Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Do you understand what a eutectic mixture is?

eutectic mixture (plural eutectic mixtures)

A mixture of substances having a melting point lower than that of any of its components; the composition at the eutectic point

en.m.wiktionary.org...

In the presence of water. The corrosion products of the steel and chemicals in the water that attacked the steel resulted in an eutectic mixture with a lower melting point than the steel.

You have no proof of melted steel.

Again.


Another falsehood by you

FEMA is adamant this concoction liquid mixture of Iron and Sulfur was formed in 1000c heat and the sulfur was reducing the melting point of steel.

Is it false the report actually stated approaching 1000c. You posting “ formed in 1000c heat“ is intellectual dishonesty.

And what is the melting point of steel again? 1130 Celsius?

And cite were frozen pools of melted steel where recovered from the WTC? Oh, none?

How many violent steam explosions occurred when the pile was being actively sprayed with water from water reaching molten steel? Oh, none?

There is no proof of molten steel at the WTC. None.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Now. Your short list of falsehoods

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Short list of your blatant falsehoods. Why would anyone find you credible at this point?


Let’s start with this blatant falsehood you posted and tried to blame was it Jones for?

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Let’s add this one in..,

Or like you posted the below picture as proof of thermite when it was obviously cut and sooted up by a cutting torch?

You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

Why would I trust anything you post at this point?

So? There is no evidence of cut columns? So you fabricated your own mythology? Sad.

And this blatant falsehood by you

Basille were independent scentists who contacted Steve Jones for samples to test. They confirmed the chips had thermitic properties.

Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Basile never published results of testing that confirmed Harrit’s results.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
When you work out out this developed inside the building. The truther argument is far stronger than mainstream theory fire brought it down. I suspect NIST evaded this as would create more problems for them to explain how did steel evaporate inside the WTC7 building not hit by a plane?

No. The truth movement position is crap. Staring with how would any controlled demolition system survive the jet impacts and fires in the twin towers to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors of the jet impacts as shown by the video evidence.

You missed the fact nanothermite reacts to heat= fire.. 
It not harmful to nanothermite fire is present.
It unlikely it would even ignite with no heat!

The jet impacts would have knocked off and removed charges. The jet impacts and fires would have destroyed wiring and remote detonators. There is no way a controlled demolition system would have survived the jet impacts and fires to actuate on the floors of the jet impacts to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 as captured in the video evidence.

So. What new falsehood are you going to create now.

Nanothernite are in chip form. So they're not explosive charges you install on steel columns. They can just be situated near the steel and left behind to do their work during a fire.
They run wild during a fire and start weakening the steel. Experiments done claim a shock wave can be produced after ignition that 4 times as powerful as TNT. 
Nanothermite fo me explains why FEMA found steel that sustained a melting process. There no way it took place outside the building, the evidence exists it all happened inside.
Does it explain the WTC7 collapse? I personally consider nanothermite and explosives were used?
WTC7 only a few floors were on fire at the bottom lower half- 30 floors were untouched above. With the evidence hijackers got away on 9/11 there maybe was an intention to strike- WTC7 high up in the building that would then be utilized as an excuse to claim plane brought down the building. 

Facts that you don't understand.




Actual heat on 9/11.



Your claim it was a corrosion attack in the rubble is disputed by the evidence.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You cannot stop posting crap can you. There is no way the controlled demolition systems would have survived.

You

Nanothernite are in chip form. So they're not explosive charges you install on steel columns.

Wrong. Supposedly nano thermite was pursued because it acts like an explosive. So nano thermite would have to be concentrated around a column in a sufficient amount to create a sufficient shockwave to cut the column. Hard to do when the jet impacts knocked the crap out of everything on the floors they effected. The charges would not have stayed in place nor maintained there shape. Plus. They still need wires and detonators that would have been destroyed in the fires and jet impacts.

You

They can just be situated near the steel and left behind to do their work during a fire.

No. That’s not how shape charges work. Along with the fact the jet wreckage traveled the entire length of the building. Some fraction of compromised shape charges should have been ejected with the wreckage. And the charges in place would have had there wiring and detonators destroyed. Making them in operable.

