The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Discuss any issues related to 9/11 that don't fall into the other categories.

D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby Chainsaw » Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:17 pm

Just wanted to post a link to Dr. Frank Greening's new dust study here.
http://www.scientificmethod911.org/wtc_dust.html

For anyone interested.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

 

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby stundie » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:39 pm

Stundies non-expert review of this new paper.

Oh dear...This report is poor beyond comprehension. :lol:

Undoubtedly the most intriguing particles found in the WTC 2 sample were the spherical magnetic particles. As with their glassy counterparts, the shape of these particles indicates they were molten at the time of their formation. EDX analysis of these particles shows they are iron or iron oxide, albeit with varying degrees of surface contamination from concrete dust. Furthermore, the Mn/Fe ratio for these particles is consistent with WTC structural steel. It follows that these particles were heated to at least 1500 °C at the time of their formation.

Fire tests carried out by NIST on reconstructed WTC workstations and floor assemblies, (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5B), showed that steel members reached a maximum temperature of only about 800 °C, which is well below the melting point of steel. It is therefore suggested that the iron-rich spherical particles in the WTC 2 sample are from on-site cutting and grinding operations that were carried out during the construction of the Twin Towers.

Can someone explain to me the process of how these spherical magnetic particles, which according to the conclusions of this report, were formed era 1969 during the construction operations of the towers, at temperatures over 1500c, which would have cooled down and formed part of the metal structure they were welding/grinding, manage to hang around for over 30 years, and release themselves from whatever it was bound too, into the atmosphere and dust? :lol:

Does this report really expect me or anyone else to believe that these spheres were formed over 30 years before the destruction of the towers, they just sat around on the individual floors of each office and were magically released when the towers collapsed?.......Really?........ Is that what this report wants me to believe?? :lol:

Ths funny part is we could easily test this theory that they were formed during the construction very, very easily.

Just go to another steel framed building which was constructed within the last 30 years or so and take a few sample of the dust from within it. There should be plenty of spherical magnetic particles formed from the construction. grinding and cutting of the building, all in a nicely contained area, unlike the WTC which scattered it all over GZ when it collapsed.

Of course, I wouldn't expect Greening or anyone of you pantomime debunkers to do this because you know it would piss all over this laughable theory (or should we say suggestion!..loL) that they were formed during construction. :roll:

The alternative hypothesis – that the spherical particles observed in WTC dust were formed in the WTC fires – has been ruled out by considering the maximum temperature attained by the WTC concrete floor slabs, which was certainly less than 900 °C and therefore insufficient to melt, let alone sphericize, a glassy aluminosilicate slag.

This would be true.....if you ignore the fact there was molten steel/concrete and copper found at GZ and therefore temperatures were likely above 900c. :lol:

But why let something like facts get in the way of a piece of fiction. :lol:
Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
stundie
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:57 pm

Wet panties over at the JREF forum.

Postby stundie » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:51 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=322055

Hilariously.

Chainsaw over at the JREF forum wrote:You would think that one of the Truth Movement people here would like to comment on this, but Either they have me on ignore, or they are holding their breath waiting on Basile to finnish his study of contaminated dust.
What truth movement people? lol

The JREF forum banned most of them. :lol:

So you are hardly going to get any comment from this so called truth movement people.
Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
stundie
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby Chainsaw » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:07 am

stundie wrote:Stundies non-expert review of this new paper.

Oh dear...This report is poor beyond comprehension. :lol:

Undoubtedly the most intriguing particles found in the WTC 2 sample were the spherical magnetic particles. As with their glassy counterparts, the shape of these particles indicates they were molten at the time of their formation. EDX analysis of these particles shows they are iron or iron oxide, albeit with varying degrees of surface contamination from concrete dust. Furthermore, the Mn/Fe ratio for these particles is consistent with WTC structural steel. It follows that these particles were heated to at least 1500 °C at the time of their formation.

Fire tests carried out by NIST on reconstructed WTC workstations and floor assemblies, (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5B), showed that steel members reached a maximum temperature of only about 800 °C, which is well below the melting point of steel. It is therefore suggested that the iron-rich spherical particles in the WTC 2 sample are from on-site cutting and grinding operations that were carried out during the construction of the Twin Towers.

Can someone explain to me the process of how these spherical magnetic particles, which according to the conclusions of this report, were formed era 1969 during the construction operations of the towers, at temperatures over 1500c, which would have cooled down and formed part of the metal structure they were welding/grinding, manage to hang around for over 30 years, and release themselves from whatever it was bound too, into the atmosphere and dust? :lol:

Does this report really expect me or anyone else to believe that these spheres were formed over 30 years before the destruction of the towers, they just sat around on the individual floors of each office and were magically released when the towers collapsed?.......Really?........ Is that what this report wants me to believe?? :lol:

Ths funny part is we could easily test this theory that they were formed during the construction very, very easily.

Just go to another steel framed building which was constructed within the last 30 years or so and take a few sample of the dust from within it. There should be plenty of spherical magnetic particles formed from the construction. grinding and cutting of the building, all in a nicely contained area, unlike the WTC which scattered it all over GZ when it collapsed.

Of course, I wouldn't expect Greening or anyone of you pantomime debunkers to do this because you know it would piss all over this laughable theory (or should we say suggestion!..loL) that they were formed during construction. :roll:

The alternative hypothesis – that the spherical particles observed in WTC dust were formed in the WTC fires – has been ruled out by considering the maximum temperature attained by the WTC concrete floor slabs, which was certainly less than 900 °C and therefore insufficient to melt, let alone sphericize, a glassy aluminosilicate slag.

This would be true.....if you ignore the fact there was molten steel/concrete and copper found at GZ and therefore temperatures were likely above 900c. :lol:

But why let something like facts get in the way of a piece of fiction. :lol:


The concrete was being poured below the welders so the spheres, the few that were found in the dust would have embedded in the wet Cement, but who cares what you think you can't throw pearls to swine.
I told you there was a paper comming out.
I am still working on all the other contamination that would have been in the dust including some that was thermitic by nature.
Of course you are not interested in science.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby stundie » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:57 am

Chainsaw wrote:The concrete was being poured below the welders so the spheres, the few that were found in the dust would have embedded in the wet Cement, but who cares what you think you can't throw pearls to swine.
Welders spheres embedded in wet concrete? :shock:

Excuse me but........hahahahahahahahahaha!!! :lol:

This is fucking hilarious......... :lol:

I'm sure you can provide us with an example of previously wet concrete which contains these welders spheres from another building?? You know....that thing we call evidence....so we can evaluate your claims?

Chainsaw wrote:I told you there was a paper comming out.
You did and I said if you were involved in this any way, shape or form, it would be a complete pile of shite.

Turns out I was right. :lol:
Chainsaw wrote:I am still working on all the other contamination that would have been in the dust including some that was thermitic by nature.
hahahahaha! Oh please stop it...you're going to kill be by laughter.
Chainsaw wrote:Of course you are not interested in science.
Judging from this paper, it doesn't look like the authors are that interested in science either. :lol:

If you are going to make claims that these spheres were embedded in the concrete, providing an example of concrete which shows this would make your case. Telling us without providing any proof or evidence is nothing more than story telling.
Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
stundie
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby Chainsaw » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:38 am

stundie wrote:
Chainsaw wrote:The concrete was being poured below the welders so the spheres, the few that were found in the dust would have embedded in the wet Cement, but who cares what you think you can't throw pearls to swine.
Welders spheres embedded in wet concrete? :shock:

Excuse me but........hahahahahahahahahaha!!! :lol:

This is fucking hilarious......... :lol:

I'm sure you can provide us with an example of previously wet concrete which contains these welders spheres from another building?? You know....that thing we call evidence....so we can evaluate your claims?

Chainsaw wrote:I told you there was a paper comming out.
You did and I said if you were involved in this any way, shape or form, it would be a complete pile of shite.

Turns out I was right. :lol:
Chainsaw wrote:I am still working on all the other contamination that would have been in the dust including some that was thermitic by nature.
hahahahaha! Oh please stop it...you're going to kill be by laughter.
Chainsaw wrote:Of course you are not interested in science.
Judging from this paper, it doesn't look like the authors are that interested in science either. :lol:

If you are going to make claims that these spheres were embedded in the concrete, providing an example of concrete which shows this would make your case. Telling us without providing any proof or evidence is nothing more than story telling.


How would you keep the sparks from grinding from landing on the wet concrete?
How would you remove the sparks from welded rebar?
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby stundie » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:24 pm

I just had a read through a previous thread. What a fucking laugh.... :lol:

Chainsaw wrote:How would you keep the sparks from grinding from landing on the wet concrete?
I don't know how you would keep the sparks from grinding from landing on the wet concrete. However, I don't ever recall saying that there wouldn't be any sparks landing on wet or even dry concrete either.

You are THE ONE claiming that these spheres in the WTC Dust came from grinding which landed in the wet concrete.....then it's your job to PROVE it.

I know that proving things and pantomime debunking go together like oil and water but....

Can you provide a sample of concrete which was wet when there was grinding, to show that it would contain the same makeup of spheres?? This would PROVE your claim.

We could just ASSUME that these spheres came from the concrete.
We could just ASSUME that the concrete was wet when there was grinding.

I'm sure there were some spheres from all that grinding and welding but until it is shown that these were trapped in the concrete, then we have nothing more than an assumption.

And I thought this was supposed to be a scientific paper. :lol:
Chainsaw wrote:How would you remove the sparks from welded rebar?
Who said anything about removing sparks? :lol:

I certainly didn't!! :lol:
Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
stundie
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:57 pm

Pearls of wisdom from the wise guys at the JREF Forum.

Postby stundie » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:48 pm

jaydeehess at the moronic JREF Forum wrote:Smash a million tons of steel together for 15 seconds at 60 MPH and a few sparks might fly.
Yes Jaydeehess. That makes perfect sense. :lol:

Millions of tons of steel smashing together at 60 MPH for 15 seconds causes...."particles [that] were heated to at least 1500 °C at the time of their formation."
Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
stundie
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:54 am

stundie wrote:I just had a read through a previous thread. What a fucking laugh.... :lol:

Chainsaw wrote:How would you keep the sparks from grinding from landing on the wet concrete?
I don't know how you would keep the sparks from grinding from landing on the wet concrete. However, I don't ever recall saying that there wouldn't be any sparks landing on wet or even dry concrete either.

You are THE ONE claiming that these spheres in the WTC Dust came from grinding which landed in the wet concrete.....then it's your job to PROVE it.

I know that proving things and pantomime debunking go together like oil and water but....

Can you provide a sample of concrete which was wet when there was grinding, to show that it would contain the same makeup of spheres?? This would PROVE your claim.

We could just ASSUME that these spheres came from the concrete.
We could just ASSUME that the concrete was wet when there was grinding.

I'm sure there were some spheres from all that grinding and welding but until it is shown that these were trapped in the concrete, then we have nothing more than an assumption.

And I thought this was supposed to be a scientific paper. :lol:
Chainsaw wrote:How would you remove the sparks from welded rebar?
Who said anything about removing sparks? :lol:

I certainly didn't!! :lol:


LMAO, the part about the Elements in the microspheres in greening sample of microspheres, being the same, as the Elements in the steel flew right over your head didn't it?
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Pearls of wisdom from the wise guys at the JREF Forum.

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:58 am

[quote="stundie"][quote="jaydeehess at the moronic JREF Forum"]Smash a million tons of steel together for 15 seconds at 60 MPH and a few sparks might fly.[/quote]Yes Jaydeehess. That makes perfect sense. :lol:

Millions of tons of steel smashing together at 60 MPH for 15 seconds causes....[b]"particles [that] were heated to at least 1500 °C at the time of their formation." [/b][/quote]
Friction can do that, friction can heat steel to way past 1500C.
Learn some science sometime.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby SanderO » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:08 am

I suppose the matter of the composition is may not that you find some materials, etc... but in what quantity and proportion to the mass of the entire sample.... assumes sort of random distribution of "stuff".

If you scooped up a sample which happened to contain a a large amount of say plastics... concluding that THIS ration applies to the entire building would be kinda dumb...and assumes complete mixing and homogenization of the dust/debris and so forth.

How about showing what would be the expectation for uniform mixing of the stuff found in dust?

I find these sorts of proofs of what was going on at WTC from a limited sample of dust unscientific.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:31 am

Actually all you can say is what is found in the sample you are looking at, since this sample is of dust from a known building, WTC2, at a known time, it is most useful as a reference to determining, how other samples of dust were probably contaminated by environmental contamination.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby DGM » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:48 pm

stundie wrote:Can someone explain to me the process of how these spherical magnetic particles, which according to the conclusions of this report, were formed era 1969 during the construction operations of the towers, at temperatures over 1500c, which would have cooled down and formed part of the metal structure they were welding/grinding, manage to hang around for over 30 years, and release themselves from whatever it was bound too, into the atmosphere and dust?


The floor pans that concrete is poured collect them during construction. The building collapses and they become dislodged.

Is that simple enough for you? I know it's hard to understand but, in construction we don't clean up what we do have to. :D
DGM
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby Oystein » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:53 pm

stundie wrote:...
Does this report really expect me or anyone else to believe that these spheres were formed over 30 years before the destruction of the towers, they just sat around on the individual floors of each office and were magically released when the towers collapsed?.......Really?........ Is that what this report wants me to believe?? :lol:
...

To illustrate the concept, go find a house built 1970ish that has an attic. Walk about the attic for a short while. Observe!

In 2014, I helped my sister renovate a house she had bought then. Built in the early 1980s. One job was to tear down the oak panel ceilings. I took a photo of myself after - I looked like a miner, all black in the face.
Now that should make you wonder: How on earth could a buildung, when deconstructed, release dust and dirt that's been sitting under the carpets and over the ceilings for 30 years? Mysteries far beyond the comprehension capabilities of truthers!
Oystein
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: D. R Frank, Greening's new dust study.

Postby Oystein » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:54 pm

N.B.: I forgot to sprinkle the post above liberally with a few :lol: :lol: :lol:
I hope it looks competent nonetheless.

:lol:
Oystein
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Next



Return to Other Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron

suspicion-preferred