Still unexplained: eutectic erosion of steel, iron spherules, molybdenum spherules, vaporized lead.

[eomer]

It's not just http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html">eutectic erosion of steel that needs an explanation; it's also http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf">high temperatures evidenced by iron spherules, molybdenum spherules, and vaporization of lead.

One explanation that has been suggested for the former is that sulfur present in elements of debris like drywall, concrete, and diesel fuel provided the sulfur and the long-burning fires in the debris pile supplied the heat. But could those sources of sulfur under those conditions actually cause eutectic erosion? Johnathan H. Cole, P.E. conducted an experiment and concluded that they could not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

And the evidence found in the dust of high temperatures (iron spherules, molybdenum spherules, vaporized lead) does not appear to be explained or explainable by any process in the debris fires because the dust was distributed by the collapse event, not by the burning of the debris afterward.

[LARED]

1. While virtually the entire body of materials engineers and scientists

remain largely uninterested in this "mystery", the CT'er continue the march into historical oblivion.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Is this one of those "If nobody storms the bastille, nobody cares" fallacies the OCT is so fond of

or do you have personal knowledge of the opinions of "virtually the entire body of materials engineers and scientists"?

[LARED]

25. Why yes, we ll get together for tea every other Sunday afternoon

to discuss how no one really thinks the steel found with eutectic corrosion was really all that odd. We have a pool going to see how long it takes for those in the CT community to write a book about this (most likely written by someone wholly unqualified) to cash in.

Of course I don't know every materials engineer or scientist in the world, but I do know and have worked with a few very knowledgeable ones.

The funny part about this whole eutectic corrosion thing I'm sure many materials folks would love to examine that specimen to find out what may have caused it, but it would be strictly for the technical challenge of finding out the corrosion mechanism. It would be shocking to find one serious experienced mentally whole materials guy that thinks this is someone related to controlled demo.

[William Seger]

2. Prove that any iron spherules were produced...

... during the collapse. We don't need explanations for things that didn't happen.

[eomer]

4. RJ Lee proved it in a study they did in 2003.

1.4 Findings

Detailed characterization of WTC Dust revealed that it possessed a unique
set of characteristics by which it could be identified and differentiated to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty from dust that had other origins.
Thus, dust that was found as a pervasive contaminant in the Building was
unequivocally identified as coming from the WTC Event. The conclusions
reached in this report regarding dust found in the Building are as follows:

• Particulate with the WTC Dust Signature was observed throughout the
  Building.
  
• The identity, concentration, and characteristics of the particles and the
  chemical composition of the WTC Dust constitute a complex, recognizable
  pattern or “signature.”
  
• The identification of WTC Dust is not based on an individual
  characteristics, but rather on a profile comprised of the WTC Dust Markers.
  
• The presence of WTC Dust in a sample of Building dust can be established
  using conventional forensic and statistical methodology with a high degree
  of scientific certainty.

The analytical results are as follows:
...

• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high
  temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common
  in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are
  not common in “normal” interior office dust.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

[William Seger]

12. Baloney!

No, they did not prove that the spherules where produced during the collapse, rather than already present in the building. For some bizarre reason, the RJ Lee study seems to assume that, without justification (and with no mention of how one could possibly tell the difference). But in fact, those iron-rich spherules aren't nearly as rare or unexplainable as your pseudo-scientific "truther" frauds pretend they are. In fact, we know that the fly ash used to make the lightweight concrete in the building was loaded with them, and that's just one source. What happened to those spherules, eomer? We also know that another ingredient of the lightweight concrete was pumice, which contains large amounts of alumino-silicate spherules, which were also found in the dust.

The iron-rich spherules were explained almost immediately after 9/11 "researchers" glommed onto them, yet these guys still do not even mention that there were certainly a lot of them already in the building. There's your proof that they simply don't give a damn about finding the truth; they just hope that their fraudulent argument is still useful for deceiving a few more gullible people. Pathetic.

