Chemistry Reveals Da Twoof

[pomeroo]

A sciuntifick twoofer has written a paper using chemistry to demonstrate--surprise!--that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy blew up stuff on 9/11/01. He manages to avoid mentioning Dr. Greening's work.

"The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2
tower very shortly before the building fell."

This is the sort of thing that should yield a definite result. Three results are possible: the guy proves his case; he acknowledges his error; he pulls an Ace Baker and continues to scream after getting taken apart.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC

[Mr. Skinny]

pomeroo,

I glanced through it. Format looks good and it seems readable.

I'll print it out at work tomorrow. I know a few chemists and metallurgists that might find it interesting.

[Furcifer]

[FONT=Times New Roman]"The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2
tower very shortly before the building fell."


I'm glad you added this line, because I was going to quote it and say that this is the exact sentence I got to before I stopped reading. My only thought is the word "preponderance of" before "evidence". would have been more inflammatory.

[PhantomWolf]

Well I gave it a quick read. It starts with the flaw of assuming the conclusion before actually proving anything, and then simply fails to bother to prove anything. There is no time spent at all on the possiblity of any alternative sources of the chemicals, it is merely assumed that they are from Therm*te. It also makes a number of statments as fact that I believe are still in dispute, or have been shown to be incorrect. In the end it doesn't do anything other than repeat what Jones has been saying, and not very well at that.

[pomeroo]

Well I gave it a quick read. It starts with the flaw of assuming the conclusion before actually proving anything, and then simply fails to bother to prove anything. There is no time spent at all on the possiblity of any alternative sources of the chemicals, it is merely assumed that they are from Therm*te. It also makes a number of statments as fact that I believe are still in dispute, or have been shown to be incorrect. In the end it doesn't do anything other than repeat what Jones has been saying, and not very well at that.



But, my question is the one that prompted me to suggest organizing a series of disputations: would this guy acknowledge a refutation of his work, or is he merely an Ace-Baker loon whose mind cannot be penetrated by logic and evidence? He makes specific claims. What happens if they are disproved?

[chippy]

Word of advice to this author: if you're going to write a technical paper, don't make the very first word of your title "some", which is one of the most un-technical words you can use.

[chippy]

His paper gets off to a very poor start. His paper starts with this:

It has been established through a study of the photographic and video evidence that there were a number of instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows from window openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that persisted for quite a number of seconds. According to the NIST FAQ[1] these events came within the last 7 minutes before WTC 2 began its collapse. White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires. These observations have therefore been conclusively shown to be incendiary events.Notice how he cites the NIST FAQ, which actually explains exactly why he is wrong.


11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.Hmm, maybe he should have read that source!

[Apollo20]

I guess someone could find a physical chemist to review this article.... but on second thoughts, I think a professional engineer would be better.....

[AZCat]

But, my question is the one that prompted me to suggest organizing a series of disputations: would this guy acknowledge a refutation of his work, or is he merely an Ace-Baker loon whose mind cannot be penetrated by logic and evidence? He makes specific claims. What happens if they are disproved?

Before I began reading about 9/11 conspiracy theories, I didn't realize there were people like this. I am constantly amazed at their imperviousness to facts or logic.

[JimBenArm]

I guess someone could find a physical chemist to review this article.... but on second thoughts, I think a pofessional engineer would be better.....
How about a metaphysical chemist?

[pomeroo]

I guess someone could find a physical chemist to review this article.... but on second thoughts, I think a professional engineer would be better.....


C'mon, Frank, don't make me beg. A professional engineer might be better, but you'd be better still!

[Apollo20]

NO! Has to be an ENGINEER.

Or a Metallurgist.... whatever that is......

Can you get a B.Met?

[PhantomWolf]

I guess someone could find a physical chemist to review this article.... but on second thoughts, I think a professional engineer would be better.....

Chip on the old shoulder there still Frank? I gave it a look over as a Analytical Chemist, but if you really want the tedium of reading a reviewing it then go for it, the only person stopping you is you.

[PhantomWolf]

But, my question is the one that prompted me to suggest organizing a series of disputations: would this guy acknowledge a refutation of his work, or is he merely an Ace-Baker loon whose mind cannot be penetrated by logic and evidence? He makes specific claims. What happens if they are disproved?

I suspect that since there isn't any substance in the paper to start with, it starts with certain conclusions, uses them as the basis of the paper then repeates them at the end without having bothered to give exculsive evidence for them, if it was disproved, then he'd just put his fingers in his ears and go "lalalalalala I can't hear you."

[Dave Rogers]

Word of advice to this author: if you're going to write a technical paper, don't make the very first word of your title "some", which is one of the most un-technical words you can use.

It's surprising what you can get away with in terms of non-technical language. A former colleague of mine wrote a paper, which was published in a highly reputable physics journal, on some results on optical laser amplifiers, in which (IIRC) he showed that the speed of their non-linear optical response depended primarily on the length of the gain block, and not significantly on material gain or cross-sectional area. His title for the paper?

"Length Matters".

Dave

[pomeroo]

NO! Has to be an ENGINEER.

Or a Metallurgist.... whatever that is......

Can you get a B.Met?



How about a N.Y. Met? I'll bet Carlos Beltran has something to say about this.

[Apollo20]

Oh no, I think I will sit this one out and watch the show... should be very interesting when I already know the outcome.... so to speak....

[pomeroo]

Oh no, I think I will sit this one out and watch the show... should be very interesting when I already know the outcome.... so to speak....



You are such a tease, Frank. Note that I did say that he wrote the paper without mentioning you.

[jhunter1163]

[paranoid twoofer]

I wonder if this Lobdill isn't Dr. Greening under a pseudonym.

[/paranoid twoofer]

[PhantomWolf]

[paranoid twoofer]

I wonder if this Lobdill isn't Dr. Greening under a pseudonym.

[/paranoid twoofer]

Actually it's more like:

Greening won't refute the paper cause he knows he can't, so it must be true. Grerening belives that it was thermite, we win. neenar neenar

[Apollo20]

Oh yes... and I also post as agent Larry Bobtail... SoftEvidence.... and Dr. Billy Spheres... who was referenced in the Beatles legendary Sgt. Pepper album..... thereby demonstrating my links to the Tavistock Set.

[pomeroo]

Actually it's more like:

Greening won't refute the paper cause he knows he can't, so it must be true. Grerening belives that it was thermite, we win. neenar neenar



Try explaining that Dr. Greening won't refute the paper because he refuted it before it was written. Is that sufficiently metaphysical for you?

[T.A.M.]

So, for those of us who would not be well enough equipped, education wise (I only have 1st year university chemistry, and 2 years biochem in my premed), is there a summary someone can provided of what he concludes, and based on what?

Thanks

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Try explaining that Dr. Greening won't refute the paper because he refuted it before it was written. Is that sufficiently metaphysical for you?

I wonder if he should apply for the $1 million

[pomeroo]

I wonder if he should apply for the $1 million



I don't think that predicting what a twoofer will say qualifies as a real prediction.

Ask a pol whose hand has been caught in the cookie jar if he has violated the ethics of his office and I predict he'll say no.

[PhantomWolf]

So, for those of us who would not be well enough equipped, education wise (I only have 1st year university chemistry, and 2 years biochem in my premed), is there a summary someone can provided of what he concludes, and based on what?

Thanks

TAM:)

Okay very roughly.

Introduction:

The towers brought down in a were Control Demolision because of red/white hot metal seen in the building and pouring from the buildings. This is evidence of thermite/thermate.

Paper:

Steven Jones found Iron Sephericals in the dust which have Fe, Al, S, K, and Mn in them. Thermate has Fe, Al, S, K, and Mn in it and so it must be related.

They found partial corroded columns that were blamed on Euritic mixing, but they couldn't say when or how it occured, therefore I'm right and it was caused by Thermite.

Conclusion:

Thermite/Thermate did it.

[T.A.M.]

Okay very roughly.

Introduction:

The towers brought down in a were Control Demolision because of red/white hot metal seen in the building and pouring from the buildings. This is evidence of thermite/thermate.

Paper:

Steven Jones found Iron Sephericals in the dust which have Fe, Al, S, K, and Mn in them. Thermate has Fe, Al, S, K, and Mn in it and so it must be related.

They found partial corroded columns that were blamed on Euritic mixing, but they couldn't say when or how it occured, therefore I'm right and it was caused by Thermite.

Conclusion:

Thermite/Thermate did it.


So basicly,

"I am a chemist, and I think Thermite/Thermate was used, so because I am an expert, it must have been so."

As I see no chemistry speak in your summary.

Does he actually use chemistry to prove that, for instance, the molten metal seen HAD TO BE steel, and no other metal, and did he use chemistry to prove that those common elements found in the dust, COULD ONLY come from THERMITE/THERMATE, and nothing else in the collapsed 110 storey office building?

Sounds like dung to me, but since our resident chemist has decided not to review the paper, heaven forbid, lol, I guess we will leave it at that.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

You said it:

"Chemistry Reveals Da Twoof"

Too bad you had to say this in a condescending way to chemists though.

But I have been accussed of being condescending too, so perhaps we are now equal on that account!

I will help you though: the answer lies in the metal-rich microspheres, a topic I discussed here to much ridicule a while ago...

So, may I suggest you go and ask TWOOFER JONES for more information.

[T.A.M.]

Dr. Greening, is that the slightest hint of a sense of humor I am detecting? It looks good on you.

All kidding aside though, could you be a little more specific with regard to the Fe sphericles, and how they relate to this man's paper.

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

NO! Has to be an ENGINEER.

Or a Metallurgist.... whatever that is......

Can you get a B.Met?

Since we engineers have been hiding all the flaws and extreme dangers inherent in common and usual building practices for centuries, and are all in cahoots, banding together to discredit anyone with real knowledge of chemistry and physics, and ruin their careers, you are probably right.
In other words, Dr. G, I am tired of the attitude.
If you have something to say, say it. Or go away. I really, really don't give a flying rat's ...

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

You said it:

"Chemistry Reveals Da Twoof"

Too bad you had to say this in a condescending way to chemists though.




Frank, I think you know that I wasn't being condescending to real chemists. That would be extremely presumptuous of me.



But I have been accussed of being condescending too, so perhaps we are now equal on that account!

I will help you though: the answer lies in the metal-rich microspheres, a topic I discussed here to much ridicule a while ago...




I hate to break the mood, but I want to be serious for a moment. NOBODY here ridicules you, Frank. Your work is highly regarded and your opinions are eagerly sought. People were frustrated by your decision to tantalize rather than enlighten (I think I wrote that in an earlier post, but I like the sound of it).



So, may I suggest you go and ask TWOOFER JONES for more information.



What will it take to convey the message that we'd much prefer hearing from YOU?

[T.A.M.]

ok, issue #1:

In the "Introduction", which is not formatted in anyway like a professional scientific paper's Introduction, with the exception of the title "Introduction" which is spelled correctly and underlined.

What are these "White Hot" video observations he is talk of. The only footage I have seen of molten metal dripping from the pre-collapsed WTCs was a deep yellow, not white. Also, unless the footage has been corrected with color bars, etc, how do we know if the color of the video footage is true.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Secondly, While I am no expert, I wonder where he comes up with the all inclusive, grandious statement that "normal" fires cannot produce "White Hot" areas. Does a smithy not turn his blades white hot, or near that, when he is forging?

Man, do I need to read on, or his entire paper one big biased, slanted accusation. I thought it was a scientific chemistry paper.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Jerry Lobdill -
It has been established through a study of the photographic and video evidence that there were a
number of instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows from window
openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that persisted for quite a number of seconds.

I say it was oxygen generators that made the white hot areas. As you can see from oxygen generators burning in a test.

It has been over 5 years, where do these guys come from. Gee, he has iron, sulfur, and aluminum; how did those get in the WTC?

I found his paper to be shallow on evidence. He did not present the amounts of Al in the dust samples of Dr Jones. I found zero evidence in this paper to support the use of incendiary devices in the WTC. Plus the iron rich spheres could have been from original welds in the WTC, released by the destruction.

[PhantomWolf]

About the only thing I found of interest in it was a reference to something that Dr Jones has apparently found with the Sphericals, and that is that some are hollow and appear to have had sulpurous gas inside them, but that's all he gives, he doesn't get any deeper or explain why this might be relevant, he just poulated that they might have been formed as bubbles, then wanders off on a different track.

[murphyr]

White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires.I'd like a citation noting what is necessary to produce said temperatures (ignoring for a moment that "white hot" doesn't really say much about temperature)

These observations have therefore been conclusively shown to be incendiary events.Conclusively? By whom? Why no citation? Conclusively be the preceding sentence? Aren't fires incendiary events anyway?

The WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane, yet it is claimed that it was brought down by fires.I just disagree with the use of contractions in papers that are claiming to be scholarly.

Physical chemistry is a subject that bridges physics and chemistry. It involves the study of the interactions between matter and energy.You don't say!

The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2 tower very shortly before the building fell. What was the purpose of this?That's how I've got to write papers from here on out. Just keep demanding that my thesis has overwhelming evidence without actually showing any of it.

An excellent article on thermite is posted in wikipedia atThis is the exact point in the article that I started skimming. He appears to spend the next several pages explaining what phase diagrams are, before asserting that a number of things can be added to thermite (which was obviously used), then asserting that the reason an oxidant like potassium permanganate would speed up an oxidation is that it decomposes at the relevant temperatures.

We know that the steel that is cut from the columns is essentially pure Fe.That's just a lie.

This is the worst thing I've ever read.

[pomeroo]

Again, I must insist that a paper such as this one can't exist in limbo. It is either right and establishes the validity of the fantasists' claims or it is demonstrably wrong.
I am curious to find out if the author is open to the possibility that his thesis may be incorrect.

[R.Mackey]

What I find amusing about this non-peer-reviewed whitepaper is the assertion that the falling, glowing materials are themselves evidence of "therm?te..."

... so obviously the "therm?te" wasn't as well contained as it should have been. Either the reactants themselves are melting away from the columns, or they're belching heat onto other materials.

Looks like we need to adjust that total therm?te mass estimate upwards again. :D

[Dave Rogers]

Well, I've finally got to a computer that will download the paper without crashing, and on a quick first readthrough it appears that:

(a) No credible evidence whatsoever of the presence of thermite is presented;
(b) The paper contradicts itself by describing the liquid flows as white-hot and orange-hot at different times;
(c) The unsupported assertion that fires cannot create white heat is the only piece of actual evidence advanced, and the already minimal credibility of this evidence is therefore undermined by (b) above;
(d) The speculation over the composition of the liquid flow leads to a hypothesis which the author actually admits to be inconsistent with the presence of thermite.

The chemistry looks like reasonable undergraduate level stuff - I'm not a chemist so I can't be certain - but it isn't actually used to reason to a conclusion. The microsphere analysis is stated to prove that molten steel was involved in the process of destruction, but that's missing a stage of reasoning because it isn't established how and when the microspheres were formed.

In summary: The conclusions don't follow from the analysis. Move along, nothing to see here.

Dave

[slingblade]

Oh yes... and I also post as agent Larry Bobtail... SoftEvidence.... and Dr. Billy Spheres... who was referenced in the Beatles legendary Sgt. Pepper album..... thereby demonstrating my links to the Tavistock Set.

Unfortunately, your glaring misapellation/misspelling forces me to reveal, prematurely, that it was actually Billy Shears, which was a reference to William Shears, winner of a Paul McCartney look-alike contest who, after undergoing a bit of cosmetic surgery to make the likeness perfect, took Paul's place after the Beatle faked his own death [see: Paul is Dead Conspiracy Theory], which Paul himself deviously announced in that lyric, pre-recorded just before he vanished to Tibet, where he lives to this day with a three-legged llama that reminds him vaguely of Heather.

Please keep your conspiracies in order. We were not planning to drop the bombshell on this for another year or two. :mad:

[Apollo20]

Slingblade:

I guess you missed my pun (Shears - Spheres)!

Oh well, so much for that!

But when it comes to this new paper....Its all about the spheres. So, once again I will ask you all to focus on the spheres. Now, first of all, I agree there ARE MANY possible sources of metallic micro-spheres in the WTC debris such as welding, torch cutting, grinding, wear, and pyrotechnic agent residues. But what Steven Jones is claiming is that the WTC micro-spheres he is finding are made up of Fe, Al, S, K, Mn. Dr. Jones actually sent me more information than is being released in this paper by Lobdill, but he is still sitting on the QUANTITATIVE EDX data. Nevertheless, he has revealed that the microspheres are MAINLY Fe and Al. This is VERY important, because if it's true it rules out the possibility that the micro-spheres were produced by welding or cutting.

However, in order to say much more about this I would need to see the analytical data.....

[rwguinn]

Slingblade:

I guess you missed my pun (Shears - Spheres)!

Oh well, so much for that!

But when it comes to this new paper....Its all about the spheres. So, once again I will ask you all to focus on the spheres. Now, first of all, I agree there ARE MANY possible sources of metallic micro-spheres in the WTC debris such as welding, torch cutting, grinding, wear, and pyrotechnic agent residues. But what Steven Jones is claiming is that the WTC micro-spheres he is finding are made up of Fe, Al, S, K, Mn. Dr. Jones actually sent me more information than is being released in this paper by Lobdill, but he is still sitting on the QUANTITATIVE EDX data. Nevertheless, he has revealed that the microspheres are MAINLY Fe and Al. This is VERY important, because if it's true it rules out the possibility that the micro-spheres were produced by welding or cutting.

However, in order to say much more about this I would need to see the analytical data.....

Considering that one of the major components of grinding wheels and stones is Aluminum Oxide, why does the presence of Aluminum in the spheres surprise anyone?
if You weld, you will grind.

[Apollo20]

Before anyone starts making unfounded claims about the formation and properties of spherical metal-rich particles, might I suggest that they read some of the abundant literature on the subject. The journal WEAR is a good place to start. In this way they could provide some references supporting what they are saying. This will save a lot of time ....

[pomeroo]

Before anyone starts making unfounded claims about the formation and properties of spherical metal-rich particles, might I suggest that they read some of the abundant literature on the subject. The journal WEAR is a good place to start. In this way they could provide some references supporting what they are saying. This will save a lot of time ....



So, Jones is in possession of information that will radically alter the way the world thinks about a major historic event and he is "sitting on it"?

Can you suggest a reason why he would sit on it, rather than reveal it?

Why the reluctance to bring scientific evidence to the attention of, well, scientists?

It always gets back to my original question: He is either right, or he is not. Why not state the case and accept the verdict?

The secrecy and endless tap dancing suggests charlatanry.

[pomeroo]

Am I the only non-scientist who finds all of this exaggerated delicacy rather off-putting? Can someone please explain why we shouldn't expect to find iron and aluminum in the spherules?

[rwguinn]

Am I the only non-scientist who finds all of this exaggerated delicacy rather off-putting? Can someone please explain why we shouldn't expect to find iron and aluminum in the sphereules?

Ask your friend, the oh-so-intellIgent Dr Greening.
30 seconds googling will turn up a whole slew (that's an engineering term for "a bunch") of references to Aluminum Oxide abrasives...Cheap, abundant, effective

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

I guess some folks just don't read what I post (I hope you're not one!). So, let's try one more time by asking PLEASE could someone provide ONE (yes, just one will do), reference on the mechanism of spherical particle formation in sliding, rolling or grinding. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.....

Otherwise:

Before anyone starts making unfounded claims about the formation and properties of spherical metal-rich particles, might I suggest that they read some of the abundant literature on the subject. The journal WEAR is a good place to start. In this way they could provide some references supporting what they are saying. This will save a lot of time ....

Oh, and by the way, here's a good one:

"Grinding Dusts of Alloyed Steel and Hard Metal"

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Vol 24(2) pp. 191 - 204, 1981.

And here's another quote:

"A study of heat transfer indicates that during Al2O3 grinding of a 52100 steel, 70% of the heat enters the workpiece, This is due to the low thermal conductivity of Al2O3 compared to iron."

And how about this:

Vickers Hardness Numbers:

Mild Steel = 140 ; Hardened Steel = 900; Al2O3 = 2500

M.P. of Iron = 1812 K

M.P. of Al2O3 = 2313 K

Nevertheless, some people appear to believe that you can grind corundum with a steel grit..... really!

So Pomeroo, see what I mean about wasting time?

[rwguinn]

Pomeroo:

I guess some folks just don't read what I post (I hope you're not one!). So, let's try one more time by asking PLEASE could someone provide ONE (yes, just one will do), reference on the mechanism of spherical particle formation in sliding, rolling or grinding. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.....

Otherwise:

Before anyone starts making unfounded claims about the formation and properties of spherical metal-rich particles, might I suggest that they read some of the abundant literature on the subject. The journal WEAR is a good place to start. In this way they could provide some references supporting what they are saying. This will save a lot of time ....

Oh, and by the way, here's a good one:

"Grinding Dusts of Alloyed Steel and Hard Metal"

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Vol 24(2) pp. 191 - 204, 1981.

And here's another quote:

"A study of heat transfer indicates that during Al2O3 grinding of a 52100 steel, 70% of the heat enters the workpiece, This is due to the low thermal conductivity of Al2O3 compared to iron."

And how about this:

Vickers Hardness Numbers:

Mild Steel = 140 ; Hardened Steel = 900; Al2O3 = 2500

M.P. of Iron = 1812 K

M.P. of Al2O3 = 2313 K

Nevertheless, some people appear to believe that you can grind corundum with a steel grit..... really!

So Pomeroo, see what I mean about wasting time?

For a chemist (supposedly) you sure have a reading comprehension problem. You cut steel with aluminum oxides...
http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/120003.html

describes how gringing and abrasives work, so that even a Doctor of Chemistry can understand.
If 70% of the heat goes into the workpiece-and some is carried off as the material is removed and the grinding medium ablates, some of it goes into the grinding medium. If you work at it, some of the grindings are tiny blobs of molten metal--and they can and do form spherical shapes. and you are trying to tell us there would be little-to-no contamination by the aluminum oxide? Grinding whels ought to last forever, then--but they don't. Not even close.
Cut-off wheels are pretty much the same thing, and are also used extensively in construction and destruction.

[Apollo20]

I wish people would READ articles on the ANALYSIS of grinding dust BEFORE they SPECULATE on what they THINK you MIGHT find.....

Here's a good one:

"Grinding Dusts of Alloyed Steel and Hard Metal"

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Vol 24(2) pp. 191 - 204, 1981.

Let's READ and FIND OUT:

"The dust samples were analyzed for total element composition.... Dust particles seem to have the same metallic structure as the ground stainless steel piece."

