integrity of the materials in the towers and would explain why there would be so many metal spheroids and probably their composition was in rough proportion to the distribution of these substances in the towers themselves. Mostly steel.. mostly iron rich micro spheres. I'd bet there were others found but in much much small amounts.

Maybe.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 2nd April 2014, 05:07 PM   #33
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Does anyone have any comments on the links and questions I wrote in posts 1 and 10? It'd still be cool for me to know those things and have your takes on all this.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 3rd April 2014, 06:09 AM   #34
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
1) How common are iron-rich microspheres really? I have sent out all kinds of emails to metallurgists, and one guy yesterday who also does forensics said he has never in his life seen iron-rich microspheres in the debris of an arson fire.
I'm wondering if he would unless he was actually looking for them. I didn't know my shop floor was covered in them until one day I borrowed a micro-scope and looked.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 3rd April 2014, 07:51 AM   #35
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Since we have a new "hypothesis" thread claiming there is no hypothesis for thermite used on 9/11, let me attempt to create a first draft of a "molten sparks from friction" hyopthesis here (which will need improvement):

Intense steel-on-steel friction during the violent collapse of the three WTC Buildings sent tiny sparks by the billions flying from the collision points. These tiny sparks were actuallay nanoparticles of molten steel, which reduced from iron oxide to iron and left behind billions of iron-rich microspheres.

This hypothesis is supported by the fact that flint-on-steel has been used for centuries to create tiny sparks of literally molten steel, which is then used to start fires.

Tests/investigations needed to support this hypothesis:
1) To see if steel-on-steel can create sparks when huge beams collide at 100+mph. Examples of sparks flying from massive steel on steel friction would help.
2) To see if there were large quantities of some other substance at least as hard as flint which could have collided with the steel (doubtful)
3) To see if the steel even needs to become molten for iron oxide to reduce to iron-rich and create microspheres (doubtful since Dave Thomas's second experiment with primer paint and steel showed iron-rich spheres)
4) To see if all these tiny sparks would necessarily add up to an enormous amount of light emissions which would be visible through the dust, thus making this hypothesis unlikely.

Any suggestions for improvements?

In the meantime, if anyone has feedback opn the links and questions from my posts #1 and 10, I'd be grateful.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 3rd April 2014, 08:07 AM   #36
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Since we have a new "hypothesis" thread claiming there is no hypothesis for thermite used on 9/11, let me attempt to create a first draft of a "molten sparks from friction" hyopthesis here (which will need improvement):
Are you trying to change minds, or is this just a personal hobby?
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 3rd April 2014, 08:10 AM   #37
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post

Any suggestions for improvements?
The first thing to do is a baseline study. Without knowing how common (or rare) they, are the rest of the data is useless.

I have a feeling you'll come to the conclusion they're everywhere.

Just an aside. When I had the microscope I looked at some brake dust.............
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 3rd April 2014, 08:29 AM   #38
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
THOUGHT EXPERIMENTATION

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
"My "theory" was simply a thought "experiment".

We also need to account for the enormous amount of heat of the massive 1,500,000 ton debris pile.

... there were plenty of reports that the pile was quite warm...

Where did that heat come from?

Some from fires.. but surely fires could not produce the amount of heat contained in the pile.

I would assert that it was from FRICTION.

... the friction which abraded the materials of the building.

Only the hardest ones seem to survive in recognizable form... steel beams... everything friable was ground up.

Even bending metal can release heat. ..."
Does your "thought experiment" explain how so much friction-based heat could possibly have been captured and trapped in the debris pile for months?

This is taking into consideration the very observable expulsion of dust and heavy steel from each of the WTC Twin Towers during their top down collapses.

A great amount of heat was lost in this outward release, an even greater amount of heat was expelled as the building tonnage was turned into fine dust seen exploding volcano-like from each descending tower.

Somehow your "thought experiment" wants us to accept as reasonable; a 110 story commercial tower, falling with a top down collapse front, constraining enough friction energy to provide steel-melting heat deep into the debris pile for months.

And you consider this to be strong argumentation Chris?

MM
Miragememories 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 3rd April 2014, 08:39 AM   #39
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Does your "thought experiment" explain how so much friction-based heat could possibly have been captured and trapped in the debris pile for months?

This is taking into consideration the very observable expulsion of dust and heavy steel from each of the WTC Twin Towers during their top down collapses.

A great amount of heat was lost in this outward release, an even greater amount of heat was expelled as the building tonnage was turned into fine dust seen exploding volcano-like from each descending tower.

Somehow your "thought experiment" wants us to accept as reasonable; a 110 story commercial tower, falling with a top down collapse front, constraining enough friction energy to provide steel-melting heat deep into the debris pile for months.

And you consider this to be strong argumentation Chris?

MM
Sounds stronger than:

"Only thermite can produce these spheres, therefere this was thermite" without evidence that only thermite could produce these spheres!
__________________
"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 3rd April 2014, 09:38 AM   #40
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Are you trying to change minds, or is this just a personal hobby?
150,000 views of my YouTube videos in all its forms, twice as many people at the Gage debate changing their minds my direction as Gage's... I AM changing minds, and giving people a chance to see respectful, simple rebuttals of Gage's claims so they can decide for themselves. And it's a hobby, sharpening my science skills since I spent my life in the world of journalism/literature/public speaking so far. All of the above.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 3rd April 2014 at 09:46 AM. Reason: spelling
chrismohr 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 03:04 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.