[eomer]

18. Source for your claims? (eom)

[William Seger]

26. Sure

Microspherules in flyash:

http://www.flyash.info/2005/49dro.pdf
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/203084311/Microspheres_Fly_Ash_.html
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/203084311/Microspheres_Fly_Ash_.html

Flyash in lightweight concrete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_combustion_products

Lightweight concrete in WTC towers (4" slab outside of core):

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

[eomer]

28. Wrong -- iron spherules in fly ash are oxides, iron spherules in WTC dust are elemental iron.

"Debunkers" have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers' concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron.

http://crucibletimes.blogspot.com/

[William Seger]

30. Nope, Hoffman is wrong (again)

Hoffman doesn't happen to say where he got the notion that the spherules in the dust were "elemental iron" but Jones disagrees. Here's a partial email exchange between Jones and Frank Greening. I'll bold the part of Jones' reply near the bottom that's of interest:

Frank and Steven's E-mail Exchanges
Frank posted on the JREF forum on 12-26-07

Quote:
Some Recent E-mail Exchanges with Steven Jones

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven,

I would like to contribute to this research, so I will answer your questions
about OXYGEN, etc.......

It is well known that oxygen is not well characterized by EDX, especially
EDX done on old instruments. In fact, if you look in McCrone's book, which
was published in 1973, none of the samples show oxygen peaks! Thus we have
entry 432 "Zinc Oxide" which only has peaks for zinc! Clearly, the absence
of oxygen peaks does not mean the absence of oxygen in the sample! The
spectra in McCrone's book were probably recorded with an electronic "gate"
to eliminate low energy X-rays entirely. This was done because so-called
pulse pile-up of low-energy X-rays in first generation EDX instruments
caused detector saturation. Thus the low-energy peaks were not recorded.
This is why the lightest element reported in any sample listed in McCrone's
book is Na with an X-ray at 1.04 keV. Nevertheless, McCrone's Particle Atlas
remains a very useful source of X-ray data of dusts, minerals, etc.

Even using a modern EDX instrument I would be very careful about quoting a quantitative oxygen number. Why is this? Well, light elements like carbon,
oxygen and nitrogen emit very low energy X-rays ~ 0.5 keV or less. These
X-rays are not very penetrating and have trouble escaping from the surface
of the sample and passing through the window of the detector. However,
oxygen also tends to chemisorb on the surface of many materials, enhancing
the oxygen peak. The net result is that oxygen is not reliably measured by
EDX. For this reason I used Auger electron analysis, with a touch of
argon-ion sputtering to removed chemisorbed species, to quantify elements
like C, O, N, in fly ash. This technique does not use X-ray emission to
detect elements.

Now as for the particular spectrum in McCrones's book I forwarded to you, it was just one example of a combustion-related material that has microspheres
and high iron. I will forward the spectrum of the incinerator ash as well.
It shows microspheres and iron is present in significant concentrations too.
But please remember McCrone's sample was NOT magnetically separated. I am
quite sure a magnetically separated ash sample, such as the one you have for
the WTC dust, would show high iron by definition!

And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile.

Regards, Frank

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Query

Frank,

1. As you read my query, you'll notice that I said I thought some sort of
cooperation could be worked out -- with you. When I made reference to those "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries I was not thinking about you , but rather two or three others, out of perhaps a couple hundred collaborators I have worked with. I learned to be very careful before forming
collaborations.

At the same time, it is true I would have to get to know you better before
establishing a full collaboration if such were desired.

2. "Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"

a. Where is the oxygen? Oxygen is a major component of almost all the
iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied -- often the PRINCIPAL component.

b. How do these "fly-ash" spheres form, given the high melting point of
iron (about 1530 C)? Do the incinerators use forced-air?

Thanks for your comments, which I will consider more tomorrow.

Steven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

And this, BTW, is from a "truther" site, which doesn't seem to be too impressed with Jones:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=70&MMN_position=186:186

[eomer]

32. And there is this from Jones:

PS -- some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sharpprintinginc.com%2F911%2Findex.php%3Fmodule%3Dpagemaster%26PAGE_user_op%3Dview_page%26PAGE_id%3D70%26MMN_position%3D186%3A186&ei=iNt3TfCjAseO0QGx-4HlBg&usg=AFQjCNGqFvJwjGB6yOzcp0dWIuLzI9sVgQ

But I do see the larger point you're making and agree based on the information you provided that the conclusion that the iron spherules indicate high temperatures during the event is debatable. Thanks for the links.

