It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Explaining the Significance of Iron-Rich Spheres

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:13 AM
This is a suppliment to the massive 69 page thread titled, "Yep, It's Thermite..."

Due to the on-going discussion about "inert DSC testing" while ignoring the end
result, I have decided to explain the significance of iron forming balls in my own
words. I hope that some of you who are confused by the over-technical debate
can relate to this explanation and understand that the scientists who examined
the dust have this deterministic data to prove an aluminothermic reaction.

Preface (reference science paper by Harrit et al):

What does the combusiton in air have to do with the chemical reaction
between the Al and Fe? These elements do NOT burn, or begin to ignite
at 430'C!

There was an aluminothermic reaction as shown in Fig. 20 (and others).

Section 4, page 19:

"The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips
prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above
the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high"

Ordinary combustion of the elements presented in air CANNOT reach temperatures
high enough to MELT iron and form spheres.

Combustion in air is TOO SLOW to produce a thermal transition/pressure transition
REQUIRED to melt iron and have it form into into spheres.

What happens when you slowly heat iron (over 700'C) ? It MELTS. It pools. It
dries and forms BLOBS. It DOES NOT turn itself into a ball!

The exotherm produced in Fig. 29 is not indicative of combustion in air; it's too
narrow a peak (fast rise/fall time) to consider combustion in air.

We are trying to debate how a solid chip of Iron transforms itself into a ball. It
must go through a rapid transition from a solid state, to a liquid state and back
to a solid in a very short period of time.

If you were to heat up the iron slowly to its melting point, it would begin
to form a pool of iron (like melting ice slowly - you would get a pool of water).

If you were to allow the iron to cool slowly it would stay in a flat, solid format
(sort of like a flat poker chip). If you were to cool the pool of iron quickly, it may
start to curl up (like into a bowl shape, or curl ends like paper).

If you were to heat the iron up very fast - at an explosive rate, it would transition
from a solid to a liquid and break apart. the molten iron 'splatter' would have less
mass as individual drops and cool quickly forming balls as they return to a solid state (due to surface tension).

If you could change the thermal state of the water droplets fast enough (freeze
them), you would end up with spheres of ice.

If the water fell to the ground before freezing, the surface tension would break and cause the
droplet to puddle/pool. If it froze at this point, it would remain in a 'blob' shape.

Having said that, the iron spheres are formed just as quickly. they solidify in mid-
air and remain that way when they cool down.

Soooo...after that very basic explanation, I hope that some of you can see the
significance of the iron-rich spheres and why they prove a chemical recation
occured...and that combusition in 'air' does not matter as it's too slow and
not hot enough to form the spheres.

I challenge anyone here to use an ignition source in an open environment (standard atmosphere)
to heat up and cool iron, while showing the formation of spheres.

Video tape it. Prove me wrong. Prove the science paper wrong.

You can use anything to heat the iron that does not exceed the energy
release of jet fuel, or combustables found in the WTC.

You must use ambient air to cool the iron at a natural rate.

Good Freakin' Luck

[edit on 18-9-2009 by turbofan]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:32 AM
I'm not sure what you're getting at here since you do not need a rapid raise in temperature to create molten metal, and it is quite possible to create high enough temperatures to melt iron utilizing air and some fuel source which brings its own extra oxygen into the mix, but that's neither here nor there.

I have however seen molten metal come in contact with water and quite literally "explode" into droplets, due to the rapid conversion of the water from liquid to steam, which then cooled quickly during their transport in air and became 'balls' of metal. I've seen 'blobs' of molten iron drop onto concrete and "explode" into a shower of droplets that remained round as well.

Otherwise, good luck on your endeavor.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:46 AM

Originally posted by abecedarian
I'm not sure what you're getting at here since you do not need a rapid raise in temperature to create molten metal

It's not the molten aspect that is critical; it's the formation of molten
iron into spheres.

As outlined in the original post, y ou can heat iron up slowly and make
it molten...however it pools and forms blobs. it does not form spheres.

yes, you can also splatter molten metal and form droplets due to a quick
change in pressure (IE: falling through air, and hitting a hard surface).

Hope that clears things up.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:26 AM
How does massive amounts of steel atomize, as a result of a "collapse"? It requires extraordinarily high temperatures. How to explain the molten metal in the pit for that matter.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:43 AM
The spherical nature of the iron that had been melted was due to surface tension in the liquid metal blasted into the air around the towers at WTC (a sphere minimises the surface tension free energy). Melting was due not to themate, as Dr Jones insists, but to the very high temperatures achieved for a fraction of a second by the high-explosives when their thermal energy was absorbed by the steel girders in the immediate vicinity. This blasted minute particles of molten iron off the surface of girders . Flying through the air filled with the sulfur dioxide generated from the gypsum in burning plaster board, the microscopic particles of molten iron absorbed sulfur and heavy elements released into the atmosphere from burning plastics, computers, etc. Then the particles cooled and solidifed, trapping these elements.

The sulfur that Jones found in his dust samples is NOT evidence of thermate but represents contamination from the sulfurous smoke filling the air before and after the collapse of the towers. This heavy smoke attacked the cars parked in the WTC and the exposed girders, the ferrous sulphate quickly oxidising into reddish-brown ferric oxide that coated anything containing iron.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:03 AM
The molten metal that was reported by clean-up workers was due to thermate cutter charges detonating in the basement in order to weaken the 47 core columns so that nothing would remain standing. By proposing that thermate was used to cut girders, Jones was responsible for people assuming that the two phenomena - iron spherules in dust and molten pools of metal - were connected. They were not.

For a critique of thermate as a redundant hypothesis, see:
Jones invoked thermate originally to explain the molten metal that poured out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed. But this was not iron but lead from the tons of lead batteries stored on the 79th floor by Fuji Bank in the very area from which the metal leaked. NIST referred to this in its report, although not as an explanation of the molten metal. Jones falsely inferred that the element was iron. Unless one wants to suggest a mini-nuke was used, thermate is necessary only to explain the destruction of core columns in the basement of each tower. All the evidence that Jones has argued points to thermate being used everywhere in the towers amounts to misinterpretation on his part.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:35 PM

That theory doesn't explain the molten metal found at the other
Twin, nor WTC 7.

I can't believe the lack of logical thinking some members here; maybe
it has more to do with lack of reseach and knowing all the evidence.

new topics

top topics


log in