Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

Jazzy

Closed Account
Jay Howard said:
I know this won't count as a solid falsification for Gypsum as a source of the Sulfur for Jazzy or others who hold the same view. The only question is why. Given the record, I'm going with the latter.
I shall lead you to the water:
Physical properties
Gypsum is moderately water-soluble (~2.0–2.5 g/l at 25°C) and, in contrast to most other salts, it exhibits a retrograde solubility, becoming less soluble at higher temperatures. When gypsum is heated in air it loses water and converts first to calcium sulfate hemihydrate, (bassanite, often simply called "plaster") and, if heated further, to anhydrous calcium sulfate (anhydrite). As for anhydrite, its solubility in saline solutions and in brines is also strongly dependent on NaCl concentration.
Gypsum crystals are found to contain anion water and hydrogen bonding.
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

It is soluble, and those sulfate ions would have washed over the buried hot steel just as soon as the firemen arrived.

.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Greening's spurious hypotheses have been proven incorrect by experiment.
The red-gray chips have been demonstrated to be some kind of ENC by experiment.
Neither NIST nor anyone here nor anyone at all, whatsoever has a good explanation of the WPI steel.
Likewise, no one has an explanation that holds any water for the vaporized lead.

Still think the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is salvageable? Of course you do! Ok, let's hear why.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Greening's spurious hypotheses have been proven incorrect by experiment.
The red-gray chips have been demonstrated to be some kind of ENC by experiment.
Neither NIST nor anyone here nor anyone at all, whatsoever has a good explanation of the WPI steel.
Likewise, no one has an explanation that holds any water for the vaporized lead.

Still think the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is salvageable? Of course you do! Ok, let's hear why.
Sounds like several different threads to me.

Not that it hasn't been for some time now.
 
Last edited:

Jay Howard

Member
Sounds like several different threads to me.

Not that it hasn't been for some time now.


So you have nothing else to say in defense of the OCT other than "this belongs in another thread..."?

The high temperature phenomena are real. The OCT cannot account for them. The material studied by Harrit et. al. is indeed a highly engineered substance that appears to be designed to bridge temperatures from burning paper through to melting steel. The WPI steel remains mysterious under the OCT as Greening's musings have been demonstrated to be nothing more than major league straw-grasping which does not obtain in real life.

This is the point at which serious, scientific minds (regardless of your feelings) must have a serious "come to Jesus" moment with the Official Conspiracy Theory. It is clearly inferior as an explanatory device compared to tested theories that take into account all the evidence.

The Energetic NanoComposite theory can account for much of the high temp phenomena, and it opens the door to the acceptance that if there are explosive residues in the WTC dust, then there could be more than one type of explosive used. This is right at the edge of speculation. What can be said for sure is that there is enough reason to have a real independent agency take a look at the dust and the other evidence--all of it, not just what they want to fit into their pet theory--and do a real investigation.

With all that we know right now, why would anyone be satisfied with the official explanation?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So you have nothing else to say in defense of the OCT other than "this belongs in another thread…"?
Well, kiddoe, it really does. In any terms other than emotional ones.

The high temperature phenomena are real. The OCT cannot account for them.
I'm not sure that's true. If you pay attention to detail (I know a difficult exercise for you) then you will notice some input about the remaining potential energy of the building as it struck ground zero. This had to result in either plastic deformation, seismic energy transmitted to the Earth, with both of those activities resulting in HEAT.

This is quite important because this remaining energy could have raised EIGHT HUNDRED TONS OF STEEL to melt.

The material studied by Harrit et. al. is indeed a highly engineered substance that appears to be designed to bridge temperatures from burning paper through to melting steel.
Never before has anyone been so effusive of paint primer. Firing it up in an oxygen-rich environment was your invalidator.

The WPI steel remains mysterious under the OCT as Greening's musings have been demonstrated to be nothing more than major league straw-grasping which does not obtain in real life.
I think that honest people have no difficulty in absorbing and understanding such facts. There must be some sort of problem when you approach such stuff with your sort of pre-arranged agenda.