[William Seger]

33. Greening believes...

... that flyash could have been produced in the WTC fires the same way it's produced in an incinerator, and yes, the fact that it's produced in an incinerator implies that production doesn't require the temperature of iron's melting point.

However, from my own experience as a structural draftsman back in the early 70s, I know that flyash and pumice were used to make lightweight concrete back then, so I still believe that the flyash in the concrete is a very likely source of the spherules, despite Jones' claim to have looked for it. Only the floor slabs outside the core were lightweight; the core slabs were normal concrete, so that may have been what Jones tested (if anything).

I'd say that the larger point is that there are many, many possible explanations for the iron-rich spherules, so: (1) Jones' "logic" that thermite is the only explanation is not valid; and (2) Jones does nor confront valid criticism in an intellectually honest manner.

[spooked911]

37. I agree with you about Jones

Disagree with you about what happened to the towers though.

There is overwhelming evidence for extraordinary temps during and after the destruction.

[hack89]

3. I accept these explanations of the sulfur.

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

Nothing in Cole's "experiment" rebuts any of this.

Where do you think the sulfur came from?

[eomer]

5. That's right, Cole's experiment doesn't rebut or attempt to rebut those sources of sulfur.

Cole took those sources of sulfur as a given and then mimicked them in his experiment in order to find out whether those sources could cause the type of eutectic erosion seen on the steel beam. The experiment seems to demonstrate that those admitted sources of sulfur could not cause the eutectic erosion that was seen.

[hack89]

6. So he perfectly replicated the rubble pile?

he cooked the steel for weeks with exactly the same temperatures and exactly the same mixture of chemicals? Really?

[eomer]

7. So NIST perfectly reenacted the WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapses?

They built duplicate buildings, then crashed jets into them, and they collapsed again? Because the only way an experiment is valid is if it reproduces the original event precisely in every way?

The experiment proves that it is not obvious that those materials will necessarily produce eutectic erosion. Now it is up to anyone who claims that those materials did produce eutectic erosion to show how. By necessity they will do that, if they can, by way of an experiment that does not precisely reproduce the original event, since that would be impossible.

In other words, the eutectic erosion and the evidence of high temperatures "remain unexplained" as I said in the OP.

[hack89]

8. Lets deal with Cole's "experiment" first

do you agree that he in fact did not replicate the actual conditions the steel was subjected to?

Even if it was unexplained why is it significant for you? It what way possible is it linked to or is proof of demolition? Do you agree that there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for it?

[eomer]

10. Let me know when you think of some questions that aren't obvious on their face

to even an idiot.

[hack89]

11. We keep asking those "idiotic" questions hoping for an answer.

if the truth community cannot show that this issue is significant then why should anyone care? How does it point to demolition in anyway what so ever?

The whole truth movement is built on making mountains out of molehills. That steel cooked in a witches brew of chemicals and high temperature for weeks. Even without exactly duplicating the effect, it is not unreasonable to accept that there was nothing nefarious indicated by the condition of the steel. Since the truth community refuse to even suggest an alternative mechanism it would appear that it is a dead issue until they come up with some facts that advance their argument(what ever it is).

[William Seger]

13. You said....

> The experiment seems to demonstrate that those admitted sources of sulfur could not cause the eutectic erosion that was seen.

No, the experiment seems to demonstrate that those sources of sulfur could not cause the eutectic erosion under the conditions of that experiment. Do you or do you not understand why that qualification is important? Do you or do you not find it odd that Cole doesn't seem to?

[William Seger]

14. Ok, here's a non-obvious question

The eutectic mixture in that piece of steel formed at about 1000^oC. What kind of therm_te did the perps use that only burns at 1000^oC ?