You

Experiments done claim a shock wave can be produced after ignition that 4 times as powerful as TNT.

Ok. If the shape charges are not in contact with the steel, they are not as effective. If they are effective at all for cutting steel. Path of least resistance. Lose charges acting more like rockets than shape charges. There is no evidence of a shock wave after the jet impacts from any of the buildings with the force to cut steel columns. Not in the video, audio, seismic evidence. There is no flashing and no visible evidence of a shockwave that had the power to cut steel columns. There is no ejection of shrapnel from a column being cut before building movement.

You

Nanothermite fo me explains why FEMA found steel that sustained a melting process.

There is no evidence steel worked on at which temperatures thermite burns at. There is not even evidence of cut columns. The columns for WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell last. With no visible molten metal.





Why would “explosive” thermite instantaneously consuming itself like an explosive melted steel like a cutting charge. It wouldn’t.

Why would thermite make a eutectic mixture with steel to make a new compound with a lower melting point than steel?

The fire of WTC 7

Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[35] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[31]:24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Facts that you don't understand.

Actual heat on 9/11.



Your claim it was a corrosion attack in the rubble is disputed by the evidence.

The whole argument

Do you understand what a eutectic mixture is?

eutectic mixture (plural eutectic mixtures)

A mixture of substances having a melting point lower than that of any of its components; the composition at the eutectic point

en.m.wiktionary.org...

In the presence of water. The corrosion products of the steel and chemicals in the water that attacked the steel resulted in an eutectic mixture with a lower melting point than the steel.

You have no proof of melted steel.

Again.


Another falsehood by you

FEMA is adamant this concoction liquid mixture of Iron and Sulfur was formed in 1000c heat and the sulfur was reducing the melting point of steel.

Is it false the report actually stated approaching 1000c. You posting “ formed in 1000c heat“ is intellectual dishonesty.

And what is the melting point of steel again? 1130 Celsius?

And cite were frozen pools of melted steel where recovered from the WTC? Oh, none?

How many violent steam explosions occurred when the pile was being actively sprayed with water from water reaching molten steel? Oh, none?

There is no proof of molten steel at the WTC. None.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Facts that you don't understand.

Actual heat on 9/11.



Your claim it was a corrosion attack in the rubble is disputed by the evidence.

The melting point of steel

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F),

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The lowest melting point of carbon steel is 1130 Celsius.

If your claiming something melted at a temperature less than 1000 Celsius. It wasn’t structural steel. Sorry.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Why are still posting. You have killed all your credibility.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Now. Your short list of falsehoods

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Short list of your blatant falsehoods. Why would anyone find you credible at this point?


Let’s start with this blatant falsehood you posted and tried to blame was it Jones for?

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Let’s add this one in..,

Or like you posted the below picture as proof of thermite when it was obviously cut and sooted up by a cutting torch?

You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

Why would I trust anything you post at this point?

So? There is no evidence of cut columns? So you fabricated your own mythology? Sad.

And this blatant falsehood by you

Basille were independent scentists who contacted Steve Jones for samples to test. They confirmed the chips had thermitic properties.

Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Basile never published results of testing that confirmed Harrit’s results.

Before you compose more gibberish think about what I wrote. Just don't respond straight away.
Just facts now.
A) Iron Oxide can't flare up at 430c and make Iron molten spheres.  If you conclude otherwise provide substantial data- proof, otherwise stop writing nonsense?
B)It can't because it molten Iron that cooled from a liquid state! 

A) I previously said in this thread week ago Mark Basile not published work by another lab. 
B) Mark Basille has in fact released his own findings online that well known. There no acknowledgment from his people he stopped doing the work and the last update was 2018, his still completing work on it. 
The same skeptics complained about the Hulsey Study in 2017 that would never be published or the data will be released. They were insisting he was doing nothing. That now a false claim. He released 600 gigs of WTC7 finite element data online for engineers!

A) There scientists who accepted a participation in studying the red/gray chips. Any chemist who engaged and is seeking to finding out if the red/gray chips are nanotherrmite is automatically viewed with mistrust by the debunker community. 