Now isn't that amazing!

[uk_dave]

So grinding wheels really do last forever?

Is this another secret like the everlasting lightbulb and the reuseable match?

Damn the NWO industrialists.

[rwguinn]

I wish people would READ articles on the ANALYSIS of grinding dust BEFORE they SPECULATE on what they THINK you MIGHT find.....

Here's a good one:

"Grinding Dusts of Alloyed Steel and Hard Metal"

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Vol 24(2) pp. 191 - 204, 1981.

Let's READ and FIND OUT:

"The dust samples were analyzed for total element composition.... Dust particles seem to have the same metallic structure as the ground stainless steel piece."

Now isn't that amazing!

How about you give a reference somebody might be able to find--for those who don't have a University library real handy.
Also--you insist (several times) on comparing CRES to Carbon steels.
They are not necessarily similar. Ask anyone about grinding stainless--it do gum up the works.

[bje]

Slingblade:

But what Steven Jones is claiming is that the WTC micro-spheres he is finding are made up of Fe, Al, S, K, Mn. Dr. Jones actually sent me more information than is being released in this paper by Lobdill, but he is still sitting on the QUANTITATIVE EDX data. Nevertheless, he has revealed that the microspheres are MAINLY Fe and Al. This is VERY important, because if it's true it rules out the possibility that the micro-spheres were produced by welding or cutting.


Perhaps I have missed this but haven't others found and already analyzed these micro-spheres?

[Apollo20]

I am not saying grinding wheels last forever... where do I say that?

Grinding wheels surely DO throw off some particles of abrasive...but are these particles molten spheres of Al2O3?

If you have evidence for this could you please provide it.

And by the way, I will not apologize for giving REAL references from REAL peer-reviewed journals. If you can't find them, is that my problem?

And here's another reference you should read; and please no whining that you can't get this paper either:

"Characterization of Pyrotechnic Reaction Residue Particles by SEM/EDS"

Journal of Forensic Science 48(3), 531 (2003)

[fsol]

How about you give a reference somebody might be able to find--for those who don't have a University library real handy.
Also--you insist (several times) on comparing CRES to Carbon steels.
They are not necessarily similar. Ask anyone about grinding stainless--it do gum up the works.

The paper is actually old enough to require additional registration to get hold of it.

But it basically says that you get particles from the grinding disc and particles from the steel you are grinding but it doesn't mention finding particles of both materials fused together in little metal spheres.

In surface grinding the dust composition indicates that about 50% of the particles
originate from the workpiece, the rest of the dust comes from aluminium oxide
abrasives and polishing materials.

[gumboot]

Does a smithy not turn his blades white hot, or near that, when he is forging?


Iron is normally forged at cherry red (700 - 800oC). The main purpose of hammering the iron is not to shape it (which is primarily done by cutting and grinding) but to carbonise it (thus making it steel). When steel is white it is molten.

-Gumboot

[Apollo20]

BJE:

Yes, there are a few reported analyses of spherical particles in WTC dust besides those of Steven Jones. None of these other reports appear to give QUANTITATIVE DATA however.

But I do agree with Pomeroo: if Jones has such data then why not publish it!

And it is annoying that this new paper by Lobdill talks about Jones' new results but fails to give QUANTITATIVE data. This makes the paper almost worthless as far as I am concerned.

[rwguinn]

The paper is actually old enough to require additional registration to get hold of it.

But it basically says that you get particles from the grinding disc and particles from the steel you are grinding but it doesn't mention finding particles of both materials fused together in little metal spheres.
Thank you.
So, since the Aluminum Oxide will not combine with steel during grinding, that pretty much leaves out any interaction between the aircraft skin and the steel during the collision process; we pretty much know that the temperature in the building due to the fire was not high enough to actually melt steel, so it couldn't combine with the (already) molten aluminum; There is lots of aluminum in the steel sphericules; therm?te contains aluminum; therm?te melts steel; therefore, it must have been therm?te.
Thank you Dr. Greening. I am now convinced. See--all it took was a little information. Unless you're holding out on us. Unless there is another way that aluminum/stel spheroids can be formed? Possibly something to do with zinc? I warn you, though--if kitchens are also involved, the pun police will send out the enforcers...

[T.A.M.]

Gumboot:

Thanks for the info.

Apollo20:

Ok, if we assume (ASSUME) that the spherules were not caused by welding/cutting, is the only possibility of producing iron/aluminum spherules Thermite/Thermate? Could frictional forces from the collapse have done it? Alluminum and Iron (Steel) were most likely the two most abundant metals in the towers, correct? Were there other possibilities in your estimation?

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

TAM/RWGUINN:

I am sure there are other possibilities. Believe me I am NOT supporting Steven Jones claims on this...far from it. But I would like to "confront the evidence" as he likes to say. As an old analytical chemist I would like to see his (raw) data. I would check out certain things: What is the typical Fe/Al ratio, what is the Mn/Fe ratio... these are the things I would like to see because they would help in deciding how these darn spheres were formed. Right now, I really don't know and I am not happy when people suggest that I am being "coy" about passing on information I may have available to me, like Jones so clearly is!

[Darth Rotor]

TAM/RWGUINN:

I am sure there are other possibilities. Believe me I am NOT supporting Steven Jones claims on this...far from it. But I would like to "confront the evidence" as he likes to say. As an old analytical chemist I would like to see his (raw) data. I would check out certain things: What is the typical Fe/Al ratio, what is the Mn/Fe ratio... these are the things I would like to see because they would help in deciding how these darn spheres were formed. Right now, I really don't know and I am not happy when people suggest that I am being "coy" about passing on information I may have available to me, like Jones so clearly is!
My brain looks at the energy state at the moment of impact, and the fractions of seconds as the plane penetrates the buildings, (the friction, etc, converting speed of acft to heat) where the Kinetic Energy is very high, and the impact of the aluminum, both skin and the structure of the aircraft, and structural steel acts via impact, like a hammer, driving some bits of aluminum into steel. (Think of a smith's hammer smashing interstitial carbon into iron/steel in a forging process.)

It has been some years since college, but boundary layer reactions in fluids is what my brain is telling me to consider. I confess that I am not strong on molecular level stuff. This high energy state could, it seems to me, lead to localized Al and Fe bonding, in locales of elevated energy state driven purely by the KE transfer at the moment of impact. I am not sure how this is significantly different from high temp effects of therm?te, unless time is a critical variable.

This bonding process would be similar to what others have said regarding welds.

Is that a mechanism of bonding Al and Fe molecules that can explain the bond at the molecular, or slightly above molecular level, or am I missing a critical agent (other than time) that would preclude that?

From chemistry, I recall that adding energy (heat) is often the catalyst to elements forming new or different bonds.

Am I on the right track?

DR

[rwguinn]

TAM/RWGUINN:

I am sure there are other possibilities. Believe me I am NOT supporting Steven Jones claims on this...far from it. But I would like to "confront the evidence" as he likes to say. As an old analytical chemist I would like to see his (raw) data. I would check out certain things: What is the typical Fe/Al ratio, what is the Mn/Fe ratio... these are the things I would like to see because they would help in deciding how these darn spheres were formed. Right now, I really don't know and I am not happy when people suggest that I am being "coy" about passing on information I may have available to me, like Jones so clearly is!
They why the he.. have you not said so before? Communication has to work 2 ways, else it is merely noise. That is my big problem with your attitude. "I don't Know" is a perfectly aceptable answer here--as long as it is not borne out of laziness in research. Perhaps, if you say it, someone will throw out a comment that can trigger a line of thought resulting in a credible hypothysis. Yes, even accountants, musicians, and occasionally lawyers do have brains--some of them actually use them. It doesn't take an expert in physics or chemistry to sincerly ask "Why...?"
My problem with all this chemical sidetrack stuff is that it is a sidetrack.
As the papers you have participated in have shown, the available energy budget, strength of materials under thermal considerations, and structural damage alone ensured collapse. The addition of unusual, obscure and/or esoteric chemical reactions is an interesting problem, but were more likely effects rather than causes.
I sympathise with the desire to know everything about what went on in there--as an engineer, I know that if we fiddle with it a little more, we'll get it perfect--but as the saying goes--"at some point, it is time to fire the engineers and start production"
I wish we had the luxury of sufficient time and budget to fiddle with everything until we understand it absolutely.

[BeAChooser]

I have a question regarding the claim by Mr Lobdill that molten "metal" flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2 was "orange-hot" liquid. Was it? Thomas Eager (of MIT) at one time stated that "the photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which show glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red-orange glow." Steven Jones originally described it as "red-orange" then changed to "consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." And recently Jones began describing it as "yellow-white" and said "the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record)." So which is it? Red, red-orange, consistently orange, yellow-white or yellow? One would think the conspiracists could at least agree on one color before proceeding. Is that asking too much? :)

[Apollo20]

Darth Rotor:

Yes! Great suggestion! I have also considered the impact of the aircraft's aluminum alloy frame with the structural steel of the towers.... I believe it is a potential source of Al/Fe inter-metallic spheres.... that is unless someone can prove otherwise.

[T.A.M.]

I have a question regarding the claim by Mr Lobdill that molten "metal" flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2 was "orange-hot" liquid. Was it? Thomas Eager (of MIT) at one time stated that "the photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which show glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red-orange glow." Steven Jones originally described it as "red-orange" then changed to "consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." And recently Jones began describing it as "yellow-white" and said "the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record)." So which is it? Red, red-orange, consistently orange, yellow-white or yellow? One would think the conspiracists could at least agree on one color before proceeding. Is that asking too much? :)

FACT: I could take 4 different camcorders, and record the same "Molten Metal", and it would likely appear in 4 different colors. No, not green, orange,purple, but certainly various degrees of red, orange, and yellow, depending on the settings, and the make.

As I said earlier, without a proper color bar setting, to ensure the colors are proper, I do not trust any single recording of "molten metal color".

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

Darth Rotor:

Yes! Great suggestion! I have also considered the impact of the aircraft's aluminum alloy frame with the structural steel of the towers.... I believe it is a potential source of Al/Fe inter-metallic spheres.... that is unless someone can prove otherwise.Quit playing games, sirrah.
R Mackey proposed that particular scenario several threads and at least 2 of your tirades ago, and you discounted it on the spot, IIRC.
These communications are a whole lot like playing solitare when a kibitzer has lifted the ace and 7 of hearts from the deck...

[T.A.M.]

how about the friction resulting from the collapse, between the alluminum exterior, and steel frame...would that not produce said spherules?

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

How about you give a reference somebody might be able to find--for those who don't have a University library real handy.

I'd like to double second this. When I was in Dunedin I had access to nearly ever journal on the planet and spent hours in the science library. Nowdays my nearest science library is 4 hours away and I'm not going to pay for journal subscriptions I would hardy ever use. If you want to make a point about something based in a Journal and it's free to read, link to the thing, otherwise just spit it out and tell us what's in it.

[R.Mackey]

This seems to happen with some regularity.

Dr. Greening has some good ideas. I don't personally buy the perchlorate story, and I suspect (and it appears that he agrees) that the iron spherules may have a mundane origin. I outlined my speculations here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2497745#post2497745) and, in the absence of better data, I don't expect to make much definitive progress, only share other speculations.

As far as real journals go, there's a wealth of information that just isn't available on the 'net, or for free. There's nothing wrong with citing them.

However, I would suggest that, wherever possible, those citing real journals include an excerpt explaining why the article was cited, and what it means. This falls under Fair Use guidelines and will be immensely helpful to those who aren't within easy walking distance of a university library.

In like fashion, we should also expand on our theories by default, rather than simply positing an idea and never filling in the blanks. This seems to lead to bad feelings because the Truth Movement does this all the time, even promising movies that never come... so a little forthrightness is always appreciated. If there's a paper forthcoming, a little advertising is fine, but unless one is willing to disclose the contents, there's not much for us to discuss until we can read the paper, is there? It can wait.

So who's got real insight into the little spheres? I don't.

[bje]

BJE:

Yes, there are a few reported analyses of spherical particles in WTC dust besides those of Steven Jones. None of these other reports appear to give QUANTITATIVE DATA however.

But I do agree with Pomeroo: if Jones has such data then why not publish it!

And it is annoying that this new paper by Lobdill talks about Jones' new results but fails to give QUANTITATIVE data. This makes the paper almost worthless as far as I am concerned.



I read Jones's paper (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) on the dust as well as the earlier USGS paper, Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html).

I have a few questions.

1. Are you confident from your reading of that paper or other direct knowledge from your communications with Jones that Jones actually did any substantive experiments on his own? He does reference anything specific.

2. Do you see anything significantly different from what Jones states than what was already stated in the USGS paper?

3. Since there is the lack of quantitative data in both papers, could Jones's attachment of significance to the size and abundance of spherules, in your view, be equally insignificant in the view of USGS and not mentioned, or do you see some objective significance in that claim by Jones?

4. Or, am I just overly skeptical of Jones?

[pomeroo]

Is it appropriate to draw conclusions from Jones's unwillingness to share data with other researchers? Would an honest scientist attempting to learn the objective truth operate in this manner?

[rwguinn]

Is it appropriate to draw conclusions from Jones's unwillingness to share data with other researchers? Would an honest scientist attempting to learn the objective truth operate in this manner?
I do not know how it works in the academic world, but at my level, if we publish a paper, we pretty much have to make either the data or the methodology that led to the paper's conclusions available to those who wish to further investigate it.

[Dave Rogers]

Is it appropriate to draw conclusions from Jones's unwillingness to share data with other researchers? Would an honest scientist attempting to learn the objective truth operate in this manner?

Sadly, no and yes. Scientists can vary in character as much as any other subset of humanity, and there are plenty of physicists out there who are very secretive about their unpublished data. It depends on the field - if there's the promise of lucrative patents, forget about data sharing, it's all about intellectual property ownership. It seems to me that there would be far less reason to act that way in forensic science basically because there aren't large amounts of money to be made, but even so I would expect there to be some scientists involved who were a complete pain in the neck to work with. In short, I don't think unnecessarily secretive behaviour is suspicious in and of itself.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

Scientists who are operating under grants from companies or institutions may have signed a non-disclosure agreement. If this is not the case with Jones, than really, in the name of science, and the truth, he should be sharing all of his data and evidence with the general public.

TAM:)

Edit:
All of what Dave has said is true as well. In the real world, even though sharing would be to the benifit of the common good and the truth, the variables (A) Greed and (B) Pride, come into play.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

RWGUINN:

You claim that:

"R Mackey proposed that particular scenario several threads and at least 2 of your tirades ago, and you discounted it on the spot, IIRC.'

Please show me where I did this supposed discounting of Mackey.

[T.A.M.]

I think, or do believe, that once a paper is PUBLISHED, the data is made public, for others, should they so choose, to examine, critically analyze, and where needed, refute. If not public, often it is made available upon request.

If the data is not made available, particularly upon request for it, there is almost always immediate scrutiny of the validity, as well as motive, and the study is often disregarded or minimized. Companies often realize this, and make their data available, where possible. Of course, which data, how much, etc...is released, varies.

Of course, with drug companies, this is often bypassed using copyright/patent law as a shield.


TAM:)

[Apollo20]

To be fair to Jones, he is under no obligation to publish data he may have on the WTC micro-spheres until he is ready. In the world of academic publication there is a lot of (well-founded) paranoia about being "scooped". This is nothing new! Isaac Newton was well-known to have ranted over other scientists of his time publishing a paper on a topic he (Newton) had already worked on (but not published).

So, Pomeroo, you cannot "read" too much into Jones' behavior on this.

[T.A.M.]

exactly...once he has published (when ever that will be) the whole thing changes.

TAM:)

[Darth Rotor]

Quit playing games, sirrah.
R Mackey proposed that particular scenario several threads and at least 2 of your tirades ago, and you discounted it on the spot, IIRC.
These communications are a whole lot like playing solitare when a kibitzer has lifted the ace and 7 of hearts from the deck...
Oops, sorry, I must have missed that discussion. No intent to drag up old corpses from the river. :( I came up with that on my own, though I suspect Mr Mackey covered it with better precision than I.

DR

[rwguinn]

This seems to happen with some regularity.

Dr. Greening has some good ideas. I don't personally buy the perchlorate story, and I suspect (and it appears that he agrees) that the iron spherules may have a mundane origin. I outlined my speculations here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2497745#post2497745) and, in the absence of better data, I don't expect to make much definitive progress, only share other speculations.
.

Kookbreaker more or less asked a similar question here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2499603#post2499603)

RWGUINN:

You claim that:

"R Mackey proposed that particular scenario several threads and at least 2 of your tirades ago, and you discounted it on the spot, IIRC.'

Please show me where I did this supposed discounting of Mackey.


And I apologize--you did not discount it. You ignored it
Now you claim it. There seems to be a trend here...

[rwguinn]

Oops, sorry, I must have missed that discussion. No intent to drag up old corpses from the river. :( I came up with that on my own, though I suspect Mr Mackey covered it with better precision than I.

DR

Wans't directeed at you--but several of us posted the same thought, afte Rmackey, and unlike my accusation, Apollo20 did not discount that scenario, he merely ignored it till now..

[T.A.M.]

Here is my theory on why he is not sharing...

Prior to publication, as Apollo has said, he can be scooped, or refuted...

While I doubt anyone will "scoop" his theories, I have no doubt that if he released his data sets and science on the matter prior to publication, it would be torn appart and dismissed.

I think Jones knows there are many other mundane possibilities for his results. He also knows, that once he plants the seeds of doubt, that it will not matter, as it will gain public attention, which is the main thing most in that movement want...is for the gen public to take notice of their claims. SO he wants to prevent others from picking apart his theory/data until HE has published it. Once published, see, it takes on an air of authority, that until now, he has not had for this research.

I think the key to his sharing, is in his desire for it to be published...but I could be wrong.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

So, RWGUINN, once again your unfounded accusations about what you claim I did or didn't do, prove to be.... well... unfounded... And did it ever cross your mind that I dont have the time to read, let alone respond to, every point made by every poster on every topic on 9/11 on JREF forums? I do have a life outside of this forum you know. Or do you claim that I am somehow obligated to comment on every comment made by the JREF regulars? To be quite honest I find the PHYSORG forum is more to my taste since there is more attention given to science and less to the personal proclivities of a particular poster. However, if you do care to check, I think you will find that I DO usually, eventually, comment on technical posts that are, in some way, addressed to me; that is providing the comments are presented in a reasonable manner, are worth commenting on, (which more and more in the case of the recent comments from you is becoming questionable); and if I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute.

[Darth Rotor]

So, RWGUINN, once again your unfounded accusations about what you claim I did or didn't do, prove to be.... well... unfounded... And did it ever cross your mind that I dont have the time to read, let alone respond to, every point made by every poster on every topic on 9/11 on JREF forums? I do have a life outside of this forum you know. Or do you claim that I am somehow obligated to comment on every comment made by the JREF regulars? To be quite honest I find the PHYSORG forum is more to my taste since there is more attention given to science and less to the personal proclivities of a particular poster. However, if you do care to check, I think you will find that I DO usually, eventually, comment on technical posts that are, in some way, addressed to me; that is providing the comments are presented in a reasonable manner, are worth commenting on, (which more and more in the case of the recent comments from you is becoming questionable); and if I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute.
Hey, what's with this appeal to common sense? :cool: Is that allowed on the CT forum? :confused:

DR

[pomeroo]

If I may ask a naive question, why does Steven Jones have data no one else has access to? How did he obtain his samples?

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

I dont know for sure how the USGS obtained its samples either....

Did they follow an ASTM protocol?

Sure we can argue about WHERE Jones' dust sample came from.

From a Twoofer so I hear...


And that bad old Twoofer planted those bad ole' spheres in that darn sample for sure, so lets just talk about something else..

How about this:

Ron, is there any significance to the fact that you made your post at 9:10 on the summer solstice?

Just asking...

[Apollo20]

Or, Pomeroo, we could talk about how well the FBI follows acceptable analytical protocols when it looks at WTC samples as in this story:

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, FBI Lab, Testifying at the World Trade Center Bombing Trial

August 14, 1995

(Dr. Frederic Whitehurst's efforts to expose scientific fraud in the FBI laboratory was the subject of an article in The Washington Post, September 14, 1995 and continuation page.)

FBI Pressures Scientists to Lie.

In the aftermath of the world Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, the FBI concocted misleading scientific reports and pressured two leading scientists to perjure their testimony in order to support its prosecution of the men accused of the bombing.

The process was described by senior FBI explosives expert Dr. Frederic Whitehurst during his testimony at the trial on August 14, 1995.

Sewage pipes in the skyscraper broke during the explosion, depositing 80 gallons of sewage throughout the wreckage. The Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) asked Dr. Whitehurst to analyze some of this sewage, thinking it was an explosive substance.


Dr. Whitehurst concluded that there was no sound scientific basis for the government's public claim that a urea nitrate bomb had been the source of the explosion. When he refused to recant or to doctor his reports to support the urea nitrate bomb theory, the FBI used an unqualified lab technician to testify that the so-called urea nitrate found at the scene was consistent with a urea nitrate bomb.

Dr. Whitehurst submitted two blind test samples to the lab technician. Whitehurst had prepared one sample by urinating into a laboratory flask. The other was a sample of commercial grade fertilizer prepared by FBI Agent Burmeister. The lab technician found that both samples tested positive for urea nitrate, the explosive component of the infamous fertilizer bomb. In other words, Dr. Whitehurst proved that the lab technician, like the BATF, couldn't tell a bomb from sewage.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

I dont know for sure how the USGS obtained its samples either....

Did they follow an ASTM protocol?

Sure we can argue about WHERE Jones' dust sample came from.

From a Twoofer so I hear...




Again, why shouldn't anyone have access to the same information that Jones was able to obtain? What am I missing?


[quote=Apollo20;2710308]
And that bad old Twoofer planted those bad ole' spheres in that darn sample for sure, so lets just talk about something else..




You're not planning to enlighten us, are you, Frank?


[quote=Apollo20;2710308]
How about this:

Ron, is there any significance to the fact that you made your post at 9:10 on the summer solstice?

Just asking...



A matter of statistics. If you post often enough, you'll probably manage to hit the summer solstice; the vernal equinox; the witching hour; most happy hours--which reminds me...

[Mr. Skinny]

This thread reminds me of work.

Interesting to watch an ego in self-supression mode.

[PhantomWolf]

If I may ask a naive question, why does Steven Jones have data no one else has access to? How did he obtain his samples?

