• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debate! What debate?

Crazy Chainsaw, can you answer this? Greening?

Wouldn't you need to know this before you could draw any conclusions about the iron sphericals?
I would think so.
And, from the discussion thus far, I am not sure whether they are hypothosizing that these sphericals were formed in a pre-or-post-collapse scenario.
If pre, they are of interest. If post, they are beyond the charter of the NIST report, and like much of the collapse, are an intriguing problem which would be fun to work on, but of no real use (from a financial standpoint) except as a method of deriving software and modeling techniques.
 
Crazy Chainsaw, can you answer this? Greening?

Wouldn't you need to know this before you could draw any conclusions about the iron sphericals?

The ones of the most interest are the ones pre collapse that would have formed before the towers collapse, and all that is in the data. I believe the studies Have been posted in this tread already.
 
We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3.
If the iron sphericles were formed prior to the collapse, why would it be only 27 ng/m3 higher than normal on Sept. 13, and 270 ng/m3 above normal in October? Wouldn't this more likely be from cleanup efforts than from fires prior to collapse?
 
That's an excellent question, Wildcat. Though I suspect that a possible answer could be that in the intervening time, less dense particles of the dust was blown away and dissipated, while the more dense objects within the dust remained.

caveat:I don't know what the actual cause of this would be, I am merely speculating.
 
If the iron sphericles were formed prior to the collapse, why would it be only 27 ng/m3 higher than normal on Sept. 13, and 270 ng/m3 above normal in October? Wouldn't this more likely be from cleanup efforts than from fires prior to collapse?

I will have to contact Dr. Greening about that, I do not believe he is coming back to JERF though or to physorg at least not for a while.

I simply can not think right now.

My head is hurting, and my ears are ringing, wish I had waited until latter in the morning before blowing myself up this morning.
 
Gravy, did you say that the concrete flooring was not reinforced? Didn't they use rollout lath? One of the building I worked on when I was a lather (many moons ago) used rollout lath instead of rebar.

I Am He
For some reason I was thinking that only the concrete in the core and mechanical floors was reinforced, but I'll retract that. The NIST report reproduces the original concrete reinforcing requirements, although it doesn't say what exactly was to be reinforced. The trussed floor models that were fire tested had reinforced concrete, so I'll assume that they were representative.
 
For some reason I was thinking that only the concrete in the core and mechanical floors was reinforced, but I'll retract that. The NIST report reproduces the original concrete reinforcing requirements, although it doesn't say what exactly was to be reinforced. The trussed floor models that were fire tested had reinforced concrete, so I'll assume that they were representative.

Thanks Gravy I may be away from JERF for a while, I am not feeling to well at the moment, splitting head ache, I just wish some one had told me that concrete and Drywall can be explosive at 350c.
I had to find that out for myself this morning.
Ears ringing, head hurting neighbors mad ands screaming obscenities at me 4:am is not a good time to blow something up.
 
Thanks Gravy I may be away from JERF for a while, I am not feeling to well at the moment, splitting head ache, I just wish some one had told me that concrete and Drywall can be explosive at 350c.
I had to find that out for myself this morning.
Ears ringing, head hurting neighbors mad ands screaming obscenities at me 4:am is not a good time to blow something up.
Aye. Go take some analgesics and get some sleep.
 
:eek:

I've said it before, Crazy Chainsaw... your experiments are interesting, but please don't kill yourself.

Like the rest of the regulars, I'm still waiting to see the quantity of these iron spherules and some assurance that it isn't just contamination. I still don't see any evidence of steel melting in any quantity prior to the collapse -- no puddles, no blobs, no half-melted truss members, nothing except these tiny drops. That suggests a mechanism unconnected with the collapse itself. Interesting stuff, but still a long way from being a "smoking gun."
 
:eek:

I've said it before, Crazy Chainsaw... your experiments are interesting, but please don't kill yourself.