A)  Rich Lee. Yes Iron Microspheres are not unique to thermite reactions i already informed you thats true.. There was no fuel or coals burning at WTC7. At the towers only a handful of top floors are on fire ( if there was petrol left over from the jet impact. 
B) R.J. Lee outlined that 6 percent of dust had molten Iron that literally millions of tons of iron molten balls. Cutting torches would have produced them in the cleanup.  What makes the discovery interesting is red/grey chips when ignited also produce them and there zero evidence Harrit faked his research.

A) You keep posting my image. Yet you can't substantiate it was cut by a torch? Show me online copy of 9/11 welder cutting steel like this? I worked for a large engineering company and no welder would cut steel in this irregular way. You avoided showing the other piece that cut below it, that indeed more establishes a torch did not cut this. 

A) A36 steel melting stage is 1400c to 1500c ( not 1000c) evidence not your make believe.
 I don't have proof. Even FEMA claims there was melting? Can you read quotes from FEMA?
Corrison takes weeks to appear, it can not develop in a hours or a day or two.
Yes, that what nanothermite thermite would do it would starting attacking specific areas around the steel and causing the steel to thin out and melt away.
Nobody believes there entire steel pieces just melted away in the rubble! 
You again overlooking the specific claim made by FEMA the steel was melting because of sulphar!  There was no other chemical or water involved.!
The most solid aspect of the FEMA conclusion was high heat caused it.

For me that temp could be anywhere from 3000c to 4000c inside the building.
Approaching 1000c for liquid mixture of Iron? You have to understand again the claim they are making is the sulphur attacked the grains of the steel and reduced the melting of steel by 500c according to FEMA) and + 1000c heat started the melting process.  It simply a theory based on a limited understanding of the event. I do accept sulfur was found, but to claim this was the mechanism that caused the steel to melt exactly ( fire cause) needs further study., Dropping the melting by 500c is a hell of drop.

Like i said the sulphar may be just a byproduct of some event that happened inside the building. 
We have thermal images from WTC7 site that exhibits most of heat pockets in the area were only 500c- that 500c below the recommended temp FEMA outlined needed to be there for corrison of the steel to have occurred in the ground. Corrison is impossible when building only on fire for a few hours. 
FEMA has confirmed molten steel!!!!!!!!  What is a liquid of Iron?

By way its, a myth WTC7 was on fire on multiple floors.
This image was taken at 4pm. You can even see the floor NIST alleged column 79 gave away on floor 12 and 13.
12th floor the fires are out.

In actual reality based on the northside view, only 4 floors (47-floor building) had a fire.

You truly get understanding why the chips are not paint when you see Farrer plucking out the chips from the dust. For something this small it packs a lot of energy.













When zooming in they see this.

They engineered this nanothermite. You can appreciate how small the particle is when you see the images.




zoomed in further you can see the molten ball of Iron.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Before you compose more gibberish think about what I wrote. Just don't respond straight away.
Just facts now.
A) Iron Oxide can't flare up at 430c and make Iron molten spheres. If you conclude otherwise provide substantial data- proof, otherwise stop writing nonsense?
B)It can't because it molten Iron that cooled from a liquid state!

What do you not understand. It’s not only A function of heat. But surface area to material.

This is the argument

You

You have not got the subject since we started.
You still failing the first hurdle.
Laclede paint is Aluminum silicate and iron oxide.
The fact molten Iron balls and spheres formed on the burned chip can only have been caused by temp over 1500c+

And you

You denying what shown in the paper.
The heated the red/gray chips to 430c and molten Iron formed on the burned chip.

You just stated “ The heated the red/gray chips to 430c and molten Iron formed on the burned chip.”

Again...

LaClede Standard Primer has iron oxide. If it burns at 430 Celsius, why would it not make iron microspheres?


Can you cite from the Harrit / Jones paper the chips were measured burning at a temperature greater than 430C?


