Iron microspheres in 9/11 dust?
Greetings Lonestar. I see you are still promoting microspheres in the dust from 9/11.
A lot of folks have a predisposition to treat theories that pose unanswered questions as though they represented irrefutable facts. The OP statement is a detailed account of a couple of such theories that actually assume a great deal but prove nothing. Even you admit there is no reliable conclusion when you summarize with a question.
So, with all those theories in mind, let’s get some real facts out into the open.
There is no proof today that the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 was the result of controlled demolition. Claims that proof exists are false and they are designed to mislead.
It is verifiably true beyond all doubt that there is no fact-based technical account that reveals the collapse modes of the Twin Towers. Therefore, all attempts to explain how and why they collapsed are purely hypothetical. {1}
In spite of all the analysis gathered, no formal scientific examination by groups of technical experts has ever been conducted and no official conclusions were ever reached as to how the towers fell.
The claims that thermite residues as well as iron-rich microspheres in WTC dust prove the use of thermite have both been found to have no basis in fact. {2}{3}{4}
“The only other likely source of iron microspheres is the controlled demolition using thermite or thermate” is a false statement of your own making. You call the microspheres found in the WTC dust “iron” microspheres even though you know it to be a fact that most of the samples were found to contain “iron-rich” microspheres. Dr. Steven E. Jones said, “I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust.” {5} Your commentary omits this significant fact. “Iron-rich” microspheres suggest the presence of iron compounds, which melt at much lower temperatures than pure iron. Therefore, the existence of “iron-rich” microspheres can be explained by iron-sulfur eutectic found in corrosion of the steel from WTC7. This fact on its own destroys the entire “controlled demolition” theory. You do not use quotes and you do not reference any sources, therefore, your calling them “iron" microspheres advances a false conspiracy interpretation, which is not supported by the dust.
An over view of the literature finds an extensive array of opinions but no broad consensus and certainly no definitive evidence to explain the destruction at the WTC. Hence, each of us must decide if we want to believe vague and unproven theories, as you suggest, Lonestar, or if we will take a more rational and logical stance that acknowledges after ten years there is still no reliable evidence of a conspiracy that survives scientific scrutiny.
Keep up the fine work, Lonestar. There is nothing like a factually bankrupt conspiracy theory to attract attention.
{1} http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ind … on=548:548
{2} http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm
{3} http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911f.htm
{4} http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
{5} http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu … Method.pdf@Quilligrapher, where's the conspiracy theory?
You say a lot, but you've jumped to a really lousy conclusion. I don't see a conspiracy theory in the OP.
I think it's pretty bankrupt to write such a long reply based on something that was never said in the first place.
The question remains. Every sample of 9/11 concrete dust contained between 0.2 and 5.87% iron microspheres. So, where did they come from?
That's not a conspiracy or a theory. Just a question. I hope that clears up any confusion.
Would you care to answer this? Do you have any ideas where such a mass of iron microspheres could come from?Good evening, Lonestar.
I am so sorry. Was I wrong to suggest that this thread is an attempt to spread and promote an unproven theory that somebody intentionally destroyed the twin towers using controlled demolition and then conspired with government officials to cover it up? How silly of me! Perhaps, as part of your denial, you should also deny you wrote the following:
“because all 3 of the WTC buildings which collapsed on 9/11 were highly secure, this means that 9/11 was an inside job.” {1}
“Two Bush family members were executives in the security company which oversaw the WTC. And the CIA was a tenant of 7WTC. I don't think they would've let Al Qaeda rig tons of explosives and thermate cutter charges, unless they were in on it.” {1}
“The only other likely source of iron microspheres is the controlled demolition using thermite or thermate.” {1}
“If not, then we are left with the unsavory problem of collapse of 3 steel skyscrapers being controlled demolitions.” {1}
“Even the airplane black boxes supposedly didn't [survive] (except that we have witnesses who saw more than 1 black box being recovered).” {2}
“Bush and Cheney were suspicious by participating in the cover-up and felony obstruction of justice by cleaning up the 9/11 WTC site before a full investigation could be performed.” {4}
“Have you checked out those who … still think 9/11 was an inside job? … I'm one of them.” {5}
“Giuliani committed a felony by removing crime scene evidence and Bush went along with it. Don't tell me Bush didn't know a felony was being committed.” {5}
“The point is, Al Qaeda could not have placed the bombs and thermate cutter charges in all 3 buildings.” {5}
Was my post bankrupt, Lonestar? I don’t think so.
