Need Help with Iron Microsphere Quotes

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

emphasis is mine

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



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

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

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

But I will keep looking.

MM

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

Here it is:

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

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

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave

So MM, what do you think?

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

Really?:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

Here it is:

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

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

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave

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

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

cheers

AE

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Kevin.Silbstedt

Really?:


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

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

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

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

Here it is:

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

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

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave

Thanks Dave, good work.

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

[cjnewson88]

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

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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

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

cheers

AE

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

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

Cheers, Dave

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

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

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

Cheers, Dave

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

[Oystein]

Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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

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

cheers

AE

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

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

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

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

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

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

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Oystein

"Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

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

Meanwhile the disinforming video can continue to misrepresent the truth.

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

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

MM

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Meanwhile the disinforming video can continue to misrepresent the truth.

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

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

MM

Incorrect.

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

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

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Incorrect.

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

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

Well that is good news.

Nice to know Dave has some integrity.

MM

[NoahFence]

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for rule 12.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Incorrect.

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

...

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

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

Dave

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

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

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

Dave

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

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

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

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

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

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

[chrismohr]

Hi Dave,

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

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Hi Dave,

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

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

[Miragememories]

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

Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones in an exchange with Dr. Frank Greening

"The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information."

Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones in an exchange with Dr. Frank Greening

"The plot you provided is from burning COAL, not paper, plastics, wood etc. Or are you saying there was coal in the WTC? Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron melts at 1538 C) The oxygen content is significant, yet the spectrum appears to be skewed, cut off at low X-ray energies... please explain -- how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown -- not the case in the one example you provided! All of the iron-aluminum spheres I have found in the WTC dust show abundant OXYGEN. Often O is the principal element in the spheres."

Originally Posted by Dr. Frank Greening in an exchange with Dr. Jones

"As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite."

Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones in an exchange with Dr. Frank Greening

"...you state: "Now this is indeed quite strange because Si is definitely NOT an ingredient of commercial thermite."

This statement is demonstrably incorrect, and indeed I demonstrated that Si is in fact a component of the sample of commercial thermite I tested -- both in the unreacted thermite sample (in with iron oxide chips) and in the spheres which formed from reacting the commercial thermite. This observation I made was and is important to the discussion. Experiments trump authoritative statements from you or anyone else."

I have yet to see this contradicted by any proofs presented here.

Certainly not Dave's steel wool.

It is quite clear that Dr. Jones accepts that microspheres can be created by other circumstances.

He also makes it quite clear that microspheres created by thermite have a distinct chemical signature (spectrum).

Good luck with the paint Ivan.

MM

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

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

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

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

Oystein
Is there a source for the use of fly ash in the light weight concrete at WTC? It seems the aggregate used was expanded shale (see below link). Also, cement contains iron, as does the Vermiculite used in the fireproofing of the exterior columns. Both processed at high temperatures.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Pre and post construction welding of the steel would have also created microspheres in the welding vapor. Welding of exterior and interior plate columns, trusses , stiffeners, connections, gusset plates, spandrels, light gauge floor pans tack welded, would have produced iron spheres not detected in "normal office dust" but noticeable after the collapse.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

"...Is there a source for the use of fly ash in the light weight concrete at WTC?..."

According to others, fly ash used in the WTC concrete should have been free of iron.

Originally Posted by JREFer Crazy Chainsaw

"Frank [Dr. Frank Greening] at that time I did not know that magnetite was removed from fly ash used in concrete by magnetic drum separation. Basically a big barrel filled with magnets that rolls over the fly ash, and picks out the magnetite so it can be sold. Basically the same technique used by Dr. Jones."

MM

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

Pre and post construction welding of the steel would have also created microspheres in the welding vapor. Welding of exterior and interior plate columns, trusses , stiffeners, connections, gusset plates, spandrels, light gauge floor pans tack welded, would have produced iron spheres not detected in "normal office dust" but noticeable after the collapse.

Those are exactly the two points I've been making for years now:

1. Fly ash doesn't have to be the only source of microspheres. There would be multiple, varied ones. I'd argue that construction welding (not post collapse cutting, but assembly welding) must be one of the minority sources of spheres. I'd even argue that diesel emissions would be as well, just due to the sheer number of years the building has been exposed to local traffic. The point is that we're concentrating on fly ash in concrete because there was so much concrete around, but the reality is that there must have been many different sources.
2. The reason for the differences in the RJ Lee surveys would exactly be due to what BasqueArch is saying here: The spheres produced and/or deposited during construction would have been encased by the structure, but liberated by its collapse. All this presumption that the spheres were created during the collapse are exactly that: Presumptions. Even the RJ Lee report authors made it, but they did that because that was the state of the knowledge when they surveyed (at the time, the working theory was that the jet fuel did indeed directly cause the collapse. Subsequent study by NIST refuted that notion, but the NIST study didn't publish until after RJ Lee's report did). They certainly did not determine it.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Those are exactly the two points I've been making for years now:

1. Fly ash doesn't have to be the only source of microspheres. There would be multiple, varied ones. I'd argue that construction welding (not post collapse cutting, but assembly welding) must be one of the minority sources of spheres. I'd even argue that diesel emissions would be as well, just due to the sheer number of years the building has been exposed to local traffic. The point is that we're concentrating on fly ash in concrete because there was so much concrete around, but the reality is that there must have been many different sources.
2. The reason for the differences in the RJ Lee surveys would exactly be due to what BasqueArch is saying here: The spheres produced and/or deposited during construction would have been encased by the structure, but liberated by its collapse. All this presumption that the spheres were created during the collapse are exactly that: Presumptions. Even the RJ Lee report authors made it, but they did that because that was the state of the knowledge when they surveyed (at the time, the working theory was that the jet fuel did indeed directly cause the collapse. Subsequent study by NIST refuted that notion, but the NIST study didn't publish until after RJ Lee's report did). They certainly did not determine it.

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

Not all microspheres are alike.

MM

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

I have yet to see this contradicted by any proofs presented here.

Certainly not Dave's steel wool.

It is quite clear that Dr. Jones accepts that microspheres can be created by other circumstances.

He also makes it quite clear that microspheres created by thermite have a distinct chemical signature (spectrum).

Good luck with the paint Ivan.

MM

So why would you support "therm*te as a top contender, considering no one has been able to propose a method for it to be in the buildings or destroy them?

Wouldn't you want to start a step one?

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by DGM

So why would you support "therm*te as a top contender, considering no one has been able to propose a method for it to be in the buildings or destroy them?

Wouldn't you want to start a step one?

It's interesting that the RJ Lee Group report found typical Background Dust in office buildings to already contain 0.04% iron spheres. Meaning thermate didn't put them there.

Class Particle Type Background Buildings TP-01
A Mineral Wool 1.05 13.70
A Glass Fragments 0.52 0.50
A Glass Fiber 0.23 1.27
A Perlite 0.26 0.45
A Vermiculite 0 2.36
A Ca/Si 0.35 5.11
A Fe Sphere 0.04 5.87

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

According to others, fly ash used in the WTC concrete should have been free of iron.



MM

You failed to retract your lie about no study of the dust. Your opinions are based on lack of knowledge and sloppy research. 10 years of failure, no Pulitzer for you.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Iron is 5 to 6 percent of the earth's crust. What we have with 911 truth is ignorance and the need to make up delusional claims. Oops, there is Fe in the concrete. Why do you fail to do any research?

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You failed to retract your lie about no study of the dust. Your opinions are based on lack of knowledge and sloppy research. 10 years of failure, no Pulitzer for you.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Iron is 5 to 6 percent of the earth's crust. What we have with 911 truth is ignorance and the need to make up delusional claims. Oops, there is Fe in the concrete. Why do you fail to do any research?

Show me the lie and if you are correct, I will retract it.

MM

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

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

Not really sure, but if you look at the post-burning photos, fig. 20 and 23, you can't help but notice that there is still red material (apparently the hematite hasn't reacted), but where is the gray layer? Instead of gray layer, you now have gray spheres. Makes ya wonder.

I also don't even think they transformed by the heat from burning epoxy; instead, I think it happened when they applied external heat.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

Oystein
Is there a source for the use of fly ash in the light weight concrete at WTC? It seems the aggregate used was expanded shale (see below link). Also, cement contains iron, as does the Vermiculite used in the fireproofing of the exterior columns. Both processed at high temperatures.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Pre and post construction welding of the steel would have also created microspheres in the welding vapor. Welding of exterior and interior plate columns, trusses , stiffeners, connections, gusset plates, spandrels, light gauge floor pans tack welded, would have produced iron spheres not detected in "normal office dust" but noticeable after the collapse.

Not that I am aware of now. We discussed this a while ago and learned that fly ash is, and already was in the early 70s, a common ingredient of light weight concrete, so that was a plausible candidate not rules out by anyone. I posted fly ash as an example for several, or many, possible sources.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Oystein

"Not that I am aware of now. We discussed this a while ago and learned that fly ash is, and already was in the early 70s, a common ingredient of light weight concrete, so that was a plausible candidate not rules out by anyone. I posted fly ash as an example for several, or many, possible sources."

Not very plausible if the iron has been removed.

see;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=63

MM

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Not very plausible if the iron has been removed.

see;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=63

MM

You are seriously pointing me to a statement made by an anonymous internet poster you identify as "JREFer Crazy Chainsaw", without even a link - while talking down on me because I quote metamars?

Hypocrisy much??

[DaveThomasNMSR]

It'll take a while before I'll be ready for another run at the scanning electron microscope lab (I want to burn some paint, test the chemical makeup of the steel wool before it's burnt, burn the wool with just paper -- not a hot IC lighter, etc.), so I made a very scaled-down mini version to show at the recent CSICON conference.