Again

New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

For the record, I still contend that burning the steel wool did indeed produce iron-rich microspheres. I have no problem with the fact that the iron might be in the form of iron oxide. If Zugam thinks my iron-rich microspheres "don't count" because of their oxygen content, then he should immediately contact Harrit, et. al., and inform them that their own "iron-rich microspheres" ARE ALSO IRON OXIDES! These images from my experiments, and from the Bentham Open paper prove this point! If the WTC spheres were themselves pure iron, they would not exhibit the large Oxygen spike in Harrit's XEDS spectrum.

Snip

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

By Mick West

Burning Paint Chips #1. www.metabunk.org...

I bashed off a bunch of pain chips from my red painted steel wheelbarrow and waved a butane flame over them. Result = iron microspheres

Here's a scale comparison with the Harrit microspheres (left) and mine (right).

Of note, in both their photos and mine the red layer appears undamaged. Curious, since that's supposed to be the one that's nanothermite. What seems to have happened is the iron oxide layer has "burnt" (perhaps with some of the paint, of some intermediate layer), and created some iron microspheres.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You keep posting my image. Yet you can't substantiate it was cut by a torch? Show me online copy of 9/11 welder cutting steel like this? I worked for a large engineering company and no welder would cut steel in this irregular way. You avoided showing the other piece that cut below it, that indeed more establishes a torch did not cut this.

A blatant false argument by. This has been repeatedly posted for you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Show me a welder cutting the steel like that on 9/11

Still don’t know what your referring to?

I have repeatedly posted a backyard do it yourselfer that made a clearer cut than the column you posted.

neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You showing pieces cut by cutting torch. You are ridiculous.

You

I have doubts human hands cut this. The piece below is also cut, its look like it melted away. We never know the truth.

It’s actually kind of a sloppy cut

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

I give up. Just post rubbish all day if you want

Your the one posting falsehoods.
You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

This is steel cut by a cutting torch

m.youtube.com...
Oxy/acetylene torch cutting tips

This is NIST taking samples with a cutting torch as far as I can tell. It is the Internet.

Steel Samples from WTC Towers after 9/11 (Clip 1, part
m.youtube.com...

This is thin steel worked on by thermite

1/2 ton of thermite VS SUV mythbusters
www.dailymotion.com...

The picture below posted by you is not steel cut by thermite. It is steel cut by torch during cleanup or sampling.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Looks like paint to me. Sorry. You just got pretty pictures.

Now. Publish the results that the dust supported a thermite reaction by burning the chips in a inert atmosphere?

Again.

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. Is that false? The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. Is that false?

You

I previously said in this thread week ago Mark Basile not published work by another lab.
B) Mark Basille has in fact released his own findings online that well known. There no acknowledgment from his people he stopped doing the work and the last update was 2018, his still completing work on it.

More falsehoods by you. Or you would actually quote, cite, and link to the study.

Again...
Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Melting-point depression

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Melting-point depression is the phenomenon of reduction of the melting point of a material with reduction of its size. This phenomenon is very prominent in nanoscale materials, which melt at temperatures hundreds of degrees lower than bulk materials.

Introduction Edit

The melting temperature of a bulk material is not dependent on its size. However, as the dimensions of a material decrease towards the atomic scale, the melting temperature scales with the material dimensions. The decrease in melting temperature can be on the order of tens to hundreds of degrees for metals with nanometer dimensions.[1][2][3][4]

Melting-point depression is most evident in nanowires, nanotubes and nanoparticles, which all melt at lower temperatures than bulk amounts of the same material. Changes in melting point occur because nanoscale materials have a much larger surface-to-volume ratio than bulk materials, drastically altering their thermodynamic and thermal properties.

This article focuses on nanoparticles because researchers have compiled a large amount of size-dependent melting data for near spherical nanoparticles.[1][2][3][4] Nanoparticles are easiest to study due their ease of fabrication and simplified conditions for theoretical modeling. The melting temperature of a nanoparticle decreases sharply as the particle reaches critical diameter, usually < 50 nm for common engineering metals.[1][2][5] Figure 1 shows the shape of a typical melting curve for a metal nanoparticle as a function of its diameter.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Harrit paper

That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately ̊C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 ̊C for iron and iron oxide),

If the paper is discussing nano sized particles of iron oxide. “(over 1400 ̊C for iron and iron oxide),” this statement is false because of Melting-point depression.