I think there might be a thread about it somewhere around....

[LashL]

<snip>Or, Pomeroo, we could talk about how well the FBI follows acceptable analytical protocols when it looks at WTC samples as in this story:

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, FBI Lab, Testifying at the World Trade Center Bombing Trial


Did the trier of fact ultimately accept or reject his testimony, Apollo?

[T.A.M.]

Funny, I know Apollo was sarcastic when he commented about the planting of spherules in the sample, but you have to admit the chain of custody alone is poor, let alone the possible contamination that may have occured prior to the collection of the sample.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Funny, I know Apollo was sarcastic when he commented about the planting of spherules in the sample, but you have to admit the chain of custody alone is poor, let alone the possible contamination that may have occured prior to the collection of the sample.

TAM:)



I keep wondering when the tap dancing will finally stop and someone will address the issue (?) of these spherules.

[Apollo20]

The OIG Report on FBI Laboratory Practices (September 1995) Identified the following problems:

Scientifically Flawed Testimony in the Psinakis, World Trade Center, Avianca, and Trepal cases.

Inaccurate Testimony by an EU examiner in the World Trade Center case, by a former Laboratory examiner (who is still an FBI agent) in a hearing conducted by the judicial committee of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit regarding then-Judge Alcee Hastings, and by the CTU Chief in the Trepal case.

Testimony Beyond the Examiner's Expertise in the World Trade Center, Avianca, and Hastings cases.

Improper Preparation of Laboratory Reports by three EU examiners who altered, omitted, or improperly supplemented some of Whitehurst's internal reports (dictations ) as they were being compiled into an official report of the Laboratory. A former EU Chief failed to substantively review all of the reports in his unit, authorized EU examiners to modify Whitehurst's dictations when incorporating them into EU reports, and fostered a permissive attitude toward changes to Whitehurst's dictations.

Insufficient Documentation of Test Results by the examiner who had performed work on hundreds of cases, including Psinakis and the UNABOM investigation, and by the CTU Chief.

Scientifically Flawed Reports in the VANPAC and Oklahoma City cases, and in numerous cases by the former MAU examiner who worked on Psinakis, and in a few instances by an EU examiner who altered Whitehurst's reports.

Inadequate Record Management and Retention System by the Laboratory.

Failures by Management to resolve serious and credible allegations of incompetence lodged against the examiner who worked on the Psinakis case; to review properly the EU report in the Oklahoma City case; to resolve scientific disagreements among Laboratory examiners in three cases, including Avianca; to establish and enforce validated procedures and protocols that might have avoided problems in examiner reports in the Psinakis and VANPAC cases; and to making a commitment to pursuing accreditation by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board before 1994.

A Flawed Staffing Structure of the Explosives Unit that should be reconfigured so that examiners possess requisite scientific qualifications.

[LashL]

<snip>The OIG Report on FBI Laboratory Practices (September 1995) Identified the following problems...

Yes, but my question, Apollo, was whether the trier of fact accepted or rejected Whitehurst's testimony that you cited in your prior post above, to which I responded. You have not answered that question. Do you know the answer?

And, by the way, the OIG Report also concluded:

...that Frederic Whitehurst cannot effectively function within the Laboratory and suggested that the FBI consider what role, if any, he can usefully serve in other components of the FBI. In making that determination, the FBI and the Department of Justice must weigh the significant contribution he has made by raising issues that needed to be addressed within the Laboratory against (1) the harm he has caused to innocent persons by making many inflammatory but unsubstantiated allegations, and (2) the doubts that exist about whether he has the requisite common sense and judgment to serve as a forensic examiner.


Since you have cited the OIG Report, I assume that you have read it and that you also know that Whitehurst made scores of very serious accusations (including accusations of perjury, fabrication of evidence, obstruction of justice, prosecutorial misconduct, conspiracy, and other types of intentional misconduct) against numerous innocent people in the 1000 pages of written complaints he submitted, all of which were determined to be unfounded and without merit.

As an aside, it appears that he also wrote ~200 letters to the OIG over a two year period, in addition to the 1000 pages of complaints noted above. Does this not start ringing "obsessive paranoid behaviour" bells to almost everyone?

Over the last two years, Whitehurst has written more than 200 letters to the OIG expressing his concerns about various aspects of the Laboratory. Many of those concerns seem to reflect an effort to identify any possible grounds to criticize other examiners who in his view are not appropriately qualified for their positions. Whitehurst has faulted others for drawing conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Ironically, he has exhibited that same fault in many of the accusations he has made against others in the Laboratory.

I assume that you also know that the OIG investigation also found that, in the carriage of several of his own cases, Whitehurst exhibited poor judgment, failed to review his own work, acted unprofessionally, failed to carry out appropriate tests that he should have carried out, rendered misleading and overstated opinions, etc.

In summary, it is good that Whitehurst instigated an investigation that brought to light several shortcomings in the processes and procedures at the labs, and some very serious problems with respect to a few individuals. It is good that the OIG investigated, identified legitimate problems, and made appropriate recommendations to address those problems. It is very bad that Whitehurst conducted himself in such an unprincipled, unruly, and unnecessarily vindictive manner so as to drag the names of a whole lot of innocent people into the mud in what appears to me to be his personal quest for fame and recognition, which he was not able to obtain in his professional career otherwise.

An ethical professional would have taken a principled approach and would have stuck to the facts in order to trigger an investigation into legitimate areas of inquiry, and would not have just tossed about whatever unfounded allegations and hyperbole he could think of in order to wrongly implicate dozens of innocent professionals in the process.

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

"I keep wondering when the tap dancing will finally stop and someone will address the issue (?) of these spherules."

Ron, the issue of the spherules HAS been addressed by Steven Jones, (among others), in case you were not paying attention.

Oh, and by the way Ron, since you appear anxious to get more information on the micro-spheres in the WTC dust, would you support a FOIA to the FBI for the release of its analytical data on the samples it collected from Ground Zero post 9/11?

PRRP (pyrotechnic reaction residue particle), analysis is a standard procedure in investigations of fires. (See Journal of Forensic Science 51, 296, (2006)

Although, if such data is made available, let's hope that the FBI - especially the Explosives Unit and the Materials Analysis Unit of the SAS - had cleaned up its act by 2001 ..... (based on the findings of the 1997 OIG review of its laboratory practices!)

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

"I keep wondering when the tap dancing will finally stop and someone will address the issue (?) of these spherules."

Ron, the issue of the spherules HAS been addressed by Steven Jones, (among others), in case you were not paying attention.




Gee, Frank, do you suppose I overlooked Jones's paper, even though that explanation does create certain logical problems in that I asked Jones to defend it in a disputation? I'd be willing to agree that I may have missed Jones's paper, but I can't figure out how I managed to ask him to defend its conclusions.



[quote=Apollo20;2713729]
Oh, and by the way Ron, since you appear anxious to get more information on the micro-spheres in the WTC dust, would you support a FOIA to the FBI for the release of its analytical data on the samples it collected from Ground Zero post 9/11?




Yes, I would, of course, support a FOIA to the FBI. Do you think anyone here would not?



[quote=Apollo20;2713729]
PRRP (pyrotechnic reaction residue particle), analysis is a standard procedure in investigations of fires. (See Journal of Forensic Science 51, 296, (2006)

Although, if such data is made available, let's hope that the FBI - especially the Explosives Unit and the Materials Analysis Unit of the SAS - had cleaned up its act by 2001 ..... (based on the findings of the 1997 OIG review of its laboratory practices!)



You say you don't accept Jones's research. Yet, your attitude toward people here who respect your work and regard you as the genuine article has been bafflingly antagonistic. You want the FBI to make available its samples, but you don't trust the integrity of its labs. Am the only person here whose head is spinning? What is going on?

[T.A.M.]

Oh, and by the way Ron, since you appear anxious to get more information on the micro-spheres in the WTC dust, would you support a FOIA to the FBI for the release of its analytical data on the samples it collected from Ground Zero post 9/11?


The only way I personally would support this, is if the receiving party, and the investigating party was an independent 3rd party. That means no one from NIST, BUT noone from the TRUTH MOVEMENT either.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo: To be honest I dont blame Jones for not wanting to debate on this forum. This forum carries no weight with most academics I am sure.

And with regard to how people perceive me, all I can do is quote my old boss:

"I'm not here to win a popularity contest!"

And, Ron, I never said I don't trust the FBI's lab results.. I was simply pointing out that even an FBI lab can cook data, which ultimately makes any and all WTC data potentially open to question.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I was simply pointing out that even an FBI lab can cook data, which ultimately makes any and all WTC data potentially open to question.

Hear hear.

[pomeroo]

Hear hear.



Ace believes an that event witnessed by thousands of onlookers is "open to question."

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo: To be honest I dont blame Jones for not wanting to debate on this forum. This forum carries no weight with most academics I am sure.




No, Jones refused to defend his paper in a disputation with you and Ryan Mackey. As I explained to him, the idea is to examine the science without the distractions of ad hominem arguments.



[quote=Apollo20;2714030]
And with regard to how people perceive me, all I can do is quote my old boss:

"I'm not here to win a popularity contest!"

And, Ron, I never said I don't trust the FBI's lab results.. I was simply pointing out that even an FBI lab can cook data, which ultimately makes any and all WTC data potentially open to question.



If you're suggesting that there is a real possibility that "an FBI lab can cook data," why shouldn't we assume that you mistrust the results obtained?

[DavidJames]

Oh, and by the way Ron, since you appear anxious to get more information on the micro-spheres in the WTC dust, would you support a FOIA to the FBI for the release of its analytical data on the samples it collected from Ground Zero post 9/11? Who cares what Ron would support, you are an expert, you have a PHD, you are the one with the questions. Yet I don't see you filing FOIA's or doing anything more then attempts at being clever with your anti-establishment, anti-mainstream, comments and your NISTian references. Why don't you come out front and tell us what you think, tell everyone your opinions. You have 300 posts and I don't recall anything beyond posturing and subtle accusations,

You are making CTist drool. You are embolden people who are accusing innocent people of mass murder. Step up and either join them (they think you have already), or come forward with something other your illusive, coy missives. Come clean with your opinions.

If you've got something, show it, support it, publish it. We know about your troubles with the big bad organizations, it's becoming clearer to me why, as you seem to struggle with open, honest, forthright and straightforward discussions. I'm use to that with junior level technical people, senior level people with those attributes, don't last long in my company. When they leave, they usually do with a chip on their shoulders, thinking they are smarter and more important then those they leave behind. One in a hundred are, the rest are just kidding themselves. Show us what group you're in Doc.

[R.Mackey]

To be fair, Dr. Greening is in Canada, and cannot issue an FOIA request.

However, it is not enough to state that the FBI "could" have falsified its data. This is mere sophistry. Unless there's some reason to conclude that they did, or a compelling motive (and I see none), this is unfounded speculation of the least useful kind, and should be treated accordingly.

[LashL]

<snip>To be fair, Dr. Greening is in Canada, and cannot issue an FOIA request.

Actually, foreign citizens can make FOIA requests of the U.S. government.

[R.Mackey]

Actually, foreign citizens can make FOIA requests of the U.S. government.

Huh! I did not know that -- nor need to, never having been a non-citizen, but you are quite right:


(3)(A) Except with respect to the records made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, and except as provided in subparagraph (E), each agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person.
Source (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiastat.htm)


Unusual for the code to make us beholden to all people, not merely citizens, hence my incorrect assumption. What a dreadful Orwellian dictatorship I live in... ;)

[LashL]

<snip>Unusual for the code to make us beholden to all people, not merely citizens, hence my incorrect assumption. What a dreadful Orwellian dictatorship I live in... ;)

Yes, it is unusual. In Canada, the federal Access to Information Act specifically narrows its applicability to Canadian citizens and permanent residents (unless the Governor in Council orders otherwise).

[Apollo20]

I call THIS "cooking data":

"Improper Preparation of Laboratory Reports by three EU examiners who altered, omitted, or improperly supplemented some of Whitehurst's internal reports (dictations) as they were being compiled into an official report of the Laboratory."

If anyone did this to my lab notebook I would say "J'Accuse" too!

[pomeroo]

I call THIS "cooking data":

"Improper Preparation of Laboratory Reports by three EU examiners who altered, omitted, or improperly supplemented some of Whitehurst's internal reports (dictations) as they were being compiled into an official report of the Laboratory."

If anyone did this to my lab notebook I would say "J'Accuse" too!



If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were saying that you didn't trust FBI lab results.

[T.A.M.]

You know, I am getting pretty sick and tired of the Bullshaite that we are "Close Minded" and not open to real debate or discussion.

If dismissing SPECULATION, and HERESAY, and BASELESS OPINION makes me, makes those here at JREF close minded, then fine. I would say, however, that giving a voice to unfounded defamation is sickening and cruel.

Apollo, you may not like the way many of the truthers are treated here, but name one of them who has brought to this forum anything that would even remotely pass as legitimate evidence for their case against the USG wrt the 9/11 attacks.

For F&*K Sake, we are dealing with someone who thinks A STAR WARS BEAM WEAPON brought down the towers, and that the eye witnesses to the crashes are liars, or mistaken.

People here treat the NIST reports with such high regard, because there is NO OTHER INVESTIGATION OR REPORT that even comes close to it wrt detail or expertese. The truthers certainly haven't produced anything close. You and your fellow scientists, Bazant et al, have attempted to do so, and to your credit sir. However, to continue to berate this place and the good people who post here, all of whom do so without making any money, recieving no fame for their efforts (unlike the industry that is 9/11 truth...DRG and Dylan are not hurting for their efforts, nor is Alex Jones), is simply...POOR FORM.

Would you rather have us all stop, and offer no alternative, no other voice to oppose the Lunacy that comes from Lyte Trip, ACE Baker, Judy Wood, and others. Should there be noone to keep watch on the activities and products of these snake oil salesmen?

By the gods, we may be annoying, we may get under your skin, but us NISTIANS, as you have so affectionately called us, will keep the 9/11 truth movement on its toes, if nothing more...There is a reason you can find the word JREF in many a truther forum thread.

TAM:)

[LashL]

<snip>If anyone did this to my lab notebook I would say "J'Accuse" too!

Um, you do know that nobody altered any of Whitehurst's notebooks, right?

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

If the FBI have stopped this kind of nonsense, I would say that I trust what they are now reporting:

1) Whitehurst alleged that Thurman committed willful misconduct by changing Whitehurst's Laboratory reports. This, and a similar allegation regarding other examiners, arose because one of the supervisors in the Laboratory who has since retired did not strictly adhere to an unwritten policy that auxiliary examiner reports were to be included verbatim in final reports unless the person preparing the final report and the person who had prepared the auxiliary report agreed on the changes. We found numerous instances in which Whitehurst's reports were changed by Thurman. Some of those changes resulted in inaccuracies and unsubstantiated conclusions. Other modifications did not concern matters of substance but were stylistic changes.

2) Whitehurst also contended that EU examiner Wallace Higgins had significantly changed a number of Whitehurst's dictations without his authorization. We substantiated that charge. Both the Thurman and Higgins alterations underscore the need for Laboratory personnel to follow Laboratory policy to ensure that the reports of analytical work prepared by Laboratory scientists are not substantively altered unless agreement is reached on the changes.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

If the FBI have stopped this kind of nonsense, I would say that I trust what they are now reporting:

1) Whitehurst alleged that Thurman committed willful misconduct by changing Whitehurst's Laboratory reports. This, and a similar allegation regarding other examiners, arose because one of the supervisors in the Laboratory who has since retired did not strictly adhere to an unwritten policy that auxiliary examiner reports were to be included verbatim in final reports unless the person preparing the final report and the person who had prepared the auxiliary report agreed on the changes. We found numerous instances in which Whitehurst's reports were changed by Thurman. Some of those changes resulted in inaccuracies and unsubstantiated conclusions. Other modifications did not concern matters of substance but were stylistic changes.

2) Whitehurst also contended that EU examiner Wallace Higgins had significantly changed a number of Whitehurst's dictations without his authorization. We substantiated that charge. Both the Thurman and Higgins alterations underscore the need for Laboratory personnel to follow Laboratory policy to ensure that the reports of analytical work prepared by Laboratory scientists are not substantively altered unless agreement is reached on the changes.



Frank, We have wandered off the topic. I accept as accurate your accounts of personal dealings with labs and university science departments. I accept them because I regard you as a friend who took the time to answer my uninformed questions about your work, and because I believe that you are an honest man.

When you accuse people here of being mindless "NISTians," you certainly imply that they would reject out of hand any criticisms of NIST's findings presented by you or another scientist of comparable stature. I see no evidence of such rigid, narrow-minded adherence to orthodoxy. On the contrary, I see highly intelligent people with impressive technical backgrounds taking great pains to examine the silliest nonsense and the most outlandish speculation, all for the purpose of edging closer to objective truth. Half-educated fools claiming to be Galileo are a dime-a-dozen. Members of this forum venerate real Galileos, and would be thrilled to discover one among us.

The charge that people here would refuse to give you a fair hearing if you demonstrated significant flaws in the NIST Report just isn't fair. I don't presume to speak for the scientists and engineers, but I feel confident that they would follow the evidence wherever it leads. You perform a valuable service when you ask us to consider the possibility that NIST has not delivered the final word. You should wonder about the impression you've created when posters ask if you accept the conclusion that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impacts of the planes and the resulting fires.

[Apollo20]

Ron,

First I would say we are very much ON TOPIC with the present discussion since the title of the thread is essentially: “Chemistry Reveals the Truth”, which as a chemist, I have to agree with.

The problem I see is that you, and many other JREFers, appear to be unable to separate your personal political leanings from science. A recent comment by TAM on the question of who could reliably examine WTC samples says it all:

“No one from NIST, BUT no one from the TRUTH MOVEMENT either.”

I could equally ask: Who could reliably examine the Turin Shroud? Would TAM argue: “No atheists, BUT no CATHOLICS either.” This tells me that, in the end, TAM sees 9/11 “belief” as a religion as much as the TWOOFERS do! Personally, I don’t see the story offered by the various government reports on 9/11 as a series of “take-it-or-leave-it-packages”. That is hardly the scientific approach! And the trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!

So, I can do a calculation and find that there was enough PE stored in a tower for a gravitational collapse initiated by the free fall descent of an upper block of ~ 15 floors through 1 story, to be self-sustaining. And I can do a calculation to convince myself that there was enough PE stored in a tower to pulverize the concrete to a particle size distribution that matches the observed particle size distribution, etc, etc. But does any of this tell me anything about passports in the rubble pile, about missing flight data recorders, about “melted” parking meters on Barclay Street…… or about iron-rich micro-spheres in the WTC dust.

Interestingly, there IS no OFFICIAL line on MANY issues connected with the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. NIST, FEMA and the KEAN Reports have NOTHING to say about the rubble pile or the pulverization of the concrete. And NIST, FEMA and the KEAN Reports have next to nothing to say about the chemistry that led to sulfiding and chlorination of the structural steel. In fact all these reports say on this is that they don’t have a clue how the remarkable chemical attack seen on so many pieces of recovered steel occurred!

Now I know that a lot of JREFers reaction to this is: SO WHAT! If no one in NIST or FEMA says anything about chemistry in the WTC collapse, then obviously chemistry was unimportant!

Well, all you guys are entitled to think whatever you want, see whatever you want and ignore whatever you want. But then perhaps you should go and read some other thread if chemistry bores you!

As for me, I just got the marvelous PARTICLE ATLAS by Walter McCrone from the library. It has hundreds of electron micrographs and EDX spectra of particles at 100x, 1000x, and 10,000x. I see lots of particles with Fe, Al, K, S.... Let's see if Steven Jones' particles are in here somewhere...

[R.Mackey]

Personally, I don’t see the story offered by the various government reports on 9/11 as a series of “take-it-or-leave-it-packages”. That is hardly the scientific approach! And the trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!
Nonsense. All of NIST's calculations are repeatable -- all of them. Many of them have in fact been validated against other efforts. I know of four separate, independent impact models, for instance. This is even contained in the NIST report itself, in case you didn't feel like doing the legwork.

But does any of this tell me anything about passports in the rubble pile, about missing flight data recorders, about “melted” parking meters on Barclay Street…… or about iron-rich micro-spheres in the WTC dust.
You'll have to explain more about "melted" parking meters. Passports and missing FDRs? Totally unremarkable. Microspheres? We've been discussing it here. It's interesting, but not likely to be significant.


Interestingly, there IS no OFFICIAL line on MANY issues connected with the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. NIST, FEMA and the KEAN Reports have NOTHING to say about the rubble pile or the pulverization of the concrete. And NIST, FEMA and the KEAN Reports have next to nothing to say about the chemistry that led to sulfiding and chlorination of the structural steel. In fact all these reports say on this is that they don’t have a clue how the remarkable chemical attack seen on so many pieces of recovered steel occurred!
NIST has nothing to say about rubblization or the Pile because it's outside the National Construction Safety Team mandate, as clearly outlined in the preface of every single report.

The sulifidization is an open issue, but the FEMA report is the reason most of us know about it in the first place. Hardly a whitewash, now is it?


Now I know that a lot of JREFers reaction to this is: SO WHAT! If no one in NIST or FEMA says anything about chemistry in the WTC collapse, then obviously chemistry was unimportant!
Unsupported speculation about the opinions of a large and diverse group of people... this is not science. Knock it off.


Well, all you guys are entitled to think whatever you want, see whatever you want and ignore whatever you want. But then perhaps you should go and read some other thread if chemistry bores you!
You may count me among the many people who have implored you for details about what you think. I am not a chemist. Doesn't mean I don't find it interesting.

Your tirades, on the other hand, are not only uninteresting, but also misguided and unbecoming to a scientist. I just don't understand where this comes from.

[Apollo20]

Mackey:

That a calculation is repeatable is a given. The point is that the NIST Report is NOT scientific because it cannot be TESTED. This is mainly because the NIST Report makes no predictions, which is to be expected for a MODEL that STOPS at collapse initiation and therefore has no PREDICTIVE capability other than the statement that global collapse (should) now ensue. This is fine, but there are a myriad of other models/mechanisms for a progressive collapse. The NIST model is just one; but NIST do not demonstrate that it is the only one or the most probable. This could be accomplished by calculating a collapse time from the NIST data.... but this is something no one has bothered to do.

