Source of Iron Spherules Revealed to Be...Drumroll Please

[Brainster]

Janette MacKinlay. Who is Janette MacKinlay, you ask? Well, so did I when I saw that she was being given star billing (http://911truthaz.org/911phxconf07/accountability/index.php?page=program_agenda) at the 9-11 Non-Accountability Conference out here in Phoenix in February. I know a ridiculous number of people in this movement by now, but I didn't know Janette and all I could figure was that she was some sort of artist and claimed to be a 9-11 Survivor by virtue of having lived nearby the World Trade Center. She was on the Press Conference Panel that Steven Lemons and I badgered (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/151-proof-troof-my-afternoon-with.html), sitting next to Steven Jones.

But I was reading through Steven Jones' paper (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) today after reading the challenge from Alex Jones' flunkies (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm), and just about swallowed my gum when I read the provenance of Steven Jones' dust samples:

The provenience (sic) of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower the South Tower.

(snip paragraph)

Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag.

Yeah, I put things I have a reverential feel for into plastic bags as well. Mostly Silver Age comic books. ;)

So now we know where Jones got his dust samples.

[CHF]

Still no peer-review of Jones' stunning research.

What on earth could the hold-up be?

[Gravy]

Jones wrote "prevenience?" Was he analyzing the dust or snorting it?

The real question is, how dusty was MacKinley's apartment before 9/11? :D

[Brainster]

Jones wrote "prevenience?" Was he analyzing the dust or snorting it?

The real question is, how dusty was MacKinley's apartment before 9/11? :D

My bad, it was "provenience" in the original. Still misspelled by Jones, but not quite as badly.

[Gravy]

My bad, it was "provenience" in the original. Still misspelled by Jones, but not quite as badly.Not your bad: my typo!

[Foolmewunz]

Not your bad: my typo!

Okay, both of you..... Cut It Out. Don't go admitting to mistakes! How're we ever going to get the Deniers to come over here if you set such ridiculous standards? Hmm?

(Always remember Lyte's and TS's tactic - you can go back and change the original post to make it look like the other guy's wrong. And, if in doubt, PDOH's brother could've typed the offending post.)

[Gravy]

Okay, both of you..... Cut It Out. Don't go admitting to mistakes! How're we ever going to get the Deniers to come over here if you set such ridiculous standards? Hmm?

(Always remember Lyte's and TS's tactic - you can go back and change the original post to make it look like the other guy's wrong. And, if in doubt, PDOH's brother could've typed the offending post.)
Oh, no! I was wrong, but not the first time: Brainster had edited his post to fix the spelling.

We're caught in a vicious circle of getting things right!

(By the way, iron spherules were found in many dust samples. It's what Jones makes of them that's the problem.)

[Travis]

WHAT!?! Iron spherules in the vicinity of a steel mega-structure that had just been impacted, burned then crushed! How astounding!:rolleyes:

As an experiment I just dug a dustball out from under my fridge. I passed a magnet over it and a significant portion stuck to it! I guess that a thermate implosion must have been performed near my house too. That's astounding since I live in a rural area with no steel structures around.

[Architect]

I think it's the fact that they're spherules that's meant to be important, as (apparently) these can only be formed by molten material. But as I know nothing at all about such issues, I don't plan to try and talk about it (unlike the CT lobby).

[The Doc]

Nice research Brainster. Your drum roll was well deserved:

http://pec.jun.alaska.edu/webanimation/pages/audio/sounds/Music_Drums/DrumRoll.aif

[boloboffin]

Okay, I'm reading the Jones paper. The woman's apartment is about 100 meters from the South Tower. During the collapse of the South Tower, the windows broke (two windows, holes 2' x 3'), and dust entered. A week later, she comes in, starts to clean up, and saves some of the dust as a sample.

Never mind how she collected it, which is a legit question. Perhaps she was really careful and used a sterile plastic bag and whatnot.

The windows were broken for a week by the South Tower. Then the North Tower fell (more dust). Then 7 fell (more dust).

And then fires burned at the Pile, sending smoke and god knows what else into the air, for an entire week before the lady gets back to her house and starts cleaning up and collecting this dust.

So, my question is, could the iron have gotten there from the smoke off the Pile? The largest one Jones has is 0.012 g, btw.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think it's the fact that they're spherules that's meant to be important, as (apparently) these can only be formed by molten material. But as I know nothing at all about such issues, I don't plan to try and talk about it (unlike the CT lobby).
my biggest question is can we be sure they were formed on 9/11 and not just scattered?

[The Doc]

my biggest question is can we be sure they were formed on 9/11 and not just scattered?

And also, could they have been formed after 9/11. Oxyacetylene torches melt steel, and there were hundreds of the things in operation in the days following 9/11.

[ref]

So all this evidence of thermite use comes down to a one single woman, who collected some dust from her apartment and saved it (for whatever reason). The windows were broken for a long time. This is their strongest evidence? This is what they base there "peer reviewed" studies on? And they don't seem to suspect her credibility at all, after all, she in her own words had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling to preserve some of it. They don't seem to acknowledge any other explanation than their pre-determined conclusion of thermite use.

[kookbreaker]

What kind of artist was Janette MacKinlay? This article by her is not clear:

http://www.theneedtoremember.com/artist.html

But it does say that her loftmate is a sculptor.

Sculptors are definately a source of contamination by little iron spheres.

[Brainster]

What kind of artist was Janette MacKinlay? This article by her is not clear:

http://www.theneedtoremember.com/artist.html

But it does say that her loftmate is a sculptor.

Sculptors are definately a source of contamination by little iron spheres.

Indeed, reading between the lines it's not hard to see that MacKinlay is the source for Jones' steel from the WTC as well; I suspect that her loftmate created one or more of the memorial sculptures.

[ref]

She is a harcore truther. In this video she says, that after The Commission report came out, she was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. She also talks about Bin Laden not being even wanted on the FBI site and all the truther stuff, including air defence truther claims.

So, this woman, who has believed in this truther lie since 2004, all of a sudden approaches a truther professor examining the collapse in late 2005 and gives him the evidence he needs. How convenient once again.

Here is the video of her talking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2912791646250753577&q=lifting+the+fog

[scissorhands]

Has anyone done any analysis on the residue from angle grinders cutting steel rather than just cutting torchs? The sparks that fly during the grinding will be molten and very numerous.
These tools would be commonly used by sculptors.

[Apollo20]

Steven Jones is not the first and only person to find iron spherules in WTC dust samples.

Each of the references below specifically mentions the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”


1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)

2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)

3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.

4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).

The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.

[Disbelief]

Apollo, I don't think anyone is arguing against the iron spherules at GZ, as has been discussed in other threads. However, it is telling that the source of Jones' evidence is someone who speaks in terms of spiritual and reverential when it comes to this evidence.

[kookbreaker]

Its probably easier to link to the USGS report:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#toc

and

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

Is there any further evidence beyond these two spheres?

[chipmunk stew]

What kind of artist was Janette MacKinlay? This article by her is not clear:

http://www.theneedtoremember.com/artist.html

But it does say that her loftmate is a sculptor.

Sculptors are definately a source of contamination by little iron spheres.
She's this kind (http://www.theneedtoremember.com/gallery_prints.html) of artist.
And she wrote a book (PDF! (http://www.theneedtoremember.com/images/books/FORTUNATElowres.pdf)). You can see some pictures of her dusty apartment in the book.

[T.A.M.]

Not that there was much credibility to start with, but the horrible method in which the scientific samples were obtained, as well as the delay, the likely lack of proper procedure, etc, makes the risk of contamination very high, and hence the samples used, from a scientific evidence point of view...useless.

TAM:)

[ref]

That book Chipmunk linked says, that it was 9 days after the attacks, until they first time went back to their apartment.

We headed back to our place on Thursday, September 20th, nine
days after the attack.

[e^n]

Incidentally, how much magnesium goes into a 757? I've heard the claims from Jones too many times that 'we poured hot aluminium onto rusty iron and got no reaction' but magnesium is a high strength low weight element that burns hot enough to ignite thermite and will ignite in a regular fire.

[Mercutio]

I am so ignorant I don't even know where to look for an answer to this, but is it possible that some spherule-deallies could be the result of the cutting torches used during search & rescue and cleanup?

I do not intend to put this out as an explanation--I am truthfully ignorant on this topic, and am curious whether others here might know.

[R.Mackey]

We had a discussion on this earlier. Cleanup is one potential source of the spherules. Another is that they're left over from construction.

There are other processes in fires that seem to produce spherules at much lower than melting temperatures. I'll go look for that paper.

It's also possible that much higher temperatures existed at localized places due to other phenomenology, such as the friction of collapse, and (my preferred speculative theory) abrasive fluid action at impact.

What we really need is an estimate of just how many spherules there are. If it's a tiny amount, the above mechanisms are completely credible. But if we're talking hundreds of tons, then there's something more interesting going on. So far I've found no quantification at all.

What's critical for me is that, besides the spherules, there is no sign whatsoever of melting temperatures -- no partially melted members, no puddles of iron slag, etc. This suggests to me that whatever created the spherules was either colder, or very small in effect.

ETA: See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498616#post2498616) for a more credible study of the spherules. I still don't understand the mechanism, but it appears to be normal.

[Mercutio]

What's critical for me is that, besides the spherules, there is no sign whatsoever of melting temperatures -- no partially melted members, no puddles of iron slag, etc. This suggests to me that whatever created the spherules was either colder, or very small in effect.

Or, as you suggest, separate from the collapse. If welding and cutting create these deallies, one would expect a certain amount of them present as leftovers from construction (unless they oxidize completely over that time period) or cleanup.

I suppose that fits under "very small in effect", now that I think about it.

[Kent1]

We had a discussion on this earlier. Cleanup is one potential source of the spherules. Another is that they're left over from construction.

There are other processes in fires that seem to produce spherules at much lower than melting temperatures. I'll go look for that paper.

It's also possible that much higher temperatures existed at localized places due to other phenomenology, such as the friction of collapse, and (my preferred speculative theory) abrasive fluid action at impact.

What we really need is an estimate of just how many spherules there are. If it's a tiny amount, the above mechanisms are completely credible. But if we're talking hundreds of tons, then there's something more interesting going on. So far I've found no quantification at all.

What's critical for me is that, besides the spherules, there is no sign whatsoever of melting temperatures -- no partially melted members, no puddles of iron slag, etc. This suggests to me that whatever created the spherules was either colder, or very small in effect.

ETA: See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498616#post2498616) for a more credible study of the spherules.

I agree. I suspect it could be from multiple different things.
The collapse could be part of it by the friction and scraping.

Sulfer can lower the melting point, (Within the gyp. wallboard and various fuels.) Although Jones claims that there is little calcium within his sample.

And finally just heat. I think a lot of people need to realize is that a normal fire can melt steel. As ATS lab tests have shown, steel does NOT need to reach 1500C to melt.
"One of the wire ends exhibited a ferrite microstructure with oxidation on the top surface and incipient melting at the grain boundaries. This particular wire end had attained temperatures of between 2100°F [1148 °C] and 2200°F [1204 °C]. This wire end had, in fact, just begun to melt, which is what we would expect if there was melting further down the wire."

http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
I'm not sure what to believe when hearing about the large pools. However contrary to what Jones may say, claims of molten/melted steel during house fires are not that uncommon. That doesn't mean of cource that it was melted steel.

[R.Mackey]

Yup. Another point is that the source of the spherules may not have been structural steel. It may have been something else, either a more chemically favorable form of iron (e.g. sulphidized) or packed close to a local heat source. Say the housing of a UPS that arced and cooked off chemically...

Many possibilities. Interesting topic, but so far I doubt it figures structurally.

[kookbreaker]

Seriously, could the reaction that made these things be little more than the equivelant of an ignition mechanism of a flintlock musket?

[Kent1]

Yup. Another point is that the source of the spherules may not have been structural steel. It may have been something else, either a more chemically favorable form of iron (e.g. sulphidized) or packed close to a local heat source. Say the housing of a UPS that arced and cooked off chemically...

Many possibilities. Interesting topic, but so far I doubt it figures structurally.
Also the report itself certainly does NOT help their case. As the writer stated, they were to be expected.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=iron+spheres+WTC&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2520Liberty%2520Street/Mike%2520Davis%2520LMDC%2520130%2520Liberty%2520Do cuments/Signature%2520of%2520WTC%2520dust/WTC%2520Dust%2520Signature.Composition%2520and%252 0Morphology.Final.pdf&w=iron+spheres+sphere+wtc&d=J_mdLvmdOeY8&icp=1&.intl=us

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials


Or here also under 2.3.5:
In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.