Like the rest of the regulars, I'm still waiting to see the quantity of these iron spherules and some assurance that it isn't just contamination. I still don't see any evidence of steel melting in any quantity prior to the collapse -- no puddles, no blobs, no half-melted truss members, nothing except these tiny drops. That suggests a mechanism unconnected with the collapse itself. Interesting stuff, but still a long way from being a "smoking gun."
I don't want to open another can of worms but what about spontaneous creation of thermite? It is a somewhat common event that you are taught to avoid in industrial practice. It takes place when grinding ferrous metals in the presence of aluminum (Last I checked, the towers after impact sure contained enough iron and aluminum oxide to make a stoichiometric mixture quite easily). It has actually been reported as occuring in industrial accidents. If that took place, wouldn't it account for the sphericle particles?
 
I don't want to open another can of worms but what about spontaneous creation of thermite? It is a somewhat common event that you are taught to avoid in industrial practice. It takes place when grinding ferrous metals in the presence of aluminum (Last I checked, the towers after impact sure contained enough iron and aluminum oxide to make a stoichiometric mixture quite easily). It has actually been reported as occuring in industrial accidents. If that took place, wouldn't it account for the sphericle particles?


That is what we are investigating how the amount of spiracles formed and how they kelped forming over time.
A natural thermite reaction could be the cause if it heated enough steel or produced enough iron but where what would have caused it.
You do not usually get a thermite reaction form drywall because when you heat it to 350c it looses all of its moisture H2O and all the Available Acid compounds with the water, and puts out a white smoke-Steam as it form's anhydrite.
The concrete being high in Gypsum is the same in the same way does basically the same thing, also the concrete samples show elevated levels of Gypsum above that specified and that indicates possible sulfate attack on the concrete.
Sono Chemical reactions can cause burning aluminum in oxygen, but you have to have a chimney effect of sizable proportions.
Or a lot of noise or wave motion.
Nits discounts that.
Small stray Aluminum with oxide reactions would be minor, although some Aluminum undoubtedly oxidized, NITS discounts that it was a major factor.
They did not make the mistake of using Oxidized Aluminum as a indicator of fire temperature as did the early engineers.
Since friction would cause Aluminum to oxidize with air, and Aluminum when directly exposed to oxygen, aluminum always burns at 2800c white hot.
I have been though the NIST data a thousand times the cause of the particles is simply not in the data and the data simply does not indicate a way they could have been formed.
It is just a mystery but how about hydrogen explosions small and continuous out of site forming water from air and forcing that water though the oxide of the aluminum, do to the water traveling in pressure waves.
That is one possible cause remember all the reports of steam pipes exploding?
Now were would the hydrogen come from where could steam come from to pool under Aluminum causing Aluminum to peculate and burn?
What could make concrete like powder, here is a copy of What an Iron worker told me about the concrete in the towers.

It's interesting about the concrete. Would the sulfur make the concrete weak?

Just from working in the buildings I can tell you the concrete was always a problem as far as wedge anchor were concerned. The concrete was like dust in that place.

Sulfuric acid+Calcium Carbonate=Calcium sulfate,Carbon Dioxide Calcium sulfate is gypsum.

For those of you interested in my previous experiments, here is what I found on why the reaction that cause the burning metal.

"Calcium Thiosulfate (CaS2O3)

Calcium thiosulfate is a clear crystalline substance, with little color, a faintly sulfurous odor and near neutral pH. It reacts with free as well as combined chlorine. Calcium thiosulfate undergoes the following reactions with free chlorine (6).
CaS2O3+ 4HOCl + H2O → CaSO4+ 4HCl+ H2SO4 Calcium thiosulfate Hypochlorous acid Calcium sulfate Hydrochloric acid Sulfuric acid "

IT was the chlorine in the water that cause the reaction to sulfuric acid where that touched limestone that formed Gypsum, where it touched steel it formed the burning iron oxide compound known as pyrophoric iron .
Hydrochloric acid and concrete form other compounds harmful to metals such as Calcium chloride I believe.
Let us not forget that SO2 occurs from sulfur containing petroleum products, and from lead acid batteries and is in certain concentrations in the air. How old was the concrete and drywall now?
SO2 plus water is sulfuric acid.
This is still a work in progress an 9/11/2001 is still a point of interest in study because of what NIST Left out.
Finding possible reactions is easy, finding the evidence that they happened on 9/11/2001 is hard.
It is simply a point of interest deserving continued study not a brainless CD proposal.
Of course this is now just a working hypothesis based on experiential and observed data, there must be actual evidence to back it up, so the search goes on.
 
