Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite
- Thread starter Hitstirrer
- Start date
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Yes.
I assume that you mistakenly pressed 'Post Reply' before you had finished.
And you meant to add another paragraph addressing the content of the paper, as requested many times now.
Please do that.
Remember about the snark? Ms. Pileni speaks for me. It was not in a peer reviewed journal. I'm done with this.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Me too. You clearly have no intention of dealing with the content of that paper, and prefer to attack the means that it was delivered.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Can you give some examples?
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Apart from the general hand waving in debunk sites there have been a few amateur laboratory attempts and one or two more professional ones. All fizzled out. The latest serious effort was begun by The James Randi Educational Foundation ( JREF ) who raised funds from their membership to duplicate the nanothermite work and publish a rebuttal and force the withdrawal of Harrit's paper. Rev Chris Mohr put his weight behind the project and hired Dr James Millette, promising great results. In February 2012 Rev Mohr announced that the work was complete and would be published soon in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
As this link shows, that was nealy two years ago and it seems that they have been unable to get it though peer review or find a journal to carry it until that has been done. JREF has now taken a very low profile on this subject and hoping that we will all forget about their failed attempt. A full account of that saga is in this blog.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/millette-chip-study-debunked-and-buried.html
Quite amusing you place so much stock in it not being peer reviewed, when quite clearly your paper was not.
MikeC
Closed Account
No it hasn't. There is no sensible debate that iron microsphere's form from molten iron and are a common and predictable residue from any activity that involves hot iron and friction. Hence their presence at the WTC is neither unexpected nor indicative of anything in particular.
The only "debate" is from people who refuse to accept that this is just simple physics.
So why did you promptly engage in one??
Hitstirrer
Active Member
So once again you infer that the reviewer, who was a 'peer' of the paper writers, wasn't either qualified to review the paper as a peer, or was being less than professional or biased. Peer review isnt anything more than a review by a peer or another person with higher qualifications. To claim that it wasn't peer reviewed and passed by those people is simply wrong. Its a matter of record that a peer review took place. If such peer review raises doubts about the methology or conclusions then the paper cannot be published. As seems to be the case with Dr Millette's paper.
I'm not inferring it. I'm saying it. While he was qualified on paper, he was obviously not qualified either in terms of conflicts of interest, or basic skill level. He thinks that the chemtrail theorists make a reasonable case. And he has some frankly stupid ideas about the Pentagon being hit by a missile from a fighter jet.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
As you say, a very small background content of such spheres is normally present in dust in industrial areas where steelwork such as you describe has occured over years. But that is normally less than 0.5%. Whereas the dust in Manhattan after 9/11 was nearer to 6%. So, saying that it was 'not indicative of anything in particular' goes against RJ Lee's opinion who were very surprised at the % seen. In fact they came to use that as a 'marker' to identify 9/11 dust samples from all others.
Its both the unusual % seen and the fact that it was almost pure iron that is the mystery - not that some microspheres can exist in a city built from steel.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
All three points being the basis for threads elsewhere.
We've got plenty of chemtrail threads. More that enough to demonstrate that his analysis of the chemtrail issue renders him incompetent in the eyes of just about any scientist.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Correct.
Possibly because 200 concrete/steel floors had just slid down a hundred pure steel columns for an eighth of a mile at speeds reaching 120 mph, without any lubrication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A36_steel
That's the structural steel used.
"Almost pure"?External Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel
Yes, almost pure. Then a thought experiment.External Quote:
A heavily-loaded steel surface sliding rapidly down another steel surface, dumping gouts of kinetic energy into heat in the metal, and scattering small intensely-hot fragments of steel, some of which are hot enough to vaporize and burn. They do so, depleting the local oxygen environment, so some of these small condensations of structural steel ("almost pure" iron) become microspheres of "almost pure" iron, in fact, so much so that "they came to use that as a 'marker' to identify 9/11 dust samples from all others".
Unsurprisingly. Friction does that to steel.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
source?
Ah - so that would appear to be the RJ Lee report prepared for the Deutch Bank - available here??
they compared "normal" dust as being from a "normal office" - not an industrial site. they found iron sphere's to comprise about 0.04% of it (table 3 of the reference, page 24)
And they said they were expected byproducts.