{1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2187737
{2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2188403
{4} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2188433
{5} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2188442Regards, Lonestar. I hope you are enjoying your Labor Day Weekend.
You asked me, “So, Q., where do you think the iron [sic] microspheres came from?” You directed this same inquiry at several others in this thread. Each time you ask this question you admit publicly that the data in the OP narrative is inconclusive. Therefore, any explanation as to how the Twin Towers collapsed based upon this data has zero credibility. That is a fact you and I must live with as we move on.
I wish you a happy holiday.Good evening Lonestar. Thank you for providing more questions. I shall try to answer them for you.
“@ Quilligrapher, but if you're not here to disrupt (troll), then why are you here?”
Ouch! As I have already explained, I am here because of several false claims in your posts. {1} I do not intend to be confrontational but I can understand how natural it is for someone to feel uncomfortable when his/her false claims are brought out into the open. However, there is no excuse for a personal attack just because I pointed out that any explanation as to how the Twin Towers collapsed based upon this data has zero credibility.
So, again you ask: "Where did the iron microspheres come from?”
You implied I am a troll because I do not answer your question when, in fact, you do not have a conclusive answer to your own question. Also, no one has been able to give you an answer you accept. It seems no one really has an acceptable answer to your burning question. Apparently, from your own words, you have already made up your mind: “The only other likely source of iron microspheres is the controlled demolition using thermite or thermate.” {2} So, if I’m a troll for not having an answer for you then I am in good company.
Furthermore, this is your theory and the burden of proof lies with you! Your burning question asks others to prove your hypothetical conclusion is wrong because you are not even close to proving it is right.
Then you say “There's solid evidence of iron microspheres in the 9/11 concrete dust -- every sample. Even taking the lowest percentage of any of the samples, you have an estimated 1563 metric tons of iron microspheres.” Did you say “solid evidence?” Where? You have not provided one single source for your basic data except for the burning steel wool link (whose only purpose was to prove that high temperatures are not necessary to produce microspheres.) The absence of quotation marks and links to your source(s) implies these thoughts, words, and conclusions are all your own. However, concealing your source(s) makes it impossible to verify that you have represented the data accurately.
The underlying message of the OP is to spread and promote an unproven theory that somebody intentionally destroyed the twin towers using controlled demolition and then conspired with others to cover it up. {1} Other posts slander government officials, accuse them of mass murder, and claim conspiracy at the highest levels. And, you insinuate I am a troll for being critical of such falsehoods?
{1}
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698? … ost2189308
{2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698? … ost2188512Quill,
It has been a while but great to see you as always. I hope all is well with you and you had a great Labor day weekend.
Excellent response as always. I am amazed at the growing amount of people here on the forums that toss stuff on the wall and want others to prove it by debating against no matter your response.
Great to see Buddy and take care.
@American View, thank you. I got it. It looks as though I gave a big generality with my "the jet fuel." My apologies.
Now, do you have any thoughts on the iron microspheres -- where they came from?
We have an array of samples ranging from 0.2% to 5.87%. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, percentage by weight. With 780,000 metric tons of concrete converted at near 100% to a fine powdery dust, we would have about 1,563 metric tons of iron microspheres using the smallest percentage.
A group of terrorists?? Wow - that's a really outlandish conspircy theory!
Yes, @wilderness, I was being silly ... and on purpose.
But I really appreciate you taking the time to draw a detailed picture. Very nice.
The low end of the percentages doesn't sound like much -- 0.002 (0.2%), but when we start out with 780,000 metric tons of concrete finely pulverized, 0.2% is more than a thousand tons. And 1,560 is a low-end estimate. If we had more samples, would the estimate go lower? I don't know. That's certainly a possibility. But even 1 ton of iron microspheres would be startling to me. It likely would not have come from burning steel wool.