[eomer]

17. Is it that simple?

The piece of steel being examined is what was left. Do you know that there wasn't 1000^oC slag material flowing out of a process that was hotter elsewhere? Why couldn't there have been a thermitic reaction that was hotter than 1000^oC and still have 1000^oC material reach this small remnant of one beam as a result?

[William Seger]

27. Slag from where, and where did it go?

There isn't any evidence of any thermitic reaction elsewhere that would have produced the slag you imagine, nor any evidence of the slag itself. According to "truther science," this corroded piece of metal is itself the "proof" of a thermitic reaction, even though it apparently happened at a temperature far below that of a thermitic reaction -- at a temperature achievable in the rubble pile fire, in fact.

[eomer]

29. From where: thermitic reaction. Where did it go: hauled away.

There is evidence of a thermitic reaction -- it is spherules of elemental iron and chips of unreacted thermite.

There is no evidence only if you ignore the evidence that there is.

[William Seger]

31. (Ahem)

Again, there is absolutely no credible evidence of any thermitic reaction, and the point you seem to be intent on dodging is that none is required.

As I said, the iron-rich spherules are easily explained -- there are actually many possible sources besides the flyash in the lightweight concrete -- and the "chips of unreacted thermite" are a figment of Jones & Co's fevered, paranoid imagination. Their own paper shows that the chips do not resemble any known form of thermite, and their own experiments show that it does not behave like thermite WRT ignition temperature and energy density. Whereas a reasonable person would therefore conclude that it isn't thermite, these clowns "conclude" that it must be some mysterious "highly engineered" form of thermite. You don't need to be a materials scientist to clearly see what's wrong with their "logic."

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. ?

Does it follow that if someone demonstrates that evolutionary processes do not necessarily produce (insert biological observation here), then it is up to anyone who claims that they did to prove the point experimentally? (My impression is that some people would say: absolutely yes.)

I don't want to get lost in semantics. If iron spherules etc. are in fact highly bizarre, then that would be good to know. However, I find it facially implausible that a single experiment can establish bizarreness.

[eomer]

16. That exchange was about eutectic erosion, which apparently was bizarre to those who would know.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

It was their opinion that studies ought to be done to explain it:

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

If buildings built to code can collapse due to ordinary office fires, well, it's pretty easy to see why it would be important to explain exactly why and how. Biederman wasn't satisfied, clearly, at having identified some potential sources of sulfur; rather he thought that pinning down how much you need and where it came from were important questions. Bierderman, et al did do some follow-on studies -- you linked to the abstract for one -- that I can't read without buying them. You don't have access to those journals do you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. oh, right, wrong anomaly

The eutectic is facially somewhat less interesting than anything found in the dust, in this respect: one can plausibly argue (despite reservations) that whatever is found in the dust must at least have been formed no later than the collapses. With the eutectic, who knows? Of course, it is nevertheless logically possible that the eutectic provides crucial evidence of something.

If buildings built to code can collapse due to ordinary office fires, well, it's pretty easy to see why it would be important to explain exactly why and how.

Right. Many but not all of us think that was the point of the NIST investigations. As for whether the eutectic merited/merits further investigation, that's an important but distinguishable question: the eutectic might merit investigation even if we had grounds for confidence that it didn't contribute to any WTC collapse. There are many questions worth investigating that pertain to evolutionary biology, but people who construe those questions as posing a fundamental threat to evolutionary theory tend to have axes to grind. Of course that proves nothing about 9/11, and the prevailing hypotheses about the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are of a different order than evolutionary theory; it's just something I have observed.

If these researchers thought that the eutectic suggested anomalously high temperatures, they give no sign of it in this article.

No, I don't think I have access to any of the journals that contain Biederman et al.'s follow-up studies.

[hack89]

20. But further studies were done

Greening's study was done specifically to answer Bierderman's questions. Perhaps you should read it this time.

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. well, that isn't really conclusive, is it?

I think that paper is full of interesting information, but I don't think it settles how the metal ended up that way.

It does seem to offer good reasons to doubt that therm*te is the answer.