It's simply NOT the mystery Jones claims it is within the earlier reports.

[scissorhands]

Heres a nice photo of an iron spherule(http://tinyurl.com/2aztv8)
Its virtually identical to http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/IRON-04-IMAGE.TIF
Apparently industrial particulate matter has mostly spherical forms and may be recognized by their crystallized surfaces.

[chipmunk stew]

Heres a nice photo of an iron spherule(http://tinyurl.com/2aztv8)
Its virtually identical to http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/IRON-04-IMAGE.TIF
and is apparently a common form found in airborne particulate matter in urban areas and industrial sites.
Interesting. What is your source for that last statement--the commonality of this type of particle?

[scissorhands]

On the page itself.
I had best edit that statement as its not clear on second reading.

"Industrial PM has mostly spherical forms and may be recognized by their crystallized surfaces."

[Aggs]

She is a harcore truther. In this video she says, that after The Commission report came out, she was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. She also talks about Bin Laden not being even wanted on the FBI site and all the truther stuff, including air defence truther claims.

So, this woman, who has believed in this truther lie since 2004, all of a sudden approaches a truther professor examining the collapse in late 2005 and gives him the evidence he needs. How convenient once again.

Here is the video of her talking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2912791646250753577&q=lifting+the+fog


"The fine print on Bin Laden is the fact that he's not even wanted on the FBI web site. The FBI web site says there is like no information."

Ah yup...

[pgwenthold]

Also the report itself certainly does NOT help their case. As the writer stated, they were to be expected.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=iron+spheres+WTC&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2520Liberty%2520Street/Mike%2520Davis%2520LMDC%2520130%2520Liberty%2520Do cuments/Signature%2520of%2520WTC%2520dust/WTC%2520Dust%2520Signature.Composition%2520and%252 0Morphology.Final.pdf&w=iron+spheres+sphere+wtc&d=J_mdLvmdOeY8&icp=1&.intl=us

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials


Or here also under 2.3.5:
In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.

It's simply NOT the mystery Jones claims it is within the earlier reports.


This is something that bothers me massively about Jones as a scientist: his lack of control. No, I don't mean he is a wild man, but he makes conclusions based on things present in an analysis without considering what is background.

In this case, just like in the thermite crap, he is taking

If A then B

and trying to turn it into

If B then A

IOW, IF was thermite, then you will detect barium. However, that doesn't mean that if you detect barium, then it was thermite.

Similarly, IF it was caused by explosives, then you should detect steel spherules. However, that does not mean IF you detect steel spherules, then it was caused by explosives.

If A then B does not mean IF B then A

[Aggs]

The real question is, how dusty was MacKinley's apartment before 9/11? :D

It's funny you ask that, because in this previously posted link (http://www.theneedtoremember.com/artist.html), she makes it a point to say:

"Jim was capturing the event with his digital camera as I prepared to evacuate by organizing important papers and possessions. After completing that task, I cleaned the apt. so when we returned everything would be in perfect condition. My last task was to change the water in my flower arrangements and freshen them up."

Not trying to attacker her, but seriously, is this what you do after you decide you're going to evacuate your home? Or is this an attempt to show that the dust evidence was not contaminated?

[boloboffin]

It's funny you ask that, because in this previously posted link (http://www.theneedtoremember.com/artist.html), she makes it a point to say:

"Jim was capturing the event with his digital camera as I prepared to evacuate by organizing important papers and possessions. After completing that task, I cleaned the apt. so when we returned everything would be in perfect condition. My last task was to change the water in my flower arrangements and freshen them up."

Not trying to attacker her, but seriously, is this what you do after you decide you're going to evacuate your home? Or is this an attempt to show that the dust evidence was not contaminated?

People are strange. I know that if I've got the opportunity to straighten up before a long journey, it gives a sense of peace. And if she's a clean person by nature, cleaning could have been a few, quick tasks.

So, it's both.

[Brainster]

Regarding the boyfriend, I found this (http://www.nationalartsclub.org/exhibition/entries/35.htm). So it appears (assuming the name is not a coincidence) that he has done some work with metals, although I found more paintings by him than anything else. He does appear to be a quite serious artist. Looks like they've been milking 9-11 for quite awhile; here's an SF arts listing (http://www.sfbg.com/36/23/x_list_art.html) from May 2002:

Atelier of Famous Melissa and Co.! 545 Sutter; 788-1866. Tues-Sat, noon-6pm. "But for the Grace of God," an exhibition by Janette MacKinlay and Jim Lecce featuring personal photographs documenting the events at the World Trade Center on Sept 11, recovered artwork, and ikebana arrangements (reception Thurs/7, 6:30-8:30pm). Through March 30.

Ah, here's a low-res version of her book (http://www.theneedtoremember.com/images/books/FORTUNATElowres.pdf).

She mentions he's a sculptor in that book. She also does mention tidying up, but the only specific items she mentions are doing the dishes and watering the plants.

And yes, he's a 9-11 kook as well (http://www.justicefor911.org/signatures.php?page=44).

[Apollo20]

Auger electron analysis with argon-ion sputtering of the first micron layer (or so) would tell you what those spheres were really made of.

Most of Jones' data looks like surface contamination.

[Rahne Everson]

Regarding the boyfriend, I found this (http://www.nationalartsclub.org/exhibition/entries/35.htm). So it appears (assuming the name is not a coincidence) that he has done some work with metals, although I found more paintings by him than anything else.

Stuff like this? (http://chelseaartgalleries.com/artists/J/James+Lecce.html) If it's the same guy, I think he should stick to sculpting.

[T.A.M.]

The problem I have with Jone's approach is his failure to address all the other possibilities for his results. The very thing he and others accuse NIST of, they are guilty of themselves. He does not address contamination, perhaps out of embarrassment that he did not try to get rid of such in the first place. He down plays any other possibilities for his results, when and if he addresses them at all.

TAM:)

[pgwenthold]

The problem I have with Jone's approach is his failure to address all the other possibilities for his results. The very thing he and others accuse NIST of, they are guilty of themselves. He does not address contamination, perhaps out of embarrassment that he did not try to get rid of such in the first place. He down plays any other possibilities for his results, when and if he addresses them at all.




That's what I called the "lack of control." He finds the components, but does look to a control sample to see if any of these types of things are present in them, too (iow, see if there are other possible origins)

He is taking IF A THEN B and making it IF B THEN A.

You can't, however, do this because you are ignoring

IF C THEN B
IF D THEN B
IF E THEN B
etc

Actually, there is another issue that he runs into, in that he never even establishes IF A THEN B

What is the composition of the dust of a building destroyed by thermite(ate)? A real forensic analysis would have that information. Forensic science is a legitimate, empirical field, and doesn't just go about asserting that "if this happens, then you will see X"

[T.A.M.]

to find such a control sample would be near impossible, as we all know thermite is rarely, if ever, used to bring buildings down in standard demolition....

TAM:)

[pgwenthold]

to find such a control sample would be near impossible, as we all know thermite is rarely, if ever, used to bring buildings down in standard demolition....


Exactly. Therefore, how can he say that the chemical composition he found corresponds to that for a thermite/ate demolition? Without a standard, that claim is unwarranted.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What is the coolest temp they could have formed, would anyone guess it could be 99f?

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/F1060.htm

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw:

Now you go confusing everyone with a little chemistry............

[rwguinn]

Chainsaw:

Now you go confusing everyone with a little chemistry............

and in front of the children, too!:D

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chainsaw:

Now you go confusing everyone with a little chemistry............

Just could not help myself on this one.

[T.A.M.]

My understanding of chemistry is fine, thank you very much...

Jeez, all of a sudden it seems to have gotten a little academic elitist in here.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Academic elitist?

How about this:

"The trouble with chemistry is that it is too difficult for chemists."

Albert Einstein

[T.A.M.]

Apollo...

my comment, as I am assuming yours was, was more tongue in cheek that serious. The comments made it sound like ye "Big important Scientists" were throwing in details us simpletons might get confused by. I personally am confused only when the chemistry gets into detail Physical Chemistry analysis, as my Chem background is essentially Biochemistry.

TAM:)

[Hellbound]

It's not rocket science, people.

Although it does, admittedly, have applications in that realm...

:D

[Apollo20]

Source of Iron Spherules Revealed to Be...

Whatever you want it to be:

If you are a JREFer you want it to be, construction debris/clean-up debris....

If you are a Truther you want it to be thermite/thermate residues....

Other possibilities include:

Floor-pan melting from chemically-enhanced (Cl2/HCl, NOx, SO2, H2/CO) combustion.

Wear debris. This is of two types: asperity melting (observed in new diesel engines, for example) and rolling contact fatigue (observed in railway wheels/tracks....)

However, metal flakes are usually associated with the latter.

[rwguinn]

Source of Iron Spherules Revealed to Be...

Whatever you want it to be:

If you are a JREFer you want it to be, construction debris/clean-up debris....

If you are a Truther you want it to be thermite/thermate residues....

Other possibilities include:

Floor-pan melting from chemically-enhanced (Cl2/HCl, NOx, SO2, H2/CO) combustion.

Wear debris. This is of two types: asperity melting (observed in new diesel engines, for example) and rolling contact fatigue (observed in railway wheels/tracks....)

However, metal flakes are usually associated with the latter.
This comment otherwise intentionally left blank

[LashL]

Source of Iron Spherules Revealed to Be...

Whatever you want it to be:

If you are a JREFer you want it to be, construction debris/clean-up debris....

If you are a Truther you want it to be thermite/thermate residues....

Other possibilities include:

Floor-pan melting from chemically-enhanced (Cl2/HCl, NOx, SO2, H2/CO) combustion.

Wear debris. This is of two types: asperity melting (observed in new diesel engines, for example) and rolling contact fatigue (observed in railway wheels/tracks....)

However, metal flakes are usually associated with the latter.

I disagree with part of your post there, Apollo.

If you are a JREF skeptic, you do not "want it to be construction debris/clean-up debris...." at all.

If you are a JREF skeptic, you want those who introduce the subject matter and claim that it is of significance to the collapse of the towers, to offer facts and evidence to support their assertions rather than offering only speculation, innuendo, and vague insinuations.

If you are a JREF skeptic, you will then give the facts and evidence proffered due consideration, and those among the JREF skeptics with the requisite skills, knowledge, experience, and/or expertise on the subject matter will be able to respond meaningfully to the facts and evidence proffered.

P.S. Welcome back. I trust that you and your family enjoyed the vacation :)

[Kent1]

Source of Iron Spherules Revealed to Be...

Whatever you want it to be:

If you are a JREFer you want it to be, construction debris/clean-up debris....

If you are a Truther you want it to be thermite/thermate residues....

Other possibilities include:

Floor-pan melting from chemically-enhanced (Cl2/HCl, NOx, SO2, H2/CO) combustion.

Wear debris. This is of two types: asperity melting (observed in new diesel engines, for example) and rolling contact fatigue (observed in railway wheels/tracks....)

However, metal flakes are usually associated with the latter.

Or maybe Erin Sullivan's report might be able to shed some more light on molten metal.

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html#evolution

To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants.

Either way Frank, there are plenty of possibilities within the event to create molten steel that doesn't involve thermite or clean up.

[Apollo20]

LashL:

Perhaps I should have said "believe", instead of "want"

And LashL, the spheres ARE the evidence!

And I am still waiting for "those among the JREF skeptics with the requisite skills, knowledge, experience, and/or expertise on the subject matter."

Namely: chemistry and/or metallurgy!

Any suggestions who might step up to bat on those topics?

Kent1:

"A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C "

This is very interesting and resembles the LME process I have been suggesting, (See J. Mat Sci 14, 1 (1979) or the book, Embrittlement by Liquid and Solid Metals edited by M.H. Kamdar, ISBN: 0-79520-467-3, (1984)). However, the use of powdered FeS is questionable. First you need to make significant amounts of FeS. SO2 attack is a possibility, but is the reaction fast enough?

[capracus]

Apollo20, what do you think about frictional processes as a source?

[T.A.M.]

LashL:

Perhaps I should have said "believe", instead of "want"

And LashL, the spheres ARE the evidence!

And I am still waiting for "those among the JREF skeptics with the requisite skills, knowledge, experience, and/or expertise on the subject matter."

