"The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite."
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)." From the RJ Lee report. They were very clear swallower. The huge amount of iron spheres they found came from melted steel. Same molten steel Robertson saw. You lose....
The best indicator for the validity of controlled demolition has always been the vehemence with which it is attacked. Afterall, who in his/her right mind is going to waste his time attacking ideas that that don't threaten them in any way and that they honestly believe to be ridiculous.
Yes and RJ Lee made a very clear distinction between the flyash spheres (rich in si) and the iron metallic spheres (si poor). RJ Lee stated that iron/steel "melted during the WTC event" to create the iron spheres found in such massive volumes....5.87% of the dust!
Metalic (Iron) spheres are caused by melted metals falling in the air as they cool. We seen this all the time at a shipyard construction site packed with welders and ship fitters torching steel all day long. It is the signature of thermites burning, the spatter not the pool of iron.
and the steel in the fema appendix exhibits all the characteristics of thermite damage - and would account for a free-falling building - wtc7 - which is impossible without the support being removed instantaneously all around the columns - including the core columns - freefall means zero resistance - which is impossible for a 47 storey building to offer - 8 stories - do not vanish - and it is a fact that the roofline dropped at the acceleration of gravity for 2.25 seconds - get real
"Harrit and Jones had to publish in a vanity journal,..." so that it would be accessible. A paper journal would have been restricted to subscribers and could not be cited in full on the net. With the extremely high cost of paper journals and the time it takes to get them out many top scientists now publish online, in fact, many universities even insist on it. "try a physics teacher" LOL Maybe you should. For starters I recommend the works of David Chandler. He is very well known on RU-vid.
Gulibility and poor research? I work for a company called 3M that makes much of the PPE that you are talking about. Most dust masks or "partical respirators" as we call them, are for filtering objects down to 1 or 2 microns with perhaps a 95% catch rate. The carbon nanotubes this "nut" is describing are on a nano scale which means these particals cant be caught my conventional PPE, they are way to small. You would need a space suit or a firemans mask&tank set up to stop nano size stuff.
Here is your quote"No one said the work area was safe...so it was poor research"....here is the source..its right here on UTUBE..just search' 9 11 Aftermath Air Quality, Poison Dust, Christine Todd Whitman 8 27 2003 CNN ' or anything with Christine Todd Whitman. I never said anything about thermite, but I would love to see your science on this matter...where are you papers published on the lack of thermate in the dust, I mean where can I look. And how do you know so much about thermite???
do you think refusing to test for explosives is scientific? - The only lies here are from NIST - and they know all about nanotechnology - try reading this article if you can - The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites KEVIN R. RYAN July 2, 2008
"You don't understand journals." Works in vanity journals are not subject to peer review. All papers in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. are subject to peer review. Therefore it is not a vanity journal. I am beginning to think that you are playing devils advocate here (look it up), presenting the OCT crowd in the worse possible light so as to show casual readers just how bankrupt they are.
'Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction ' - read that article - can you read? and read nist and the top ten connections with nanotechnology - perhaps you can add two and two - i don't think so - you don't read - and yet you think yourself informed - lol - you even think that a building can freefall lol
You tell me to think for myself... while telling me what to think???? Truth is truth, if its on UTUBE or the New York Times. You should know when you are talking to someone that is educated and has a few gray hairs on his head. There is a peer review process for science, and Jones' paper and the others such as the one done in Germany on WTC dust have stood for years now and have not been refuted through the process. You have some ax to gride here, lots of energy in your emails...plan weird.
RJ Lee said office fires did it. They did not melt steel, they melted plastics, paint, etc, these items formed the iron spheres. You cherry-picked the parts of RJ Lee report. You are too lazy to ask RJ Lee, too afraid to vaporize your fantasy. Finding iron in the dust is not evidence of thermite. You failed, and you can't ask RJ Lee yourself. Double fail.