(page 5)External Quote:
Microspheres of various substances were ONE of the characteristics of "9/11 dust" compared with normal office dust - the microsphere materials included iron, zinc, lead and silicates.
there were other markers of 9/11 dust - including
Chrysotile asbestos
mineral wool
Gypsum
partially burned or melted plastic
no - neither the volume nor the composition were a mystery in the RJ Lee report.
they make no comment at all about the purity of the iron microspheres that I can see - their comment about iron is this:
(Page 16 - my emphasis added)External Quote:
(page 17)External Quote:
and
(page 19)External Quote:
they compared "normal" dust as being from a "normal office" - not an industrial site. they found iron sphere's to comprise about 0.04% of it (table 3 of the reference, page 24)
the "9/11" dust also had vastly more mineral wool, vermiculite, gypsum, chrysolite, and a lot less "Class C" particles defined as "common building background particles" (page 23)
The report summary states:
Iron doesn't even rate a specific mention - being covered by the reference to "spherical particles"External Quote:
In the report the analysis of the various materials found is always found to be consistent with the makeup of the building and its contents, and the temperatures that were involved.
To put it in simple terms - the dust composition was as expected.
Last edited:
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Melted.
A very large volume of microspheres, estimated as many tons, the result of heat high enough to melt steel.
In fact evidence of molten Molybdenum was found also. Check out the melting temperature of that !
And NIST itself has asserted that there was no possibility of steel melting in fires, fed by office furniture in an open environment.
Jazzy had a theory that :- "Possibly 200 concrete/steel floors had just slid down a hundred pure steel columns for an eighth of a mile at speeds reaching 120 mph, without any lubrication." - causing friction, and generating tons of microspheres that were then distributed equally amongst all the dust over miles of Manhattan. That appears to stem from the pancake theory that was hastily discarded by NIST very early on. They realised that 'sliding down columns' raised a large problem.
I might be able to take this clear evidence of heat high enough to melt steel, if the source of that could be explained to me better.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Friction has always been able to melt and vaporize steel. It always will be able to do so. That isn't a theory, but a physical fact which you shouldn't deny.
I thought I had already demonstrated to you that billions of microspheres can be produced from a cubic centimeter of steel. Items that small are easily distributed by air movement in smoke. An argument from incredulity only works if everyone else agrees that you are aware of the world around you, so I recommend that you should get out more.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
Ever used a grinding wheel? Those sparks coming off are molten or even burning metal - all don by friction. And yet the material you hold usually does not get hot enough to feel (unless it is small or you are grinding for a long time).
Molybdenum is a relatively common alloy element in steel, and yes, molybdenum has a high melting point and moly steels are used for high temperature applications.
However consider how many Moly spherules were found: 1. ONE. (as mentioned in
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction (link is to a 1.3mb download)
Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan,
Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe.)
Where did ONE molybdenum spherule come from? I do not know......but I would require more evidence than someone saying "it must have been thermite because it melted molybdenum" for me to conclude that in deed it must have been thermite - there was a LOT of energy present in that building - and to say that nowhere was the temperature raised enough to melt molybdenum in small amounts, or even that it was not present BEFORE the building was demolished requires evidence - not assertion!
Molybdenum is a relatively common alloy element in steel, and yes, molybdenum has a high melting point and moly steels are used for high temperature applications.
However consider how many Moly spherules were found: 1. ONE. (as mentioned in
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction (link is to a 1.3mb download)
Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan,
Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe.)
Where did ONE molybdenum spherule come from? I do not know......but I would require more evidence than someone saying "it must have been thermite because it melted molybdenum" for me to conclude that in deed it must have been thermite - there was a LOT of energy present in that building - and to say that nowhere was the temperature raised enough to melt molybdenum in small amounts, or even that it was not present BEFORE the building was demolished requires evidence - not assertion!
Hitstirrer
Active Member
So you cling to your friction theory I see. I can see how that would work of course. I can envisage a situation where for instance one steel element is forced against another and sparks fly off. In fact in one of the rare times I left the house ( thank you for that recommendation by the way ) I have experienced being hit by a shower of such sparks from a grinder. They were hot.
But is that what RJ Lee is saying ? They had a chance to explain that steel was seen to be molten from friction, as beams and girders rubbed against each other. But they didn't. They just said 'molten'. Now 'molten' to me means 'molten' and not 'a shower of sparks'.
In any case, doesnt friction require a large difference in speed between the two items interacting with each other ? Items falling together in a chaotic manner under gravity, tend to collide, and fly part, rather than force themselves together long enough to create sufficient heat to melt. Not impossible of course, but unlikely in my opinion.
I just find your' friction' explanation for the very regular distribution of such a high % of iron rich microspheres seen all over Manhattan that day to be highly questionable. Its just one opinion against another of course.
And I therefore seek a better explanation for the molten steel to satisfy my curiosity.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
A grinding wheel ? I have !! The sparks were hot !! And caused by the enormous difference between the speed of the wheel and the item I was forcing against it. Two points there. #1 Massive difference in relative speed and #2 the two items being forced together long enough to create enough frictional heat to achieve the intended result. Can gravity do that when the items said to be causing friction are falling together ? Thats the bit I find hard to accept you see.
And as to one molybdenum microsphere. Yes - just one from about seven small samples from various parts of NY. I find it merely 'interesting' that one was found, because as you say, it may have been there for many years before 2001. And may well have been the only such sphere for hundreds of miles, that just happened to be in the few samples collected. Thats possible of course. I keep buying lottery tickets on that basis.
gerrycan
Active Member
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/003/astm.a36.1997.pdf much better resource for the spec of A36 steel here. There were at least 12 grades of structural steel used in the towers, not just A36.
Jazzy
Closed Account
I knew you would come up with more. Hardly any of them would be high-carbon steels, as you should well know. The point is that low carbon steel is very nearly pure iron, and the microspheres were a natural product of friction between the structural steel surfaces and were found, as to be expected, in an environment which has just experienced three of the hugest collapses of any steel constructions there have ever been.
Now take that "for instance" and use your imagination to "Fermi" calculate the number of such events in a tower collapse. Do the sum.
I just linked you a vid showing just that. There is no particularly high surface speed involved there.
What is a spark?
I just linked you a vid showing just that. There is no particularly high surface speed involved there.
Correct. Well, no, it isn't. It's only correct for free-falling objects colliding with other free-falling objects.
These falling objects were continually meeting non-falling objects and colliding with them. It's when they had to slow or come to a stop there would have been a problem. Did they slow, then come to a stop?
There again, I believe that you believe the hundred plus floors reached ground zero without touching the sides, so-to-speak. Hm.
And never "pancaked" into each other on the way down, even though the bottom of the moving heap was obviously slower than the top. Marvelous.
Isn't it just.
Define "better".
Last edited:
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Any explanation other than your own.
gerrycan
Active Member
You're welcome.
Jazzy, maybe you should look at comminution and try to work it out from there. I can see more heat being generated in a buckling situation that in a collision situation as regards to the towers.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Have you got ANY idea of the forces at play in that video ?
To produce that as evidence that loose steel elements falling together under gravity, and clattering against each other, could melt the places where they touch - as in that video - is ridiculous. I liked the 'musak' in that vid though - quite cool.
Jazzy
Closed Account
I said define "better".
I agree. But we were talking about microspheres.
Yes. They were a damn sight less than those in the towers, which had an equivalent potential energy value, in the steel alone, of 95 tons of TNT.
Then stop thinking it. Instead, read what I have written.
.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Better = having more merit.
Like this nugget of gold ?
Jazzy quote " Possibly because 200 concrete/steel floors had just slid down a hundred pure steel columns for an eighth of a mile at speeds reaching 120 mph, without any lubrication."
Slid down for 1/8th of a mile ? At speeds relative to each other of 120mph differential whilst 'sliding' ? How does that work ? The cores were disappearing at the same rate as the rest of the building. Any 'sliding' discussions were discarded during the pancake theory's demise.
Introducing a video of enormous forces, both rotational and lateral forces, - to support a view that chaotic friction events with elements bouncing around would do the same - is just a poor choice of supporting evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jazzy
Closed Account
That's better.
1/8th mile is 680 feet. How high were the towers? 1360 feet.
"Speeds reaching 120 mph" means speeds reaching 120 mph.
"The cores were disappearing"? How does that work? Friction?
You haven't answered my questions save with evasions. Tell me how the floors "never "pancaked" into each other on the way down, even though the bottom of the moving heap was obviously slower than the top".
You are still not reading my posts sufficiently accurately to give other than misleading answers.
Last edited:
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Its not me saying that - its NIST, who you seem to disagree with. They dropped the pancake idea very early on when it was pointed out to them that there wern't 80+ floors piled on top of each other. And with that theory in shreds it also dispenses with any 120mph sliding down intact columns theory. But if you wish to disagree with the official story, start your own thread in here to be debunked.
I think we can all agree that at some point in the collapse some steel would have been forced against other steel and concrete, creating friction and sparks. Some, but certainly not all iron microspheres would result from this.
So you are arguing about quantity. Hence you need to use some figures, and some math.
But really the bottom line is that there are multiple ways you can get iron microsphere, both pre-existing, from the fire, and from the collapse.
So you are arguing about quantity. Hence you need to use some figures, and some math.
But really the bottom line is that there are multiple ways you can get iron microsphere, both pre-existing, from the fire, and from the collapse.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
I agree entirely.
Your first suggestion about 'pre-existing' is correct. We know that its usually below 0.5%. Almost all of the background particles in this catagory come from grinding, welding, and cutting work, where the sparks hit the ground whilst still very hot and therefore do not form perfect spheres. Under a microscope they are usually irregularly shaped.
Your second catagory of 'fire' opens up a real can of worms about how a fire can melt steel, in an open environment, in the first place. Then such particles need to fall without striking anything as they cool, so that surface tension can pull the molten iron droplets into spheres ( actually slightly pear shaped ).
Your third suggestion, that collapse, and the interaction of steel striking steel, would throw off sparks is also correct. For those sparks to form spheres from this action you would also need them to be falling freely without striking anything as they cooled. Also, as you say above :- "Some, but certainly not all iron microspheres would result from this" -- logically that means that 'fire' must be responsible for the remainder. And that returns to the problem over fire melting steel.
You urge us to do some maths. Without data that isn't possible. If you accept that 'not all' result from collapse, then you have to accept that fire was responsible. But as fire cannot do that we have an impasse. Unless you consider the possibility of a thermetic reaction having a role that is.
But as has been quite clearly demonstrated, fire CAN do it. And other things too.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Hydrocarbon based fire, in an open environment, can melt steel ? I think that you need to provide proof of that claim.
Fire can indeed do a lot of things. It can soften steel and cause deformations and twisting. It can lead to the failure of connections due to thermal expansion. Your claim that fire can produce iron rich microspheres means that you claim that fire can melt steel.
But a hydrocarbon based fire in an open environment cannot melt steel - as you very well know.
And in this thread we are discussing iron rich microspheres resulting from molten steel.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
How long is the edge of a grinding wheel against the metal - a very small fraction of a second - and that is enough to heat VERY SMALL pieces of metal red hot.
And how fast is a grinding wheel rotating? Well you can work that out easily enough - if you have a 6" wheel the circumference is about 20", and if it is rotating at 1000 rpm then that is 20,000 inches per minute. There are about 63,000 inches in a mile, so each 100 rpm is about 1/3 mile per minute - roughly 20 mph.
Feel free to scale up for any given size or speed, or correct my math if wrong!
Of course it does not heat all the metal - it does not even heat every piece of metal dust it removes red how (or white or whatever) - most of them do NOT spark.
So you already know that it does not take very long
and that basis is what? Show me the maths for this uncertainty that you imply please -= because otherwise you are still just asserting stuff.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
OK I get it. You don't want to be serious. Burning flakes of rust and steel wool is the best you can do.
It's all that is needed. There was a lot of rust on the towers - similar to the amount of primer paint.
If you are claiming that this will not account for what was found in combination with other sources), then present some numbers.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
OK. I get the message from you both. Neither of you want to be serious here. Its either steel wool or a debate over probabilities of a lottery and how fast a grinding wheel rotates at. I will leave you to it.
I just replicated the steel wool experiment with a butane lighter, and found that hydrocarbon fire can actually melt steel.
This does not suggest the towers were made of steel wool. It simply demonstrates that small pieces of iron produced by rusting and friction can turn into microspheres at normal fire temperatures.
This does not suggest the towers were made of steel wool. It simply demonstrates that small pieces of iron produced by rusting and friction can turn into microspheres at normal fire temperatures.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
that is just plain insulting - I provided a very rational and evidence based post about the time that it takes for a grinding wheel to heat sparks - something you say you are familiar with, and you think that means that I am not wanting to be serious?
feel free to do [...] then - because I can't be bothered [...] any more.
[...]
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
Thread '"Active Social Engineering Defense" and "Large Scale Social Deception"'- Mick West
Replies: 22