Namely: chemistry and/or metallurgy!

Any suggestions who might step up to bat on those topics?

Kent1:

"A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C "

This is very interesting and resembles the LME process I have been suggesting, (See J. Mat Sci 14, 1 (1979) or the book, Embrittlement by Liquid and Solid Metals edited by M.H. Kamdar, ISBN: 0-79520-467-3, (1984)). However, the use of powdered FeS is questionable. First you need to make significant amounts of FeS. SO2 attack is a possibility, but is the reaction fast enough?


Apollo, wrt Chemistry and Metallurgy, you may be the resident JREF expert. I shall have to check the list, but I am not sure we have a chemist or metallurgist...I will check.

As for the believe/want issue, my opinion is that the official story has the vast majority of evidence behind it, and is the accepted account of what happened that day. As a result, if some entity or variable, such as Iron Spherules, is to be brought into the arguement/discussion as evidence for Thermite/Thermate/CD, than it is up to those proposing it as such to PROVE it. Otherwise, if I can find a reason for the spherules that fits with the ACCEPTED theory, than I will. If the Iron Spherules are brought in as a scientific curiosity, than fine, treat it as such. This beating around the bush on the SIGNIFICANCE of the iron spherules is becoming a bit tiresome. Are we saying they are good evidence of thermite/thermate/CD, or that they are merely an oddity, albeit a curious one.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

duplicate....arrrgghhhh

[T.A.M.]

Retrograde:
1. BSc - Chemistry

Phantomwolf:
1. BSc - Chemistry/Comp Sci.

John Blonn:
1. BA (cum laude) in Chemistry
2. Working on PhD in Science and Technology Studies

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

TAM:

"This beating around the bush on the SIGNIFICANCE of the iron spherules is becoming a bit tiresome."

I am sorry you don't see the significance of the iron spheres, I thought it was sort of obvious! The significance is that they indicate the presence of MOLTEN iron/steel which, according to NIST, should not have been present in the Twin Towers during or after the collapse.

Of course, you can dismiss them if you want....

Ironicall, some try to tell me that molten iron/steel was "to be expected" in the WTC fires - see the reports on the WTC dust by one of LashL's "experts" R. J. Lee. But even R. J. Lee avoids telling us WHY molten iron/steel is to be expected in a jet-fuelled fire.

Capracus:

Friction is a possible source of some metallic spheres (see papers in the journal WEAR and also in the Proceedings of the Insts. of Mech Engrs. Parts F and J), but I don't believe this could account for more than a small fraction of the spheres. Also, this type of wear particle tends to be less than 5 microns in diameter. Spherical, iron-rich particles appear to be really quite abundant at the WTC (see R. J. Lee's papers on WTC dust, for example).

[Kent1]

LashL:

Perhaps I should have said "believe", instead of "want"

And LashL, the spheres ARE the evidence!

And I am still waiting for "those among the JREF skeptics with the requisite skills, knowledge, experience, and/or expertise on the subject matter."

Namely: chemistry and/or metallurgy!

Any suggestions who might step up to bat on those topics?

Kent1:

"A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C "

This is very interesting and resembles the LME process I have been suggesting, (See J. Mat Sci 14, 1 (1979) or the book, Embrittlement by Liquid and Solid Metals edited by M.H. Kamdar, ISBN: 0-79520-467-3, (1984)). However, the use of powdered FeS is questionable. First you need to make significant amounts of FeS. SO2 attack is a possibility, but is the reaction fast enough?
I don't have the full transcript of the studies. Hopefully we'll fix that soon. However as I've stated previously we can look at other studies that show steel melting with ordinary fuels and a little plastic.
I thought this link also has some interesting information.
http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.3

I'm no expert but I've talked to a few. Did you ever read some of my interview with Stephen D. Chastain regarding the yellow molten metal flowing out of the towers? He also posted some information at his site.
http://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm

[rwguinn]

TAM:

"This beating around the bush on the SIGNIFICANCE of the iron spherules is becoming a bit tiresome."

I am sorry you don't see the significance of the iron spheres, I thought it was sort of obvious! The significance is that they indicate the presence of MOLTEN iron/steel which, according to NIST, should not have been present in the Twin Towers during or after the collapse.

Of course, you can dismiss them if you want....

Ironicall, some try to tell me that molten iron/steel was "to be expected" in the WTC fires - see the reports on the WTC dust by one of LashL's "experts" R. J. Lee. But even R. J. Lee avoids telling us WHY molten iron/steel is to be expected in a jet-fuelled fire.

Capracus:

Friction is a possible source of some metallic spheres (see papers in the journal WEAR and also in the Proceedings of the Insts. of Mech Engrs. Parts F and J), but I don't believe this could account for more than a small fraction of the spheres. Also, this type of wear particle tends to be less than 5 microns in diameter. Spherical, iron-rich particles appear to be really quite abundant at the WTC (see R. J. Lee's papers on WTC dust, for example).
How about a link?
I for one would not be surprised at the abundance, since all samples appear to have been take after clean-up began. The use of cutting torches, saws, grinders, etc contribute to the situation.
Additionally, no discrimination is made between dust laid down by the collapse, and previously present particulates--the normal city grit laid down by traffic incidents, continual construction, welding, and other processes that go on in one of the world's largest and busiest cities.
Unless there is something specifically unique about these spheres, I suggest you be a lot less cryptic and inform us as to what you are getting at. If there is something unique and specific relating these spheres to the WTC collapses, then let us in on the secret.
I personally believe Dr. G wants the spheres to be the result of a process so prevelant that absolutely nobody in the construction business has ever head of it occurring-so prevalent that he can't even describe it himself, much less pose a mechanism by which it can occur.

ETA. And please do not ignore the fact that bending and rupturing of steel generates a tremendous amount of heat. Just ask anyone who has repeatedly bent a wite coat hanger. This energy along with the grinding of steel-on-steel and steel-on-concrete during collapse is another potential source of the "spheres"

[3bodyproblem]

I am sorry you don't see the significance of the iron spheres, I thought it was sort of obvious! The significance is that they indicate the presence of MOLTEN iron/steel which, according to NIST, should not have been present in the Twin Towers during or after the collapse.


I suppose NIST meant that on the microscopic level? Well i'd be willing to bet that we can find a molecule of water in the WTC that was definitely part of Albert Einstein at one point or another, so lets blame it on him.

[rwguinn]

I suppose NIST meant that on the microscopic level? Well i'd be willing to bet that we can find a molecule of water in the WTC that was definitely part of Albert Einstein at one point or another, so lets blame it on him.
Well, you know--welding, riveting, grinding--all those are cold, clean process which never, ever, leave any residue...

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by Apollo20
I am sorry you don't see the significance of the iron spheres, I thought it was sort of obvious! The significance is that they indicate the presence of MOLTEN iron/steel which, according to NIST, should not have been present in the Twin Towers during or after the collapse.

I suppose NIST meant that on the microscopic level? Well i'd be willing to bet that we can find a molecule of water in the WTC that was definitely part of Albert Einstein at one point or another, so lets blame it on him.

Frank is incorrect. I explained this before. NIST even says
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[3bodyproblem]

Well, you know--welding, riveting, grinding--all those are cold, clean process which never, ever, leave any residue...

lol, and i was giving my guys 15 minutes at the end of shift for clean up! heads are gonna roll!

[rwguinn]

lol, and i was giving my guys 15 minutes at the end of shift for clean up! heads are gonna roll!

That's just enough time to commence thinking about begining to power down...

[3bodyproblem]

That's just enough time to commence thinking about begining to power down...

"Cords rolled up, tools in the crib, Hey! who left all these iron spherules all over the place!?"

[scissorhands]

Originally Posted by Apollo20
I am sorry you don't see the significance of the iron spheres, I thought it was sort of obvious! The significance is that they indicate the presence of MOLTEN iron/steel which, according to NIST, should not have been present in the Twin Towers during or after the collapse.

They would only be significant if the collection of the samples had been done in any kind of accepted forensic manner, that would also involve samples taken prior to the collapse and throughout the neighbouring areas in order to show some kind of statistical anomaly.
There is more than enough speculation and bad science surrounding this topic without adding to it.

[rwguinn]

They would only be significant if the collection of the samples had been done in any kind of accepted forensic manner, that would also involve samples taken prior to the collapse and throughout the neighbouring areas in order to show some kind of statistical anomaly.
There is more than enough speculation and bad science surrounding this topic without adding to it.:bigclap

[Kent1]

Speaking of clean up, do we have a date when steel cutters first came in?

[rwguinn]

Speaking of clean up, do we have a date when steel cutters first came in?
Gravy! 'lil hep here?

[rwguinn]

"Cords rolled up, tools in the crib, Hey! who left all these iron spherules all over the place!?"

Don't tell me you left the Argon bottle turned on?

ETA: In case you'r wondering, it is Raining in Aledo (and the rest of North Texas), so I might as well harass everybody here today...

[3bodyproblem]

Speaking of clean up, do we have a date when steel cutters first came in?

I'm going to hazard a guess and go with on scene before the tower collapsed. My local fire department carries oxy as well as the "Jaws of Life". (please don't ask how i know this, it involves a rather disturbed neighbour, alcohol, a new insurance policy 2 weeks prior, and a fire localized to a pile of computer and audio equipment in the center of the room)

[rwguinn]

Speaking of clean up, do we have a date when steel cutters first came in?

While we're waiting--and looking--I would imagine (that is a hopeful belief, based on no data, for the twoofers) that it was pretty da$n quick. There were People down in that rubble, and there was some urgency about getting them out.

[LashL]

They would only be significant if the collection of the samples had been done in any kind of accepted forensic manner, that would also involve samples taken prior to the collapse and throughout the neighbouring areas in order to show some kind of statistical anomaly.
There is more than enough speculation and bad science surrounding this topic without adding to it.

Indeed.

[Apollo20]

Well, I suggest you doubting Thomases do some reading about sampling at the WTC...

And check out the discussions of WTC dust signatures and the fact that iron spherules were high on the list of candidate particles.

Do I have to do ALL the digging?

[LashL]

Well, I suggest you doubting Thomases do some reading about sampling at the WTC...

And check out the discussions of WTC dust signatures and the fact that iron spherules were high on the list of candidate particles.

Do I have to do ALL the digging?

If you are making a claim that the presence of the spherules is somehow significant, then yes, you are required to state your case with facts and evidence.

What are you waiting for?

[Kent1]

Well, I suggest you doubting Thomases do some reading about sampling at the WTC...

And check out the discussions of WTC dust signatures and the fact that iron spherules were high on the list of candidate particles.

Do I have to do ALL the digging?

What are we doubting here, other than goofy claims of thermite from terrible researcher named Steven Jones?

[Apollo20]

I HAVE made my case. Go back and look at my posts over the past two or three months and my year's worth of posts at Physorg.

It's not my problem people can't be bothered to do some background research of their own.

And besides, since there is a paucity of chemists in the room, I don't have the time or inclination to go over all the minutia..... again and again.

As for links, Science Libraries beat out on googlescience any day....

McMaster University has a very excellent science library, but I can't link to every one of the hundreds of journal articles I have seen that are relevant to this discussion.

But I will ask the doubters:

Who believes iron/steel melted (in significant quantities) in the WTC:

Pre-collapse or post collapse.

Oh, and by the way, NIST's statement that melting of steel in the rubble pile was "conceivable", is hardly scientific now it is?

Don't you think NIST is being a little CRYPTIC here?

[rwguinn]

Well, I suggest you doubting Thomases do some reading about sampling at the WTC...

And check out the discussions of WTC dust signatures and the fact that iron spherules were high on the list of candidate particles.

Do I have to do ALL the digging?
If you have a point to make, please make it. You have 176 posts thus far, and all we have seen is equivication, vague comments, cryptic statements, and temper tantrums.
I would also like to see a statement of your structural design and analysis background.
Most of us who do have such a background have a reasonable grounding in chemistry, plus a lot of practical experience in how things work. We have the knowledge and intellegence understand your points, if you actually had made any.

[Apollo20]

RWGUINN:

Well, may I suggest that you should at least learn to spell INTELLIGENCE before you claim to have it!


And may I suggest you re-read your membership agreement regarding civility? Not to mention the sticky at the top of this sub-forum regarding the more stringent rule interpretations currently being applied?

I believe I may!

Re-read the agreement, please - attack the argument, not the person.