But it's possible that part of the iron microspheres would've come from the thermitic reaction itself and part from the steel beams they were meant to cut.
You mentioned lots of garbage, and it's striking that witnesses in the cleanup reported finding very little trash in whole form. The largest piece of a phone, one witness said, was half of a keypad.
I guess equally amazing is the fact that 780,000 metric tons of concrete ended up as a fine powder rather than chunks. Falling buildings don't do that, do they? Pictures I've seen show large chunks of concrete from buildings which merely collapse from poor design or disasters. I don't remember seeing any of the concrete from the WTC towers found as chunks. And that takes a lot of energy -- energy which was mostly used up by the near free-fall acceleration of the collapse.
If we had only 1 microsphere found in 1 or 2 samples, then I'd say it could possibly have been steel wool in one of the office kitchens. No problem and no controversy. But that's not the case, here.
So, if we have even only 500 metric tons of iron microspheres, where could that have come from except a thermitic reaction (half from thermite and half from steel beams)? Suggestions? Can we debunk the idea that controlled demolition was used? Or are the iron microspheres, as one metallurgical engineer suggested, the smoking gun of controlled demolition?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zNHLg3j7sM@wilderness, thanks for the opportunity for me to be silly again. Ignorance is never evidence of controlled demolition. Gee thanks for cluing us in on that little pearl of wisdom.
Why are the other problems insurmountable? Based on your say so?
"Rather the entire building is nearly destroyed before the primary charges are even placed at key points." Okay, I'm no expert, but in one video of a demolition expert, he said that the building is weakened only by about 20% before charges are set. That's far from your "nearly destroyed" exaggeration. But that was only the standard operating procedure for normal demolitions. This was anything but ordinary.
And you said, "Certainly the impact of an airliner would have immediately knocked it down rather than what we saw." Huh? Can you please explain? Now you're saying that the building should've collapsed on impact? The engineers in charge of building the towers built them in mind with the impact of a slightly smaller airplane impacting the building. The redundant connections has been likened to a wire screen punctured by a pencil -- local damage, yes, but not global catastrophic collapse.
I find it rather peculiar that you claim that the pulverization of 780,000 metric tons of concrete into a fine powdery dust, along with the near-complete pulverization of every piece of office equipment could've been accomplished by gravity impact alone. I'm saving my discussion of required energies for a different forum thread.
But you're assuming some things that are not necessary. You don't need to knock out walls months in advance of a demolition carried out by explosives and thermite cutter charges.
In the months leading up to 9/11, there was a major overhaul of the elevators in the towers. You said, "The building supporting structure is spread out as well, all through that space," but that's not true. The core columns were concentrated at the center, adjacent to the elevator shafts. Convenient, huh?
Unlike most steel frame skyscrapers, the 2 towers had wide open, unobstructed spaces with no steel beams. Only the core and exterior beams held up the building.
One CIA asset noted that trucks were pulling up to the WTC towers right after the cleaning crews left, and those trucks pulled away from the towers just before the early risers showed up for work the next morning. This happened in the days just before 9/11.
Miles of wiring? Not if you used radio control.
Interesting how you make claims without supporting evidence. I know there's a certain amount of sense to what you're claiming, but you're guessing, even though you state it as fact. Like I said, thermitic white smoke IS aluminum oxide. If you look at any videos on YouTube of thermite experiments, the white smoke goes up, as all heated smoke does. So, did you see an article testing the dust miles from the WTC? And aluminum oxide smoke is far different from the pumice of Vesuvius.
Thousands of people working on the project? What makes you think it would take thousands of knowledgeable people? Compartmentalization can keep most people out of the know. Not many people who pull off black ops ever want to talk about it, I would guess. It took nearly 50 years for E. Howard Hunt to come forward on his involvement in the JFK assassination. That was an eye-opener. So, please don't give me any crap about people not keeping secrets. Operation Northwoods was classified for 35 years before coming to the attention of the public-at-large, and that was a 9/11-style event that was not implemented. The fact that they thought it up in the first place should be chilling enough to any American citizen.