[hack89]

23. But why does this issue need to be resolved?

why is it significant? With such an huge chaotic event how is it even remotely possible that such questions can be resolve to the point of no doubt or uncertainty? That is an impossible standard - if you have 90 percent of the big picture and it explains what happened to most everyone's satisfaction, does that remaining 10 percent really mean anything?

Particularly in this case - there have been rational and scientifically sound explanations put forward as to what caused the eutectic erosion of steel. What has not been put forward is a rational explanation as to why this is important to determining what happened on 9/11. I am sure that the eventual answer will be an interesting footnote to metallurgical and fire sciences but why is this important? Do you think it undermines the official story in some manner? Does it point to demolition in some way? Or is the truth community left with nothing else to do but point at every unanswered question, no matter how insignificant, and scream "the OCT is a lie."?

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. as far as I know, not at all

Or is the truth community left with nothing else to do but point at every unanswered question, no matter how insignificant, and scream "the OCT is a lie."?

That's pretty much how it seems to me, yup. "God of the gaps" in the 9/11 context. (Although for people who really believe in *therm*te, it probably doesn't seem like that to them. I'm not espousing pomo relativism here; as far as I can tell, we're right and they're wrong.)

It just struck me that Greening's study doesn't exactly answer Biederman's questions -- not that I think it has to.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. I Like Big Words And I Cannot Lie

All you OCTers can't deny
When steel walks in with eutectic erosion and spherules in your face
IT FALLS DOWN

[spooked911]

35. wow, you made a funny

your mom must be so proud

[SDuderstadt]

38. Which is probably more...

than we can say for your mom, dude.

[spooked911]

39. wanna bet?

anyway, you're still trawling here for my comments, I see.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Dude...

If I was "trawling", I wouldn't wait for you to post first.

Duh.

[spooked911]

46. dude-- you didn't post in this thread until I did.

but whatever.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Which is what I just said...

dude.

Duh.

[spooked911]

34. it's explained by nuclear demolition

as I have been saying for a few years now.

[SDuderstadt]

36. LOL!

Which is why people have not taken you seriously, dude.

[spooked911]

40. "people"

could you be more specific?

[zappaman]

41. specifically...?

thinking, rational, non-crazy human beings.

[spooked911]

48. that's a circular argument since you naturally define people who take me seriously

as crazy, etc

[SDuderstadt]

42. What is so hard to understand about the term...

"people"?

[LARED]

44. There are earth people and there are

alien people.

For some at least.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Aha!

Mea culpa.

[spooked911]

47. because lots of people do take me seriously

that's why you're wrong

[SDuderstadt]

50. Name one....n/t

[spooked911]

54. Lots of people who read my blog and/or think nuclear devices were used at the WTC

e.g. David Howard.

[LARED]

55. Well you're up to one unconfirmed person nt

[Larry L. Burks]

57. Crop circles and 9/11 Dust

A lot of the same kind of evidence found in the soil of Crop Circles. Can also be found in the dust of 9/11

I’m talking about the iron B.Bs Spheres.


http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4PRFA_enUS423&q=crop+circles+BB+in+soil#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1T4PRFA_enUS423&q=crop+circles+testing+of+soil+iron+spheres&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=306ff18b2f1a3a6b

Cold process. Sure? The wheat in the field did not catch on fire and burn. But it did turn the trace elements of iron in the soil from flakes in to spheres.

They also found compounds that can only form if there is a present of radon particles.

The joints of wheat stalks popped just like the air tanks on the backs of the firemen. And the joints and the fire men didn’t get burnt. From any high heat.

Now go back and take a close look at the black line that goes in to the ground.

Where is the thermite at in crop circles? There’s none to be found????

Curved Space any one? Cold process? The wheat did not burn.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Jesus...

did he really ask why FDNY didn;t try to catch 9/11 jumpers in nets???

[zappaman]

53. oh, that's just the tip of the iceberg...

my personal favorite is his diagram on how flight 93 "should have looked" upon impact.

[Larry L. Burks]

56. It’s in the Dust.

What could have done this? Curved space?