This is the point at which serious, scientific minds (regardless of your feelings) must have a serious "come to Jesus" moment with the Official Conspiracy Theory. It is clearly inferior as an explanatory device compared to tested theories that take into account all the evidence.
Well, I beg to differ. I will always ask questions of you, and respond to your statements in as full a case as I can reasonably achieve.

You, on the other hand, feel it free to ignore some of the points I make contrary to yours. It's as if you can't quite answer, so you then pretend I didn't ask the question. I take note of every time you fail to make such acknowledgements. It isn't a reasonable discussion, you know, as soon as you do this.

The Energetic NanoComposite theory can account for much of the high temp phenomena
That would be in the absence of understanding that there were naturally plenty of ambient high-temperature phenomena, wouldn't it? I should point out that real scientists would find themselves compelled to discover and account for EVERY such phenomenon, but for some reason, you find these actions unnecessary, and by so doing you tar yourself with your own brush.

and it opens the door to the acceptance that if there are explosive residues in the WTC dust, then there could be more than one type of explosive used. This is right at the edge of speculation.
Heaven prevent me from it.

What can be said for sure is that there is enough reason to have a real independent agency take a look at the dust and the other evidence--all of it, not just what they want to fit into their pet theory--and do a real investigation.
No. A real investigation finds the cause, which is normally pointed to by the theory of least action.

With all that we know right now, why would anyone be satisfied with the official explanation?
Well, life's a bitch for most people, a beach for me, so one has to obtain satisfaction the best way one can. You make NIST's case better than NIST does.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
With all that we know right now, why would anyone be satisfied with the official explanation?

Because the impact and fire actually happened, and are all that is needed to explain the collapse.

Your problem is that you start out with the assumption that the "missing jolt" style argument is correct, so you need something else.

However if the impact and fire work as an explanation, them a couple of minor chemical puzzles are entirely irrelevant - if they are even puzzles at all.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Am I missing something? Those all say 500,000 tons. Not a single one says 450,000 tons. That's quite a difference.


Josh - just so you don't fall into the same trap - the point I was making is nothing to do with short tons (the measurement used in the US), metric tonnes or imperial tons, which are all different. The point was that the figure of 450,000 tonnes is not correct. This number would represent the absolute maximum capacity. In reality, the working weight of one tower would be somewhere between 280,000 to 300,000 tonnes. It's significant because certain people like to deliberately misrepresent the reality because it suits their position. Bazant, in his paper, used the upper bound so that he could say that the top section of the N Tower weighed 68,000 tonnes, when the reality is that it weighed somewhere in the region of 33,000, which is quite a difference.
Jazzy has form for making up or using whatever numbers suit his 'argument' of the day. From a tower weighing 500k (when he wants it to be 'heavy'), to his 'calculation' that each tower's concrete weighed a mere 34,000 tonnes (when he needed a 'lightweight' building); to 250,000 tonnes of steel per tower (when it was all about steel sliding along and 'friction welding' it to near its melting point) which is Jazzy's 'inevitable hotspot friction welding caused the high temps in the rubble pile for weeks after the event' theory. So, you can see that some people are seriously inconsistent, unreliable witnesses. And that's being polite. Caveat emptor, J.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Erratum:

Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite


As far as I know, Thermite produces Fe rich microspheres as a by-product of its use. Not through interacting with any steel - no steel required - nor anything else. The above statement says quite categorically this cannot be so. It's wrong and it should be changed. If someone wanted to put the possibility forward (in an honest way) that the source of the very well documented Fe rich microspheres might be something other than the explanation that has the most explanatory power, and the most evidence, then the statement might be rearranged as a question: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Because the impact and fire actually happened, and are all that is needed to explain the collapse.

It's standard operating procedure to test for evidence of an accelerant in a fire even if "There is no evidence." and a fire seems sufficient to bring a building down so long as you don't actually test for explosives or accelerant.

Your problem is that you start out with the assumption that the "missing jolt" style argument is correct, so you need something else.

Your problem is that you want to put your "It's unnecessary to even look for evidence." explanation before an investigation beginning with and based on the evidence.

