The Quantity of Iron Microsphere at WTC Ground Zero after 9/11

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"How much", or "how many"? AE911 says:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/348...c-dust-reveal-use-of-thermitic-materials.html
The numbers come from:

The 0.2% number:
Metabunk 2018-02-23 17-46-48.jpg

The 1.3% number:
Metabunk 2018-02-23 17-48-29.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
Metabunk 2018-02-23 17-50-13.jpg

But what do these numbers mean in terms of the actual number or weight of iron microspheres, and what can we reasonably compare it against?

Seems to me this measure is frequency or count of spheres.

And you'd need to compare against another steel framed building fire collapse dust to see if they are actually suspicious. The dust in other buildings that did not collapse is mostly stuff like flakes of human skin.
 

Attachments

Oystein

Senior Member
The USGS data is not representing "Fe spheres", it represents the total of the element Fe in all of the dust - regardles of particle shape or chemical species. You'll have everything from metallic iron to oxides to sulfides/sulphates to carbonates to organic Fe-compounds.

Very clearly, the R.J. Lee data is an extreme outlier. Their ca. 6% "iron rich sphers" represent at least 4% Fe - if all the Fe is fully oxidized and the spheres are contaminated with some other stuff.

The RJ Lee samples were collected many months after 9/11, weren't they? Lot's of chances for Fe-spheres to get enriched through various processes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The RJ Lee samples were collected many months after 9/11, weren't they? Lot's of chances for Fe-spheres to get enriched through various processes.
Lee Time Compoarison.jpg

All of the RJ-Lee samples were collected AFTER June 8 2002, all from the Deutsche Bank building (aka Banker's Trust Building) at 130 Liberty street, directly south of WTC2. June 2002 is after the removal of all the steel from the site (using microsphere producing oxy cutting).

(The building was seemingly never reoccupied, and was demolished a few years later)

Reference is made the to the gash, (which they italicize). It's not clear it this means they took all the samples from areas directly exposed to the gash, or if they sampled the entire building.

Here's the gash a few days after looks like lots of dust coating the surface.
Metabunk 2018-02-24 08-35-43.jpg

Metabunk 2018-02-24 08-44-12.jpg


Here is the gash on Sept 21, 2001:
Metabunk 2018-02-24 08-22-13.jpg

Notice here the large piece of WTC2, and also the rip in the steel frame of the building, with one exterior column broken, and several beams ripped and bent.
Metabunk 2018-02-24 08-23-29.jpg

Wider context:
Metabunk 2018-02-24 08-27-41.jpg

Interior view showing damaged beam, dust on lower right:
Metabunk 2018-02-24 08-30-07.jpg


So given that the samples were taken nine months after the event, there's a significant possibility that some of those spheres came from activity after the event, like the removal of steel by cutting and the grinding of edges to make them safe.

In addition, there would have been some localized production of microspheres due to steel-steel and steel-concrete contacts when the gash was created by the falling piece(s) of WTC2.

Here's the gash at a later date. It would be important to determine what it actually looked like on June 8 2002, and if any steel work was going on during the collection period.
Metabunk 2018-02-24 08-39-29.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Have any of the 9/11 Truth activists measured the iron microsphere frequency in the dust samples they obtained?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Have any of the 9/11 Truth activists measured the iron microsphere frequency in the dust samples they obtained?
Not that I know of. Presumably, this would have been an oft-cited result if they ever did that and found significant percentages by weight.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Steven Jones writes:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
His [44] reference mentions neither dust, nor 30,000 tons. It calculates the entire mass of the towers as 500,000 metric tons for both, so 30,000 tons of dust seems unrealistic - but that's probably another topic in itself; the mythology of dustification.
 

Jedo

Member
"How much", or "how many"? AE911 says:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/348...c-dust-reveal-use-of-thermitic-materials.html
The numbers come from:
[…]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
View attachment 31966

But what do these numbers mean in terms of the actual number or weight of iron microspheres, and what can we reasonably compare it against?

Seems to me this measure is frequency or count of spheres.

And you'd need to compare agains another steel framed building fire collapse dust to see if they are actually suspicious. The dust in other buildings that did not collapse is mostly stuff like flakes of human skin.
It is not clear to me what data the table in the RJ Lee report shows. The caption of the table says "Statistical p-values",
nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology_p_table.png
while the heading in the table says "Mean of composition (%)". So it is really not obvious what these numbers mean.

The document provides some information [bold emphasis is mine]:
My take on this is that the numbers are in fact the mean values of composition; they did additionally the statistically analysis, testing for the hypothesis that the variances for the test samples and those of the background buildings are being different, where they got significance in each case. However, they do not show the p-values anywhere. I doubt that the table shows p-values, since they add the values for A and C together at the end. So most probably the caption is an editorial mistake.
 

Jedo

Member
Reference is made the to the gash, (which they italicize). It's not clear it this means they took all the samples from areas directly exposed to the gash, or if they sampled the entire building.
I found another report (attached) by the RJ Lee group that gives more information how they define the gash and the other areas where the samples where collected:

gash.png
 

Attachments

Jedo

Member
Two more things relating to the RJ Lee reports:

I found the sources I've posted before via the Internet Archive, finding this 2006 overview of nyenvirovlaw.org, where a collection of these RJ Lee reports are found.

There is also the report on the sampling of background buildings, and also a presentation of the findings.

I could not find much more information regarding the concentration of iron or iron spheres there besides an occasional mention or image of an iron sphere, though.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Regarding comparisons, the RJ Lee study compares the WTC Dust in the Deutsche Bank gash to dust in untouched nearby buildings.

Metabunk 2018-02-26 07-14-43.jpg

Like most interior dust, the "background loading" is mostly human skin, fragments of paper and clothing fibers, and other organic (carbon based) stuff. The WTC dust is an entirely different thing.

It make no sense to compare the frequency of microspheres against a background level as a multiple. Some of the other dust particles like gypsum (drywall) are not found at all in the background, so have infinitely times as many in the WTC dust.

The entire RJ Lee study is a little over the top. It's an insurance study. They want to show the building is contaminated with asbestos, and that it came from the WTC. Very large insurance claims are vigorously contested, so they needed this excessive study to prove what was essentially obvious.
Metabunk 2018-02-26 06-42-39.jpg
The fire protection has been removed from the large structural beam above the sampling location. There appears to be a tag on the beam. This suggests that engineers were in there before the sampling and did the removal for structural safety inspection. This would contaminate this particular location.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The fire protection has been removed from the large structural beam above the sampling location. There appears to be a tag on the beam. This suggests that engineers were in there before the sampling and did the removal for structural safety inspection. This would contaminate this particular location.
RJ Lee actually removed some fireproofing
http://web.archive.org/web/20060114131053/http://www.nyenvirolaw.org:80/WTC/130 Liberty Street/Mike Davis LMDC 130 Liberty Documents/Contamination in building materials from 9_11/Structural Steel/CR25.Summary.Final.121503.pdf
But tried to minimize additional dust
Metabunk 2018-02-26 07-08-30.jpg

This looks a lot cleaner and neater than the previous one though, so I'd still lean towards structural inspection for that.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The 5.87% figure for Iron Spheres seems especially incongruous when you look at the SEM images of dust.
upload_2018-9-23_9-58-40.png

That seems quite clearly less than 1% of either the number of particles, or the area or particles. There's just one spherical particle, and it's not clear if it's iron.

There's a collection of WTC dust images here:
https://www.sciencesource.com/archive/World-Trade-Center-dust--SEM-SS2498295.html

Example:


There's maybe a few potential spheres in there, but 5% is ludicrous.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps beating a dead horse here, but for completeness I'd like to figure out what is meant by:

In relation to:
Metabunk 2018-09-23 15-16-00.jpg
In the "Analytical Results for Bulk Dust Samples", there's a few times iron has results, example (pdf page 240):
Metabunk 2018-09-23 15-41-41.jpg

I extracted that (four pages, not just that one) to a spreadsheet and cleaned up the Al and Fe columns, and did a scatterplot
Al Fe Scatter.png

The first line there, 20000, is 2%. The vast majority is under 1%, and the average is 0.70% Fe (Iron), and 0.39% Al (Aluminum)

It's not incredibly clear where these samples are from.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
An average of 0.70% for Iron is roughly consistent with the USGS figures. This is probably the most comparable sample, 30th floor of a building 400m south. 1.1% Iron. However this is an "Area Percentage"
Metabunk 2018-09-23 16-41-20.jpg

Here's the ranges:
Metabunk 2018-09-23 16-45-27.jpg

USGS have four spectra for iron. One of which is a "Iron Rich Particle," (which looks like a rust flake) and all of them appear to be iron oxide.


Metabunk 2018-09-23 16-47-07.jpg

Two spheres are shown. I presume this is because they look different, as the one the right has more surface structure, and more contaminants in the spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Top