[rwguinn]

Mackey:

That a calculation is repeatable is a given. The point is that the NIST Report is NOT scientific because it cannot be TESTED.
WHAT? An entire system does not need testing to prove concept and calculation.
It is very, very simple to show that 1. collisions can damage spray-on insulation. 2. reduction in insulation coverage allows higher temperature in the now-unprotected steel. 3. High velocity impacts will damage structural components. 4. Loss of stability in a parallel-column structure is achievable through disconnecting the ties between the parallel columns. 5. High-velocity impacts between a fuel-filled aluminum conatainer and steel, with the addition of a high-temperature source will cause conflagration, spreading to other combustables in the area, and 6 A combination of all these things will cause columnar buckling and failure of the structure.
All the above are testable. For very large systems, one does not test to destruction--you test components. Then, you make your model of the local areas agree with reality (that's called "correlating the model") and then put them all together.
This is mainly because the NIST Report makes no predictions, which is to be expected for a MODEL that STOPS at collapse initiation and therefore has no PREDICTIVE capability other than the statement that global collapse (should) now ensue. I call BS. It very well predicts that should these events occur again, or similar events occur, failure will ensue--look at the concrete/steel tower that burned for hours and the steel collapsed
This is fine, but there are a myriad of other models/mechanisms for a progressive collapse. The NIST model is just one; but NIST do not demonstrate that it is the only one or the most probable. This could be accomplished by calculating a collapse time from the NIST data.... but this is something no one has bothered to do. These things have been done, by several folks, including yourself- or was that not your part of those papers you claim?
Tell us about cause and effect--how the cold dripping of zinc onto cold CRES can result in failure--or was it that a pipe failed due to an induced moment, causing a fire, and the subsequent conflagration caused the galvanization to run, embrittling a CRES pipe, which was the same one that failed first, and causing another post-fire split?
I forget just what "Post initiation failure" means in your mind...

[PhantomWolf]

Apollo 20,

Do you consider the police forenics in a homicide investigation to be science? If so in what way do they differ to the NIST 9/11 investigation? If not, then why should they be acceptable in a court of law but NIST considered unreliable for using the same technequies?

And besides, the FAE models were predictive. The steel samples were tested against the predictions the model made to determine if they matched.

[R.Mackey]

Mackey:

That a calculation is repeatable is a given. The point is that the NIST Report is NOT scientific because it cannot be TESTED. This is mainly because the NIST Report makes no predictions, which is to be expected for a MODEL that STOPS at collapse initiation and therefore has no PREDICTIVE capability other than the statement that global collapse (should) now ensue. This is fine, but there are a myriad of other models/mechanisms for a progressive collapse. The NIST model is just one; but NIST do not demonstrate that it is the only one or the most probable. This could be accomplished by calculating a collapse time from the NIST data.... but this is something no one has bothered to do.

What do you mean it "can't be tested?"

One of the primary evaluation criteria for the overall NIST model was the approximate time of failure. Given that the two Towers had significantly different impact geometry, fire progression, and remaining time standing, the fact that the NIST models predict the two different collapse times reasonably well (say within 20%) is pretty compelling. That's just one example.

Once again, the National Construction Safety Team Act gave NIST a specific mandate, and that is find out why they fell. It has nothing to do with predicting how long that collapse would take.

Your claim that the NIST model cannot be tested is incorrect. Your complaint that they didn't model the collapse is a strawman.

I know you can do better than this!

[T.A.M.]

I am getting the distinct feeling, from the issues being brought up (pulvarization of concrete, rubble pile, melted car meters) that our resident chemist has decided to join the CT side of things. To even consider some of these kooky issues as valid for investigation is...well, "buying in" to some degree at least.

I suppose next you'll be asking us about the burned out car shells, and why the burn marks were "limited" to certain areas of the cars. Then what, bringing up links to the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" articles?

Do not get me wrong, I am all for investigating, where possible, and where VALID, any unanswered aspects of any issue, but I do not see the sanity behind investigating, for instance, whether or not Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs...an extreme example, but I am sure my point is made.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Well, my oh my!

I post a bit of chemistry and here is what I get in return from Pomeroo's "highly intelligent people with impressive technical backgrounds":

"I call BS"
"A whitewash"
"A strawman"
"Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs"
"Star Wars Beam Weapon"
"You are making CTist drool"
"An ego in self-supression mode"
"Kooky issues"
"Bafflingly antagonistic"

Pomeroo, while such comments may be entertaining to JREFers, this type of talk supports my contention that this thread is of little value to concerned scientists seeking to learn about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. (But may I recommend PHYSORG for those who do want a better level of technical debate on 9/11 issues.)

Certainly, I see no point in posting further comments to a thread that has degenerated into the type of inputs listed above!

[rwguinn]

Well, my oh my!

I post a bit of chemistry and here is what I get in return from Pomeroo's "highly intelligent people with impressive technical backgrounds":

"I call BS"
"A whitewash"
"A strawman"
"Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs"
"Star Wars Beam Weapon"
"You are making CTist drool"
"An ego in self-supression mode"
"Kooky issues"
"Bafflingly antagonistic"

Pomeroo, while such comments may be entertaining to JREFers, this type of talk supports my contention that this thread is of little value to concerned scientists seeking to learn about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. (But may I recommend PHYSORG for those who do want a better level of technical debate on 9/11 issues.)

Certainly, I see no point in posting further comments to a thread that has degenerated into the type of inputs listed above!

Spoken like a true twoofer.
Cherry pick the comments, and "prove" your point.
I personally believe that you are a fraud--and no scientist of any kind. Any "scientist" who believes that testing is required for every individual event, and cannot differentiate between cause and effect is guanofrentic.
Do you have to do an experiment (test) every day to prove that
O2+2H2-->2H2O+heat? You think it will change if you aren't constantly watching?

[JimBenArm]

Spoken like a true twoofer.
Cherry pick the comments, and "prove" your point.
I personally believe that you are a fraud--and no scientist of any kind. Any "scientist" who believes that testing is required for every individual event, and cannot differentiate between cause and effect is guanofrentic.
Do you have to do an experiment (test) every day to prove that
O2+2H2-->2H2O+heat? You think it will change if you aren't constantly watching?
Oh, I believe he was a scientist. I just don't think he's ever had any inter-personal relational skills.
This probably led to the problems he's had in the past with engineers. He can't just argue with them about the findings, he has to ridicule and try to humiliate people as well. No wonder no one would listen to him. He's a very intelligent man, just not a very wise one. Especially when it comes to how to treat people.

[pomeroo]

Well, my oh my!

I post a bit of chemistry and here is what I get in return from Pomeroo's "highly intelligent people with impressive technical backgrounds":

"I call BS"
"A whitewash"
"A strawman"
"Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs"
"Star Wars Beam Weapon"
"You are making CTist drool"
"An ego in self-supression mode"
"Kooky issues"
"Bafflingly antagonistic"

Pomeroo, while such comments may be entertaining to JREFers, this type of talk supports my contention that this thread is of little value to concerned scientists seeking to learn about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. (But may I recommend PHYSORG for those who do want a better level of technical debate on 9/11 issues.)

Certainly, I see no point in posting further comments to a thread that has degenerated into the type of inputs listed above!



Frank, Here is a quote from your post:

"And the trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"

When a typical twoofer raves about "impossible physics" and "errors of basic science" in the NIST Report, it is appropriate to dismiss those charges as the product of ignorance and agenda-driven imperviousness to evidence. When a working scientist of your stature challenges the overall integrity of the report, most of us stop dead in our tracks, poised to hear what comes next. Is it conceivable that the two hundred researchers employed by the agency are unable to recognize bad science? Are they complicit, willingly or through coercion, in a cover-up?

So far, the problem is that, despite various hints and insinuations, your devastating refutation of the NIST Report never quite assumes a definite and tangible form. You raise certain concerns about the significance of metal spherules found in dust samples, but the matter is left hanging. You claim that the NIST scenario is merely one of many more-or-less plausible ones. Another working scientist, R. Mackey, responds to you, arguing that no points you've raised shake the conclusions reached by NIST. So, for those of us who lack technical backgrounds, nothing is settled. Surely, someone is wrong.

Is it Mackey? Are the other people here with strong technical backgrounds (if I start naming names, I will accidently overlook a few important ones) unimaginatives slaves to a discredited orthodoxy? You asked the question: Where is the debate? Okay, where is it?

State briefly your problems with the NIST Report and let's see if they can't be resolved. To begin, tell us if NIST is a) mostly right, with a few details that need to be cleaned up; b) occasionally informative, but so inaccurate and/or misleading on critical issues that the value of the report, taken as a whole, is minimal; c) either shockingly wrong-headed-- inept in its application of basic scientific principles--or sinister--intentionally deceitful to further the aims of a vast conspiracy that reeaches across a broad spectrum of industries and occupations.

You raised the issue of the passport found in the rubble. This is a canard. What exactly are you saying?

[pomeroo]

Spoken like a true twoofer.
Cherry pick the comments, and "prove" your point.
I personally believe that you are a fraud--and no scientist of any kind. Any "scientist" who believes that testing is required for every individual event, and cannot differentiate between cause and effect is guanofrentic.
Do you have to do an experiment (test) every day to prove that
O2+2H2-->2H2O+heat? You think it will change if you aren't constantly watching?


Let's not get carried away. Dr. Greening's published papers prove that he is no fraud. He is highly competent in his field. What we are attempting to determine is why he chooses to encourage people who, most emphatically, do not share his commitment to science and reason.

[R.Mackey]

Well, my oh my!

I post a bit of chemistry and here is what I get in return from Pomeroo's "highly intelligent people with impressive technical backgrounds":

"I call BS"
"A whitewash"
"A strawman"
"Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs"
"Star Wars Beam Weapon"
"You are making CTist drool"
"An ego in self-supression mode"
"Kooky issues"
"Bafflingly antagonistic"

Pomeroo, while such comments may be entertaining to JREFers, this type of talk supports my contention that this thread is of little value to concerned scientists seeking to learn about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. (But may I recommend PHYSORG for those who do want a better level of technical debate on 9/11 issues.)

Certainly, I see no point in posting further comments to a thread that has degenerated into the type of inputs listed above!

Argumentum ad hominem. We see these all the time...

As I indicated before, your comment that the NIST report is "untestable," therefore it is not science, is wrong. Address your statement or retract it, please.

[rwguinn]

Let's not get carried away. Dr. Greening's published papers prove that he is no fraud. He is highly competent in his field. What we are attempting to determine is why he chooses to encourage people who, most emphatically, do not share his commitment to science and reason.

Seems like we are taking this Apollo20 guy at his word that he IS Dr. Greening.
I see no evidence that this is true, other than righteous indignation when the question was asked about why he claims authorship of a paper he is 3rd author on. And that could have been faked.

[JimBenArm]

Seems like we are taking this Apollo20 guy at his word that he IS Dr. Greening.
I see no evidence that this is true, other than righteous indignation when the question was asked about why he claims authorship of a paper he is 3rd author on. And that could have been faked.
He was challenged on this when he first came here. There was a lot of doubt, considering how he comes across in his posts. However, there was someone who had a way of verifying it, and Apollo20 was able to prove that he is indeed Dr. Greening.

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

Below is the quote which struck my attention, and spawned my reply. I have bolded the parts that caught my eye.

Ron,

First I would say we are very much ON TOPIC with the present discussion since the title of the thread is essentially: “Chemistry Reveals the Truth”, which as a chemist, I have to agree with.

The problem I see is that you, and many other JREFers, appear to be unable to separate your personal political leanings from science. A recent comment by TAM on the question of who could reliably examine WTC samples says it all:

“No one from NIST, BUT no one from the TRUTH MOVEMENT either.”

I could equally ask: Who could reliably examine the Turin Shroud? Would TAM argue: “No atheists, BUT no CATHOLICS either.” This tells me that, in the end, TAM sees 9/11 “belief” as a religion as much as the TWOOFERS do! Personally, I don’t see the story offered by the various government reports on 9/11 as a series of “take-it-or-leave-it-packages”. That is hardly the scientific approach! And the trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!

So, I can do a calculation and find that there was enough PE stored in a tower for a gravitational collapse initiated by the free fall descent of an upper block of ~ 15 floors through 1 story, to be self-sustaining. And I can do a calculation to convince myself that there was enough PE stored in a tower to pulverize the concrete to a particle size distribution that matches the observed particle size distribution, etc, etc. But does any of this tell me anything about passports in the rubble pile, about missing flight data recorders, about “melted” parking meters on Barclay Street…… or about iron-rich micro-spheres in the WTC dust.

Interestingly, there IS no OFFICIAL line on MANY issues connected with the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. NIST, FEMA and the KEAN Reports have NOTHING to say about the rubble pile or the pulverization of the concrete. And NIST, FEMA and the KEAN Reports have next to nothing to say about the chemistry that led to sulfiding and chlorination of the structural steel. In fact all these reports say on this is that they don’t have a clue how the remarkable chemical attack seen on so many pieces of recovered steel occurred!

Now I know that a lot of JREFers reaction to this is: SO WHAT! If no one in NIST or FEMA says anything about chemistry in the WTC collapse, then obviously chemistry was unimportant!

Well, all you guys are entitled to think whatever you want, see whatever you want and ignore whatever you want. But then perhaps you should go and read some other thread if chemistry bores you!

As for me, I just got the marvelous PARTICLE ATLAS by Walter McCrone from the library. It has hundreds of electron micrographs and EDX spectra of particles at 100x, 1000x, and 10,000x. I see lots of particles with Fe, Al, K, S.... Let's see if Steven Jones' particles are in here somewhere...

With respect to the first bolded part...

My reason for saying "Noone from NIST" is because the truthers would immediately cry foul. My reason for saying "No truthers either" is I feel they have a biased agenda which would taint their investigation and results.

I agree, that in terms of analyzing the shroud from a scientific point of view, any scientist who cannot keep his religious bias out of his investigation should not be a part of the analysis. If by this you are trying to make the point that scientists are able to keep their personal biases out of the investigation...ya right.

The second bolded area, as others have addressed here is simply untrue. Large parts of the NIST investigation can be repeated and verified or refuted.

The third bolded statement I thought at first you were just playing devil's advocate, as it was such a one liner out of the truther handbook...but then I began to wonder, which is why I replied to you the way I did below.

I am getting the distinct feeling, from the issues being brought up (pulvarization of concrete, rubble pile, melted car meters) that our resident chemist has decided to join the CT side of things. To even consider some of these kooky issues as valid for investigation is...well, "buying in" to some degree at least.

I suppose next you'll be asking us about the burned out car shells, and why the burn marks were "limited" to certain areas of the cars. Then what, bringing up links to the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" articles?

Do not get me wrong, I am all for investigating, where possible, and where VALID, any unanswered aspects of any issue, but I do not see the sanity behind investigating, for instance, whether or not Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs...an extreme example, but I am sure my point is made.

TAM:)

So below is your cherry picking of our responses. In there are three from mine, "kooky Issues", the "Leprachaun" comment, and the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" comment.

Now how you find these comments, in the context of your adopting them, offensive, while at the same time promoting for legitimate discussion "Melted meters" "pulverized concrete" and the contents of the "rubble pile" is beyond me. You see, to me, trying to have a rational, scientific discussion about the relevence of "melted meters" is just as silly (well almost) as discussion Leprachauns and Beam Weapons.

Well, my oh my!

I post a bit of chemistry and here is what I get in return from Pomeroo's "highly intelligent people with impressive technical backgrounds":

"I call BS"
"A whitewash"
"A strawman"
"Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs"
"Star Wars Beam Weapon"
"You are making CTist drool"
"An ego in self-supression mode"
"Kooky issues"
"Bafflingly antagonistic"

Pomeroo, while such comments may be entertaining to JREFers, this type of talk supports my contention that this thread is of little value to concerned scientists seeking to learn about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. (But may I recommend PHYSORG for those who do want a better level of technical debate on 9/11 issues.)

Certainly, I see no point in posting further comments to a thread that has degenerated into the type of inputs listed above!

I am glad you at least took the time to read my post...I only wish you would take it seriously.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Oh, and incidently, in regard to the "Technical background", my expertese is in medicine, not chemistry, or engineering, although I did do an electrical Engineering Tech Diploma (3 year) prior to pre-med and med school, so I have a decent physics background, as well as in mathematics, albeit over 15 years ago, with no use since...

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Well, my oh my!

I post a bit of chemistry and here is what I get in return from Pomeroo's "highly intelligent people with impressive technical backgrounds":

"I call BS"
"A whitewash"
"A strawman"
"Leprachauns helped bring down the WTCs"
"Star Wars Beam Weapon"
"You are making CTist drool"
"An ego in self-supression mode"
"Kooky issues"
"Bafflingly antagonistic"

Pomeroo, while such comments may be entertaining to JREFers, this type of talk supports my contention that this thread is of little value to concerned scientists seeking to learn about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. (But may I recommend PHYSORG for those who do want a better level of technical debate on 9/11 issues.)

Certainly, I see no point in posting further comments to a thread that has degenerated into the type of inputs listed above!

And yet you totally ignored the posts previous to the one you go off about that were on topic, not insulting and whated to deal with the technical issues you were raising. How about acting less like a spoilt brat who throws his toys on the floor Frank? Some of us would like to discuss the issues with you, but you keep getting in the way of that. 99% of scientists I know can't be shut up about their topic, they will talk your ear off till you know the issues as well as they do. Not you though. To get information out of you is like pulling hens teeth. You seem to delight in sniping comments and tugging people's chains, all the while giving hope to those whose theories you claim to disagree with. How about actually making a stand one way or the other? If you want to address what you think are floors in the offical reports, fine, let's do it, but without all the pettiness, innuendo and tantrums. If this is how you acted when you were working in the science community I'm not at all surprised they got sick of you. Try behaving like an adult, and you might find that people here treat you like one.

[MIKILLINI]

I would like to see everything you have to show Apollo, My background has no higher education but I read many things and try to decipher them. I've been wrong numerous times but I learned from those errors. If you can put out here all that you have, such as the formulas, interpretations and total honest opinion. I can understand a good part of your analogy, and pick up the rest from those who have educated knowledge here. How about a good debate? Debates are educational.

[Apollo20]

O.K..... Let's talk about the NIST Report:

In NIST NCSTAR 1 we see the claim that the agreement between observations of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and computer simulations of these events is “reasonably good”; but how good is it? The overall collapse model developed by NIST is based on two sub-models: (1) The aircraft impacts and associated damage, and (2) The heat transfer to the steel structure from the fires and the associated temperatures attained by critical steel components. So let’s look at some examples of the precision and accuracy of these sub-models to estimate how well NIST’s calculations could possibly describe the behavior of WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11.

Let’s start with the aircraft impacts: NIST estimate the speed of the aircraft that hit WTC 1 as 443 +/- 30 mph. This is an uncertainty of about 7 %. However, since the impact kinetic energy varies as v^2, this implies an uncertainty in the impact energy of about +/- 14 %. Then we must consider the uncertainty in the mass of the impacting Boeing 767 and the subsequent momentum transfer within the buildings. Significantly no NIST aircraft impact model managed to predict that an engine would actually exit WTC 2. But uncertainties of 14 % are small compared to the “cloud of unknowing” surrounding other physical quantities estimated by NIST.

Thus on the critically important damage to the SFRM in the Twin Towers, NIST has this to say: “Fireproofing thickness and fireproofing damage due to aircraft impact is identified as the single most important parameter in the fire simulations”, (See NCSTAR 1-5G). NIST postulate that some SFRM may have been dislodged by impact-induced vibrations of the buildings even outside the directly impacted floors of each tower. But in NCSTAR 1-2 NIST confess that no visible information could be obtained on the extent of damage to the interior of the towers from the video or photographic record. Hence it is no surprise that NIST ultimately admit it was unable to estimate SFRM damage outside of the aircraft debris impact zone. Worse yet, even for surfaces within this zone we read: “thermal insulation was NOT included in the aircraft impact model”, (See NCSTAR 1-6 page 130). But reading further in NCSTAR 1-6 we discover that NIST assumed without proof that SFRM was considered to have been removed “if the room furnishings were damaged”, (See NCSTAR 1-6 page 129).

In NCSTAR 1 NIST claims that SFRM was dislodged on five floors (94 – 98) of WTC 1 and six floors (78 – 83) of WTC 2. Unfortunately this assertion is contradicted by the figures given in Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-6 that show significant SFRM removal was confined to four floors of WTC 1 and five floors of WTC 2. But perhaps this uncertainty is to be expected when we read on page 190 of NCSTAR 1-2 that the physics of the fuel impact and dispersion in the WTC aircraft impact events was not analyzed because “no single analysis technique was available… (to deal with) … fuel dispersion without significant uncertainties”.

Now let’s look at NIST’s fire simulations. Once again NIST claims that there was reasonable agreement between the fire simulations and the observed behavior of the WTC fires. But once again, I ask: is this true? Well skepticism creeps in when NIST admits that the cold spots on floors 80 – 82 of WTC 2 could not be explained anymore than the fact that its model predictions of fire spread rates were often much higher than the observed rates. To be sure, NIST provide plenty of calculated “upper layer” temperatures in NCSTAR 1-5, suggesting that these temperatures reached 1000 deg C for periods of 15 minutes or so, but NCSTAR 1-5F shows that these predictions vary considerably with assumptions about the number of broken windows on a particular floor and the presence or absence of “soffits” below the ceilings. The net result is that NIST’s FDS program can predict temperatures and heat release rates to an accuracy of only about 20 %. And this accuracy is achievable ONLY if the ventilation and availability of combustibles are precisely known which is NOT the case for the WTC fires.

It only gets worse when we look at NIST’s estimates of steel temperatures in the WTC fires. Table 2-3 of NCSTAR 1-5G shows that temperatures calculated by NIST’s FDS program were typically 20 % off in comparison to measurements taken during the ASTM E-119 tests of simulated WTC truss assemblies. Figure 5-13 and Tables 12-9 and 12-10 of NCSTAR 1-5G are also noteworthy since they show variations of hundreds of degrees for different locations on truss assemblies for the same floors of WTC 1.

I could go on…. and on… and on…. but in the end let me simply say that the NIST Report is a self-fulfilling prophecy. One that proves the contention that:

“Structural engineers do not have an objective metric for measuring the performance of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001.”

[Mr. Skinny]

I have offered my assistance in helping Apollo contact metallurgists and chemists at the Air Force Materials Laboratory if he wishes to persue that avenue in studying the sphereules.

That's as much as I can do.

[PhantomWolf]

Apollo,

Since I'm at work currently and just posting while waiting for stuff to happen here, I can't go deep into your post right now. However on a quick skim, it seems that your main bone of contention is that NIST has made assumptions about things that they can only guess at since it was physically impossible to determine them via normal measurements (the speed of the planes, the damage to the fireproofing, the dispersal of the fuel and office equipment about the impact zone.) Would this be correct? And if so, how would you suggest determining these factors when there is no way to go back in time and measure them manually.