You used the NIST report as your standard of falsification before. Yet if/when elements of it are falsified then you shift back to your general explanation that is apparently based on unfalsifiable forms of pseudo-science.

However if the impact and fire work as an explanation, them a couple of minor chemical puzzles are entirely irrelevant - if they are even puzzles at all.

You begin by knowing that the impact and fire work as some sort of a theory/explanation for unprecedented events and find simulated forms of evidence, without beginning with an investigation. So there's probably no way to show that the impact and fire "don't work" as an explanation in order to inspire you to investigate the actual evidence.

I'm not purchasing the NPFA Codes to show that NIST's crackpot theories and simulation of an investigation are unfalsifiable bunk. But if you're interested, you could purchase them and verify/falsify the claim that standard operating procedures in investigations of fires and explosions have yet to be followed by anyone but investigative reporters and others seeking the truth.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You can download the NPFA codes from the internet. Just google for NFPA_921.pdf.

Then you can start a thread debunking NIST's claims that they followed procedure, with quotes.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Because the impact and fire actually happened, and are all that is needed to explain the collapse.

But the collapses are not the only things in need of explaining. The fact is there are several bodies of evidence for extremely high temperatures. Energy is not free. These bodies of evidence must be accounted for. The OCT is useless in trying to explain them. Then there is another theory that can account for all the evidence, including the collapses. It has been tested, as have some mainstream attempts to explain the high-temp phenomena. The tests show conclusively that the WTC dust has in it some kind of experimental explosive residue as well as the by-products of this explosive residue. The mainstream attempts at explanation fail when tested.

WHY DOES THIS NOT MOVE YOU TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION?

Mick West said:
Your problem is that you start out with the assumption that the "missing jolt" style argument is correct, so you need something else.

Actually, that's not my starting point. I'm not interested in collapse causation arguments because they aren't definitive. XEDS of material demonstrating elemental Al in the hydrocarbon matrix is definitive. Vaporized lead is real. WPI steel is real, measurable, quantifiable. The iron microspheres are measurable and quantifiable as well. Putting the collapses on a loop and working out formulae that may or may not describe the mechanisms involved is lazy at best and misleading at worst.

Mick West said:
However if the impact and fire work as an explanation, then a couple of minor chemical puzzles are entirely irrelevant - if they are even puzzles at all.

Right, all you have to do is ignore all the evidence of high-temperature phenomena--again, that's exactly what I've been saying. The weaker theory must discount some evidence as "unreal" or "insignificant" whereas a more powerful theory can account not only for the collapses but for the high temp phenomena as well. And here we are, back to square one.

You cannot claim that "Iron Microspheres as evidence for Thermite" has been debunked. Not only has it stood all the tests its been put to, the OCT as well as the ancillary, supporting theories (like Dr. Greening's sulfur sources) have been shown to be unable to account for the phenomena in question or are simply wrong. You are on the wrong side of this argument.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The tests show conclusively that the WTC dust has in it some kind of experimental explosive residue as well as the by-products of this explosive residue. The mainstream attempts at explanation fail when tested.

WHY DOES THIS NOT MOVE YOU TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION?

Because I don't agree that "the WTC dust has in it some kind of experimental explosive residue"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What is it you disagree with? The XEDS graphs? Maps? The fact that the chips produce iron microspheres when heated? What is it you take issue with?

I disagree that the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion you suggested, i.e. "the WTC dust has in it some kind of experimental explosive residue"
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The point was that the figure of 450,000 tonnes is not correct.
Well don't libel me as a consequence. I'm only taking these figures on in good faith.

Of course, you had better also come up with something more than bare assertion. Official figures that disagree with Mr. Chen will be entirely acceptable. Otherwise...

Jazzy has form
You have a lot more. Otherwise you would spend more time out of the cooler, and less as persona non grata.

I don't go around devising ways of slandering you. You have enough troubles, and I try not to add to them...
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
The fact is there are several bodies of evidence for extremely high temperatures. Energy is not free.

Jazzy's previous post unacknowledged by Jay Howard said:
you will notice some input about the remaining potential energy of the building as it struck ground zero. This had to result in either plastic deformation, seismic energy transmitted to the Earth, with both of those activities resulting in HEAT. This is quite important because this remaining energy could have raised EIGHT HUNDRED TONS OF STEEL to melt.