"Excessive power drain from the building at night from using heavy hand equipment should have been noted and investigated; it wasn't." How do you know it wasn't noticed? And how do you know how big a drain it would be, especially if preparation took months or years? If Wirt Walker, III, a distant relative of George W. Bush, and George's younger brother, Marvin, were executives of the security company in the years leading up to 9/11, then, if they noticed it and did nothing, then they were involved. Nice, when the security company is in on the inside job. (Walker was CEO of the security company up to and beyond 9/11.)
You said, "It just didn't happen that way." I agree. You painted a biased scenario that I couldn't help but disagree with. But that's not the only possibility. Sounds like a straw man argument (logical fallacy), to me. I agree that it didn't happen the way you painted it. The buildings weren't brought down by Martians, either. I'm sure that's something we can agree on, too.
"Simultaneously as the airliners hit?" No, demolition would've occurred many minutes after the plane collisions. I thought that point was clear. If it had been simultaneous, then the towers would've collapsed with each collision, rather than an hour or so afterward.
There was one explosion seconds before the first airplane impact, but that was in the sub-basement. Several people were injured by that one. Yes, before the airplane struck.
Perhaps somewhere between thousands of metric tons and dozens of metric tons is the right figure for thermitic cutter charges needed to do the job.
And there were numerous suspicious activities noticed by the occupants of the towers in the days and weeks prior to 9/11. Did you know about their testimony? Did you even check?
- HowardBThinameposted 11 years ago
0 A repeated accident with multiple strikes? In broad daylight with the American flag waving clearly? All the while they're jamming the very specific American military frequency? Accident?
It depends on which source you hear or read. If you believe the Corporate Party media in America, you get their propaganda. Sometimes, you might get something resembling truth. Not all bad, but not all good. But everything that breaks in the mainstream media is either neutral or positive on the agenda of the ones in control. Yes, that "conspiracy theory" -- a working hypothesis based on years of facts. Is it true? Until a year ago, I had never thought much about it. But I've been weaned of the American news media (living 5 years outside the country), so I can see how slanted it is. I saw tons of that slant in the run up to the RNC. Blew my mind how biased the media was. Perhaps the Rockefellers invested billions in 9/11 and don't want the opportunities it afforded to slip away. But when you control the media, it makes it easier to keep the masses dazzled and entertained (and divided). Easier to paint those who investigate as kooks. Without strong ego, you can paint me "kook," too, if you want. That's okay. I like getting my ego bruised. I'd like to see it disappear entirely.
But when the Admiral in charge of the fleet in the Med says that President Johnson told him to recall the birds and that he wants that goddamn ship sunk, that sounds pretty intentional. Did the president really say that? It sounds like something Johnson (a Texan) would say. There's an Alex Jones interview on this on YouTube.
And the officers and captain believed it was not an accident, but intentional. Watch the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va0sHuZyJwU
@HowardBThiname, you don't know me. You don't know my lifelong quest for answers and truth over and past my own attachments and ego. I understand that you may suspect people of "hidden" or "not-so-hidden" agendas. Could I be one of those who bears a grudge against Bush and Zionists? In your mind, perhaps. I understand that. And the ones behind the scenes like to spread misinformation and divisiveness (painting people with labels so that they collect in groups of us versus them). I've had to correct my assessment of things numerous times. I'm always open for new information.
I try to find facts and avoid my own misinterpretations. I keep finding new things that force me to change my mind. And that's good. Truth matters. Ego doesn't.
Yes, stories and intrigue do pique our interests. I understand that. And, by the same token, so does Normalcy Bias keep some people from investigating further and from looking into other sources of information than the easy and "standard."
- HowardBThinameposted 11 years ago0
Hey there RB. Good to see you again.
Like you, I am often struck by questions like this. The difference between us, I guess, is I look all over for the answers and you just circulate the questions.
In a CNN interview aired on 9/11, Bernard Kerik, NYC Police Commissioner, stated, “I just got a confirmation from the Chief of Detectives, he's reach out to the FBI. They have confirmed that someone has been stopped in New Jersey, three men in a van. However, there was no explosives in the van.”
The "truckload of explosives" story was one of many false 9/11 accounts spread in the media and later disproved and retracted. The problem, however, is some people WANT TO believe these stories so they substitute questions for the lack of facts. Are you one of those, RB? I hope not.