The melting temperature of a nanoparticle decreases sharply as the particle reaches critical diameter, usually < 50 nm for common engineering metals.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Or Harrit didn’t have nano particles of iron oxide.

Anyway. Here is the whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Before you compose more gibberish think about what I wrote. Just don't respond straight away.
Just facts now.
A) Iron Oxide can't flare up at 430c and make Iron molten spheres. If you conclude otherwise provide substantial data- proof, otherwise stop writing nonsense?
B)It can't because it molten Iron that cooled from a liquid state!

What do you not understand. It’s not only A function of heat. But surface area to material.

This is the argument

You

You have not got the subject since we started.
You still failing the first hurdle.
Laclede paint is Aluminum silicate and iron oxide.
The fact molten Iron balls and spheres formed on the burned chip can only have been caused by temp over 1500c+

And you

You denying what shown in the paper.
The heated the red/gray chips to 430c and molten Iron formed on the burned chip.

You just stated “ The heated the red/gray chips to 430c and molten Iron formed on the burned chip.”

Again...

LaClede Standard Primer has iron oxide. If it burns at 430 Celsius, why would it not make iron microspheres?


Can you cite from the Harrit / Jones paper the chips were measured burning at a temperature greater than 430C?


Again

New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

For the record, I still contend that burning the steel wool did indeed produce iron-rich microspheres. I have no problem with the fact that the iron might be in the form of iron oxide. If Zugam thinks my iron-rich microspheres "don't count" because of their oxygen content, then he should immediately contact Harrit, et. al., and inform them that their own "iron-rich microspheres" ARE ALSO IRON OXIDES! These images from my experiments, and from the Bentham Open paper prove this point! If the WTC spheres were themselves pure iron, they would not exhibit the large Oxygen spike in Harrit's XEDS spectrum.

Snip

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

By Mick West

Burning Paint Chips #1. www.metabunk.org...

I bashed off a bunch of pain chips from my red painted steel wheelbarrow and waved a butane flame over them. Result = iron microspheres

Here's a scale comparison with the Harrit microspheres (left) and mine (right).

Of note, in both their photos and mine the red layer appears undamaged. Curious, since that's supposed to be the one that's nanothermite. What seems to have happened is the iron oxide layer has "burnt" (perhaps with some of the paint, of some intermediate layer), and created some iron microspheres.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

By way its, a myth WTC7 was on fire on multiple floors.
This image was taken at 4pm. You can even see the floor NIST alleged column 79 gave away on floor 12 and 13.
12th floor the fires are out.

One. It’s the damage done through thermal expansion, contraction, and uneven heating. So the fire is out argument is crap.

Two. Your argument is false.

Fires at WTC 7

www.fema.gov...

Currently, there is limited information about the ignition and development of fires at WTC 7, as well as about the specific fuels that may have been involved during the course of the fire. It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.
According to fire service personnel, fires were initially seen to be present on non-contiguous floors on the south side of WTC 7 at approximately floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19. The presence of fire and smoke on lower floors is also confirmed by the early television news coverage of WTC 7, which indicated light-colored
smoke rising from the lower floors of WTC 7.
Video footage indicated that the majority of the smoke appeared to be coming from the south side of the building at that time as opposed to the other sides of the building. This is corroborated by Figure 5-17, a photograph taken at 3:36 p.m. that shows the south face of WTC 7 covered with a thick cloud of smoke, and only small amounts of smoke emanating from the 27th and 28th floors of the west face of WTC 7.
News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating. The mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear; however, it may have been propagated through interior shafts, between floors along the south façade that may have been damaged, or other internal openings, as well as the floor slab/exterior façade connections.
It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
A review of photos and videos indicates that there were limited fires on the north, east, and west faces of the building. One eyewitness who saw the building from a 30th floor apartment approximately 4 blocks away to the northwest noted that fires in the building were not visible from that perspective. On some of the lower floors, where the firefighters saw fires for extended periods of time from the south side, there appeared to be walls running in an east to west direction, at least on floors 5 and 6, that would have compartmentalized the north side from the south side. There were also air plenums along the east and west walls and partially along the north walls of these floors instead of windows that may have further limited fires from extending out of these floors and, therefore, were not visible from sides other than the south.
As the day progressed, fires were observed on the east face of the 11th, 12th, and 28th floors (see Figure 5-19). The Securities and Exchange Commission occupied floors 11 through 13. Prior to collapse, fire was seen to have broken out windows on at least the north and east faces of WTC 7 on some of the lower levels.
On the north face, photographs and videos show that the fires were located on approximately the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th floors. American Express Bank International occupied the 7th and 8th floors. The 7th floor also held the OEM generators and day tank. Photographs of the west face show fire and smoke on the 29th and 30th floors.
It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphragm floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage in the 5th to 7th floors of the building could, therefore, have damaged essential structural elements.