(oh and by the way, saying that five floors of WTC 1 and six floors of WTC 2 had SFRM dislodged is not inconsistant with showing significant SFRM removal only on four floors of WTC 1 and five floors of WTC 2, unless you assume that all floors that had some SFRM dislodged also has significant amounts removed. If the highest floors (98 & 83) only has slight damage to the SFRM,, then this would count as dislodgement, but not count as significant removal.)

[LashL]

I have offered my assistance in helping Apollo contact metallurgists and chemists at the Air Force Materials Laboratory if he wishes to persue that avenue in studying the sphereules.

That's as much as I can do.

When I met Apollo a couple of months ago (give or take a couple of weeks), I offered my assistance to him in contacting chemists at NIST (who he was unaware of and whom he had never contacted), and I offered my assistance in trying to identify and contact experts on "zinc embrittlement" (as he had no knowledge of any experts on the subject and did not know who to contact), but Apollo has chosen not to utilize the significant resources that are available to me to advance those pursuits.

I can only wonder why not, but that's as much as I can do.

[R.Mackey]

O.K..... Let's talk about the NIST Report:

In NIST NCSTAR 1 we see the claim that the agreement between observations of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and computer simulations of these events is “reasonably good”; but how good is it? The overall collapse model developed by NIST is based on two sub-models: (1) The aircraft impacts and associated damage, and (2) The heat transfer to the steel structure from the fires and the associated temperatures attained by critical steel components. So let’s look at some examples of the precision and accuracy of these sub-models to estimate how well NIST’s calculations could possibly describe the behavior of WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11.

[Discussion of observational uncertainty, limitations of modeling, and experimental sources of error snipped in the interest of brevity]

I could go on…. and on… and on…. but in the end let me simply say that the NIST Report is a self-fulfilling prophecy. One that proves the contention that:

“Structural engineers do not have an objective metric for measuring the performance of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001.”

Two big holes in that argument.

First, all of your objections are taken from the NIST report. You didn't have to hunt for them and they weren't concealed. This is science! You aren't going to get a precise answer. There is always uncertainty and always limitation in the experiment.

Second, NIST contrasts the results of its collapse hypothesis against other hypotheses. For instance, in NIST NCSTAR1-6, they studied collapse initiation via pulling of bowed floor trusses versus collapse initiation by column buckling with trusses failed. In NIST NCSTAR1-2 they compare impact predictions for high, low, and baseline values of uncertain aircraft variables. In NIST NCSTAR1-5 different fire cases are contrasted. 1-6 again compares the likely outcome with no impact damage at all. Etc. NIST has then decided the most likely outcome based on these comparisons. It isn't proof, nor is it even possible to propagate errors through such a complicated chain of reasoning, but it is exactly what we need: the best educated guess, with full reasoning, about what happened.

You're basically complaining that NIST isn't omniscient. We all know that. I've acknowledged NIST's limitations, and I've even levied a few criticisms of my own that go beyond the scope of your comments above. That doesn't mean their work is worthless. Quite the contrary.

If you think they made bad decisions, ignored important evidence, or that in any way you have a superior hypothesis, you are welcome to bring it to light. But you're only complaining that they might be wrong, not that you know they are.

In other words, you're speculating.

[Apollo20]

Mackey:

I have NEVER said, and do not believe, that NIST scientists deliberately hid anything. In fact I think a lot of the NIST Report is ok and I have great respect for the scientists who worked on the project.

However, when you say that I am speculating, I would counter that some parts of the NIST Report are pure speculation too... and some important issues were not pursued by NIST, but just left blowing in the dust clouds over Manhattan so to speak!

And I believe that chemistry can explain some observations better than NISTs "stripped SFRM" hypothesis. In fact only chemistry can explain elevated temperatures AND extreme corrosive attack of the steel.....

So, let me ask you a few questions:

(1). Do you think the zinc coating on the floor pans on the fire-affected floors melted?"

(2) How many tonnes of PVC do you think were present on each WTC floor?

(3) Do you know anything about the PLASTIMET fire?

[Gravy]

...So, let me ask you a few questions:

(1). Do you think the zinc coating on the floor pans on the fire-affected floors melted?"

(2) How many tonnes of PVC do you think were present on each WTC floor?

(3) Do you know anything about the PLASTIMET fire?Here's a crazy idea: why not tell us about your investigations of these questions?

[R.Mackey]

Mackey:

I have NEVER said, and do not believe, that NIST scientists deliberately hid anything. In fact I think a lot of the NIST Report is ok and I have great respect for the scientists who worked on the project.
Fine. I agree. It's sometimes difficult to establish intent through one's posts.


However, when you say that I am speculating, I would counter that some parts of the NIST Report are pure speculation too... and some important issues were not pursued by NIST, but just left blowing in the dust clouds over Manhattan so to speak!
There are places where they have to take an educated guess. One example would be, as you point out, the extent of removed fireproofing at impact. It's just too hard to model every fragment, so they take a conservative average value based on unit tests of SFRM, and apply that to the impact model, knowing fully well that they've made a steep approximation. They then compensate for this by varying the test cases later on, trying to examine a reasonable range of guesses, reducing sensitivity to this inaccuracy.

Is this a "pure" speculation? Am I a "true" Scotsman? The point is that it's the best we can do, unless someone has a better idea. And nobody has tried to cover this up.


And I believe that chemistry can explain some observations better than NISTs "stripped SFRM" hypothesis. In fact only chemistry can explain elevated temperatures AND extreme corrosive attack of the steel.....

I don't have a problem with that, and I never have. The sulphidized steel fragments from the FEMA report remain an interesting item. However, the metallurgical report NIST NCSTAR1-3 suggests this was a minor effect at best, based on a survey of the debris, so our assumption is that it had little impact on the collapse itself. Do you know differently? Do you have a proposed mechanism that is expected to be widespread, and can we test for it?


So, let me ask you a few questions:

(1). Do you think the zinc coating on the floor pans on the fire-affected floors melted?"
My CRC says zinc melts at about 420 oC, so it's certainly a possibility, although I don't know enough about zinc chemistry and it could have burned first. I'm not a chemist. Seems plausible.


(2) How many tonnes of PVC do you think were present on each WTC floor?

(3) Do you know anything about the PLASTIMET fire?
Don't know. These are out of my field. I find PLASTIMET on the 'net, but I hadn't heard of it previously.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, my oh my!

==snip==

Pomeroo, while such comments may be entertaining to JREFers, this type of talk supports my contention that this thread is of little value to concerned scientists seeking to learn about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. (But may I recommend PHYSORG for those who do want a better level of technical debate on 9/11 issues.)

Certainly, I see no point in posting further comments to a thread that has degenerated into the type of inputs listed above!
Doctor:

Two points.

1. One need not test for a collapse if one watches a collapse happen. Why is one supposed to predict the past?

2. It isn't "science" to assume the conclusion, CD and/or therm?tes, and then try to fit evidence to that conclusion regardless of the holes in the process by which the fit is achieved. What sort of intellectual French Curve manipulation is going on here, particularly as regards Jones?

DR

[MIKILLINI]

Wasn't Plastimet the warehouse in Canada that caught fire about 10 years ago?
IIRC, this had 100's of tonnes of PVC and Polyurethane burn up, and as it turns out later, it was discovered that Plastimet was operating without a license.
Was there a chemical analysis taken of this fire? And do I suspect rightly that there is a similar reading from Plastimet when compared to the rubble in New York?

[Apollo20]

MIKILLINI:

I am quite familiar with the notorious “Plastimet” fire that started at 7:45 pm on Wednesday July 9th 1997 in a plastics recycling depot in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, because it happened about 4 miles from where I live. When the fire was finally extinguished, three days after it started, it was reported that about 400 tonnes of plastic material, mostly PVC, had burned in the fire.

The toxic/corrosive emissions from this fire are quite remarkable - concentrations of HCl approaching 1 milligram/m^3 were measured at locations approx. 1 mile from the Plastimet site one day into the fire. This observation is consistent with the fact that for every ton of PVC combusted, about ½ a ton of chlorine, as hydrochloric acid gas, HCl, is released. Given that airborne concentrations drop off as (distance)^2, the HCl concentrations say 100 meters from the Plastimet fire would have been in the tens of milligrams/m^3 range, which is capable of rapidly corroding metal as was indeed reported to have happened to chromium steel fixtures on fire trucks present at the Plastimet site.

Another volatile product expected from the combustion of PVC is benzene. This organic compound, also found in gasoline, is considered to be a hazardous airborne vapor above a concentration of about 1 ppm which is about 3 milligrams/m^3. Benzene concentrations ~ 1 milligram/m^3 were measured at locations 1 mile from the Plastimet site during the fire event. Significantly some of the other airborne species detected near the Plastimet fire in high concentrations such as the metals zinc and lead, (measured in the 10 microgram/m^3 range), are also indicative of the combustion of commercial formulations of PVC-based plastics since these particular metals are very common PVC additives.

Why is all of this of interest to 9/11 researchers?

Because the destruction of the Twin Towers involved the combustion of about 600 tons of PVC.

This simple fact explains why very high concentrations of HCl were detected at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11 and suggests that extremely high levels of corrosive acid gases would have been present in the WTC fires.

The presence of certain metals in the Twin Towers only made matters worse. In the presence of zinc used in the WTC galvanized steel floor pans, volatile zinc chloride would have formed which is highly reactive towards iron in the presence of sulfur. Sulfur was indeed also very abundant in the WTC in the form of gypsum, calcium sulfate, which is converted to SO2 in reducing atmospheres.

[T.A.M.]

MIKILLINI:

I am quite familiar with the notorious “Plastimet” fire that started at 7:45 pm on Wednesday July 9th 1997 in a plastics recycling depot in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, because it happened about 4 miles from where I live. When the fire was finally extinguished, three days after it started, it was reported that about 400 tonnes of plastic material, mostly PVC, had burned in the fire.

The toxic/corrosive emissions from this fire are quite remarkable - concentrations of HCl approaching 1 milligram/m^3 were measured at locations approx. 1 mile from the Plastimet site one day into the fire. This observation is consistent with the fact that for every ton of PVC combusted, about ½ a ton of chlorine, as hydrochloric acid gas, HCl, is released. Given that airborne concentrations drop off as (distance)^2, the HCl concentrations say 100 meters from the Plastimet fire would have been in the tens of milligrams/m^3 range, which is capable of rapidly corroding metal as was indeed reported to have happened to chromium steel fixtures on fire trucks present at the Plastimet site.

Another volatile product expected from the combustion of PVC is benzene. This organic compound, also found in gasoline, is considered to be a hazardous airborne vapor above a concentration of about 1 ppm which is about 3 milligrams/m^3. Benzene concentrations ~ 1 milligram/m^3 were measured at locations 1 mile from the Plastimet site during the fire event. Significantly some of the other airborne species detected near the Plastimet fire in high concentrations such as the metals zinc and lead, (measured in the 10 microgram/m^3 range), are also indicative of the combustion of commercial formulations of PVC-based plastics since these particular metals are very common PVC additives.

Why is all of this of interest to 9/11 researchers?

Because the destruction of the Twin Towers involved the combustion of about 600 tons of PVC.

This simple fact explains why very high concentrations of HCl were detected at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11 and suggests that extremely high levels of corrosive acid gases would have been present in the WTC fires.

The presence of certain metals in the Twin Towers only made matters worse. In the presence of zinc used in the WTC galvanized steel floor pans, volatile zinc chloride would have formed which is highly reactive towards iron in the presence of sulfur. Sulfur was indeed also very abundant in the WTC in the form of gypsum, calcium sulfate, which is converted to SO2 in reducing atmospheres.


Interesting, but completely boring to most of the truth movement "researchers" who will find the lack of "inside job" implication annoying at the very least.

I think, Apollo, that if all of this attacking of the NIST report, and those who place, to you, too much faith in it, is about the lack of investigation into the role of certain chemicals within the buildings, than fine. It sounds like a valid area that requires further research, and perhaps you are the man to do it.

No one is saying that NIST is the first and last, and only word on all aspects of the collapses, but what hasnt been shown to anyone here, is valid proof that Controlled Demolition or Thermite were involved.

If you strongly feel that a critical chemical component contributing to temperature elevation was omitted or ignored, than by god bring it forward and present it, so that the full truth may be known. Unlike the truther "scientists" I get the feeling you would actually bring your work forward for a legitimate peer review and critical analysis.

TAM:)

[MIKILLINI]

600 tonnes? I hope that I understand the NIST correctly, they have the calculations of PVC-based chlorides at an average of, I think, 1.5 tonnes per floor? Then that would leave 400 + tonnes of this material unaccounted for?
There is chlorine in concrete, paper, water and the galvanized floor pans. But if I put a rough estimate on the flooring and other chlorinated materials at around 200 tonnes, this would still leave 200 + tonnes of PVC left. What would, or could this come from?

[PhantomWolf]

Actually it's more because when considering the collapse, we only need to consider the PVC on floors that were on fire.

While I'm not one of them, NIST did ask for any steel samples that the Engineers thought looked like they would contribute to the investigation. Surely any corroded samples would have been noted as interesting enough to have been collected and studied. Which Apollo20 is heading in an interesting direction, I'm not sure that it's going to end up going anywhere. I have the feeling that the consentrations would be too low, and the collaspe times too quick to have really achieved any significant chemical attacks on the steel before the collapses occured. I think that the more agreesive reactions occured in the piles, not the fires.

[rwguinn]

600 tonnes? I hope that I understand the NIST correctly, they have the calculations of PVC-based chlorides at an average of, I think, 1.5 tonnes per floor? Then that would leave 400 + tonnes of this material unaccounted for?
There is chlorine in concrete, paper, water and the galvanized floor pans. But if I put a rough estimate on the flooring and other chlorinated materials at around 200 tonnes, this would still leave 200 + tonnes of PVC left. What would, or could this come from?
Don't get your "Tons" and "Tonnes" mixed up.
A ton is 2000lb. A tonne is 1000kg, or about 2200 lb.
but 600 tons seems a little high, even accounting for the fact that 2 humongus (that's a technical term), 1 great big, and a couple of smaller, buildings came down that day, because they did not all burn!.
600 tons (that's 1.2 Million pounds) consumed by fire that day? I'd like to see the source for that value.

ETA: I see that the ghostly Lobo beat me too it...

[MIKILLINI]

Don't get your "Tons" and "Tonnes" mixed up.
A ton is 2000lb. A tonne is 1000kg, or about 2200 lb.
but 600 tons seems a little high, even accounting for the fact that 2 humongus (that's a technical term), 1 great big, and a couple of smaller, buildings came down that day, because they did not all burn!.
600 tons (that's 1.2 Million pounds) consumed by fire that day? I'd like to see the source for that value.

ETA: I see that the ghostly Lobo beat me too it...

Duly noted ya Ninjaneer! Or is that engineer (A technical title):p ? I haven't got used to the metric system yet, so I will do that tonnes- tons thing ( a technical term) from time to time. I think the S.A.E. will never leave Me completely although the metric aspect triggers itself once in a while.
I don't believe he's talking about all 600 tons of this material burning in one day, but rather the rest of it was still burning in the rubble pile. But I'll ask the question; Apollo is this what you are saying? Where did the rest of the chlorine based material come from? And was it all consumed on 9/11, or was the total sum consumed over months of time?

[LashL]

MIKILLINI:

I am quite familiar with the notorious “Plastimet” fire that started at 7:45 pm on Wednesday July 9th 1997 in a plastics recycling depot in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, because it happened about 4 miles from where I live. When the fire was finally extinguished, three days after it started, it was reported that about 400 tonnes of plastic material, mostly PVC, had burned in the fire.

I am very familiar with the Plastimet fire as well, as I used to live in Hamilton, and did at the time of the fire. In addition, I followed the class action lawsuit that it engendered (there were some odd decisions in that one), and I followed the subsequent efforts of a firefighter's family to have his subsequent illness and death deemed to be work-related as a result of his having worked that fire.

When the fire started, I was at a baseball game (coaching my daughter's baseball team) at the south end of the escarpment at the time and the massive plume of thick, dark smoke was obvious even from there. (Although, at the time, everyone at the ball diamond thought the fire must have been up on the escarpment, and had no idea that it was below the escarpment in the north end of the city).

The next day, there were sizeable pieces of burnt debris/ash on my lawn and floating in my swimming pool (also at the south end of the escarpment).

I remember going to work the next day (to the courthouse that used to be located at 125 Main St. East and which is no longer a courthouse), driving down the escarpment via the Sherman cut, and as I approached the edge of the escarpment before it starts downward, it was one of the most surreal scenes I have ever witnessed in my life. Above the escarpment, it was a clear, bright, sunny morning. But once I reached the edge of the escarpment where the lower city normally came into view, it was an eerie sight. A very bizarre looking, thick, sheet of "something" menacing, just sort of hovering in space and blocking out the entire view of the lower city, with the sun playing havoc on it and making it look like something out of a bad "B" movie. I remember thinking, "this is like something out of a bad movie and this is the point where they cue the music that is supposed to tell me to turn around and do NOT continue into the next scene where the scary person/murderer/bad guy is sure to pop up." Of course, I kept driving. Just like in any bad B movie. I realize that sounds weird but that's how it was.

Then, when I got to the bottom of the escarpment, things were pretty "normal" again once on ground level.

For those who are unfamiliar with the city of Hamilton, Ontario, it really is a "tale of two cities" kind of place, in that it is divided by the Niagara escarpment, so the elevation difference between the upper city and the lower city results in some very strange happenings at times vis a vis weather and other natural events.

Another important thing that came out of the Plastimet fire is that a firefighter named Robert Shaw died subsequent to having worked that fire, and very recently (within the last couple of months), the province has passed legislation to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to include a presumption of workplace-caused illness/death for certain illnesses contracted by firefighters, including the cancer that caused his death.

But I digress.

I did not mean to derail the discussion but the reference to the Plastimet fire brought back some vivid memories.

[rwguinn]

Duly noted ya Ninjaneer! Or is that engineer (A technical title):p ?
check out the "JREF Ninjas" sometime--referred to the mass-debunking at the start of the loose change website...


I haven't got used to the metric system yet, so I will do that tonnes- tons thing ( a technical term) from time to time. I think the S.A.E. will never leave Me completely although the metric aspect triggers itself once in a while.
I don't believe he's talking about all 600 tons of this material burning in one day, but rather the rest of it was still burning in the rubble pile. But I'll ask the question; Apollo is this what you are saying? Where did the rest of the chlorine based material come from? And was it all consumed on 9/11, or was the total sum consumed over months of time?

In restrospect, that would appear to be the case, although he seems to infer that rapid weakening of the towers due to zinc embrittlement and HCl corrosion were major contributors to the collapse. That would make it all happen in one hour, when his case in point took 3 days of burning in a free-circulating atmospheric environment, only to burn 66% of what he claims was in the towers.
To tell the truth, he doesn't seem to really want to come to a point, but dances around it. I guess that's easier than proposing a hypothesis.

[R.Mackey]

The toxic/corrosive emissions from this fire are quite remarkable - concentrations of HCl approaching 1 milligram/m^3 were measured at locations approx. 1 mile from the Plastimet site one day into the fire. This observation is consistent with the fact that for every ton of PVC combusted, about ½ a ton of chlorine, as hydrochloric acid gas, HCl, is released. Given that airborne concentrations drop off as (distance)^2, the HCl concentrations say 100 meters from the Plastimet fire would have been in the tens of milligrams/m^3 range, which is capable of rapidly corroding metal as was indeed reported to have happened to chromium steel fixtures on fire trucks present at the Plastimet site.

[...]

Why is all of this of interest to 9/11 researchers?

Because the destruction of the Twin Towers involved the combustion of about 600 tons of PVC.

This simple fact explains why very high concentrations of HCl were detected at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11 and suggests that extremely high levels of corrosive acid gases would have been present in the WTC fires.

The presence of certain metals in the Twin Towers only made matters worse. In the presence of zinc used in the WTC galvanized steel floor pans, volatile zinc chloride would have formed which is highly reactive towards iron in the presence of sulfur. Sulfur was indeed also very abundant in the WTC in the form of gypsum, calcium sulfate, which is converted to SO2 in reducing atmospheres.

Well, this is not (yet) proven to have taken place or have had any significant structural impact in WTC 1, 2, or 7, but it seems plausible to me -- I give it a plausibility score of nearly 2.0, quite strong and nowhere near the Gravy Line (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84621).

Seems like this should be testable, and also separable. Given that we know burning PVC should lead to HCl formation, we should be able to set up a furnace, a known atmospheric concentration of HCl, and test steel samples(bare members, welds, and bolted connections; packed with gypsum, dusted with gypsum, covered with SFRM, etc.), and see what the effect is as a function of temperature and time.

If this looks favorable, we can up the ante and start with PVC rather than jump straight to HCl and see how it tracks.

Then with a sharper estimate of the PVC distribution in the Towers, we should be able to determine with reasonable precision how likely and how significant this effect could have been. I find the mechanism credible; whether it adds a significant contribution compared to the strength loss from heating is another question, and I'd speculate that it doesn't, but we need some hard numbers to say one way or the other.

Has no one looked at this? The are a couple of obvious references like Sandmann and Widmer (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109616936/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) and Patton (http://jfs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/4/294), but again, I am out of my field; this is an honest question.

[Apollo20]

I believe NIST estimates there was 250 kg of combustibles per workstation of which 20 % was plastic material giving 50 kg per workstation. There appears to have been about 120 workstations per floor, so we have 6 tonnes of plastic per floor. PVC is by far the most common plastic so I estimated 50 % was PVC or 3 tonnes of PVC per floor. However, this number may be too low since the WTC flooring was vinyl (= PVC), as were the window blinds, as was the insulation on most of the electrical and telecommunications wiring and I suspect that these items were not included in NIST's estmate for plastic material in a typical workstation.

PVC decomposes VERY RAPIDLY at about 300 deg C releasing about 50 % of its weight as HCl and about 10 MJ of HEAT per kg of PVC. If we assume the WTC fires were over 5 floors there was the potential for the release of 7.5 tonnes of CHLORINE as HCl and 150 GJ of extra heat in each tower prior to collapse. But this is just the beginning since HCl -> Cl2 and Chlorine reacts EXOTHERMICALLY with iron and zinc....