That is what we are investigating how the amount of spiracles formed and how they kelped forming over time.
<snip for brevity>
Of course this is now just a working hypothesis based on experiential and observed data, there must be actual evidence to back it up, so the search goes on.
So, if I am reading this right; you are looking in to the possibilities that the construction materials and age of the WTC towers may have contributed to their collapse; not from a physical structural failure standpoint, but from an unpredicted chemical reaction standpoint?
 
I know I said something before, but is there anything from the plane that could have initiated a reaction? Hydraulic fluid? Chemical composition of the plane?
 
Last edited:
.
What he feels is needed is not the shield but the sword,
That sword is a comprehensive theory of the collapse and what caused it base on good sound science.

fire is hot

heat weakens steel

gravity
 
Well I see you folks did your usual self destruct and drove off another great mind.

Frank Greening is good people but not easily converted to your religion as you found out.

Well I guess you can all relax is get back to your every day "Troofer bashing'.

Too funny.

I do like the term "NISTian" though...so apropos.

MM
 
[...]

Sulfuric acid+Calcium Carbonate=Calcium sulfate,Carbon Dioxide Calcium sulfate is gypsum.



The two primary components of Portland cement (the gray stuff) are clinker and gypsum. When you add water to Portland cement, the gypsum undergoes an expansive, exothermic reaction with tricalcium aluminate to form ettringite. In cement chemistry notation, the reaction is as follows:

C3A + 3CSH2 + 26H -----> C6AS3H32

Which, in normal people chemistry is

[3*CaO]-Al2O3 + [3*CaO]-SO3-[2*H2O] + 26*H2O ----> [6*CaO]-Al2O3-[3*SO3]-[32*H2O]

The purpose of this reaction is to prevent the hardening and excessive heat release associated with the hydration of C3A (tricalcium aluminate). Basically, gypsum keeps cement from hardening for a period of time.
 
The two primary components of Portland cement (the gray stuff) are clinker and gypsum. When you add water to Portland cement, the gypsum undergoes an expansive, exothermic reaction with tricalcium aluminate to form ettringite. In cement chemistry notation, the reaction is as follows:

C3A + 3CSH2 + 26H -----> C6AS3H32

Which, in normal people chemistry is

[3*CaO]-Al2O3 + [3*CaO]-SO3-[2*H2O] + 26*H2O ----> [6*CaO]-Al2O3-[3*SO3]-[32*H2O]

The purpose of this reaction is to prevent the hardening and excessive heat release associated with the hydration of C3A (tricalcium aluminate). Basically, gypsum keeps cement from hardening for a period of time.

Yes but what happens when you add to much Gypsum like in light weight concrete?
Or when you expose the concrete to continuous sulfur bombardment?

http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=16796&t=2

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd136_e.html

http://www.understanding-cement.com/sulfate.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=522058
 
Well I see you folks did your usual self destruct and drove off another great mind.


I think that Dr. Greening, who I regard as a friend and an invaluable guide to the science of 9/11, is partially to blame for the response he received.



Frank Greening is good people but not easily converted to your religion as you found out.


Dr. Greening has the scientific chops to criticize the NIST Report. He is very far from lending credence to your nonsensical fantasies.


Well I guess you can all relax is get back to your every day "Troofer bashing'.

Too funny.


Yes, fantasists are funny. Dr. Greening isn't one of them, and you have yet to show anything that can stand serious scrutiny.


I do like the term "NISTian" though...so apropos.

MM


I like the term "conspiracy liar" for exactly the same reason.
 

Back
Top Bottom