Repeating already discussed points is exceedingly irritating.
Again for some odd reason you ignore material that refutes your claim!
Mick West even claims he operated a butane torch in his post!!!


A butane torch flame can be hot as 1500c.
A flame that hot suffices to start melting steel. 
Notice he doesn't even allude to the temp he roasted the steel flake at!
Reality is Mick heated stainless Steel to about the melting point and then he saw Iron balls in his sample!
So nothing you have shown substantiates your claim Iron Oxide heated to 430c would create Iron Molten balls/spheres!


Rich Lee explanation. 
Read it accurately. He merely describes what they found in the dust. He does not pinpoint the source for all the Iron balls/ spheres in the WTC dust. He talking about aluminate- silicate spheres and Iron found in ash after high heat burning of coal in furnaces! You have to pay attention to the fact Molten Iron Microspheres can only be formed by high heat combustion affects!

You even post pictures that contradict everything you just said. I don't even think you watch the videos you post?
Oxy-Acetylene Welding torch pictures display a straight aligned measured cut! ( look again the image i posted)
Observe the WTC sample video- Again the cuts are straight not erratic and jerky.
Car experiment- what you posting this to prove? Part of the steel roof caved in? We know thermatic material can cut shapes like I posted. Most of the slag would be wiped away in the rubble pile and when steel got moved.

Examples of ordinary thermate cutting steel. Since the discovered  nanothermite there going to be differences in how the steel cut. 





You have no evidence at all this was cut by human hands? It a rocky cut and you even indicate its a sloppy looking cut! its 50/50 and one of us is wrong!

Looks like Paint? Get your eyes checked.
Debunkers are obsessed with this inert air atmnospherres test? Again why do you totally overlook the previous tests that positively identified AI was elemental? You overlook the burning of the chips shows the molten Iron balls? You overlook the MEK test and XEDS Xray positively identified the AI and SI separated. Sorry but i don't think Harrit team has to do more tests to identify what they have. There clearly thermatic elements in the chips.  Further tests will simply establish there something else burning too., That's the only part of the debate debunkers are right about something else did burn that altered the energy outputs of each chip. Livermore Labs tested the nanothermite in air so did Harrit and his team. Incorrect of debunkers to allege they did it wrong. Livermore lab scientists also analyzed in inert "gas" atmosphere and Harrit did not. Oystein is aware of this but now demands an inert air test too even though it was never part of the testing in the literature about nanothermites. 
  Either way the inert atmosphere test does not establish thermite is present because you starving the air of oxygen.  Steven Jones even declared they made homegrown nano-thermite in a lab and they had many difficulties getting it to burn in ert air atmosphere with no oxygen. So the ert- air atmosphere test is a not good test. Thermite was present in the homegrown nanothermite but it would not burn!

What peaks are you referring to?
You have shown me no reference to what you referring to?
Look mate NIST lists two primer paints, Tremec and Laclede paint. We already know these paints can not ignite at 430c and create Iron microspheres.
If they felt that the debunkers would have released the evidence years ago to crush Harrit findings!
Even their own expert Dr Milette (who was a scientist) involved in exposed media story cover up about the WTC dust heath affects admitted he ignited the paint chips at 400c and they turned to ash. He saw no Iro Microsphees in the ash!  You people just totally ignore Harrit red/grey chips has Iron molten balls on the burned chip!  Thats how I appreciate the red/gray chips and Milette paint chips are not same material!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

By way its, a myth WTC7 was on fire on multiple floors.
This image was taken at 4pm. You can even see the floor NIST alleged column 79 gave away on floor 12 and 13.
12th floor the fires are out.