The tests show conclusively that the WTC dust has in it some kind of experimental explosive residue
Jazzy's previous post unacknowledged by Jay Howard said:
You have been considering the smelting of the iron oxide by the organic binder in the paint. The apparatus is supplying the requisite heat energy. Fe2O3 + n(CH2) > 2Fe + CO2 + H2O. The non-elemental aluminum is a constituent of the KAOLIN used as paint filler. It's inert for all intents and purposes.

Actually, that's not my starting point.
Now there I agree with you.

Perhaps you could start by acknowledging the posts you have ignored. That would be a good starting point for you, and a new leaf.

Jazzy's previous post unacknowledged by Jay Howard said:
You, on the other hand, feel it free to ignore some of the points I make contrary to yours. It's as if you can't quite answer, so you then pretend I didn't ask the question. I take note of every time you fail to make such acknowledgements. It isn't a reasonable discussion, you know, as soon as you do this.
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Of course, you had better also come up with something more than bare assertion. Official figures that disagree with Mr. Chen will be entirely acceptable. Otherwise...

How much mass translates to 111,000 KWH's of gravitational potential energy?

Remember this? I see you're giving it another airing here, somewhat 'amended'.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wt...-any-why-what-about-the-hot-spots.1059/page-3

Yes. I'd like to see someone agree with Jazzy's 'friction welding', core sill standing 'all slagged up' (still waiting for that close-up shot which confirms the assertion) kinetic energy brought to melting point inevitable hot spot 'theory'.


Jazzy, you've said elsewhere 'I'm an engineer' - but you're not a structural engineer, are you? No need to answer. You keep complaining that no-one seems able to pass the reading comprehension test you set us - everyone else is at fault but you, ofcourse. Your 'appeal to authority' falls somewhat flat when (just one example) it's pointed out to you that you've made a serious error in your estimate of how much steel was present in the buildings. First you claim you never said such a thing (my poor reading skills, apparently), but when it's shown that you did say just such a thing, you try to bluff your way out by claiming that 450,000 tons of steel is correct. Let's go over those numbers again. Two towers with 80,000 tons of structural steel per tower = 160,000 tons. This figure is an approximation, but a generally accepted one (by most everyone but you, apparently). You make the claim that the total amount of steel for two towers is 450,000 when you include all the lifts, ducting, furniture. So, 450,000 - 160,000 = 290,000. That's 290,000 tons more steel in two towers - just steel, no wood, plasterboard, aluminium, zinc, ply etc etc - just steel, 290,000 more tons of it. So you think that the steel structure of each tower @ 80,000 tons was added to by another 145,000 tons of steel in the form of lifts, three floors of plant, ducting, furniture etc.? One doesn't really need to be any kind of engineer to understand that this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. But maybe you'd like to share your source on this figure? I doubt that will be forthcoming. I always find it's best to own up when you've been caught making things up or denying you said certain things when they are right to hand for anyone who bothers to look - that type of thing.

You also said this

The potential energy of any building is the energy put into it to raise it from ground level into its structural position. This must be released when the building falls.


I think you're a bit confused about this - you've said it more than once. The potential energy of a building is not 'the energy put into it to raise it from ground level into its structural position'. No, the potential energy of a building, as is generally accepted, is gravitational potential energy - which isn't the same thing as all the energy put in to raise the building. I think the wording speaks for itself.
FEMA actually gave the calculation of PE in each building as 4 x 10^11 joules and that is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower. So your calculation on that wasn't bad, it's just that the words you attach often don't match the music.


I asked you - What is 'energy in its loosest sense'? Your answer:

The way it is interpreted by intellectuals in the loosest sense.

Are you trying to hint to everyone that you're an intellectual? Obviously no-one here is bright enough to understand either your 'theory' or your replies. You make a comment about 'energy in the loosest sense', but when asked what you mean, can't give a sensible answer.


One other thing, you've also said that the energy required to break the concrete in each tower represents around 5% of the total PE available in each tower. You even said turning steel rc into dust was easy -

Just give me a sledgehammer
you said.

I've had to be put through the torture of your theory, so here's mine:

Jazzy, no disrespect, but if that's you in the pic, I reckon you'd struggle to give a proper piece of steel rc a hard time - I'd love to be right there and I'd even make you a nice piece (or better still find a forty-year-old bit) and I'd buy you a 16lb hammer. You'd swing it ten times (and six of those would be fuelled by pride alone), then you'd need a lie down. Most of the concrete was pulverised into the 10-60 micron range. You and sixteen pound hammer couldn't do that to one square metre 125mm thick w/1/a393 set in - not in a month of sundays! Prove me wrong - make a video and post it up. And while you're at it, get a desk/telephone/plasterboard/cable/computer terminal and do the same to it. Show us all how little energy it takes to reduce these things to 60 microns.

I've seen lots of figures thrown about for the amount of concrete in each of the towers - as much as '600,000 tons', commonly '400,000 cubic yards' - neither of those is even close. These are very simple calculations - even though we are missing some crucial design details about the towers, we do know the dimensions of the basic structure. The concrete floors are easily calculable because we know the values, but the core in relation to its concrete content is obfuscated - if anyone can point me to the original plans and specs for this element specifically (preferably the engineer's drawings, but architect might do), I'd be grateful. There was undoubtedly a lot of steel reinforced concrete in the core of each tower - but it's not easy to tell how much with the dimensions and system not clear.
All together, the concrete content of each tower based on my calculation (which itself is based on 110 floors *4,400 (sq m = 1 acre) *.12 (thickness+compacton) = 52,800M3 /0.6 = 88,000 tonnes in the main) and then estimates of core concrete and heavier concrete construction practises at lower levels (and I've been very conservative in those estimates in lieu of, er, concrete proof of original engineer's drawings on this).....and that comes to 90,000 tons of concrete per tower.
I previously asked you, Jazzy, to show the simple calculation (and it is) for the energy required for crushing the concrete - I presumed you must have done it to come up with the figure you came up with. As you refused, I'll show you the calculation. This calculation makes no allowance for the other items pulverised in the collapse, such as office equipment, glass, plasterboard (wallboard), asbestos etc. It's just for the concrete as quantified above - conservatively. The calculation also assumes the only force at work is gravity - as expressed in the potential energy of one wtc tower, which according to FEMA's building performance study = 111,000 kwh.
Fortunately, calculations and studies have been made of dust samples to assign aggregate dust size - this without accounting for separate constituents, but useful nonetheless. Paul J. Lioy, et al gives a conservative 60 micron size as an aggregate score on the dust as a whole. The size of the concrete dust is critical to the calculation ofcourse, but there are other sources showing concrete dust less than ten microns - creating an enormous energy sink if large quantities were indeed reduced to that size. For the sake of the calculation, I've erred on the conservative side again and assumed a 60 micron concrete dust size. Here http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm you can find that someone has already gone to the trouble of calculating just how much energy (in its loosest sense, obviously) it takes to pulverize one ton of concrete to 60 microns, and the answer is 1.5kwh. Now the calculation is very simple - 90,000*1.5 = 135,000kwh. Can you see the problem? The PE of one tower is calculated at 111,000 kwh - pulverizing 90,000 tons of concrete (don't forget there was loads of other stuff pulverized too - I just haven't included it in this sum) uses a full 24,000kwh more than the energy available through gravity alone, which is potential energy. That hardly represents the 5% you so confidently expressed in words, but not numbers.
Obviously you'll claim you're right, I can't read etc., all the usual, but when you've got through that, we'll have a look at the next energy sink in line - the pyroclastic cloud volume, temperature, speed and required energy to create it


So no bare assertion - my calculations are based on available known values and thirty years of professional quantifying in the commercial construction industry. Plus two other engineers have told you the same right here on this very site, quite recently too. Anyway, that's enough time wasted on you. No-one sensible can take you seriously. I find it somewhat remiss that your so called 'theories' go unmolested by Mick, on his supposed quest for truth and banishing of bunk 'mission'. It's laughable.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
How much mass translates to 111,000 KWH's of gravitational potential energy?
Well, taking G as 9.81m/sec/sec, h as 430m, the no. of Joules to a KWh to be 3.6*10^6, the PE to be approx. equal to 0.5*M*G*h,

then M = 1.11*10^5*3.6*10^6 / 0.5*9.81*430 = 4.00*10^11 / 2.11*10^3 = 1.90*10^8 = 190,000,000 Kg, which is 190,000 tonnes. Then they equipped the building with its dead load.

I see you haven't come up with any official numbers for the total weights of the towers yet. You've been too busy looking up past defeats to bother, no doubt.

So no bare assertion - my calculations are based on available known values and thirty years of professional quantifying in the commercial construction industry.
What calculations? The ones where you convert the whole of the concrete into dust?

Plus two other engineers have told you the same right here on this very site, quite recently too.
Was that the one that pretends that the location of a beam was fixed immovably inside a burning building, or the one that pretends that towers fell straight down when they obviously couldn't, and didn't?

Anyway, that's enough time wasted on you. No-one sensible can take you seriously. I find it somewhat remiss that your so called 'theories' go unmolested by Mick, on his supposed quest for truth and banishing of bunk 'mission'. It's laughable.
You should attempt to remain longer on this site. A tip for so doing would be to abandon witch-hunts. This would free up the time you need to learn and understand things.

Oh, I've molested Jazzy's theories quite often.
I'll say.
 
Last edited:

Jay Howard

Member
Seems the most likely thing, but I'm open to other suggestions.


Again, if that's your position, why are you not concerned that there is no such paint known that, when ignited, produces iron microspheres? Or one that has relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and elemental Al? Yours is not a serious position. It's not a position based on the available information. It's more like dogma or wishful thinking.

I've pointed out time and time again why this stuff isn't likely paint and your best defense is "I want to hear what someone else says about it because I'm not sure." Have you asked anyone else about the Harrit paper? What did they say? If you're not sure what to make of the information, why are you still of the opinion that it's paint?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've pointed out time and time again why this stuff isn't likely paint and your best defense is "I want to hear what someone else says about it because I'm not sure." Have you asked anyone else about the Harrit paper? What did they say? If you're not sure what to make of the information, why are you still of the opinion that it's paint?

I don't know what it is. It just think paint seems the most likely.

I would like to hear what other people think, but I don't happen to have an expert in my closet. Are you aware of other informed opinions on the matter?
 

Jay Howard

Member
I don't know what it is. It just think paint seems the most likely.

I would like to hear what other people think, but I don't happen to have an expert in my closet. Are you aware of other informed opinions on the matter?

I'm not aware of other expert opinions. We're smart fellows. Why can't we evaluate the facts and just be honest about what we understand and what we don't?

You know I'm not buying any bullshit and I'm not selling any. I have nothing to gain. Nothing riding on this. I get no commission nor consulting fee for my interpretation.

With that in mind, what kind of expert would you like to ask? It makes sense to talk to an unbiased materials chemist or an industrial physicist of some sort. What do you think?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not aware of other expert opinions. We're smart fellows. Why can't we evaluate the facts and just be honest about what we understand and what we don't?
I thought that's what we were doing?

You know I'm not buying any bullshit and I'm not selling any. I have nothing to gain. Nothing riding on this. I get no commission nor consulting fee for my interpretation.
Arguably though you are emotionally invested. While we all like to think we are objective scientists, you have presented your opinion that it's nano-thermite very strongly, and you might risk looking a little foolish if, say, the DSC results proved to be meaningless.

With that in mind, what kind of expert would you like to ask? It makes sense to talk to an unbiased materials chemist or an industrial physicist of some sort. What do you think?
Anyone who has experience doing similar tests with similar materials.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I'm not aware of other expert opinions. We're smart fellows. Why can't we evaluate the facts and just be honest about what we understand and what we don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidation_reduction

This for instance? You have been considering the smelting of the iron oxide by the organic binder in the paint. The apparatus is supplying the requisite heat energy. Fe2O3 + n(CH2) > 2Fe + CO2 + H2O. The non-elemental aluminum is a constituent of the KAOLIN used as paint filler. It's inert for all intents and purposes.

You know I'm not buying any bullshit and I'm not selling any. I have nothing to gain. Nothing riding on this. I get no commission nor consulting fee for my interpretation.
The potential energy available upon impact of a WTC tower with ground zero approximates to its G factor times half its mass times its height.

Taking an average G factor of 0.7, the weight of a tower as 450,000,000 kg, G to be 9.81 m/sec/sec, k the specific heat of steel to be 0.49 kJ/kg deg C, and the remaining potential energy PEr,

Then PEr = 0.7*9.81*2.25*10^6*430 = 6.64*10^9 Joules, which is equivalent to 184,000 kWh or the raising of PEr / (t1-t2)*k = 6.64*10^5 / 1.5*10^3*0.49 = 9.03*10^2 = 903 tons of steel to melt.

With that in mind, what kind of expert would you like to ask? It makes sense to talk to an unbiased materials chemist or an industrial physicist of some sort. What do you think?
Or rue the day you failed Chemistry. And Physics. And to read my posts.
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Well, taking G as 9.81m/sec/sec, h as 430m, the no. of Joules to a KWh to be 3.6*10^6, the PE to be approx. equal to 0.5*M*G*h,

then M = 1.11*10^5*3.6*10^6 / 0.5*9.81*430 = 4.00*10^11 / 2.11*10^3 = 1.90*10^8 = 190,000,000 Kg, which is 190,000 tonnes.

Great, so that answers my question above on what tower-shaped mass is represented by 111.000kwh of potential energy.

Then they equipped the building with its dead load.

Did they now?

I see you haven't come up with any official numbers for the total weights of the towers yet.

No - but you just did it for me by calculating FEMA's estimate of the potential energy of one tower. Let's go over those official numbers again - FEMA: available PE for one wtc tower = 111,000kwh. Jazzy: 111,000kwh represents 190,000 tonnes. Ergo the official estimate of one wtc tower's mass was 190,000 tonnes. No? You suppose they forgot to allow for all dead loads and superimposed dead loads in their estimate of what potential energy was available - what about the live loads? Did they forget them too? The figure's wrong, ofcourse - like you've already been told by people that know better than you - the real working weight is likely between 280-300,000 tonnes. But thanks for doing the maths for the official numbers all the same. Presumably you'll be using that figure from now on; it is official, after all.

You should attempt to remain longer on this site. A tip for so doing would be to abandon witch-hunts.

Why? And I've got absolutely nothing against witches - it's liars and fantasists that get my goat.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Great, so that answers my question above on what tower-shaped mass is represented by 111.000kwh of potential energy.
A skeleton for the tower's final mass. The structural steel work.

Did they now?
Yes they did. It was the calculation, I guess, for the lifting energy used before the internal lifts were commissioned.

Presumably you'll be using that figure from now on; it is official, after all.
No. I shall use 450,000 tonnes. I'm quite happy with those figures.

Why? And I've got absolutely nothing against witches - it's liars and fantasists that get my goat.
That's too off-topic to be addressed. :)

.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Erratum:




As far as I know, Thermite produces Fe rich microspheres as a by-product of its use. Not through interacting with any steel - no steel required - nor anything else. The above statement says quite categorically this cannot be so. It's wrong and it should be changed. If someone wanted to put the possibility forward (in an honest way) that the source of the very well documented Fe rich microspheres might be something other than the explanation that has the most explanatory power, and the most evidence, then the statement might be rearranged as a question: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite?