The importance of CHLORINE in a fire cannot be underestimated since it acts catalytically through the sequence:

Chlorine -> metal chloride -> (in presence of oxygen) oxide + chlorine

However, I do accept the point that most of the PVC in each tower was outside the fires and would not have burned prior to collapse but may have been consumed in the rubble pile.

[T.A.M.]

A question.

Was any of the plumbing in the WTCs done with PVC, or was it all Copper etc...

TAM:)

[Lurker]

...This is an uncertainty of about 7 %. However, since the impact kinetic energy varies as v^2, this implies an uncertainty in the impact energy of about +/- 14 %. ...

...shows that temperatures calculated by NIST’s FDS program were typically 20 % off in comparison to measurements taken during the ASTM E-119 tests of simulated WTC truss assemblies. Figure 5-13 and Tables 12-9 and 12-10 of NCSTAR 1-5G are also noteworthy since they show variations of hundreds of degrees for different locations on truss assemblies for the same floors of WTC 1.

As someone who performs FEA simulation for a living I would consider these percent errors to be reasonable considering the complexity, unknown boundary conditions, material model variations and so on.

If Apollo was expecting the FEA simulations to arrive at answers within a much smaller margin of error I think this betrays a complete misunderstanding of FEA capabilities. With so many unknown parameters as input, you cannot expect precise answers. FEA does provide very precise answers when the materials and boundary conditions are better known.

If the FEA failed to note an engine coming out the other side of the building, I don't think that is critical. I have performed FEAs on simple tubes and gotten wrong answers as to when they buckle and collapse as compared to experiments. FEA is not infallible and is only as accurate as we can model the problem.

Lurker

[rwguinn]

As someone who performs FEA simulation for a living I would consider these percent errors to be reasonable considering the complexity, unknown boundary conditions, material model variations and so on.

If Apollo was expecting the FEA simulations to arrive at answers within a much smaller margin of error I think this betrays a complete misunderstanding of FEA capabilities. With so many unknown parameters as input, you cannot expect precise answers. FEA does provide very precise answers when the materials and boundary conditions are better known.

If the FEA failed to note an engine coming out the other side of the building, I don't think that is critical. I have performed FEAs on simple tubes and gotten wrong answers as to when they buckle and collapse as compared to experiments. FEA is not infallible and is only as accurate as we can model the problem.

Lurker
That's why engineering was once referrred to as "Mechanical Arts"--as in "College of Agricultural and Mechanical Arts". Texas A&M--NM State (Formerly NM A&M)--lots of schools started that way. A Certain amount of art goes into making the science work.
Chemistry is an "exact" science. Math is exact. Much of engineering is exact--what materials will do, what various events will do to structure/systems, how things get transmitted through the system--all the details are very demanding and require precise calculation.
What is not precise is the human element such as craftsmanship, and what conditions actually are or will be. Education and experience allow the engineer to make educated estimates (no, they are not "Guesses") based on reality, and to revise estimations, models, and techniques based on what reality dictates happened.
Of course, when stuff happens, Engineers are taken to task for not being sers and psychics in the first place. Life is full of ups and downs...

[PhantomWolf]

I believe NIST estimates there was 250 kg of combustibles per workstation of which 20 % was plastic material giving 50 kg per workstation.

can you reference this please, as an office worker, 250 kg per workstation seems to be an overly large amount to me.

[rwguinn]

can you reference this please, as an office worker, 250 kg per workstation seems to be an overly large amount to me.

Actually, if you include the particle board (mostly resin) and other components of the average cubicle, as well as the CPU, monitor, keyboard, and other such stuff, I can believe that number.

And if you have not tried it, I'll let you know-particle board burns HOT!

[BeAChooser]

can you reference this please, as an office worker, 250 kg per workstation seems to be an overly large amount to me.

NISTNCSTAR1-5C.PDF describes fire tests on individual cubicles. It states "Two different workstations designs: a generic workstation analogous to those used in the WTC and a workstation identical to one used on floors 93 to 100 of WTC 1. The visible differences between the two were in the nature of the privacy panels, the file cabinets, and the chair. The former had a combustible mass of 250 kg; the latter contained about 15 kg less wood laminate desk surface but was otherwise similar." It describes in detail the contents of the workstation (an 8ft by 8ft cubicle).

They included a melanine laminate over fiberboard work surface, 27 reams of paper and 14 document boxes, plastic kick plates and trim, computer keyboard, plastic waste basket, 36 nylon carpet tiles with rubber backing, shelf ends (particle board), bulldog chair, computer monitor, computer processor, 9 wall panels, book shelf, 3 two drawer steel filing cabinets for a total mass of 557 kg. The combustible fraction of the above was .45 giving a combustible mass of about 249 kg. See Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for a breakdown of the materials and what fraction was combustible. Over all, there was 111.5 kg of wood/laminate, 63.7 kg of paper, 39.3 kg of plastics and 34.2 kg of carpet.

The report also states that "Filling the filing cabinets in the cubicle could have added 150 kg of paper and increased the total heat released from 3.9 GJ to 4.8 GJ (based on an upper bound estimate of 30 percent of the mass of this additional paper being consumed). There would not likely be a significant increase in the peak HRR due to the poor air supply to the paper in the file cabinets. However, the additional heat released over a longer period of time could have provided a longer exposure at high temperatures for the structural components of the building."

[Apollo20]

NIST NCSTAR 1-5c

[MIKILLINI]

The chemistry of the materials involved did create fuel to keep the fire intense, so is this enough to cause such high chlorine based readings? Or is there something else that has not been accounted for, or you suspect has not been accounted for to answer the rubble pile analysis?

[Apollo20]

Based on Plastimet "metals in air" data I would expect chlorine to become a "carrier" for metals such as Cr, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn and Pb.

Prof. Cahill's WTC data supports this....

[Furcifer]

I'm going to speak up and kinda agree with Apollo on his take regarding NCSTAR. Had I, or anyone I know, submitted a paper with such a high degree of error, it would have been immediately rejected. If I needed clarification it was my responsibility to seek it before proceeding. To keep going and just add more to the -/+ was begging for trouble. To hold it up as a scientific paper may be a little too much. (Based in science but not scientific?)

And it has been my experience that engineers have allowable tolerances well above that of the scientists in a number of areas. Don't blame the messenger, this is just an observation on my part.

[MIKILLINI]

The EPA data appears to show the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. So that would mean there's another source of chlorine since the USGS reading of the concrete samples were so high?

[PhantomWolf]

They included a melanine laminate over fiberboard work surface, 27 reams of paper and 14 document boxes, plastic kick plates and trim, computer keyboard, plastic waste basket, 36 nylon carpet tiles with rubber backing, shelf ends (particle board), bulldog chair, computer monitor, computer processor, 9 wall panels, book shelf, 3 two drawer steel filing cabinets for a total mass of 557 kg. The combustible fraction of the above was .45 giving a combustible mass of about 249 kg. See Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for a breakdown of the materials and what fraction was combustible. Over all, there was 111.5 kg of wood/laminate, 63.7 kg of paper, 39.3 kg of plastics and 34.2 kg of carpet.

What a lot of junk!

Perhaps it's just that I have never had a 8x8 foot cubicle, but that seems a lot of stuff to me. I usually work with.

1 computer desk, 1 three-drawer file cabinet (laminated wood), gas-lift chair, computer monitor, keyboard, mouse and processer, in-out trays (plastic) 1 metal wastebasket, various pads, pens and other stationary.

27 reams of paper per cubile seems an awful lot to me, though if true, it's another source of chlorine as paper is chlorine bleached.

[R.Mackey]

What a lot of junk!

Perhaps it's just that I have never had a 8x8 foot cubicle, but that seems a lot of stuff to me. I usually work with.
Eh, that's not a bad fit to my office... although I'm a bit of a packrat. This is why I'm on the fence about in-service live loads. It can add up. Doesn't mean it did, but it can.

I'm going to speak up and kinda agree with Apollo on his take regarding NCSTAR. Had I, or anyone I know, submitted a paper with such a high degree of error, it would have been immediately rejected. If I needed clarification it was my responsibility to seek it before proceeding. To keep going and just add more to the -/+ was begging for trouble. To hold it up as a scientific paper may be a little too much. (Based in science but not scientific?)

And it has been my experience that engineers have allowable tolerances well above that of the scientists in a number of areas. Don't blame the messenger, this is just an observation on my part.

I can only assume you've never worked an accident investigation. :D

The standards of reporting are quite a bit lower, because you don't have a repeatable system. All you're trying to do is reconstruct what happened to the exclusion of other hypotheses, after that precision is appreciated but not crucial. NIST evaluated quite a few alternative hypotheses, and with the possible exclusion of Dr. Greening's chemical attack mechanism, I'm not aware of any credible alternative that they didn't study.

Honestly, how would you attain more accurate results? Complete answers, please.

Not so easy, is it?

Where there is reasonable room for improvement, there is reasonable criticism. For instance, if we perform a furnace experiment with PVC and demonstrate that chemical weakening is expected to be on the same order of magnitude as thermal weakening over the timescales and temperatures of the WTC cases, then we have a legitimate gripe with NIST, and I'll support it. Heck, I'll help write the paper (if I can). But until that point, all we have is speculation.

I could name several accident investigations -- critical, high-profile ones -- that were far less conclusive than NIST. So, I'm sure, could Dr. Greening. USS Thresher comes to mind... which eventually got noticed, and now we have SUBSAFE. Sometimes they're stopped in place by political forces, and sometimes they're stopped because we're just plain stumped. Let's not confuse the two without reasonable justification.

[Furcifer]

Personally I can't think of any additional tests that could have been performed that weren't. I honestly think they exhausted their resources in what could be done. I say that with some reservation because there is a chance that taking longer may have yielded more accurate results. A few more years research and new techniques, methods etc. will become available. This is of course highly impractical, and may not even lead to measureably higher accuracy. In the end NIST did what was expected and the report is technically perfect.

Technically perfect and scientifically perfect however, may prove to be just a little bit different. Scientifically it gets sent back for review until more accurate and reproduceable results are obtained IMO. Is this relevant? Nope, NCSTAR is a technical report, not a scientific one. I'm not saying the scientific method should have been applied either. The idea that a technical report be held to the scientific method is something I've only recently heard of on the internet, and only in this case. I'm just saying if it were then I would agree with Apollo20.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm going to speak up and kinda agree with Apollo on his take regarding NCSTAR. Had I, or anyone I know, submitted a paper with such a high degree of error, it would have been immediately rejected. If I needed clarification it was my responsibility to seek it before proceeding. To keep going and just add more to the -/+ was begging for trouble. To hold it up as a scientific paper may be a little too much. (Based in science but not scientific?)

I really think it depends on the branch of science and the novelty of the work as to what is an acceptable error bar on the results. What is absolutely vital to any piece of scientific work, however, is that the degree of error is reasonably assessed, the error margins on the results are stated openly, and the derivation is presented transparently. I haven't seen anyone suggest that NIST hasn't done so.

Dave

[NobbyNobbs]

White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires


This is where I stopped reading. For a supposedly "scientific" paper, this is an unusually broad and sweeping generalization. What temperatures? What materials? Define "ordinary"? Plus the fact that these fires were anything but ordinary...they were started by jet fuel.

I have a *very* limited chemistry background....just what I remember from high school....but don't I seem to recall that a magnesium strip plus an ordinary kitchen match produce a brilliant white flame? I'm not suggesting there was magnesium present, just that the author needs to narrow the scope of such statements.

Oh, and I like how the next line...of the introduction....provides a conclusion. Couldn't he have saved a lot of time and stopped writing there?

[Henry62]

Hi guys,
I want to tell You I published a new work in my blog about the ups on the 81st floor of WTC2.

I think You could be interested in my hypothesis about molten material.

According to the rule of the forum for newby, I cannot post the link, but You can easily found it researching

"11-settembre english section"

with Google.

Thanks and bye,
Henry62

[Apollo20]

Henry62:

Are you suggesting the molten metal flowing from WTC 2 was LEAD?

[Henry62]

Hi Apollo,
I think we had lead, aluminium, oxide, plastic, but also H2SO4 from batteries...

I found something sounds wrong in Nist "ups" identification, therefore I began my research.

Thanks and bye,
Henry62

[David Wong]

And which of those chemicals point to Dr. Greenings doubts about the unburned passport? And which point to the FBI falsifying evidence, as he accused a few pages back?

Sorry, I get lost in all the chemistry sometimes, especially when he's hinting at something MUCH bigger and MUCH more important in terms of who was behind the attacks themselves.

This is the conspiracy forum, after all.

[Dave Rogers]

According to the rule of the forum for newby, I cannot post the link, but You can easily found it researching

"11-settembre english section"

with Google.


http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Dave

[NobbyNobbs]

i know I'm late to the party, but I had a few questions/comments....



And, Ron, I never said I don't trust the FBI's lab results.. I was simply pointing out that even an FBI lab can cook data, which ultimately makes any and all WTC data potentially open to question.

Shouldn't Dr. Jones' work also be held with the same suspicion, then? I'm sure he's equally capable of cooking data.

You know, I am getting pretty sick and tired of the Bullshaite that we are "Close Minded" and not open to real debate or discussion.

If dismissing SPECULATION, and HERESAY, and BASELESS OPINION makes me, makes those here at JREF close minded, then fine. I would say, however, that giving a voice to unfounded defamation is sickening and cruel.

Apollo, you may not like the way many of the truthers are treated here, but name one of them who has brought to this forum anything that would even remotely pass as legitimate evidence for their case against the USG wrt the 9/11 attacks.

For F&*K Sake, we are dealing with someone who thinks A STAR WARS BEAM WEAPON brought down the towers, and that the eye witnesses to the crashes are liars, or mistaken.

People here treat the NIST reports with such high regard, because there is NO OTHER INVESTIGATION OR REPORT that even comes close to it wrt detail or expertese. The truthers certainly haven't produced anything close. You and your fellow scientists, Bazant et al, have attempted to do so, and to your credit sir. However, to continue to berate this place and the good people who post here, all of whom do so without making any money, recieving no fame for their efforts (unlike the industry that is 9/11 truth...DRG and Dylan are not hurting for their efforts, nor is Alex Jones), is simply...POOR FORM.

Would you rather have us all stop, and offer no alternative, no other voice to oppose the Lunacy that comes from Lyte Trip, ACE Baker, Judy Wood, and others. Should there be noone to keep watch on the activities and products of these snake oil salesmen?

By the gods, we may be annoying, we may get under your skin, but us NISTIANS, as you have so affectionately called us, will keep the 9/11 truth movement on its toes, if nothing more...There is a reason you can find the word JREF in many a truther forum thread.

TAM:)


Bravo.



The problem I see is that you, and many other JREFers, appear to be unable to separate your personal political leanings from science. A recent comment by TAM on the question of who could reliably examine WTC samples says it all:

“No one from NIST, BUT no one from the TRUTH MOVEMENT either.”

I could equally ask: Who could reliably examine the Turin Shroud? Would TAM argue: “No atheists, BUT no CATHOLICS either.”

I see no problem with this whatsoever, and can't understand why you do. So many truthers are calling for an independent investigation. Well, independent, to me at least, implies that no one on the proposed panel should have any preconceived notions one way or the other. Disregarding for the moment the impossibility of finding such people, should we consider such a panel, we should at least agree that it is populated by fence-sitters rather than die-hards.



Apollo,

Since I'm at work currently and just posting while waiting for stuff to happen here, I can't go deep into your post right now. However on a quick skim, it seems that your main bone of contention is that NIST has made assumptions about things that they can only guess at since it was physically impossible to determine them via normal measurements (the speed of the planes, the damage to the fireproofing, the dispersal of the fuel and office equipment about the impact zone.) Would this be correct? And if so, how would you suggest determining these factors when there is no way to go back in time and measure them manually.



Furthermore, science is full of stuff that we can't physically measure. Theories abound concerning the creation of the moon, the demise of the dinosaurs, the start of language, etc. Just because we weren't there to physically measure something does not mean we can not produce viable theories concerning it.

[Spins]

Yes, according to former employees of the Fuji Bank, who occupied floors 79-82 of WTC 2, the 81st floor was full of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries. The units were bolted to a raised floor (3 feet high) which carried all the cables.

I think Henry62 maybe onto something here and certainly should be considered in any analysis because alot of that material would have been forced into the corner by the plane impact.

BTW some conspiracy theorist's speculated that the UPS batteries on the 81st floor were full of thermite.

[Apollo20]

NobbyNobbs:

When you say: "Should we consider such a panel, we should at least agree that it is populated by fence-sitters rather than die-hards", I am inclined to agree with you.....

But on the other hand, I've had some folks admonish me for being "too neutral", so I guess that would rule me out!

[Spins]

No it's the way you burst into threads all guns blazing accusing us all carte-blanche of being disciples of NIST (etc) that's annoying, your research is most appreciated though.

;)

[Lurker]

The problem I see is that you, and many other JREFers, appear to be unable to separate your personal political leanings from science.
I would be willing to guess that most here actually oppose President Bush. I know I do not like our President whatsoever. Wouldn't my political leanings tend to make me accept anything that damns Bush?

You are quite wrong in assuming the skeptics here support Bush or his war. Again, I would guess most arguing against Truthers here at JREF do NOT support Bush or his war.

Lurker

[Apollo20]

Spins:

Sorry, that's a style I learn't from working with engineers..... no one is perfect you know!

By the way, on the topic of SJ, I see there is a new video clip of the man himself discussing his latest research posted on 911Blogger. Interestingly Jones skips over the real "good stuff", namely the analytical data, and simply says his results prove the presence of THERMITE.

There are also some interesting comments in the "Comments" section following the Jones video clip some of which is simply a cut-and-paste of my material reproduced without acknowledgement.

Oh well, I guess some people have no shame!

[T.A.M.]

If I had a camera in my office I would take a picture of that apology Apollo...lol

In all seriousness though, it is good to see that things in this thread, and from you in general, have calmed down to a degree of civility. I hope it continues.

I am becoming more and more fascinated by the possibilities of chemical catalysts/enhancers with respect to the cause of the steel heating in the WTCs. This UPS battery thing also seems a new lead to persue.

TAM:)

[lozenge124]

Spins:

Sorry, that's a style I learn't from working with engineers..... no one is perfect you know!

By the way, on the topic of SJ, I see there is a new video clip of the man himself discussing his latest research posted on 911Blogger. Interestingly Jones skips over the real "good stuff", namely the analytical data, and simply says his results prove the presence of THERMITE.

There are also some interesting comments in the "Comments" section following the Jones video clip some of which is simply a cut-and-paste of my material reproduced without acknowledgement.

Oh well, I guess some people have no shame!

To be fair, Steven Jones was asked after his presentation at the Vancouver conference to make a brief summary for someone who had missed it. I believe there is a video of the full presentation coming in the near future.

[Furcifer]

I really think it depends on the branch of science and the novelty of the work as to what is an acceptable error bar on the results. What is absolutely vital to any piece of scientific work, however, is that the degree of error is reasonably assessed, the error margins on the results are stated openly, and the derivation is presented transparently. I haven't seen anyone suggest that NIST hasn't done so.

Dave

Me neither, it all seems above board to me. I'm just saying in the lab we usually calculate these variances based on the limitations of our measuring devices. I can see what Apollo20 is saying, there is still room for improvement in NCSTAR, to cite it as the end all and be all of the investigation is not very scientific. It's certainly not bullet proof and should be regarded as such.

In the end I think this makes it a great body of work to take data from, discuss, and build upon. If we assume NIST gathered all the available data (which I believe is correct) then we should be able to develope a more accurate model that behaves in the same way we saw on 9/11. If we can't, I guess we either concede we are scientifically stumped (at this time), or missing too much data. For those of us unwilling to admit either of these conclusions we press on as part of the scientific process.

[T.A.M.]

I think the key is that the NIST documents were meant as an investigation for building safety, not a forensic investigation. Looking into all minutia is not neccesarily needed, but in some areas might be warranted. For instance, if common elements found in all office buildings directly contributed to the superheating of the steel columns, leading to collapse, than this is an over sight that should be investigated further.

TAM:)

[Furcifer]

I think the key is that the NIST documents were meant as an investigation for building safety, not a forensic investigation. Looking into all minutia is not neccesarily needed, but in some areas might be warranted. For instance, if common elements found in all office buildings directly contributed to the superheating of the steel columns, leading to collapse, than this is an over sight that should be investigated further.

TAM:)

That's it in a nutshell TAM, it was not a forensic investigation.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The EPA data appears to show the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. So that would mean there's another source of chlorine since the USGS reading of the concrete samples were so high?

Calcium Carbonate absorbs, Chlorine and becomes calcium Chloride.
I believe there are number of Chlorine sources.
I do not want to discuss this much though I just want to play with these little iron and Aluminum orbs.

http://chainsawsanders.com/Iron1.JPG

However Chlorine is highly reactive even Chlorides that started as PVC derived can become those Chlorides that are routinely not from pvc though Chemical Chain reactions.

[Apollo20]

Hi Chainsaw, my old friend... it's good to talk with you again!

But, I agree, let's talk about THE MYSTERY OF THE SPHERES!

I think this topic deserves its own thread …. but we can discuss it here... and please accept that my input might be sporadic at best.

Steven Jones has proposed that the presence of iron-rich spheres in many samples of WTC dust is proof of the use of thermite in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

I would like to debate this topic since it is central to the “Jones' School” of 9/11 thought.

Just a few introductory points that need to be addressed:

1. The issue of contamination of samples (But remember this would also apply to the RJ Lee and USGS samples as well.)
2. The issue of other sources of iron-rich particles… this topic is NOT dealt with by Jones!
3. The claim by Jones that the distinguishing feature of his WTC dust sample is that the iron-rich particles contain, in addition to Fe, mostly Al, K and S.

I believe that the issue of contamination can be dealt with, AND IS NOT A FACTOR.
I believe there are MANY potential sources of spherical iron-rich particles in WTC dust.
The key to deciding where Jones’ particles came from is hidden within their detailed chemical composition.

[FactCheck]

Again, I must insist that a paper such as this one can't exist in limbo. It is either right and establishes the validity of the fantasists' claims or it is demonstrably wrong.
I am curious to find out if the author is open to the possibility that his thesis may be incorrect.

By definition it is in limbo. It's on a twoofer journal.

[FactCheck]

Hi Chainsaw, my old friend... it's good to talk with you again!

But, I agree, let's talk about THE MYSTERY OF THE SPHERES!

I think this topic deserves its own thread …. but we can discuss it here... and please accept that my input might be sporadic at best.