[rwguinn]

I HAVE made my case. Go back and look at my posts over the past two or three months and my year's worth of posts at Physorg.
No, you have not. see my previous post

It's not my problem people can't be bothered to do some background research of their own.
If we knew what point you're trying to make, we could do so

And besides, since there is a paucity of chemists in the room, I don't have the time or inclination to go over all the minutia..... again and again.

Once would help.
As for links, Science Libraries beat out on googlescience any day....

McMaster University has a very excellent science library, but I can't link to every one of the hundreds of journal articles I have seen that are relevant to this discussion.
How about one? Most of us work for a living. University libraries require a special trip. If we knew what you were getting at, it would help

But I will ask the doubters:

Who believes iron/steel melted (in significant quantities) in the WTC:

Pre-collapse or post collapse.

where has anybody outside the twoofers said that?

Oh, and by the way, NIST's statement that melting of steel in the rubble pile was "conceivable", is hardly scientific now it is?

Don't you think NIST is being a little CRYPTIC here?
Obviously, it is conceivable--twoofers do it all the time. But in this case,
conceivable means that it is possible, although improbable. Steel will run in ordinary house fires--there are enough links in this subforum to that. An office fire, initiated by Jet-A, and fed by all the accumulated normal supplies, equipment, and fixtures? Da$n near anything is possible.

[LashL]

I HAVE made my case. Go back and look at my posts over the past two or three months and my year's worth of posts at Physorg.

No, you have not made a case for anything. You have not even set out a hypothesis.

No, I am not going to go and look at your "year's worth of posts at Physorg." If you have something to say here, just say it. If you have facts or evidence to back up whatever it is you're trying to say, provide them.

As for links, Science Libraries beat out on googlescience any day....


I did not ask you for links. I asked you for facts and evidence. Stop playing games.

McMaster University has a very excellent science library, but I can't link to every one of the hundreds of journal articles I have seen that are relevant to this discussion.


Nobody asked you to. But it would be useful if you provided facts or evidence.

But I will ask the doubters:

Doubters of what, exactly?

[Kent1]

I HAVE made my case. Go back and look at my posts over the past two or three months and my year's worth of posts at Physorg.

It's not my problem people can't be bothered to do some background research of their own.

And besides, since there is a paucity of chemists in the room, I don't have the time or inclination to go over all the minutia..... again and again.

As for links, Science Libraries beat out on googlescience any day....

McMaster University has a very excellent science library, but I can't link to every one of the hundreds of journal articles I have seen that are relevant to this discussion.

But I will ask the doubters:

Who believes iron/steel melted (ccc) in the WTC:

Pre-collapse or post collapse.

Oh, and by the way, NIST's statement that melting of steel in the rubble pile was "conceivable", is hardly scientific now it is?

Don't you think NIST is being a little CRYPTIC here?

Define? "in significant quantities"

Maybe you should go over it considering you just gloss over what people have been telling you over and over. Even from the sciforums and after you had your outbursts both here and there.

And no I don't see a problem with NIST comments considering they are indeed correct. Although it would be nice to see more detail.
Frank, I think you need to gather what people have been telling you over and over at both forums and then better explain your position. That would also cut down on the mistakes within your posts.

[Apollo20]

LashL:

"If you have something to say here, just say it. If you have facts or evidence to back up whatever it is you're trying to say, provide them."

I have said it, and provided evidence, but apparently no one is listening!

But, as one of my favorite NISTIANS, dear LashL, you appear to be so happy with the NIST Report there is really nothing to be gained talking to a "True Believer".

All the digs and barbs of this thread really have no effect on me, they merely show the world how much like the die-hard "Truthers" most of you guys (and gals) really are.

Anyway, I will be having a paper come out soon, with a well-respected co-author, so you can "read and find out" then.... That's if you can locate the article in your local science library.

[Kent1]

LashL:

Anyway, I will be having a paper come out soon, with a well-respected co-author, so you can "read and find out" then.... That's if you can locate the article in your local science library.

Good to know. I'll be happy to read it.

BTW please ease up on the outbursts. It's not helping.

[Pookster]

RWGUINN:

Well, may I suggest that you should at least learn to spell INTELLIGENCE before you claim to have it!

Ironically ...


<snip>

Ironicall, some try to tell me that molten iron/steel was "to be expected" in the WTC fires - see the reports on the WTC dust by one of

<snip>


Oh, the irony.

And, uh, just to add fuel to the fire, there's only one "l" in "fueled".


<snip>

LashL's "experts" R. J. Lee. But even R. J. Lee avoids telling us WHY molten iron/steel is to be expected in a jet-fuelled fire.

<snip>


Live by the dictionary; die by the dictionary.

[LashL]

LashL:

"If you have something to say here, just say it. If you have facts or evidence to back up whatever it is you're trying to say, provide them."

I have said it, and provided evidence, but apparently no one is listening!

No, you haven't, Apollo. What you have been doing is skating all around it, dropping random hints and innuendo, playing a game that you personally find amusing without revealing what your theory is or providing any evidence of same.

Now, I happen to know what your theory is since you told me when we met, but you have not set it out here so I have not, either. Quite frankly (no pun intended), I think that you should just spell it out, but to suggest that you have already done so is inaccurate.

But, as one of my favorite NISTIANS, dear LashL, you appear to be so happy with the NIST Report there is really nothing to be gained talking to a "True Believer".


There is no need for childish name-calling, Apollo. I am neither a "NISTIAN" or a "True Believer" and this kind of schoolyard behaviour on your part is not becoming.

All the digs and barbs of this thread really have no effect on me, they merely show the world how much like the die-hard "Truthers" most of you guys (and gals) really are.


Oh, I am well aware that you quite like to wind people up for the express purpose of getting them to respond to you in the childish fashion that you exhibit yourself. As much as it amuses you, I will not respond in kind.

Anyway, I will be having a paper come out soon, with a well-respected co-author, so you can "read and find out" then.... That's if you can locate the article in your local science library.

It is good to hear that your paper will be out soon. There was, of course, no need for the childish barb, but you just couldn't resist, could you? I am perfectly capable of accessing the McMaster University libraries. Do let me know when your paper is available, would you?

[Apollo20]

Yes, but I don't claim to be ironic or jet-fueled!

But "intelligent" ..... (with an "i", not an "e")..... well, yes, maybe?

[Apollo20]

But LashL you are not an expert in chemistry, or physics or engineering, or math. Law, maybe, but NOT SCIENCE. And I didn't tell you any "theory", just some thoughts, which have evolved considerably since I spoke to you!
Do you really think I would tell a complete stranger, someone who cannot even tell me their name, anything about the details of my latest work!

[scissorhands]

So Frank does have a theory?
But hes not saying what it is until his paper comes out?
Why does this remind of Lyte Trip and his behaviour prior to the much heralded release of his pentagon "investigation"?

[Pookster]

Yes, but I don't claim to be ironic or jet-fueled!

But "intelligent" ..... (with an "i", not an "e")..... well, yes, maybe?

Yes, but do keep in mind the standards you set for others when it comes to grammar and such. It is a double edge sword. And, double edged swords are not the best choice of weapon when playing the rather childish posting games you seem to enjoy.

[LashL]

But LashL you are not an expert in chemistry, or physics or engineering, or math. Law, maybe, but NOT SCIENCE. And I didn't tell you any "theory", just some thoughts, which have evolved considerably since I spoke to you!

Well, yes, that is true that you didn't tell me your entire theory as you quite candidly said that it was not fully evolved yet. But enough for me to know where you're going with it, and enough for me to consult with some experts in relevant fields - which is, as we discussed, what I do when looking at a subject that it outside my area of expertise. :)

Do you really think I would tell a complete stranger, someone who cannot even tell me their name, anything about the details of my latest work!

Eh? What are you talking about me not telling you my name? I most certainly did. I am sadly disappointed that you do not remember it. :(

[Pookster]

But LashL you are not an expert in chemistry, or physics or engineering, or math. Law, maybe, but NOT SCIENCE. And I didn't tell you any "theory", just some thoughts, which have evolved considerably since I spoke to you!
Do you really think I would tell a complete stranger, someone who cannot even tell me their name, anything about the details of my latest work!

Well, how about posting "just some thoughts" you shared then. Hmmm? Because continually having to guess what you're hiding behind the curtain has long since lost it's intellectual value to any scientific discussion.

[pomeroo]

Original post moved to AAH

I can see nothing changes around here!

Pomeroo, you misled me about this place!

So, you guys keep on talking to each other...

But believe me you are going to "convert" anyone with your antics!

You're enough to make a man want to join the truthers!

Funny thing is, you don't even see it!

Debate, What Debate....
Frank,

I didn't mislead you about this place. It boasts an astonishing concentration of extremely bright, well-educated people who are devoted to the highest principles of the Enlightenment. Those of us who lack backgrounds in the hard sciences relish the opportunity of eavesdropping on exchanges between you and your peers. But, c'mon now--you have to cooperate a little. You know that I think the world of you, but at this juncture, I really couldn't explain your position on the iron spherules to someone else. Evidently, you regard their presence as significant, although you refuse to dispel the fog, observing that they could suggest any number of things.

You're dealing with a group of people who are eager to embrace you as a champion of the scientific method, who sincerely want to like you, and you seem to take pleasure in pulling their chains. Your work to date entitles you to be regarded as one of the big guns of the rationalist side. And yet, maddeningly, scientifically-illiterate fantasists are routinely citing your words to bolster their bogus claims. Surely that can't possibly be your intent?!

The JREF should be a friendly port for you. You sometimes give the impression that you delight in provoking people here to scurry about loading the cannons whenever your sails are spotted on the horizon. May I respectfully suggest that when you visit this forum, you're flying the Jolly Roger?

[Unsecured Coins]

I'm confused.

Is that pronounced Ca-asterisks-n or is each one pronounced indepentantly?

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

"You're dealing with a group of people who are eager to embrace you as a champion of the scientific method"

Please don't make me laugh!

This site is about stifling debate.

[Pookster]

Pomeroo:

"You're dealing with a group of people who are eager to embrace you as a champion of the scientific method"

Please don't make me laugh!

This site is about stifling debate.

Pomeroo:

When can we expect him to show up?

[rwguinn]

Pomeroo:

"You're dealing with a group of people who are eager to embrace you as a champion of the scientific method"

Please don't make me laugh!

This site is about stifling debate.
This comment left intentionally blank otherwise.

[Kent1]

Pomeroo, this style has been Frank's MO for some time. Long before he ever came to the JREF forums. I would suggest reading his posts at the sciforums under the name NEU-FONZE.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1530

[Mr. Skinny]

Pomeroo:

Do you really think this site "wins friends and influences people"?
I don't think anyone cares about winning friends and influencing people.

I think they expect:

a.) a clear statement of you position

b.) evidence to support that position

Pretty simple.

[Apollo20]

My position is to seek the truth through gnosis.

That means checking and re-checking every calculation.

Since no one pays me to do this I am not obliged to tell you or anyone anything more than that!

What do YOU have to tell the world Mr Skinny?

[gumboot]

I honestly don't understand the CD debate.

WTC1 and WTC2 were not destroyed by controlled demolition, regardless of method. They simply do not display the traits that would be present were this so. No method of controlled demolition explains the phenomena we saw on 9/11. The NIST report's conclusions do.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

RWGUINN:

Well, may I suggest that you should at least learn to spell INTELLIGENCE before you claim to have it!
Yes we do not want errrors in our on-line posts, it would be terrorbull if wee had errors and otters take our words wrong and would not have klear idea what the heaven we are talking about.

I love it when someone has evidence that makes no difference to the overall picture. That scores zero points for leadership.

I expect if someone cannot summarize their position, they have no position. We are not buying your books for class. With the wealth of chemicals and reactions, 9/11 was a total chemical reaction, but WGF. Fire is a chemical reaction. My screwed up typing on my letter dropping keyboard of coke stains is a chemical reaction with the minor ones in the brain itself. The whole damn event was one big chemical reaction from fire to tears.

Where can we find the infinitive works by you on 9/11? In one document.

[beachnut]

Pomeroo:

"You're dealing with a group of people who are eager to embrace you as a champion of the scientific method"

Please don't make me laugh!

This site is about stifling debate.
No one has a clue on your overall 9/11 ideas. You sit on the fence like you have clue about chemistry and how it caused all of 9/11, but you think you have buried the key in you endless dribble of egotistically biased rant. Your veiled message is lost by post like this one, where you attack others due to some need to be something I can not figure out.