This one's for you, Mick - just in case you missed it. I thought you would want to correct the english, at least. Why would you leave such a falsehood to stand? Why would you even pen it in the first instance? It's just pure bias as it is, obviously. I'm not really sure what your target audience is, but clearly there must be one. Luckily, anyone with a basic grasp of the language and the facts can see through it. It makes it seem as though you're interested only in preaching to the choir (and a few uninformed passers-by) - not in honest, open-minded scepticism. Nist, FEMA et al are in full scuttling retreat. They are exposed as incompetents at best. Do you still want to be a part of their et al and an adjunct of their simulated investigation?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This one's for you, Mick - just in case you missed it. I thought you would want to correct the english, at least. Why would you leave such a falsehood to stand? Why would you even pen it in the first instance? It's just pure bias as it is, obviously. I'm not really sure what your target audience is, but clearly there must be one. Luckily, anyone with a basic grasp of the language and the facts can see through it. It makes it seem as though you're interested only in preaching to the choir (and a few uninformed passers-by) - not in honest, open-minded scepticism. Nist, FEMA et al are in full scuttling retreat. They are exposed as incompetents at best. Do you still want to be a part of their et al and an adjunct of their simulated investigation?

It's debunking the claim that iron microspheres can ONLY be evidence of thermite. There are plenty of other potential sources.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
It's debunking the claim that iron microspheres can ONLY be evidence of thermite. There are plenty of other potential sources.

You must realise that's not what the title says. The english is wrong. You've said that iron microspheres cannot be evidence for thermite. You should change it. Especially as some kind of thermitic activity explains quite a number of evidences relating to the event, and it explains them better than any other explanation.
 
Hi, this is my first post, I haven't read all 10 pages of the argument so far, so excuse me if I'm going over old stuff, but in regards to this experiment which they burned some steel to make iron spheres, what was the chemical signature of the iron spheres and number of iron spheres . Did the spheres contain Al, K , SI , MN ?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
some kind of thermitic activity explains quite a number of evidences relating to the event, and it explains them better than any other explanation.
Well I guess you've claimed this week's extreme myopia award.

But I agree with you about the title needing a question mark. Heavens to Betsy!

.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I thought that's what we were doing?

You have been unable or unwilling to say what it is you don't understand about the Harrit paper. Why? Just say what it is you don't get and we'll straighten it out--or figure out who can.

Mick West said:
Arguably though you are emotionally invested. While we all like to think we are objective scientists, you have presented your opinion that it's nano-thermite very strongly, and you might risk looking a little foolish if, say, the DSC results proved to be meaningless.

As far as emotional investment, I believe you are the pot calling the kettle black on this one. I have reasons backing up my theories. All you are standing on is doubt. Incredulity. Emotional attachment. I ask for reasons why you believe the chips are paint despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and all you can really say is "I'm not convinced it's not paint." That's all well and good, but it's not a substantive reason. You do not seem to have one. Your doubt is derived SOLELY from your emotional attachment to the idea that this stuff CANNOT be anything other than paint chips. Not because there are strong reasons to believe as much.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You have been unable or unwilling to say what it is you don't understand about the Harrit paper. Why? Just say what it is you don't get and we'll straighten it out--or figure out who can.

Well, for a start, why did they not do the DSC in nitrogen, and then why did they compare the graph against some "thermitic" material that WAS tested in nitrogen?
 

Jay Howard

Member
Well, for a start, why did they not do the DSC in nitrogen, and then why did they compare the graph against some "thermitic" material that WAS tested in nitrogen?


Like I said before, you want to say it's not "thermitic," fine. It doesn't change the ignition temp nor the by-products. Paint doesn't ignite at 430C and produce iron microspheres. So it really doesn't matter how you classify it outside of "incendiary/explosive".

As mentioned before, I would LOVE to see more testing done on this material. As it stands right now, this is a highly-engineered thermal bridge material that seems to be manufactured in such a way as to be painted onto surfaces. Hence the confusion with paint. But the proof is in the puddin. And the puddin says it's got relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles as well as elemental Al in the mix that ignites at about 430C and produces iron microspheres almost identical to the ones in the WTC dust.

That ain't paint.

So what are you standing on besides doubt?
 
"Well, for a start, why did they not do the DSC in nitrogen, and then why did they compare the graph against some "thermitic" material that WAS tested in nitrogen?"

Well, for a start, why did they not do the DSC in nitrogen, and then why did they compare the graph against some "thermitic" material that WAS tested in nitrogen?

I believe its because LANL tests nano thermite in oxygen.
Maybe something to do with the sol-gel oxygen reaction , but I'm not sure.
 
Top