Wishing you the best.
{1} http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … se.05.htmlI read that there were traces of explosives in the van, how about the map, the videotaping of the towers beginning before the attacks. The access to the towers days before the attacks, the fake companies, the fake ID's. that video raises far more questions than a van with explosives. It is worth watching before beginning any research. There are some good questions raised. I have never written anything concerning this event simply for the fact that I cannot form a complete opinion. New questions always arise. I came across the video while conducting inquiries earlier today.
I have no answers, but the video is relative to the topic of the thread.
Good to see you.Hey there, RB. Really cool to see you again too.
I am amazed someone would post, “September 11, 2001...Another terrorist attack on the George Washington bridge,” and then in the next post glaze over the fact the statement is not true!
First, one informs his fellow hubbers, “Truck bombs found by authorities, what the heck happened to the suspects? Why are we not discussing this attempt at death and destruction? Who were the suspects and where are they now?” The post concludes with “911 cover up” and is subsequently followed by, “I have no answers” and, “I cannot form a complete opinion.” Duh? Saying “911 cover up” sure sounds like a complete opinion.
I believe 9/11 conspiracy theories have survived for over 11 years because of the dumb-as-dirt reality that so many people repeat unproven notions rather than examine their accuracy. Every time they express their theories in the form of questions in stead of facts, they prove they have no facts to support their beliefs.
Stay well, RB.
Hi MDS.
Interesting post. Another question. Please tell us what your point is?
It makes me want to ask my own questions. Was Bernie Kerik convicted of lying about a truck allegedly filled with explosives? No! Then why would you mention it? Why bring it up in the form of a question when you already know the answer?
When will proponents of a 9/11 conspiracy stop relying on questions and start producing facts? A logical mind would use questions to form a hypothesis, i.e. a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. A hypothesis should then lead to research. Research should finally lead to a conclusion. If the conclusion is ironclad there is no problem. If it is not, however, then in the end, all you have is the original unproven tentative assumption. Time to do more research or move on to a new hypothesis.
The fact that Mr. Kerik is now in custody is another dead, rancid, red herring adding nothing to the discussion but its smell.
Greetings, TML. Nice to hear from you.
Another interesting question. What is your answer? Why do you ask it here? What research have you done to find the answer?
I just saw a video clip that makes all of these discussions meaningless if it ever becomes true. It's a pre-production trailer of a movie called "Gray State." The sad thing is, we're halfway there already. This is what 9/11 made possible. That event allows for massive eugenics (population control), dismantling America and the establishment of a New World Order run by the bankers (not the tellers; the CEOs and chief stockholders).
http://www.graystatemovie.com/
Related Discussions
- 304
Trump's Criminal Trials
The country will get at least one verdict before the November election. The New York Hush Money/Election Interference case is set to kick off on March 25. Trump attorneys attempts to get charges dropped and the case delayed were struck...
- 188
Why do so many Americans bury their heads on the subject of 9/11?
I've corresponded and chatted with a number of Americans who think the 9/11 Truth movement has been thoroughly "debunked." But when pressed for details on the source of their belief, they can't provide any. One gentleman said that he didn't have time to investigate such things. My big...
- 48
Do you believe in cospirazione theories such as US government made 911 bombing e
Do you believe in cospirazione theories such as US government made 911 bombing etc. ?I would really like to know what others think about these things.
- 222
Aftordable Healthcare Act, is it working for anyone?
The question should not be who's to blame for AHCA, the question should be, "Is it working." Is there anyone out there who has signed up, had a good experience, received much cheaper healthcare than before?
- 22
H1N1 information- for your discernment-political or conspiracy crazy?
someone went to a hell of a lot of trouble to make these videosthis is sensationalized information, but I think it is better to be aware of the information than to ignore it; there are many links below of "proof" of this happening, that was used to put together the videosthere are a lot...
- 21
Is it now illegal to protest the war? Arrest and Asset seizure?
I just saw a disturbing video on youtube where a caller mentioned that G.W Bush has passed a law that makes it illegal to protest a war and that if caught doing so, you will find yourself arrested and all of your assets seized. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug3sjs6OwgIThe guy on C-Span just...