What is you point, your spirit of the scientific method is destroyed by your posts like this. You inability to produce a single paper to cover you ideas is self critiquing.

Bring something to debate, bring it in a layperson version and see if you can stimulate the debate you stifle yourself.

[chipmunk stew]

Pomeroo:

"You're dealing with a group of people who are eager to embrace you as a champion of the scientific method"

Please don't make me laugh!

This site is about stifling debate.
:dl:

Stundied.

[Slayhamlet]

My position is to seek the truth through gnosis.

That means checking and re-checking every calculation.

Since no one pays me to do this I am not obliged to tell you or anyone anything more than that!

What do YOU have to tell the world Mr Skinny?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_166034658f8be10ace.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5973)

"That word...I do not think it means what you think it means."

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

Do you really think this site "wins friends and influences people"?




Frank, I think most of the people who post on this forum held you in high regard for your outstanding work in debunking the junk science of the fantasists. Your papers have been cited here often.

I think I speak for the non-scientists when I tell you that the presence of iron spherules in dust samples from the WTC is intriguing. But, after much wrangling, we really don't know exactly what your position is. I don't believe that anyone is trying to be difficult, but you've sidled up to the issue so subtly that you've barely touched it. Delicacy is good. Still, even a master of aikido must make some contact in order to execute a throw.

[pomeroo]

My position is to seek the truth through gnosis.

That means checking and re-checking every calculation.



I suppose I'm rising to the bait, but can you tell us why gnosis is not antithetical to the scientific method. As it involves the apprehension of spiritual truths, where does the checking and re-checking come in?




Since no one pays me to do this I am not obliged to tell you or anyone anything more than that!




I'm missing something. I can't put my finger on it.




What do YOU have to tell the world Mr Skinny?



Frank, you're not just a utility infielder. You're expected to deliver the big hit with men on base.

[Gravy]

I HAVE made my case. Go back and look at my posts over the past two or three months and my year's worth of posts at Physorg.

It's not my problem people can't be bothered to do some background research of their own.

And besides, since there is a paucity of chemists in the room, I don't have the time or inclination to go over all the minutia..... again and again.

As for links, Science Libraries beat out on googlescience any day....

McMaster University has a very excellent science library, but I can't link to every one of the hundreds of journal articles I have seen that are relevant to this discussion.

But I will ask the doubters:

Who believes iron/steel melted (in significant quantities) in the WTC:

Pre-collapse or post collapse.

Oh, and by the way, NIST's statement that melting of steel in the rubble pile was "conceivable", is hardly scientific now it is?

Don't you think NIST is being a little CRYPTIC here?I pointed out that the literature you cite states that the iron particles are an expected result of a large, hot fire, and I suggested that you contact experts in the field to learn why that is.

Have you done so? It's your issue. Whining about us not doing the research for you isn't going to advance your knowledge or your argument.

Do you claim that it is inconceivable that steel could have melted in the piles? NIST were responding to a conspiracist claim about an issue unrelated to their study of what caused the collapses. Just how much of my tax dollars should they spend chasing claims that haven't been shown by anyone to have any bearing on why the towers fell?

[Kent1]

I pointed out that the literature you cite states that the iron particles are an expected result of a large, hot fire, and I suggested that you contact experts in the field to learn why that is.

Have you done so? It's your issue. Whining about us not doing the research for you isn't going to advance your knowledge or your argument.

Do you claim that it is inconceivable that steel could have melted in the piles? NIST were responding to a conspiracist claim about an issue unrelated to their study of what caused the collapses. Just how much of my tax dollars should they spend chasing claims that haven't been shown by anyone to have any bearing on why the towers fell?

He's exhibiting the same pattern over and over. He was told the same thing over two months ago.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1470
You can see the exact same debate played out.

Then watch the attacks begin. Frank you REALLY NEED to realize that steel CAN melt in fires with ordinary fuels with a little plastic. Also, about "flammable coating" on the underside of the concrete, it's called exposure to oxygen. Please relax and start reading the replys.

[rwguinn]

He's exhibiting the same pattern over and over. He was told the same thing over two months ago.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1470
You can see the exact same debate played out.

Then watch the attacks begin. Frank you REALLY NEED to realize that steel CAN melt in fires with ordinary fuels with a little plastic. Also, about "flammable coating" on the underside of the concrete, it's called exposure to oxygen. Please relax and start reading the replys.
I do know that if he submitted an Abstract for a paper for the proceedings of any of the professional organizations (AIChE, ASME, SAE, AIAA, etc), and included as little information and the vagueness he has exhibited here, the rejection would be in the mail the same day as they got it.
What we have here is "I've got a secret, and I am not going to tell you or anybody about it"

[uk_dave]

Dylan is in awe of Mark Roberts


Dylan Avery:
Jesus, what balls.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9932&st=0&#last

[Kent1]

Dylan is in awe of Mark Roberts



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9932&st=0&#last
Frank your a metallurgist now?

[kookbreaker]

Dylan is in awe of Mark Roberts



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9932&st=0&#last

Good Lord, Pdoh's practically wetting himself. Much as Greening is being a jerkwad, I doubt he's going to go running into the arms of the troothers.

[Gravy]

Dylan is in awe of Mark RobertsThat's not a surprising reaction. To Avery, it does take balls to state the obvious.

[Architect]

Dearie me, a mere 48 hours away from the board and suddenly all hell breaks loose.

I'll admit that I'm interested in the spherules. I'll likewise admit that I know hee-haw about metallurgy and the like, and hence would like to see an impartial, detailed breakdown of the various issues/likelihoods/avenues for further investigation.

But heavens, everyone just seems to be having a good old slanging match! Even Dr. Greening, a man generally much admired by the posters here!

So (at the risk of getting a bit of a doing) howsabout we all just calm down for a few minutes/posts/beers?

[Mr. Skinny]

Dearie me, a mere 48 hours away from the board and suddenly all hell breaks loose.

I'll admit that I'm interested in the spherules. I'll likewise admit that I know hee-haw about metallurgy and the like, and hence would like to see an impartial, detailed breakdown of the various issues/likelihoods/avenues for further investigation.

But heavens, everyone just seems to be having a good old slanging match! Even Dr. Greening, a man generally much admired by the posters here!

So (at the risk of getting a bit of a doing) howsabout we all just calm down for a few minutes/posts/beers?
I think everyone is just getting tired of playing his hide-and-go-seek games.

I have a lot of patience, and the mere fact that I even bothered to post and ask him to state his claim (whatever it is, if this even is one) and then provide evidence to support it, shows my frustration level.

If he wants answers on metallurgy, I work with some of the best in the US every day. I'd be glad to try to put him in touch with any subject matter expert that can answer his questions - if I only knew what his questions were.

[Architect]

Well let's not wait about hanging for Dr. Greening and other posters to reach DEFCOM 1. Let's work out exactly what we need to know and then get a question to these guys.

[3bodyproblem]

I have a question Mr. Skinny. Do you know what the normal level of iron spherules in a dust sample from a construction site would be? I have yet to see a baseline measurement. I'm thinking this would probably more of a forensic matter, than metallurgical anyways. If there presence indicates the use of an incendiary, as people are implying, then I would expect it to come from forensics.

[Mr. Skinny]

I have a question Mr. Skinny. Do you know what the normal level of iron spherules in a dust sample from a construction site would be? I have yet to see a baseline measurement. I'm thinking this would probably more of a forensic matter, than metallurgical anyways. If there presence indicates the use of an incendiary, as people are implying, then I would expect it to come from forensics.
No, I don't, 3body. I am not a metallurgist, I'm a Safety Engineer. I just happen to work with a lot of metallurgists. I believe I could find a co-worker that could describe conditions/material behavior that might be able to answer your questions.

I also have access to a group of people that do analytical chemistry for a living.

I'm not sure why you want a baseline from a construction site though? Shouldn't we look for a baseline from a collapsed or demo'ed building?

Help me out here........

[scissorhands]

I'm not sure why you want a baseline from a construction site though? Shouldn't we look for a baseline from a collapsed or demo'ed building?

Construction sites would involve possible welding and grinding in situ and demo sites would involve cutting torchs.
Both would leave spherules in some kind of concentrations, we would have to ask Frank (again) whether he was aware of any studies into baseline concentrations.
After all, his arguments as to the significance of these samples rests or falls on this.
So far, hes not produced any.

[3bodyproblem]

I'm not sure why you want a baseline from a construction site though? Shouldn't we look for a baseline from a collapsed or demo'ed building?

Help me out here........

Yah, exactly. But i figured to get a baseline from a demo'd steel building would be very difficult. That's why i thought perhaps, if it exists, it would be from a construction site. If by chance one from a demo'd building exists it would be preferable. I'm just trying to think ahead. I have a feeling this will have to be extrapolated from a pre demo'd building.

[Architect]

Lads, I like where this is going but let's frame the question(s) and identify the issues, then put it to some metallurgists.

[scissorhands]

What is the equivalent of the UK health and safety executive in the US?
Any analysis like this would have been done in the context of airborne contaminants in the workplace and would have been carried out by that body.

[Architect]

I thought much the same thing.

[Mr. Skinny]

What is the equivalent of the UK health and safety executive in the US?
Any analysis like this would have been done in the context of airborne contaminants in the workplace and would have been carried out by that body.
In the US, it's NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). They are sort of an investigative/standard setting arm of OSHA.

[Architect]

Okay, starter for 10. I reckon we find some metallurgists (or similarly related fields relevant to the issue at hand) and post the following questions:

It seems to me that it's a fairly simple series of points we have to ask ourselves:

1. What possible commonplace sources of iron spherules are to what extent might one expect to find a reasonable explanation for their presence in a sample, in particular in an urban environment?

2. Assuming that melting iron is one of those circumstances, are extraordinary events required for their creation or are they also found due to more everyday causes such as construction work or industrial contamintation?

3. Are there any ways in which such samples might be interrogated in order to identify source, for example grade/types of steel?


I suspect some with more knowledge in this field (step forward Dr. Greening, Mr. McKey, and others) can frame these far better.

[scissorhands]

Questions 1 and 2 concern something I brought up earlier in this thread.

Heres a nice photo of an iron spherule(http://tinyurl.com/2aztv8)
Its virtually identical to http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/im...N-04-IMAGE.TIF
Apparently industrial particulate matter has mostly spherical forms and may be recognized by their crystallized surfaces.

[Mr. Skinny]

Okay, starter for 10. I reckon we find some metallurgists (or similarly related fields relevant to the issue at hand) and post the following questions:

It seems to me that it's a fairly simple series of points we have to ask ourselves:

1. What possible commonplace sources of iron spherules are to what extent might one expect to find a reasonable explanation for their presence in a sample, in particular in an urban environment?

2. Assuming that melting iron is one of those circumstances, are extraordinary events required for their creation or are they also found due to more everyday causes such as construction work or industrial contamintation?

3. Are there any ways in which such samples might be interrogated in order to identify source, for example grade/types of steel?


I suspect some with more knowledge in this field (step forward Dr. Greening, Mr. McKey, and others) can frame these far better.
I can certainly ask about question 3 at work. That should be relatively easy to answer.

[3bodyproblem]

scissorhands: NWO got to the second link, the page is gone?

[scissorhands]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/IRON-04-IMAGE.TIF

Link works now.
This is from a sample at the wtc.

I have found reports before of NY subway airborne contamination and the concern raised for workers on the system. This involved friction from tracks producing a large amount of these particles.
Frank Greening alludes to this in an earlier post.

[CHF]

I haven't really been following the Apollo theads so I'm out of the loop on this.

Has Mr. Greening posted his theory yet?

[scissorhands]

I haven't really been following the Apollo theads so I'm out of the loop on this.

Has Mr. Greening posted his theory yet?

Nope.
I am beginning to wonder what it is about this subject that makes otherwise rational people into ranting drama queens.

[3bodyproblem]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/IRON-04-IMAGE.TIF

This is from a sample at the wtc.

I have found reports before of NY subway airborne contamination and the concern raised for workers on the system. This involved friction from tracks producing a large amount of these particles.
Frank Greening alludes to this in an earlier post.

Cool pic.

If those reports are true there should be an established ppm that is normal and a ppm that is hazardous. At least it is a starting point.

[scissorhands]

Regarding the subway.
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story01-05-04.html

Im not sure if a safe ppm level has been established although this next link may show one for an indoor workplace?

http://tinyurl.com/yshev7 (page3)

That needs a conversion from mg/m( I presume they mean m cubed) to ppm.

[Apollo20]

Air particulate concentrations should be in micg/m^3 or something similar.

Elemental concentrations in the dust itself should be in mg/kg (ppm, if you like), or similar units.

[T.A.M.]

JHC...leave for a day, and come back to this mess...well well well.

Apollo20:

So we have some Iron Spherules, in WTC dust, I am assuming in significant quantity. As you and others have pointed out, they could have been created by any number of things, including friction, chemical reactions including Thermite and Others, The breakdown of the steel columns by torch cutting...I am sure there are others.

Can you give it to me straight, in somewhat simple terms, where YOU THINK the iron spherules came from, and why you think this (ie what collection of facts or evidence points you in this direction)?

Thanks in advance.

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

I haven't really been reading this thread, mostly because Apollo's attitude makes me ashamed of being a chemist. However I have read it and as I did I was thinking about alternative sources of Iron. One of the big problems I have always had with these is that they were relatively pure, not traces of elements such as sulphur or manganese that I'd expect to be found if they were from structural steel (and indeed there are some sphericals found that do have these in them.) This would point to a cleaner source of steel, so I was wondering what might be in an office that would have such steel. I looked about my own desk and found a number of office items, including the thing I'm using right now, that all have thin steel components that could have melted and become the source of the pure iron sphericals. I still, however, see no chemical evidence that the iron come from the structural steel, and lots that would indicate it didn't. Until Apollo addresses this issue, I can't see the point in putting up with elitism and spoilled brat attitude.

[Architect]

Wolf, mate; calm down. Instead of waiting for others to tell us what the answers are, let's look into it ourselves. I've seen a lot of questions and speculation, together with broad caveats about none of us being metalluirgists, so we know that it's falling outwith our various areas of specialims. What are your thoughts viz-a-viz my suggested "questions"? Then let's see if we can find a metallurgist.

[MRC_Hans]

Superfluous content, deleted.

... I must learn to read the whole thread before posting :rolleyes:

ans

[scissorhands]

Air particulate concentrations should be in micg/m^3 or something similar.

Elemental concentrations in the dust itself should be in mg/kg (ppm, if you like), or similar units.

Thank you.
Thats helpful.
:)

[T.A.M.]

here are a few other questions I have...

1. What percentage of the dust was in the form of these iron spherules?
2. How many dust samples was the analysis based on, and was the amount/percentage of the iron spherules the same, or close, in each sample, or was there a wide variation from sample to sample?

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

R.J. Lee provides an answer to question 1 in one of his reports.

[3bodyproblem]

R.J. Lee provides an answer to question 1 in one of his reports.

Which was?

[rwguinn]

Which was?

Gee-
Nevermind:confused::confused:
Apollo20--please use the quote feature so we can see Which question 1 you are referring to.
We obviously cannot read your mind, and need all the help you can give us.

[Apollo20]

What percentage of the dust was in the form of these iron spherules?
See Post #149 of this thread....

[Alareth]

Pardon me while I distract from the chemistry discussion for a moment.

For me the real issue here has nothing to do with whether the sphereules are signifigant, it's the methods by which Jones aquired them and his resulting conclusions.

There is no corroborating eveidence that they are in any way related to the the WTC collapse. The lapse of time from the event to the collection of the samples leaves too much chance for contamination.

For me at least, this leaves using them as evidence either for or against demolition highly suspect.

[Gravy]

The discussion is broader than the Jones sample, because iron spherules were widely distributed in the dust. Since they were expected to be there, I don't find this issue terribly interesting.

[scissorhands]

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1470

Much of this can be referenced here, in another of Franks playgrounds.
Why he wants to play games of hide and seek on this subject is anyones guess, its a strange form of amusement.

The paper in question seems to be this.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=239769
Please tell me if Im wrong Frank.

[T.A.M.]

For the love of god, could someone just tell me the godamn percentage of Iron in the dust...jhc why does everything have to be a puzzle when you just ask a simple question. I do not make every patient read the Merck Manual or Harrisons when they ask me a question...dear god.

TAM

[rwguinn]

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1470

Much of this can be referenced here, in another of Franks playgrounds.
Why he wants to play games of hide and seek on this subject is anyones guess, its a strange form of amusement.

The paper in question seems to be this.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=239769
Please tell me if Im wrong Frank.
I wouldn't think so--RJ Lee is the the 6th author on that paper, and he said an RJ Lee paper, who would, in my world, be either the sole or the primary author.

[3bodyproblem]

Why he wants to play games of hide and seek on this subject is anyones guess, its a strange form of amusement.



4 hours to get 5.87%? Geesh

Iron spheres represented 5.87% of the overall sample content, while gypsum represented 2.72%? Granted there is a breakdown of Ca/Si of 5.11%, but doesn't this mean a large percentage of the "dust" was converted from gypsum to pure calcium?

[T.A.M.]

I believe this is the paper he is referring to, but I cant say I have read it.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

Warning...PDF file

TAM

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Table 1. Range in area percent of major and minor components for all samples. Particle Type|Comment |Percent Range, Outdoor|Percent Range, Indoor
Gypsum|Includes all Ca sulfate particles|26.3–53.3|63.3–63.7
Concrete|All phases compatible with hydrated cement|19.3–30.8|14.0 –21.0
MMVF* Total||20.3–40.6|9.5–19.2
Slag wool|Based on table 2, field 2|91.7–98.1|89.5–93.3
Rock wool|Based on table 2, field 2|0–6.6|5.2–5.8
Soda-lime glass|Based on table 2, field 2|0–6.0|0.9–5.3
Chrysotile|Bundles and single fibers|0.4–1.8|0–0.1
Silica|Primarily crystalline|0.8–3.4|0.4–0.7
Ti-rich|Primarily Ti and Ti oxide|0–0.1|0–0.6
Zn-rich|Primarily Zn and Zn oxide|0.2–0.4|0.1–0.6
Pb-rich|Primarily Pb and Pb oxide|N.D.|0–0.03
Fe-rich|Primarily Fe and Fe oxide|0.2–1.3|0.1–1.1
Other|Identified but not binned|2.6–5.9|1.4–2.6
Unidentified|Could not be classified based on bulk chemistry|0.2–1.4|0–0.1


http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf#search="EPA particle WTC analysis"

[T.A.M.]

Thanks Arkan.

So when I look up Slag Wool, which seems to be the largest component, I get some info on mineral wool...

Anyone care to describe it a bit more simply, and tell me the relevance of it within the dust samples?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

What is so very interesting is the claims made by all the CTers that the dust cloud was almost all CONCRETE, yet Gypsum seems to be 3x more common in the samples...anyone say WALLBOARD?

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

From the EPA report

Detection of contaminants of potential concern (COPC) including asbestos, crystalline silica, lead, and man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) originating from WTC dust is complicated by possible contributions of these materials from a variety of other unrelated sources including construction materials, asbestos-containing insulation, and lead-based paint.

Data presented here suggest that the presence and relative abundance of the three MMVF components – slag wool, rock wool, and soda-lime glass – along with the presence of concrete particles and gypsum could be used as a primary diagnostic signature for WTC dust. Secondary signature components could include FeOx, ZnOx, silica, and chrysotile.

An analysis strategy for routine samples could evolve using rapid scans of settled dust by SEM to look for the presence of MMVF. If found, these fibers could then be analyzed using EDS to determine fiber compositions. If the majority of fibers (> 85 percent) detected were of slag wool composition, or if slag wool was found at a predetermined critical concentration, the sample would then be searched for gypsum and concrete particles along with the other two MMVF components. Further confirmation of the presence of WTC dust could then be reached by looking for secondary components in the approximate abundances found in this study. Alternatively, if slag wool, gypsum, and concrete were present, the sample could then be analyzed for contaminants of potential concern such as asbestos, lead, and potentially problematic organic compounds.

[Alareth]

What is so very interesting is the claims made by all the CTers that the dust cloud was almost all CONCRETE, yet Gypsum seems to be 3x more common in the samples...anyone say WALLBOARD?

TAM:)

Your verifiable facts and evidence prove nothing

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What is so very interesting is the claims made by all the CTers that the dust cloud was almost all CONCRETE, yet Gypsum seems to be 3x more common in the samples...anyone say WALLBOARD?

TAM:)
Yes. Truthseeker1234 exhibited amazing resiliance to that fact.

[T.A.M.]

don't mistake resiliance for ignorance...lol

TAM:)

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, the only non-slang use of the term "slag" that I'm familiar with comes from my days working in a foundry. Slag was, IIRC, the impurities that would float to the top of a "heat" of molten metal. The slag would be scooped off the top of the heat and sold as scrap. Slag was also sometimes used a general term for any metal spillage onto the foundry floor during the pouring process. It was generally contaminated with dirt and sand and sold as scrap.

Slag wool is not a term I'm familiar with. Looking at the definition of mineral wool, it appears it is manufactured by blowing air through the molten material to make fibreglas-like "hairs".

Is it possible a similar process could be used with scrap slag? If so, that could account for iron spherules. I really don't know. Have to study more!

[Apollo20]

Like Gravy, "I don't find this issue terribly interesting."

But,of course, it depends on what the issue is, and obviously you guys don't get it.

Tell me this, tell me that!

LINKS PLEASE, INDEED!

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

Besides, posting anything of scientific value on this thread is like planting bean seeds in raccoon territory.

LINKS PLEASE............

Oh the condescension!

[Hyperviolet]

Like Gravy, "I don't find this issue terribly interesting."

But,of course, it depends on what the issue is, and obviously you guys don't get it.

Tell me this, tell me that!

LINKS PLEASE, INDEED!

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

Besides, posting anything of scientific value on this thread is like planting bean seeds in raccoon territory.

LINKS PLEASE............

Oh the condescension!


Hi Dr Greening!

Could you explain the significance of these spherules? Sounds rather interesting.

What kind of conclusion can we expect from you, if you don't mind?

Thank you!

[Apollo20]

Sorry Hyperviolet,

I would like to tell you more, but remember, I already said that this thread is "raccoon territory".

Planting (scientific) beans is a waste of time!

Not to mention all the patronizing condescension,

especially from those LASH-GORDON NISTIANs....

wouldn't you say Pomeroo?

Stop personalizing the argument. That goes for everyone.

[kookbreaker]

Sorry Hyperviolet,

I would like to tell you more, but remember, I already said that this thread is "raccoon territory".


Dodge, Dodge, Evade, Evade, Dodge, Dodge, Evade, Evade.

[Hyperviolet]

Sorry Hyperviolet,

I would like to tell you more, but remember, I already said that this thread is "raccoon territory".

Planting (scientific) beans is a waste of time!

Not to mention all the patronizing condescension,

especially from those LASH-GORDON NISTIANs....

wouldn't you say Pomeroo?


Okay, Dr Greening.

Well, i look forward to the release of your paper. Be sure and post it here when it is completed.

Thanks.

[Apollo20]

This is the last place to post anything of scientific value.

The regular JREFer NISTIANS are not up to listening to anything new!

Debate, what debate.....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is the last place to post anything of scientific value.

Debate, what debate
Your whining does nothing to improve the situation.

[Hokulele]

Just out of curiosity Dr. Greening, have you visited any of the other sub-forums? You may find that the Science, Math, Medicine, and Technology forum has plenty of learned people who may be interested in hearing your thoughts, and could not care less about 9/11, NIST, or associated hoopla.

[Apollo20]

Arkan: "Your whining also does nothing to improve the situation".... so do you have a point to make or is this just another personal attack, in which case I should report you to LS.

[Apollo20]

Hokulele:

No, I haven't been on other parts of this forum. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am very busy right now.

[Hyperviolet]

This is the last place to post anything of scientific value.

The regular JREFer NISTIANS are not up to listening to anything new!

Debate, what debate.....

Well Dr Greening- i am certainly interested in listening to other points of view on the matter.

"Debate. What debate"
Indeed. A layman like myself has no place in debating your findings. I am simply not qualified to tackle NIST's nor your conclusions with any real conviction.
That said, i would still enjoy a look at your findings.

Hopefully upon completion of your paper, there will be directions as to where i could read your work. The topic definetely sounds intruging, and has tweeked my curiousity lol.

Thank you!

[3bodyproblem]

This is weird? What exactly is going on?

[Apollo20]

Hyperviolet:

I hope to publish soon, and I thank you too for your courtesy!

[Hokulele]

Hokulele:

No, I haven't been on other parts of this forum. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am very busy right now.


OK, if you ever find the time, I am sure the people who primarily post there would be interested in hearing your theories, and may have some good information to share without the political baggage. Personally, I have learned a lot from lurking in several of those threads.

[Slayhamlet]

Sorry Hyperviolet,

I would like to tell you more, but remember, I already said that this thread is "raccoon territory".

Planting (scientific) beans is a waste of time!

Not to mention all the patronizing condescension,

especially from those LASH-GORDON NISTIANs....

wouldn't you say Pomeroo?

Stop personalizing the argument. That goes for everyone.

There is no debate because you refuse to do exactly that. When people, such as Hyperviolet here, ask sincerely for you to explain what it is that you think is so important about the events of 9/11 that NIST got wrong, you turn cryptic or otherwise dodge the request altogether. This has been the constant theme of your history here.

[Slayhamlet]

Hokulele:

No, I haven't been on other parts of this forum. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am very busy right now.

Maybe you ought to stop posting here if you are so busy. Heaping scorn upon the JREF forum community certainly isn't the best use of your time, is it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan: "Your whining also does nothing to improve the situation".... so do you have a point to make or is this just another personal attack, in which case I should report you to LS.
Yes, I have a point. You have repeatedly whined and moaned about the content of this subforum. You have done little but complain about the post content of this subforum. At the end of the day, the bulk of your posts have the same content as that which you continually complain about.

Go back and reread your posting history. I think you'll see that on those rare times when you post something of substance and that isn't a passive-aggressive attack on other people; you'll find that the responses were positive and quite interested in what you had to say.

Stop taking whatever axe you have to grind with NIST out on the posters here and actually take a minute to read what they are saying.

[pomeroo]

Sorry Hyperviolet,

I would like to tell you more, but remember, I already said that this thread is "raccoon territory".

Planting (scientific) beans is a waste of time!

Not to mention all the patronizing condescension,

especially from those LASH-GORDON NISTIANs....

wouldn't you say Pomeroo?

Stop personalizing the argument. That goes for everyone.



Frank,

I honestly thought you'd feel comfortable on this forum. There is still a reservoir of respect for your work here. Why not start fresh and simply state the significance of the iron spherules?

[scissorhands]

Having looked at his posts in that other forum, I think its clear he wants to play at some kind of intellectual/scientific oneupmanship without any clear purpose other than because he feels he can.
His attitude here makes this debate pointless.
If Frank has some research that proves use of demolition charges or thermate in the wtc, (and after all, that is what is of interest, not picking little holes in NIST for the sake of it) then he can post it at his leisure in a new thread.

[chipmunk stew]

Like Gravy, "I don't find this issue terribly interesting."

But,of course, it depends on what the issue is, and obviously you guys don't get it.
Nope.

And obviously you're not to be bothered to identify it concisely.

Frakkin' ridiculous. No wonder the Truthers are fawning over you.

[uk_dave]

Is this all tied in somehow with the experiments Crazy Chainsaw conducted which apparently caused a chemical reaction between the steel plate and the zinc galvanising....or sumfing?

Are we on the cusp of a new discovery which is going to turn the world of galvanising upside down?

[Myriad]

Is this all tied in somehow with the experiments Crazy Chainsaw conducted which apparently caused a chemical reaction between the steel plate and the zinc galvanising....or sumfing?

Are we on the cusp of a new discovery which is going to turn the world of galvanising upside down?


Or something like that. Chainsaw's experiments confirm, in a general way, something that firefighters and fire researchers already know, which is that metals do strange things in fires.

For one anecdotal example, in a full-scale stateroom fire test conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard that I observed (and participated in a minor way, as a student, in setting up some of the instrumentation) in the late 70s, the aluminum in the furniture could not be accounted for afterward. No melted puddle, no temperature measurements anywhere near sufficient to burn aluminum in air (let alone boil it).

This was considered a minor issue, and no effort was made to figure out what happened to it (such as chemical analysis of residue). Regardless of what happened to the aluminum, its contribution to the overall thermal energy of the fire could only have been minor.

What you have to keep in mind is that the purpose of the test (as with most if not all full-scale fire tests) was to evaluate the performance of some of the fire-resistant materials involved, in this case the bulkheads, relative to fire safety codes. This was not basic research in combustion chemistry. Accounting for every chemical reaction that took place in the fire was not a priority. Furthermore, the tests were conducted by engineers whose main expertise is in the necessary instrumentation. They were not chemists and would have had to go to oustide consultants to have chemical analysis of the smoke or residue performed.

Now, Chainsaw and Apollo seem to be raising an interesting and potentially important point: might the largely unstudied behavior of metals in building fires have significant structural consequences? The conjecture would seem to be that the metals involved in such reactions include the structural steel. But in order to require revision of our current understanding of building fires, one of the following would have to be the case:

- The conjectured unaccounted-for chemical reactions can penetrate and weaken the structural steel in ways that are not apparent on subsequent examination of the remains after the fire.

- The conjectured unaccounted-for chemical reactions contribute to the thermal weakening of structural steel by causing localized heating of structural elements that is not detected by the methods usually used to measure or estimate the temperatures reached by building fires.

Metal sphericles could be evidence in favor of either such conjecture, provided that they can be shown to have originated in the structural fire, that the composition of the sphericles is as predicted by the hypothesized reaction(s), and a plausible action of mechanical agitation (such as structural collapse, outgassing, vigorous boiling, etc.) can be proposed that is sufficient to form the molten products into sphericles of the observed size distribution.

If no further information is forthcoming from Apollo20 on this forum, then I, too, will be content to wait for the published paper.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[PhantomWolf]

Like Gravy, "I don't find this issue terribly interesting."

But,of course, it depends on what the issue is, and obviously you guys don't get it.

Tell me this, tell me that!

LINKS PLEASE, INDEED!

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

Besides, posting anything of scientific value on this thread is like planting bean seeds in raccoon territory.

LINKS PLEASE............

Oh the condescension!

Well if you started acting like a Scientist and not a spoiled brat with his rattle taken away you might find that others attitudes to you changed. I for one have tried to engage you on a number of points and most of the time I have either been sumarily ignored by you or ended up with a glibe answer.

To be honest, you're the first scientist I have ever met where it has been like pulling hen's teeth to get some basic information out off you. Most scientists can't wait to write 3,000 word posts explaining in the minutest details what they are on about.

If you really came here to do more than moan and whine in a pissing contest about who is the bigger kindergarten kiddie, then how about actually putting something on the table. Currently the best theory out there is from NIST. If you think you have a better one, go for it. Instead of acting like a three year old and moaning about how terrible the demons at NIST are and why they are wrong, stand up to the plate and show us why your idea is superior. That is what a real scientist would do! If you aren't willing to do that, then I really don't see why you are bothering to be here. If you aren't willing to bring anything to the table and have it discussed like a adult, then stop acting up, go write your paper and we'll look at it when you get it published.

Until you decide to do one or the other then all you are doing here is losing what respect people here have for you and continuing to post such antagonizing and condesending posts will do that faster than claiming Nukes blew up the towers.

[Apollo20]

PhantomWolf: Show me where I claimed Nukes blew up the towers please.

[PhantomWolf]

I never said you did, re-read it, and learn to spell my nick correctly thanks.

eta: And how about dealing with the issues rather than cherry-picking bits out of context so you can moan some more.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry Hyperviolet,

I would like to tell you more, but remember, I already said that this thread is "raccoon territory".

Planting (scientific) beans is a waste of time!

Not to mention all the patronizing condescension,

especially from those LASH-GORDON NISTIANs....

wouldn't you say Pomeroo?

Stop personalizing the argument. That goes for everyone.


I had a big long rant here, in response to the nonsense above, then deleted it.

Listen Dr. Greening, most of us here ARE NOT children, and we do not deserve to be treated as such. If it is your desire to bad mouth this forum and those who post here, than that is fine, but I fail to see the purpose in doing so. When you came here you posted an unheard of, contraversial theory about the WTC collapses. It flew in the face, to a degree, with the NIST report. People here, naturally, attacked it, as the NIST contains the most solid evidence, was/is the largest most detailed investigation on the collapses, and your theory was in partial opposition to it. As a scientist I am sure you appreciate criticism, even if as a human, you do not...few of us do.

I do not think you want to rationally discuss or debate your own theories here. If you did, it would be as simple as starting your own thread presenting your theory, and then offering a chance for others to comment on it. You have had plenty of opportunity to do so, but have not (The false pretenses of your initial posting on this forum render that attempt void IMO), so I can only assume your intention on this forum, at present, is either to simply insult, or to argue without point for some purpose known only to you.

I REALLY HOPE I AM WRONG ON THE ABOVE. The ball is in your court...toss it out of bounds, eat it, whatever, the choice is yours.

TAM:)

[orphia nay]

Construction sites would involve possible welding and grinding in situ and demo sites would involve cutting torchs.
Both would leave spherules in some kind of concentrations, we would have to ask Frank (again) whether he was aware of any studies into baseline concentrations.
After all, his arguments as to the significance of these samples rests or falls on this.
So far, hes not produced any.


I think Dr Greening was talking about identifying the source of the spherules here:


Auger electron analysis with argon-ion sputtering of the first micron layer (or so) would tell you what those spheres were really made of.

Most of Jones' data looks like surface contamination.


I'd be interested to see him go into more detail, in layman's terms, though. :o

[Mr. Skinny]

I'd be interested to see him go into more detail, in layman's terms, though. :o
Here's a Wiki piece on Auger spectroscopy (including the proper pronunciation = O-Zhay).

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

[Kent1]

Speaking of clean up, do we have a date when steel cutters first came in?
In the video "The First 24 Hours" It looks like we can see some cutting. Go to 15:50
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1425886325052327727&q=WTC+The+First+24+Hours&hl=en

[orphia nay]

Here's a Wiki piece on Auger spectroscopy (including the proper pronunciation = O-Zhay).

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


I give thee thanks.

I see it says "A technique called sputtering is sometimes used with Auger spectroscopy to remove a thin outer layer of a surface so that Auger electron spectroscopy can be used to study a layer underneath."

The question now is, has Steven Jones used those techniques, or will he?

[LashL]

In the video "The First 24 Hours" It looks like we can see some cutting. Go to 15:50
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1425886325052327727&q=WTC+The+First+24+Hours&hl=en

And it goes without saying, does it not, that there was plenty of welding of steel and iron going on throughout the construction process?

As I understand it, iron/steel spherules would have been created as a necessary by-product during construction. So, it seems that such spherules could not help but be present, therefore, in wall spaces and other crevices within the towers ever since the towers were built.

Anyone who knows anything about the construction process knows that one can and will find all manner of construction debris in wall cavities and a myriad of other building crevices. I cannot imagine that iron or steel spherules would be considered strange at all as a byproduct of construction in buildings with the specs of the WTC towers.

So, thirty-plus years later, when a building such as one of the Twin Towers collapses as a result of large airliners crashing into it, the displacement of fireproofing materials, and massive fires... how it is surprising in the least to find that dust samples in the vicinity include the existence of spherules such as those that have likely been sitting in the building's wall cavities and other crevices for 30+ years?

Mr. Greening is not suggesting that the spherules could not have originated from, or did not originate from, the initial construction, is he? I would think that as a retired chemist, even if his retirement was forced rather than voluntary, he would recognize that a likely source of said spherules was the original construction, but I do not know whether or not he has ever addressed the point here. He may have done so, but I have not searched through all of his posts to ascertain whether or not he has done so (because of the wheat to chaff ratio among said posts).


Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer, not an expert on iron-or-otherwise spherules, and not an expert on steel-framed construction. So, if I'm wrong about the initial suggestion/implicatiion in my post above regarding a reasonably likely source of the spherules (and it rises no higher than a suggestion or implication in the circumstances), I will gladly stand to be corrected by facts and evidence that point in another direction.

(And I have to add this: trying to formulate a serious post whilst under the influence of heavy duty painkillers is new to me, so if there are typos and such, meh, who cares? :p )

[AZCat]

words, words, words... (edited for easy reading)

(And I have to add this: trying to formulate a serious post whilst under the influence of heavy duty painkillers is new to me, so if there are typos and such, meh, who cares? :p )

Painkillers or no, you still seem pretty coherent. But then again, I've been reading malcom kirkman's posts lately, so any regular arrangement of letters might seem coherent in comparison!