Steven Jones has proposed that the presence of iron-rich spheres in many samples of WTC dust is proof of the use of thermite in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

I would like to debate this topic since it is central to the “Jones' School” of 9/11 thought.

Just a few introductory points that need to be addressed:

1. The issue of contamination of samples (But remember this would also apply to the RJ Lee and USGS samples as well.)
2. The issue of other sources of iron-rich particles… this topic is NOT dealt with by Jones!
3. The claim by Jones that the distinguishing feature of his WTC dust sample is that the iron-rich particles contain, in addition to Fe, mostly Al, K and S.

I believe that the issue of contamination can be dealt with, AND IS NOT A FACTOR.
I believe there are MANY potential sources of spherical iron-rich particles in WTC dust.
The key to deciding where Jones’ particles came from is hidden within their detailed chemical composition.Thanks for coming back. :)

This is for everyone in JREF. I hope we can be less like the twoofers and table the infighting. This should be about science against bad science and not one study of science against another.

PLEASE. :)

[Apollo20]

FactCheck:

I agree!

What we need to see from Jones is a table of data showing the EDX measurements for a significant number of WTC iron-rich particles. I know, from working in this field, that software exists to automatically analyze an SEM image-field and compile a table listing each identified particle’s composition based on quantification routines applied to an EDX spectrum. So you can create a table of WTC dust data with Particle 1…..% Fe, Al, K, S, …. Particle 2…. % Fe, Al, K, S, … etc, etc. You could, of course, include data for other elements detected in each particle such as Cl, Mn, Ba, …. From such a table you could generate the statistics of the elemental composition of a representative array of particles. Then you could conclude that on average the Al/Fe ratio of the particles was 20 +/- 5 % or whatever. Without such data Jones’ claims for evidence of thermite remains unsubstantiated!

[PhantomWolf]

Hi guys,
I want to tell You I published a new work in my blog about the ups on the 81st floor of WTC2.

I think You could be interested in my hypothesis about molten material.

According to the rule of the forum for newby, I cannot post the link, but You can easily found it researching

"11-settembre english section"

with Google.

Thanks and bye,
Henry62

Hi Henry62 and welcome.

I have heard of this theory before, but never seen the actual details of the claims, however now having read your work I think that you are certainly on to something that needs further investigation. It certainly would seem to be a viable explaination for the material that seen. Keep up the good work.

[PhantomWolf]

FactCheck:

I agree!

What we need to see from Jones is a table of data showing the EDX measurements for a significant number of WTC iron-rich particles. I know, from working in this field, that software exists to automatically analyze an SEM image-field and compile a table listing each identified particle’s composition based on quantification routines applied to an EDX spectrum. So you can create a table of WTC dust data with Particle 1…..% Fe, Al, K, S, …. Particle 2…. % Fe, Al, K, S, … etc, etc. You could, of course, include data for other elements detected in each particle such as Cl, Mn, Ba, …. From such a table you could generate the statistics of the elemental composition of a representative array of particles. Then you could conclude that on average the Al/Fe ratio of the particles was 20 +/- 5 % or whatever. Without such data Jones’ claims for evidence of thermite remains unsubstantiated!

Trouble is getting Jones to actually release the raw data or allow others to independently verify his claims. I have a feeling this is another Cold Fusion episode myself.

[Apollo20]

PhantomWolf:

You may be correct about Jones and his data, but I am prepared to wait and see.... In the meantime I am thinking about what I would consider to be the proper way to proceed with presenting evidence for the origin of the spheres. It must be statistically valid and free from artifacts such as "contamination"...

The issue of contamination of a WTC dust sample caused by clean up operations is best addressed by looking at settling velocities of the iron-rich particles in question. Let’s say the particles of interest are well- approximated by pure iron spheres of diameter 10 microns. The settling velocity of such particles in air at room temperature is over 1 meter per second (See the book: Air Pollution by Kenneth Wark and Cecil Warner.). Since clean-up operations were conducted on structures mostly well below a height of 10 meters, and the prevailing winds over Manhattan in the days and weeks after 9/11 were typically less than 5 m/s, a 10 micron iron sphere produced by clean-up operations at Ground Zero could not be “carried by the wind” more than about 50 meters.

[PhantomWolf]

Since clean-up operations were conducted on structures mostly well below a height of 10 meters

Can you reference that? My understanding was that the rubble piles stood about 7 stories high, which would make the initial clean up in the region of 20-25 meters.

[R.Mackey]

More importantly, such spheres could have been spread by trucks and cranes carrying off debris... Wind is not the only possible means of dispersal here.

But it sure would be good to find out what they're made of. Without having to take Dr. Jones' word for it.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Hi Chainsaw, my old friend... it's good to talk with you again!

But, I agree, let's talk about THE MYSTERY OF THE SPHERES!

I think this topic deserves its own thread …. but we can discuss it here... and please accept that my input might be sporadic at best.

Steven Jones has proposed that the presence of iron-rich spheres in many samples of WTC dust is proof of the use of thermite in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

I would like to debate this topic since it is central to the “Jones' School” of 9/11 thought.

Just a few introductory points that need to be addressed:

1. The issue of contamination of samples (But remember this would also apply to the RJ Lee and USGS samples as well.)
2. The issue of other sources of iron-rich particles… this topic is NOT dealt with by Jones!
3. The claim by Jones that the distinguishing feature of his WTC dust sample is that the iron-rich particles contain, in addition to Fe, mostly Al, K and S.

I believe that the issue of contamination can be dealt with, AND IS NOT A FACTOR.
I believe there are MANY potential sources of spherical iron-rich particles in WTC dust.
The key to deciding where Jones’ particles came from is hidden within their detailed chemical composition.

I agree that the, spheres in Jones samples could have come from any number of sources, it would not surprised me if they were completely from the high energy of the collapses causing chemical reactions do to heat and friction as that seems to be the most logical event.
I also feel that other chance reactions do to entrapment of gases known to effect metals might have played a role in forming them. I have even found similar spheres of fe304, Fe, and Al in the flushed contents of my ton truck engine, I traced the source down to erosion marks on the thermostat housing with is made of Al. The engine was composed of iron, that degrades do to heating of water in the water jackets to fe304.
Once in a while over several years, the particles of fe304 passed though the thermostat housing, and came into contact with Aluminum do to friction and the action of Chloride in the City water supply, used as the cooling fluid for the liquid cooled engine.
IN effect over years of usage the thermostat housing has degraded do to thermite sparking to the point where it has had to be replace. The iron spheres degrade back into Fe304 eventually, and the whole process happens once again.
The whole process is the result of oxidation brought on by steam and heated water in the pressurized cooling system.
I believe a similar Chemically reactive event might have occurred in the twin towers as well and or in building 7, the reason for this and I will probably be sorry for saying this is the conditions in he twin towers favored its occurrence.
If bending or folding of the metals in the floor pans or other unknown conditions trapped water vapor or reactive compounds that released hydrogen in under the floor pans then the structures would ignite. Trap Chlorides under the floor pans and they react with the zinc which becomes molten and falls on the aluminum that is now spread widely though out the buildings, you ad to that the years of sulfur attack the buildings have suffered from the atmosphere, and from the High sulfur fuels stored in them, and you have a very active chemical environment.
In such and environment if I did not find Iron rich spheres of similar composition I would suspect the laws of the universe to be a miss.
I agree Frank that the spheres themselves contain the clues to where they originated. Saying they can only come from Military grade thermite is like saying that sulfidication is proof of thermite, it is simply not true given the circumstances of the environments of the buildings on the day in question.
The spheres contain the record of the environment from Which they were formed, in there chemical structure, and I do not see how that can be exclusively a thermite environment because I have created spheres, and I am finding them in the oddest places in natural environments.
They may in fact be more common and mundane reasons for there formation than the used of millitary grade thermites.
I think I have already create some sphericals and I intend to create more of the same, when I can it is simply a matter of finding the right chemical reactions.
Well I think this post is long winded enough, and I have a truck down now and have to bow out of the discussion for now, will look in later an see how it is doing.
I just wish this topic had its own thread, it certainly deserves one.

[PhantomWolf]

Good to hear from you though Chainsaw. At least when you post we know you haven't blown yourself up yet,

[MIKILLINI]

I agree that the, spheres in Jones samples could have come from any number of sources, it would not surprised me if they were completely from the high energy of the collapses causing chemical reactions do to heat and friction as that seems to be the most logical event.
I also feel that other chance reactions do to entrapment of gases known to effect metals might have played a role in forming them. I have even found similar spheres of fe304, Fe, and Al in the flushed contents of my ton truck engine, I traced the source down to erosion marks on the thermostat housing with is made of Al. The engine was composed of iron, that degrades do to heating of water in the water jackets to fe304.
Once in a while over several years, the particles of fe304 passed though the thermostat housing, and came into contact with Aluminum do to friction and the action of Chloride in the City water supply, used as the cooling fluid for the liquid cooled engine.
IN effect over years of usage the thermostat housing has degraded do to thermite sparking to the point where it has had to be replace. The iron spheres degrade back into Fe304 eventually, and the whole process happens once again.
The whole process is the result of oxidation brought on by steam and heated water in the pressurized cooling system.
I believe a similar Chemically reactive event might have occurred in the twin towers as well and or in building 7, the reason for this and I will probably be sorry for saying this is the conditions in he twin towers favored its occurrence.
If bending or folding of the metals in the floor pans or other unknown conditions trapped water vapor or reactive compounds that released hydrogen in under the floor pans then the structures would ignite. Trap Chlorides under the floor pans and they react with the zinc which becomes molten and falls on the aluminum that is now spread widely though out the buildings, you ad to that the years of sulfur attack the buildings have suffered from the atmosphere, and from the High sulfur fuels stored in them, and you have a very active chemical environment.
In such and environment if I did not find Iron rich spheres of similar composition I would suspect the laws of the universe to be a miss.
I agree Frank that the spheres themselves contain the clues to where they originated. Saying they can only come from Military grade thermite is like saying that sulfidication is proof of thermite, it is simply not true given the circumstances of the environments of the buildings on the day in question.
The spheres contain the record of the environment from Which they were formed, in there chemical structure, and I do not see how that can be exclusively a thermite environment because I have created spheres, and I am finding them in the oddest places in natural environments.
They may in fact be more common and mundane reasons for there formation than the used of millitary grade thermites.
I think I have already create some sphericals and I intend to create more of the same, when I can it is simply a matter of finding the right chemical reactions.
Well I think this post is long winded enough, and I have a truck down now and have to bow out of the discussion for now, will look in later an see how it is doing.
I just wish this topic had its own thread, it certainly deserves one.

Hi Chainsaw, You seem to have a rural background; I surmised this from the description of the thermostat deterioration. Maybe I'm incorrect on that assumption, but growing up in the country myself has given me interest on how things break or wear down since reliability is an important factor in the country and knowledge is needed to anticipate any problems. The parts store or machine shop are rarely a few blocks away. I find this topic fascinating and I hope You, R. Mackey, Apollo, 3B, Henry, RW, PW keep this thread going. I think it deserves to keep going.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Hi Chainsaw, You seem to have a rural background; I surmised this from the description of the thermostat deterioration. Maybe I'm incorrect on that assumption, but growing up in the country myself has given me interest on how things break or wear down since reliability is an important factor in the country and knowledge is needed to anticipate any problems. The parts store or machine shop are rarely a few blocks away. I find this topic fascinating and I hope You, R. Mackey, Apollo, 3B, Henry, RW, PW keep this thread going. I think it deserves to keep going.

I was born and raised on a farm if you do not understand metals and machinery, and some science you simply do not survive out here. Right now I am studying Gravity, I am moving large stones to make stone steps over a cliff for a cabin at Rough River lake state park the only materials that are allowed on the shore of the lake are stones and sand. That is all I have to work with, after I finish this job I have a British lady that wants me to build a 15 ft. walkway for her. We agreed at a thousand per foot of walkway over the cliff side.

http://chainsawsanders.com/125.JPG

Explosions are very useful tools in this type of work, if you know how to handle them correctly.

The debate on the spheres is about all the truth movement has left. That is why I feel Dr. Jones will not release detailed analysis of the spheres because once he does the debate is over.

What I find fascinating about this is that there are simply so many ways the spheres could have been created.
That also means there are several UN observed and unstudied ways that chemistry and fire could have had devastating effects on the metals in the buildings speeding the deterioration, and resulting in the added heating in the rubble pile with the metals themselves as the most likely fuel to continue the reactions.

[Apollo20]

I thank everyone for their input!

Just a few more points:

* When I said clean up operations were less than 10 meters above the ground I am ignoring the height of the pile itself. The point is that some samples, such as the USGS samples, were collected 0.5 km or more from ground zero within a week of Sept 11th. Clean up operations were barely underway at this time so I doubt that this was a factor in "contaminating" the samples.

* I believe there is photographic evidence of "thermite sparking" when flight 175 struck WTC 2.

* I highly recommend the report "Feasibility of Thermite Sparking with Impact of Rusted Steel onto Aluminum Coated Steel" by C. E. Smith (Report No. MT-CWJCR-002-024 available on-line at www.mms.gov)

[T.A.M.]

when you say "when flight 175 hit WTC2" do you mean the "sparking" occured at the actual time of impact, or do you mean there is visual evidence of this sparking in the impact zone POST impact?

Thanks

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

TAM:

I am referring to the bright flash that occurred near the nose of the aircraft when it hit the tower.

[Pardalis]

I am referring to the bright flash that occurred near the nose of the aircraft when it hit the tower.


You got to be kidding. So why did the towers fall an hour later? Does it take an hour for thermite to react?

[Gravy]

You got to be kidding. So why did the towers fall an hour later? Does it take an hour for thermite to react?Apollo is referring to possible sources of the spheres, not to the immediate cause of the collapses.

[Pardalis]

Apollo is referring to possible sources of the spheres, not to the immediate cause of the collapses.

Ah, a thermite reaction without the use of thermite, gotcha.

[Apollo20]

Gravy:

Yes, indeed, thanks for the clarification!

In the report on thermite sparking I just referenced we read:

"If, on impact, a location on the aluminum achieves sufficient energy to melt, and/or plastically deform, partially melted aluminum in the form of small size particles will be ejected".

My question is: If aluminum impacts steel, will such particles alloy with iron during this process?

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

I am referring to the bright flash that occurred near the nose of the aircraft when it hit the tower.

Thanks.

So Thermite "Reactions" or "events" only need the proper mix of chemicals to occur. This is different, obviously, from the suggested presence of Thermite as a cutter charge, that S. Jones implies. However, to find the spherules in the dust, even if they bare strong resemblence to what one would find if Thermite were the cause, does not neccesarily mean Thermite cutting charges, but rather, numerous thermite "reactions" or "sparking" with a completely non conspiratorial cause, correct?

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

TAM:

Yes! I think I coined the term "natural thermite reactions" in an article I wrote quite a while ago. Needless to say, I was ridiculed by many CTers at the time, but some more open minded types, such as Crazy Chainsaw, thought it was quite possible!

[Furcifer]

I'm confused. Thermite is just a mixture of aluminum oxide and iron oxide, which means the whole building was coated in thermite (aluminum cladding on steel). So isn't finding the ignition source more important? Just curious.

[T.A.M.]

I am guessing the ignition source was either (A) 10,000 Gallons of Jet Fuel, (B) The resulting office fires, or (C) Friction from plane impact and/or building collapse.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

Yes! I think I coined the term "natural thermite reactions" in an article I wrote quite a while ago. Needless to say, I was ridiculed by many CTers at the time, but some more open minded types, such as Crazy Chainsaw, thought it was quite possible!

In what little reading on Thermite I had done, I had become aware that "Thermite" is really a chemical combination or reaction, rather than a stand alone element, so to speak, but I guess I hadn't pushed it further, to realize, that because of this, the right chemicals, at the right time, in the right setting, could produce it...or at least its chemical marker.

TAM:)

[MIKILLINI]

Thanks.

So Thermite "Reactions" or "events" only need the proper mix of chemicals to occur. This is different, obviously, from the suggested presence of Thermite as a cutter charge, that S. Jones implies. However, to find the spherules in the dust, even if they bare strong resemblence to what one would find if Thermite were the cause, does not neccesarily mean Thermite cutting charges, but rather, numerous thermite "reactions" or "sparking" with a completely non conspiratorial cause, correct?

TAM:)

This is the scientific evidence that disproves the pod theory.

[Apollo20]

The Boeing aircraft that hit the Twin Towers were made from many types of materials, but the main metals of construction were 2024 and 7075 aluminum alloys and 300 and 4000 series steels. The impact and fires would have caused many tons of aluminum to melt and mix with iron/steel within the aircraft, AND in the towers. Iron is highly soluble in molten aluminum. Impact eliminates the protective Al2O3 and allows the underlying Al to react.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Gravy:

Yes, indeed, thanks for the clarification!

In the report on thermite sparking I just referenced we read:

"If, on impact, a location on the aluminum achieves sufficient energy to melt, and/or plastically deform, partially melted aluminum in the form of small size particles will be ejected".

My question is: If aluminum impacts steel, will such particles alloy with iron during this process?

NO they alloy with iron combined with iron oxide some of the iron also burns do to the temperature of the reactions and the oxygen in air, I have never been able to achieve pure Iron from impacts done on steel in air.

However if you impact the rust layer on steel with Aluminum, then the resulting spiracles are almost pure iron because rust does not oxides it give oxygen to the Aluminum.

If you impact the iron oxide layer on steel along with steel in an oxygen free environment such as a fireball, then you get pure iron, and Aluminum oxide, the carbon in the steel actually is given off as carbon because the aluminum reacts with the Carbon monoxide-Dioxide preventing the carbons immediate combustion by depriving it of any oxidation source.

I answered these questions with my first experiments,
http://chainsawsanders.com/Thermite1.jpg

The critical thing to forming spheres is to get the steel past the oxide layer and prevent the crystal lattice of the aluminum oxide from excluding it.
That can only be done if steel or iron oxide combines with pure aluminum not with Aluminum oxide.
The pure aluminum is actually attracted to the Steel and iron oxide.
Once the aluminum oxide crystals form around the molten steel, the steel is trapped inside the aluminum oxide, and can combine with more steel. If the aluminum oxide Crystals form, before entrapping the steel then the steel is excluded and can not combine do to the higher melting point of aluminum oxide.

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

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

I must add that thermite like reactions can occur inside of Aluminum under the oxide layer, and that other reactions are also possible if the aluminum is in the right environment.
In thermites the size of the particles of iron oxide and aluminum and the ratios govern the size of the spheres produced.
Jones's spheres are too big to be from nano thermites, they would be about 1/4th the size if they came from that source.
The oxide layer is the key to understanding reactive metal reactions get past it that is all you have to do, just get past the oxide layer, either by breaking it as heat does in thermites, or by scratching it, or weaken it though osilations of Chemistry, get past the oxide and you do not even need Iron oxide aluminum will burn in air.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'm confused. Thermite is just a mixture of aluminum oxide and iron oxide, which means the whole building was coated in thermite (aluminum cladding on steel). So isn't finding the ignition source more important? Just curious.

The ignition source is energy, to break the oxide layer, such as in thermite sparking.

Friction, impact, Sound, heat, The collapse of a building would be the perfect enviroment.
However friction such as in a building always leaves the spheres combined with contaminates they are also more odd shaped than spheres.
A Chemically weakened oxide layer can lead to a reaction do to friction that does produce spheres, because the reaction can take place under the oxide layer reducing contamination.
Sono chemical reactions can do the same, in fact that is how you can create the largest spheres, by actually inducing the reaction under the Solid coating of aluminum oxide on top of molten aluminum.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If we only had a source of borax in the building, that would be wonderful.

It is the perfect solvent to cause a thermite reaction with aluminum Chloride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax
A mixture of borax and ammonium chloride is used as a flux when welding iron and steel. It lowers the melting point of the unwanted iron oxide (scale), allowing it to run off. Borax is also used mixed with water as a flux when soldering jewelry metals such as gold or silver. It allows the molten solder to flow evenly over the joint in question. Borax is also a good flux for 'pre-tinning' tungsten with zinc - making the tungsten soft-solderable.[4]

http://www.khulsey.com/jewelry/gemstones_ruby_enhancements.html

"Lead Glass Treatments & Flux-Healing of Rubies
Surface cracks, cavities, or inclusions in ruby can be repaired using the "flux healing" (FH) method. The flux-healing process involves exposing the stone to a combination of heat and solvents (borax and/or other fluxes) to fill any voids with molten low-viscosity flux "glass." As the flux mixture fills a fracture, it dissolves the walls of the fracture until the liquid in the crack becomes saturated with molten corundum/ruby solution (below, center).

When the molten flux mixture cools, the synthetic corundum will permanently fuse the crack together, but the process will leave behind small air pockets surrounded by solidified glass (above, right). These telltale signs are the characteristic signature of the healing process. Flux-Healing of fractures will reduce internal reflections making the ruby appear more transparent while permanently fusing the fracture together, making the ruby more durable. This bonding action differentiates flux-healing (FH) from fracture-filling (F).

[T.A.M.]

So in the end, even if S. Jones is able to prove the chemical signature of "Thermite" it really proves nothing from an "inside job" pov.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

TAM:

I don't know if it's quite that simple. We would always be talking about a "goodness of fit" situation.....

Namely, Jones would need to show that the particle size distribution, morphology and chemical composition of the WTC microspheres was close to the particle size, morphology and composition of microspheres produced by thermite, AND significantly different with respect to these parameters for microspheres produced by any other conceivable "natural" means such as friction, wear, combustion, etc.

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
* I highly recommend the report "Feasibility of Thermite Sparking with Impact of Rusted Steel onto Aluminum Coated Steel" by C. E. Smith (Report No. MT-CWJCR-002-024 available on-line at www.mms.gov (http://www.mms.gov))


Just to give proper credit..C.E. Smith is not the author of the paper.


Submitted to: Dr.Charles E.Smith
U.S.Department of Interior
Minerals Management Service
381 Eldon St.,MS4021
Herndon,VA 20170-4817

Submitted by:Iman Maroef,Yeong-Do Park,and David L.Olson
Center for Welding,Joining,and Coating Research
Colorado School of Mines
Golden,CO 80401-1887

[Apollo20]

Mr Skinny:

Yes, you are correct.... guess I missed that, thanks for pointing it out!

By the way, while the paper in question is very good, I don't believe the authors report any chemical analysis of sparking residues which would be of great interest to the present debate....

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

I don't know if it's quite that simple. We would always be talking about a "goodness of fit" situation.....

Namely, Jones would need to show that the particle size distribution, morphology and chemical composition of the WTC microspheres was close to the particle size, morphology and composition of microspheres produced by thermite, AND significantly different with respect to these parameters for microspheres produced by any other conceivable "natural" means such as friction, wear, combustion, etc.

Yes I see what you are saying. That could prove difficult for him, in particular, producing the spherules through other methods that might have occured in the WTC...I mean the variables are so numerous, the scale so large...

Not quite as simple as his molten aluminum and wood chips experiments.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

After iron and aluminum, one needs to explain the sulfur and potassium....

[T.A.M.]

After iron and aluminum, one needs to explain the sulfur and potassium....

Wouldn't this easily be explained through the tonnes of gypsum wall board that was turned to dust in the collapses. I know there is sulfur in it, in good amounts. Potassium I would suspect as well, but I am not sure.

Was there anything unique about the sulfur found in S. Jones sample that would make it impossible to come from the wall board?

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

After iron and aluminum, one needs to explain the sulfur and potassium....
Sulfur is abundant in the gyppsum walboard and plaster, as T.A.M. pointed out, and potassium is a component of glass.
All this discussion still leads me to believe that the spheroids and any Therm&te reactions are artifacts of the collision/impact, and while an interesting curiosity, are not of any major significance to the collapse of the towers. As an instantaneous (loosely defined here as non-sustained) heat source, the reactions may have played a part in the actual ignition of the fuel load, but I have seen no reasoning that would lead one to believe that they were major players.

[Apollo20]

TAM/RWGUINN:

Sulfur COULD come from gypsum and potassium from glass, true, but the WTC microspheres do not contain much calcium or silicon. Could you please explain how potassium could enter the microspheres selectively from glass, which is over 80 % SiO2 and over 10 % Na2O, WITHOUT introducing these species as well.

And, by the way, I HAVE given information on the heats of combustion of PVC and the probable impact of chlorine on galvanized steel.... I have seen no statements, other than unfounded personal opinions, that should lead anyone to disregard this information.

So you see, anyone can say all this CHEMISTRY is not important, while others who have studied these issues such as CHAINSAW can say that it is VERY important. Whom should we believe? And anyone can say that the microspheres are just a curiosity, but that won't make them go away! And I know for sure that CHEMISTRY is the only way to explain the microspheres, and the sulfiding of steel and the chlorine attack of steel and concrete and the high temperatures in the rubble pile.... So many curiosities for an event that is supposedly well explained by something for which we have no proof, namely the loss of SFRM!

[Crazy Chainsaw]

TAM/RWGUINN:

Sulfur COULD come from gypsum and potassium from glass, true, but the WTC microspheres do not contain much calcium or silicon. Could you please explain how potassium could enter the microspheres selectively from glass, which is over 80 % SiO2 and over 10 % Na2O, WITHOUT introducing these species as well.

And, by the way, I HAVE given information on the heats of combustion of PVC and the probable impact of chlorine on galvanized steel.... I have seen no statements, other than unfounded personal opinions, that should lead anyone to disregard this information.

So you see, anyone can say all this CHEMISTRY is not important, while others who have studied these issues such as CHAINSAW can say that it is VERY important. Whom should we believe? And anyone can say that the microspheres are just a curiosity, but that won't make them go away! And I know for sure that CHEMISTRY is the only way to explain the microspheres, and the sulfiding of steel and the chlorine attack of steel and concrete and the high temperatures in the rubble pile.... So many curiosities for an event that is supposedly well explained by something for which we have no proof, namely the loss of SFRM!

I have to agree although some blends of Jet 1a do contain both sulfur and potassium, the ratios in the spheres are to high to come from there.
There has to be an intermediate Chemical reaction, to release the compounds and form the Micro Spheres.
The only possible ones that I have found involve reactive metal replacement reactions, and since potassium salts are dissolved in the concrete lime stone from sea salts, that would be a source of potassium Chloride without introducing either SiO2 or Na2O.
It only requires temperatures over 850 C and the presence of sodium. Organics can also provide sources of potassium, Potassium Carbonate is formed by burning paper, and high sulfur diesel fuel as well as sulfuric acid formed in the fires could be the source of the sulfur.
Every thing leads back to one chemical element being the trigger to the reactions and it is ironic, it is H20 The very substance that would have been used by the fire fighters to Extinguish the fires.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Sulfur is abundant in the gyppsum walboard and plaster, as T.A.M. pointed out, and potassium is a component of glass.
All this discussion still leads me to believe that the spheroids and any Therm&te reactions are artifacts of the collision/impact, and while an interesting curiosity, are not of any major significance to the collapse of the towers. As an instantaneous (loosely defined here as non-sustained) heat source, the reactions may have played a part in the actual ignition of the fuel load, but I have seen no reasoning that would lead one to believe that they were major players.

Yes sulfur is abundant in Calcium Sulfate, but hard to separate, and not leave some other compound containing Calcium behind. IT is just simply not that easy.
Are you only looking for he easy answers or do you have the curiosity to ask your self the important questions like how did sulfur free itself from the Calcium Sulfate and combine with the potassium, Al and Fe?
The sulfur I regret to inform you seems not to come from the Calcium Sulfate in Gypsum.

[rwguinn]

Yes sulfur is abundant in Calcium Sulfate, but hard to separate, and not leave some other compound containing Calcium behind. IT is just simply not that easy.
Are you only looking for he easy answers or do you have the curiosity to ask your self the important questions like how did sulfur free itself from the Calcium Sulfate and combine with the potassium, Al and Fe?
The sulfur I regret to inform you seems not to come from the Calcium Sulfate in Gypsum.

CC:
I appreciate the fact that you risk life, limb, and property to do neat stuff.
But if you can sit there and tell me that sulfur is different from sulfer, I'm going to have to consider your screen name a little more literally.

I am not a chemist. I just know enough chemistry to pass 4 semesters of it with an average grade of B+, and to get me by the products of combustion questions on the National Society of Professional Engineers 8 hour examination.
You can oxidize (burn) sulfur with a kitchen match. Any sulfur found in a spheroid formed by melting iron is going to be combined with that iron as a compound, or with something else--it is certainly not going to be in the free state. That pretty much means you cannot tell where it came from. Same goes for potassium. It oxidizes quicker than aluminum does.
I have yet to see you list your diagnostic equipment, its calibration dates, and the inherent accuracy.You keep claiming all these reactants being present, but no values. All we get is assertions. I don't have a problem with evaluating evidence, but I'd certainly like to see some, first.

[rwguinn]

what I am saying here, CC, and Apollo20--
Quantify. We are tired to the core from the twoofers' constant "Qualify" technique.
If you have numbers, let see the da%n things, 'm'kay?

[T.A.M.]

Potassium is a fairly common element. The human body contains it, concrete has it, glass.

I am not a chemist, so as to how it gets "into the spherules" without the other products, who knows, melting point differences, chemical reactions, whatever.

Apollo, as you are a chemist, what do you think is the most likely source of the potassium and sulfur?

TAM:)

[anor277]

..............
Every thing leads back to one chemical element being the trigger to the reactions and it is ironic, it is H20 The very substance that would have been used by the fire fighters to Extinguish the fires.

And water was also a necessary product of the jet fuel oxidation. Anyway, while I haven't read all of this thread, I am curious. What was the form of the sulfur? I agree that the sulfur in gypsum is unlikely to be reduced to elemental sulfur.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

CC:
I appreciate the fact that you risk life, limb, and property to do neat stuff.
But if you can sit there and tell me that sulfur is different from sulfer, I'm going to have to consider your screen name a little more literally.

I am not a chemist. I just know enough chemistry to pass 4 semesters of it with an average grade of B+, and to get me by the products of combustion questions on the National Society of Professional Engineers 8 hour examination.
You can oxidize (burn) sulfur with a kitchen match. Any sulfur found in a spheroid formed by melting iron is going to be combined with that iron as a compound, or with something else--it is certainly not going to be in the free state. That pretty much means you cannot tell where it came from. Same goes for potassium. It oxidizes quicker than aluminum does.
I have yet to see you list your diagnostic equipment, its calibration dates, and the inherent accuracy.You keep claiming all these reactants being present, but no values. All we get is assertions. I don't have a problem with evaluating evidence, but I'd certainly like to see some, first.

You can burn hydrogen sulfide, you can burn sulfur, you can not burn Gypsum, Calcium sulfate, That is why it is used as fire proofing on floors with wooden beams you need a reduction reaction to reduce Gypsum back to Sulfur, what was the reduction reaction?
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADD013339
Gypsum is a source of sulfur but it has to go though a reduction reaction first.
The reactants are not just present but common, it only takes the nessasary enviroment for them to react and the Air DATA and NIST show that they were present.
Why do I have to show the reactants were present when NIST shows that they were?
The only question is what is the reactions that were taking place in the Enviroment, do you have any useful or productive insite on that Question?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

And water was also a necessary product of the jet fuel oxidation. Anyway, while I haven't read all of this thread, I am curious. What was the form of the sulfur? I agree that the sulfur in gypsum is unlikely to be reduced to elemental sulfur.

High Sulfur diesel fuel was stored in each building for decades according to NIST, there were also lead acid batteries stored in each building, and other sources to numberous to mention.
Correct without a reduction reaction the sulfur in the Gypsum is unlikely, but even a reduction reaction is possible but given the NIST data it is unlikely.

Just look at how it has been done commercially and you might understand why.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5399323-description.html

[anor277]

High Sulfur diesel fuel was stored in each building for decades according to NIST, there were also lead acid batteries stored in each building, and other sources to numberous to mention.
Correct without a reduction reaction the sulfur in the Gypsum is unlikely, but even a reduction reaction is possible but given the NIST data it is unlikely.

Just look at how it has been done commercially and you might understand why.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5399323-description.html

Thank you for the link. I don't often read the patent literature, for the simple reason that most of it is a black box. You would be aware, of course, that the "sulfur" in lead acid batteries is precisely the same "sulfur" as in gypsum, that is as sulfate. Anyway, back to the question I asked, Was the sulfur present present as elemental sulfur, or was this an artefact of the method of analysis?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thank you for the link. I don't often read the patent literature, for the simple reason that most of it is a black box. You would be aware, of course, that the "sulfur" in lead acid batteries is precisely the same "sulfur" as in gypsum, that is as sulfate. Anyway, back to the question I asked, Was the sulfur present present as elemental sulfur, or was this an artefact of the method of analysis?

Yes I was aware of the fact that the sulfur in the batteries was a sulfate H2SO4, but the thing is it is not combined with Calcium It is breaking the sulfate Calcium bonding that makes Calcium the unlikely source. The SO2 produced by the burning diesel can be converted to SO3 then to sulfuric acid a Sulfate. The test does not distinguish oxides form base Elements.
IT might have been an artifact, but I highly doubt that the test involved cleaning the sample with a sulfate compound. Even if you did it would distort the shape of the spherical Would it not?

[anor277]

Yes I was aware of the fact that the sulfur in the batteries was a sulfate H2SO4, but the thing is it is not combined with Calcium It is breaking the sulfate Calcium bonding that makes Calcium the unlikely source. The SO2 produced by the burning diesel can be converted to SO3 then to sulfuric acid a Sulfate. The test does not distinguish oxides form base Elements.
IT might have been an artifact, but I highly doubt that the test involved cleaning the sample with a sulfate compound. Even if you did it would distort the shape of the spherical Would it not?

I simply have no idea; this is far from my experience of chemistry in solution. How gypsum, CaSO42H2O, speciates in a high temperature (?), chaotic environment is beyond me. The fate of the calcium is therefore moot. In the example you've drawn, and I freely admit I am unfamiliar with your sources, there is no chemical bond between calcium and sulfur. There is a chemical bond between Ca2+ and the SO42- anion. If the sulfate was reduced, it is likely that Ca2+ ended up as calcium hydroxide. I have no idea whether the new calcium compound would be incorporated in an iron sphere. Perhaps I should try reading the earlier comments in this thread for more background.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

And water was also a necessary product of the jet fuel oxidation. Anyway, while I haven't read all of this thread, I am curious. What was the form of the sulfur? I agree that the sulfur in gypsum is unlikely to be reduced to elemental sulfur.


Also I need to point out that one way the sulfate in the Gypsum could have been the sulfate in the Spheres is if the Hydrogen produced by the Hydrocarbon ignited close to the steel producing super heated steam. This would require vaporized Kerosene or Diesel fuel to be trapped next to the floor pan where the resulting super hot steam would react with the thin steel.
That reaction would cause steel oxidation and more super hot steam to be produce, eventually with enough heat the steel itself would ignite in small pockets the heat and the hydrogen along with carbon monoxide, could break the sulfates down from the Gypsum.
This is what I believe happened in the rubble pile as Chlorides likely Aluminum Chlorides broke down at over 700C. , Hot steam trapped under steel would cause oxidation of the steel and the formation of hydrogen and sulfur compounds.
This would probably occur if there were dents in the floor pans or bent edges from the impact of the planes with the edges of the floor pans. Even holes in the floor pans could cause buoyant hydrogen to become trapped and ignite next to the steel.
I know most People here probably think I am nuts now, but I have tested everything I can think of and this is all that works out and makes and since so far.
I am open to suggestions, if anyone has any, Critics are necessary so that we learn from our mistakes, that is the difference between an honest investigator and a Twoofer, Admitting when your wrong.
Please if you think I am wrong let me know, and include why you believe so.

[PhantomWolf]

I've sort of been tailing along here, but though I'd add this. Dr Greening's paper on the release of sulphur from the gypsum under conditions containing a catalyst (CO) would indicate to me that the calcium would remain in a solid while the sulphur was released as a gas into the enviroment. This sulphur would then be able to react with the iron without any need for calcium to be present would it not?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I simply have no idea; this is far from my experience of chemistry in solution. How gypsum, CaSO42H2O, speciates in a high temperature (?), chaotic environment is beyond me. The fate of the calcium is therefore moot. In the example you've drawn, and I freely admit I am unfamiliar with your sources, there is no chemical bond between calcium and sulfur. There is a chemical bond between Ca2+ and the SO42- anion. If the sulfate was reduced, it is likely that Ca2+ ended up as calcium hydroxide. I have no idea whether the new calcium compound would be incorporated in an iron sphere. Perhaps I should try reading the earlier comments in this thread for more background.

I would appreciate any comments or observations you have, but I have found that in experiments that the calcium hydroxide is not possible although the material could be converted to Calcium Chloride but that would react with the iron and aluminum would it not?
The problem is that Calcium hydroxide breaks down lower than calcium sulfate reduces about 580°C is where Calcium Hydroxide breaks down into Calcium oxide that if present would be included in the sphere, where Calcium Chloride would not be included. It would lose the chloride to the aluminum and be converted to pure Calcium and be converted further from there to calcium Carbonate I believe.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I've sort of been tailing along here, but though I'd add this. Dr Greening's paper on the release of sulphur from the gypsum under conditions containing a catalyst (CO) would indicate to me that the calcium would remain in a solid while the sulphur was released as a gas into the enviroment. This sulphur would then be able to react with the iron without any need for calcium to be present would it not?

Yes but it then would not be impact induced, as the Idea would be the release of the Catalyst takes more time, by the time the sulfur is included the Aluminum oxide is already solidified.
The iron then would become iron sulfate and the sphere would be distorted in a non spherical shape.
That is the problem you can get the elements and compounds to combine but it is difficult to get them to combine into sphericals.
The spherical forms require liquid formation, at the temperature where aluminum oxide becomes molten.
Or where the compound precipitate out of a liquid and form in a fluid and solidify.

[A W Smith]

what about the galvanized steel studs which are already in contact with the gypsum?

[anor277]

Also I need to point out that one way the sulfate in the Gypsum could have been the sulfate in the Spheres is if the Hydrogen produced by the Hydrocarbon ignited close to the steel producing super heated steam. This would require vaporized Kerosene or Diesel fuel to be trapped next to the floor pan where the resulting super hot steam would react with the thin steel.
That reaction would cause steel oxidation and more super hot steam to be produce, eventually with enough heat the steel itself would ignite in small pockets the heat and the hydrogen along with carbon monoxide, could break the sulfates down from the Gypsum.
This is what I believe happened in the rubble pile as Chlorides likely Aluminum Chlorides broke down at over 700C. , Hot steam trapped under steel would cause oxidation of the steel and the formation of hydrogen and sulfur compounds.
This would probably occur if there were dents in the floor pans or bent edges from the impact of the planes with the edges of the floor pans. Even holes in the floor pans could cause buoyant hydrogen to become trapped and ignite next to the steel.
I know most People here probably think I am nuts now, but I have tested everything I can think of and this is all that works out and makes and since so far.
I am open to suggestions, if anyone has any, Critics are necessary so that we learn from our mistakes, that is the difference between an honest investigator and a Twoofer, Admitting when your wrong.
Please if you think I am wrong let me know, and include why you believe so.

For what it's worth, I don't think you are nuts; nor do I have any axe to grind (and I still haven't read the whole thread). The problem you have is that there is no easy way to show that you are wrong or right, and certainly I can't think of one. Just one question, why is the presence of hydrogen gas assumed? Hydrocarbon fuel, in that environment, is not a reasonable source.

Also, regarding your other post, calcium carbonate as I recall is unstable with respect to calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. Again, this doesn't make you wrong or right.

PS A W Smith's suggestion re the galvanized studs in the gyprock, is also a good one. I think elemental zinc is one way to reduce sulfate.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

what about the galvanized steel studs which are already in contact with the gypsum?

That is a possible source, and I have thought of that, but the Gypsum still has to break down, and you would still have calcium included unless a Chloride was involved.
One source of sulfur is naturally forming sulfuric acid from air pollution in New York city, over years of build up.
SO2 plus Ozone plus sulfuric acid the Diesel fuels stored in the buildings would have been releasing SO2 For Decades, and it would not be combined with Calcium and the drywall would absorb it like a sponge.
The result would be iron sulfate, that hit by the plane combined with wood ash, as the elemental metal oxides were still molten might be a source of a limited number of spheres the only question is how many would be produced by that method?
Also wouldn't it take a while for the wood ash to burn to form the potassium Carbonate?

I must admit that Frank, Apollo 20 Knows far more about the Chemistry than I do I can only comment on what I have discovered though experimentation.
He has the real experience and knowledge here.

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw:

Well, thanks for the comments.... unfortunately I don't have all the answers either... just a few ideas.

First off, I have looked at the reduction of CaSO4 to SO2 and it IS possible with C, CO or H2 at temperatures around 800 C.

Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, CO is to be expected and NIST did indeed measure CO concentrations in some of its fire tests. As for the presence of H2 in the WTC fires, this IS quite probable as a result of the water-gas shift equilibrium:

H2O + CO = H2 + CO2

And you also need to consider the reversible reaction:

3Fe + 4H2O = Fe3O4 + 4H2

The EDX spectra of the iron spherules do not provide information on the chemical speciation of the elements detected; you would need to use techniques such as X-ray diffraction, X-ray photoelectron or Auger spectroscopy for that - something which I believe no one has done (yet!).

Nevertheless, I suspect the iron spheres would be coated with Fe3O4 and possibly FeS. Potassium is quite mysterious but I do have a suggestion on this:

The fires in the Twin Towers would be very similar to the fires involved in the combustion of refuse in municipal incinerators and there is quite the literature out there on this topic. It turns out that municipal incinerators are notorious for severe corrosion and wastage of metal surfaces contacted by the dusty flue gases. Municipal wastes contain a lot of wood, cardboard, paper and plastics which produce a lot of SO2 and HCl as well as "flyash". In the presence of reducing atmospheres mild steel corrosion is usually attributed to pyrosulfates such as K2S2O7 and alkali-iron trisulphates such as K3Fe(SO4)3 which are known to be highly corrosive WHEN MOLTEN. By the way, the mineral component of low-grade liquid fuels as well as coal and wood is usually rich in potassium. The ASTM method D-1857 is used to measure the ash-fusion temperature of solid fuels and is an indicator of the fuel's tendency to form corrosive deposits in combustion systems.

[Furcifer]

Is it possible to get the sulphur out of the rubber in the building? Most of the carpet has a rubberized backing (I think, it could be latex). Other than the gypsum this would be the most likely source right?

[Apollo20]

3bodyproblem:

Rubber materials can be a good source of sulfur, yes....

I believe the visco-elastic dampers used a butyl rubber formulation made by 3M but I'm not sure if it contained sulfur.

I wrote an entire article on sulfur in the WTC a while back. (It's available on 911Myths.) If I re-wrore it today I would include the sulfuric acid in the lead-acid batteries used in the many UPSs in the WTC.

Sorry to add that humans also contain sulfur....

[T.A.M.]

Apollo...

They contain sulfur, and POTASSIUM. (humans that is)

TAM:)

[Spins]

Another point worth considering is that the intense fires at the impact zone along with certain aspects of the buildings design (all the elevator and utility shafts were in the core etc) would have created a very strong stack effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect) and essentially turned the building into a giant chimney.

[Apollo20]

TAM:

I wish everyone had access to THE PARTICLE ATLAS by Walter C. McCrone.

Pages 770 - 780 of Volume III have excellent micrographs of common "dusts, dirt and debris"; many of the micrographs show spherical particles alone, or mixed with other amorphous material.

Entry 581 is a sample of "SPRAY-DRIED BLOOD". The dried blood consists of spherical particles with an EDX spectrum that shows peaks from Na, Al, S, Cl, K, Fe.

The presence of Al is strange indeed!

Spins:

Ah Yes..... Chainsaw is THE great proponent of the stack/chimney effect!

[PhantomWolf]

Entry 581 is a sample of "SPRAY-DRIED BLOOD". The dried blood consists of spherical particles with an EDX spectrum that shows peaks from Na, Al, S, Cl, K, Fe.

Now that is intersting. With the common salt removed (NaCl) these sphericals would show an identical EDX to what Jones has......

[Apollo20]

YES INDEED!

But there is still one catch, (isn't there always!),

.... would these dried blood "droplets" be magnetic?

[PhantomWolf]

YES INDEED!

But there is still one catch, (isn't there always!),

.... would these dried blood "droplets" be magnetic?

Unfortunately, the answer is probably not, iron in blood is locked into the hemogolbin pretty tightly, though I guess it could be released by fire, without experimenting I doubt we can say, which is why I only placed it into the "interesting" basket. I'm not sure that there would be an easy way to remove the salt either. Water might do it, but this might also destroy the spherical as well. Also, given the required materials, I'm not sure that it is one of those that things that we can really test.