As a temporary placeholder in that great YouTube battleground in CyberSpace, do y'all think this is OK for now?

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

[zeusbheld]

i think you need a 'button' at the end: make it clear that the claim that has been refuted is that thermite is the only possible source of iron-rich microspheres. it's clear enough from the clip at the beginning, but in a time-based medium like video a little reminder at the end can't hurt.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by zeusbheld

i think you need a 'button' at the end: make it clear that the claim that has been refuted is that thermite is the only possible source of iron-rich microspheres. it's clear enough from the clip at the beginning, but in a time-based medium like video a little reminder at the end can't hurt.

Yep.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Oystein

"Not that I am aware of now. We discussed this a while ago and learned that fly ash is, and already was in the early 70s, a common ingredient of light weight concrete, so that was a plausible candidate not rules out by anyone. I posted fly ash as an example for several, or many, possible sources."

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Not very plausible if the iron has been removed.

see;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=63"

Originally Posted by Oystein

"You are seriously pointing me to a statement made by an anonymous internet poster you identify as "JREFer Crazy Chainsaw", without even a link - while talking down on me because I quote metamars?

Hypocrisy much??"

Okay here is a quote with link;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=319

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

"Fly ash was not used in the concrete..."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=322

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

"The concrete in the towers used a special aggregate, not fly ash....... "

I think you are ignoring a key difference here. Crazy Chainsaw is stating as fact something that should be freely available on the public record for confirmation.

BUT, your much prized metamars extract uses a portion of an alleged email exchange with Dr. Jones and cannot be verified for context or accuracy.

MM

[Steen Svanholm]

Hi guys

Recently, I burned some steel wool live on tv (local Danish network) to challenge the claims of Harrit et al. and Harrit responded by e-mail with what I shall translate here:

"The experiment done by Steen Svanholm is the opposite reaction of the thermite reaction. He burns iron powder that ignite when the temperature is is high enough. Burning is by definition a reaction with the oxygen in the air. The process that Svanholm demonstrates is:
iron + oxygen produces ironoxide

Within chemistry this type of reaction is called an oxidation.

The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round.

The thermite reaction is the exact opposite:

Ironoxide + aluminum produces aluminumoxide
Within chemistry this type of reaction is called a reduction.

The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.

Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.

Svanholm would have flunked the chemistry exam in high school if he had made a fool of himself in this manner."

What are you guys' opinion about his response?

Regards
Steen Svanholm
911facts.dk

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm

The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.

Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.

What are you guys' opinion about his response?

Regards
Steen Svanholm
911facts.dk

Hi Steen, welcome to the forums! The more you deal with 9/11 truthers, the more you will realize that they are not persuaded by logic, experiment, facts or much of anything else. I've stripped out the two blatantly false statements in Harrit's response. In his paper and subsequent data, Harrit has shown absolutely no elemental iron, and a lot of iron oxide.

As has been pointed out many, many, many times on this forum, iron oxide microspheres, and microspheres containing aluminum and silicon (as amorphous glassy material) are very common components of ash produced in normal fires. No magical thermite required. Roughly speaking, the formula for making ash is:

Anything + Hot (400 C or more) + Oxygen = Ash

No need to take it beyond that. Harrit suffers from a special kind of delusion that makes him impervious to all evidence that doesn't support his wacky ideas. Your experiment stands on its own merits, but it's not likely to convince anyone.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm

Hi guys

Recently, I burned some steel wool live on tv (local Danish network) to challenge the claims of Harrit et al. and Harrit responded by e-mail with what I shall translate here:

"The experiment done by Steen Svanholm is the opposite reaction of the thermite reaction. He burns iron powder that ignite when the temperature is is high enough. Burning is by definition a reaction with the oxygen in the air. The process that Svanholm demonstrates is:
iron + oxygen produces ironoxide

Within chemistry this type of reaction is called an oxidation.

The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round.

The thermite reaction is the exact opposite:

Ironoxide + aluminum produces aluminumoxide
Within chemistry this type of reaction is called a reduction.

The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.

Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.

Svanholm would have flunked the chemistry exam in high school if he had made a fool of himself in this manner."

What are you guys' opinion about his response?

Regards
Steen Svanholm
911facts.dk

The iron rich spheres Jones found are Iron Oxide mixed with cement dust, gypsum dust, burnt paper dust (carbon), and other dust from the WTC after they burned the dust sample they had. Means you win.

I looked up spectrum of iron oxide on gypsum, and it looks like Jones iron rich sphere. Iron rich to the 911 truth nuts is iron oxide, mixed with gypsum and cement dust.

Jones and his morons can add chemistry to their list of things they can't do, along with not figuring out 911. They burn their dust and come up with iron oxide, the opposite of what they need.