[Apollo20]

In order to evaluate data on spherical particles at the WTC you need to look at sputter depth profiling data on welding fume..... such data are readily available in the literature. One also needs to consider research on the spheroidization of glassy materials, see, for example, R. Shaw et al. in J. Am. Ceram. Soc.

[Mr. Skinny]

Apollo20,

Is there any possibility that I could obtain a sample of the material containing these iron sphereules that would be suitable for a metallurgical analysis?

[Apollo20]

Not that I am aware of!

However, I would imaging that Lioy, Meeker, Lee, and other investigators still have sample available...

Then, of course, there is Steven Jones' sample!

[Brainster]

Maybe you could contact Janette MacKinlay; it turns out that her dust is getting quite a bit of work (http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm):

In a collaborative effort between Author/Artist/Survivor/Patriot Janette MacKinlay, Physicist Dr. Bill Deagle, MD, and Dr. Ed Ward, MD, MT, WTC debris has been received by a Certified Laboratory for key tests which may show definitive origination for the massive Tritium Levels in the WTC buildings.

To, of course, determine whether "micro-nukes" were set off in the WTC.

[T.A.M.]

dear jezus chraiste.

Shall I go dig up some dust from the dirt in my backyard, and give that to them to study as well.

Cause you know her sample has had no opportunity to be contaminated, or deliberately tainted...right?????

TAM

Edit:The fact that a fellow MD was involved in this silliness is...well...embarrassing in the extreme.

TAM:)

[bje]

Maybe you could contact Janette MacKinlay; it turns out that her dust is getting quite a bit of work (http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm):

To, of course, determine whether "micro-nukes" were set off in the WTC.

Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=15002340)

Creator/Author Semkow, T M ; Hafner, S R ; Parekh, P P ; Wozniak, G J ; Haines, D K ; Husain, L ; Rabun, R L ; Williams, P G
Publication Date 2002 Oct 01
OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 15002340
Report Number(s) UCRL-JC-150445
DOE Contract Number W-7405-ENG-48
Other Number(s) TRN: US200410%%76
Resource Type Conference
Resource Relation Radioanalytical Methods at the Frontier of Interdisciplinary Science: Trends and Recent Achievements. 223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL (US), 04/07/2002--04/11/2002 ; PBD: 1 Oct 2002
Research Org Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (US)
Sponsoring Org US Department of Energy (US)
Subject 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS//MATHEMATICS, COMPUTING, AND INFORMATION SCIENCE ; BASEMENTS; BOX MODELS; CHEMISTRY; DEPOSITION; DESIGN; ENFORCEMENT; FIRE FIGHTING; HUDSON RIVER; OXIDATION; PLANTS; RAIN; REMOVAL; TRITIUM; TRITIUM OXIDES; WATER

Description/Abstract Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164{+-} 0.074 (2{sigma}) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53{+-} 0.17 and 2.83{+-} 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from sites outside ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Kensico and Croton Reservoirs. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. Tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights. The fate and removal of tritium from ground zero were investigated, taking into consideration tritium chemistry and water flow originating from the fire fighting, rain, as well as leaks from the Hudson River and broken mains. A box model was developed to describe the above scenario. The model is consistent with instantaneous oxidation of the airplane tritium in the jet-fuel explosion, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal of HTO from the debris. The model also suggests that tritium from the weapons would be released and oxidized to HTO at a much slower rate in the lingering fires at ground zero.

[T.A.M.]

absofu*kinglutely fabulous find bje...

Well, there goes there whole theory in a handbasket.

TAM:)

[Hellbound]

Wait!

*Huntsman digs inside his underwear for a few minutes*

I have some sphericals for examination! They're from the same source as the troothers use, too!

:D

[T.A.M.]

the fact that it took you "a few minutes" to find your sphericles, does not say much about your sphericles...

TAM;)

[Apollo20]

I could try to obtain a WTC dust sample from some kind soul, but getting it analysed is another issue.

I used to analyse such "mystery" samples on a regular basis, including "crud" samples removed from deep within a CANDU nuclear reactor, (yes, some samples were highly radioactive being 100millirem/hour or more "on contact"!). Anyway, my point is that I have plenty of experience as to what would be the best techniques to use to characterize WTC dust. I would say that ideally you would need to do:

Volatiles by loss on ignition
Metals by AA or ICP
Anions by ion chromatography
Surface analysis and sputter depth profiling by Scanning Auger Microprobe
Particle size and morphology by SEM (with EDX to supplement the Auger data)
Stable isotope ratios by SIMS
Crystalline phases by XRD
Radioactive isotopes by gamma spectrometry, beta counting + tritium by liquid scintillation counting

Including a report, I would charge a minimum of about $8000.

So, if anyone has that kind of money to donate....

[The Almond]

I could try to obtain a WTC dust sample from some kind soul, but getting it analysed is another issue.

I used to analyse such "mystery" samples on a regular basis, including "crud" samples removed from deep within a CANDU nuclear reactor, (yes, some samples were highly radioactive being 100millirem/hour or more "on contact"!). Anyway, my point is that I have plenty of experience as to what would be the best techniques to use to characterize WTC dust. I would say that ideally you would need to do:

Volatiles by loss on ignition
Metals by AA or ICP
Anions by ion chromatography
Surface analysis and sputter depth profiling by Scanning Auger Microprobe
Particle size and morphology by SEM (with EDX to supplement the Auger data)
Stable isotope ratios by SIMS
Crystalline phases by XRD
Radioactive isotopes by gamma spectrometry, beta counting + tritium by liquid scintillation counting

Including a report, I would charge a minimum of about $8000.

So, if anyone has that kind of money to donate....

What's your overhead? SEM's, SIMS's, XRD's and such aren't cheap to run and maintain!

I might suggest adding an Automated Feature Analysis (AFA) on an ASPEX Personal Scanning Electron Microscope (PSEM). Of the studies I've seen on the WTC dust, I don't think any have enough counting statistics to make inferences on the particle composition distribution. With the PSEM, you could analyze 10,000+ particles for size, shape and composition characteristics.

Also, I think JEOL's got an Auger microprobe that also does the SEM/EDX/WDS stuff. That would be pretty ideal for such studies as well.

[Apollo20]

The Almond:

Yes, that would be the JEOL JAMP-10 Scanning Auger Microprobe... I operated one for about 10 years as part of my job.. Of course that was a while back, so my prices might be a bit dated too!

Oh, by the way the JAMP-10 also had a 3M SIMS attachment for argon-ion sputter depth profiling ... nice machine!

A modern, state-of-the-art SIMS instrument (e.g the Cameca 6f), costs about $2 million to buy and is usually offered for use by customers at about $2000 per day.

[bje]

The Almond:

Yes, that would be the JEOL JAMP-10 Scanning Auger Microprobe... I operated one for about 10 years as part of my job.. Of course that was a while back, so my prices might be a bit dated too!

Oh, by the way the JAMP-10 also had a 3M SIMS attachment for argon-ion sputter depth profiling ... nice machine!

A modern, state-of-the-art SIMS instrument (e.g the Cameca 6f), costs about $2 million to buy and is usually offered for use by customers at about $2000 per day.



Dr. Greening, in your opinion, if the CT crowd is making a big deal of Tritium being found as being evidence of a nuke, wouldn't other trace elements be expected to be found along with it, eg. deuterium, that they haven't mentioned in the Rense.com article cited above?

[Mr. Skinny]

I could try to obtain a WTC dust sample from some kind soul, but getting it analysed is another issue.

(snip) Anyway, my point is that I have plenty of experience as to what would be the best techniques to use to characterize WTC dust. I would say that ideally you would need to do:

Volatiles by loss on ignition
Metals by AA or ICP
Anions by ion chromatography
Surface analysis and sputter depth profiling by Scanning Auger Microprobe
Particle size and morphology by SEM (with EDX to supplement the Auger data)
Stable isotope ratios by SIMS
Crystalline phases by XRD
Radioactive isotopes by gamma spectrometry, beta counting + tritium by liquid scintillation counting

(snip)



Can I suggest the Air Force Materials & Manufacturing Directorate (part of the AF Research Laboratory)? If interested, I can provide you with points of contact.

Unfortunately, one is still left with the sticky problem of how to pay for it. Also, being an evil government agency, I doubt their results would satisfy any of the CT's.

[Apollo20]

Yes, other isotopes, including stable isotopes, should be found to be out of line with normal environmental levels. For example C-13 is enriched in neutron irradiated oxides on zirconium fuel cladding from an (n,alpha) reaction on oxygen (O-16 to be precise). Isotopes with high neutron absorption cross sections are good "tracers" of micro, mini or macro-nuclear "weapons".

[Arus808]

Yet no one who has worked there, who were burried and rescued from the debris, and those who currently work there (the construction workers) and the tourists are getting radiation sickness?

[Apollo20]

Do you have epidemiological data to support that?

References?

How about cancer?

[rwguinn]

Do you have epidemiological data to support that?

References?

How about cancer?
Well, lets say there are no public reports of radiation sickness.
As for Cancer, hard to tell from that, since every da#n thing from apples to Zbignew Brazinski seems to have a direct link to cancer--and especially airborne particulates. It ain't just tobacco smoke, folks...

[Gravy]

Tests for ionizing radiation at Ground Zero began on Sept. 11, 2001, and continued during cleanup. Nothing out of the ordinary was found.

[LashL]

I could try to obtain a WTC dust sample from some kind soul, but getting it analysed is another issue.

I used to analyse such "mystery" samples on a regular basis, including "crud" samples removed from deep within a CANDU nuclear reactor, (yes, some samples were highly radioactive being 100millirem/hour or more "on contact"!). Anyway, my point is that I have plenty of experience as to what would be the best techniques to use to characterize WTC dust. I would say that ideally you would need to do:

Volatiles by loss on ignition
Metals by AA or ICP
Anions by ion chromatography
Surface analysis and sputter depth profiling by Scanning Auger Microprobe
Particle size and morphology by SEM (with EDX to supplement the Auger data)
Stable isotope ratios by SIMS
Crystalline phases by XRD
Radioactive isotopes by gamma spectrometry, beta counting + tritium by liquid scintillation counting

Including a report, I would charge a minimum of about $8000.

So, if anyone has that kind of money to donate....

8K is pretty cheap, but do you even have access to the necessary equipment to conduct any such analysis, given your current status? If so, where?

[Apollo20]

Obviously any commercial lab will do samples for the right price. All I would need is the raw data. However, if I wanted the best, and to be sure the data weren't "fudged" by the use of unjustified "calibration" factors (as I have seen SIMS data fudged by a Canadian University I shall not name), I would call on my good friends Prof. P. Williams, Arizona State U, and Prof. K. Wittmaack, GSF, Neuherberg, Germany. I am sure they would be happy to oblige. If you think $8k is cheap I trust you would be happy to pay for the instrument time!

[T.A.M.]

Well I know that $2500 USD is cheap for Liposuction, but it doesnt mean I would pay it, or have the cash flow to do so...lol

TAM:)

[LashL]

Obviously any commercial lab will do samples for the right price. All I would need is the raw data. However, if I wanted the best, and to be sure the data weren't "fudged" by the use of unjustified "calibration" factors (as I have seen SIMS data fudged by a Canadian University I shall not name), I would call on my good friends Prof. P. Williams, Arizona State U, and Prof. K. Wittmaack, GSF, Neuherberg, Germany. I am sure they would be happy to oblige. If you think $8k is cheap I trust you would be happy to pay for the instrument time!

I do think that $8k is a very good price for the type of analysis and accompanying report that you described above. I base this opinion upon my experience with experts across a very broad spectrum of subjects in the course of litigation. The cost has varied tremendously, depending on the scope and depth of the expert input required. Some have cost less than $8k (for fairly routine matters, as little as $3k), and some have cost orders of magnitude more than $8k (up to hundreds of thousand dollars).

Am I interested in personally funding you to conduct the analysis that you refer to? No. Why on earth would I?

If you are unhappy with the analysis conducted to date and wish to postulate a new theory or wish to conduct further analysis, I would suggest that you fund it yourself or that you call upon the good friends you mentioned above to assist you.

Have you approached those good friends about your suggestions for such analysis? If so, what were their responses? Do you and they, with your cumulative years of experience, not have access to the appropriate facilities to conduct the analysis that you suggest without having to pay a commercial lab for its use?

[LashL]

Kick, boot, punt, (whatever the appropriate lingo is these days) for Apollo20.

Edit: to add ",boot, punt, (whatever the appropriate lingo is these days)