One. It’s the damage done through thermal expansion, contraction, and uneven heating. So the fire is out argument is crap.

Two. Your argument is false.

Fires at WTC 7

www.fema.gov...

Currently, there is limited information about the ignition and development of fires at WTC 7, as well as about the specific fuels that may have been involved during the course of the fire. It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.
According to fire service personnel, fires were initially seen to be present on non-contiguous floors on the south side of WTC 7 at approximately floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19. The presence of fire and smoke on lower floors is also confirmed by the early television news coverage of WTC 7, which indicated light-colored
smoke rising from the lower floors of WTC 7.
Video footage indicated that the majority of the smoke appeared to be coming from the south side of the building at that time as opposed to the other sides of the building. This is corroborated by Figure 5-17, a photograph taken at 3:36 p.m. that shows the south face of WTC 7 covered with a thick cloud of smoke, and only small amounts of smoke emanating from the 27th and 28th floors of the west face of WTC 7.
News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating. The mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear; however, it may have been propagated through interior shafts, between floors along the south façade that may have been damaged, or other internal openings, as well as the floor slab/exterior façade connections.
It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
A review of photos and videos indicates that there were limited fires on the north, east, and west faces of the building. One eyewitness who saw the building from a 30th floor apartment approximately 4 blocks away to the northwest noted that fires in the building were not visible from that perspective. On some of the lower floors, where the firefighters saw fires for extended periods of time from the south side, there appeared to be walls running in an east to west direction, at least on floors 5 and 6, that would have compartmentalized the north side from the south side. There were also air plenums along the east and west walls and partially along the north walls of these floors instead of windows that may have further limited fires from extending out of these floors and, therefore, were not visible from sides other than the south.
As the day progressed, fires were observed on the east face of the 11th, 12th, and 28th floors (see Figure 5-19). The Securities and Exchange Commission occupied floors 11 through 13. Prior to collapse, fire was seen to have broken out windows on at least the north and east faces of WTC 7 on some of the lower levels.
On the north face, photographs and videos show that the fires were located on approximately the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th floors. American Express Bank International occupied the 7th and 8th floors. The 7th floor also held the OEM generators and day tank. Photographs of the west face show fire and smoke on the 29th and 30th floors.
It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphragm floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage in the 5th to 7th floors of the building could, therefore, have damaged essential structural elements.

Maybe you have not noticed it?
You can view WTC5 in the background in your first picture! I believe WTC6 is also there. WTC5 was consumed in fire.
All that dust and smoke is bumping into the south face plus the smoke and dust from the towers collapse. 
Corner view is likely the 8th floor? You can see this floor from the Northview and had most of the fire at 4pm.
Just follow the trajectory to go around the corner! There no evidence at all of the fires are any higher than the 13th floor. It complete nonsense to suggest otherwise.

8th floor.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Rich Lee explanation.
Read it accurately. He merely describes what they found in the dust. He does not pinpoint the source for all the Iron balls/ spheres in the WTC dust. He talking about aluminate- silicate spheres and Iron found in ash after high heat burning of coal in furnaces! You have to pay attention to the fact Molten Iron Microspheres can only be formed by high heat combustion affects!

False argument by you.

Lee actually quoted and cited

The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

www.nmsr.org...

Is it false Lee specifically stated the WTC dust was removed in the fires and turned to microspheres.

And you have this

Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!
jref01.blogspot.com...

Here are some photographs and results from a little experiment I did last May. While Truthers claim that only Thermite can create iron-rich microspheres, the video above shows some doozies being created by burning primer-painted steel beams in an ordinary wood fire in a burn barrel.

Here is the orange-primer-painted steel beam I obtained at the New Mexico Tech boneyard. We cut it in half after selection.

Snip

Things got really interesting when we started looking over the burned samples. It wasn't long at all before we stumbled over this beautifully spherical droplet of iron-rich material: