| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| The RJ Lee Report; Composition and Morphology (repost) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 31 2008, 10:07 AM (830 Views) | |
| Avenger | Mar 31 2008, 10:07 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
I was watching Dr Steven Jones on YouTube talking about this WTC dust report he called the RJ Lee Report. Apparently, it was done by RJ LeeGroup Inc. for Deutsche Bank. Insurance purposes. Anyhow, Steven Jones was saying they found evidence of melted iron and even vaporized lead. So I decided to see if I could dig this report up. Found it and sure enough, it does mention metals, including iron, being melted.
And it does also mention vaporized lead.
Something else that Jones mentions is that lead vaporizes at over 1700 Celsius. Did a Google search. According to the sources I found, the boiling point of lead is between 1740 and 1749 Celsius. So. We have multiple sources mentioning molten steel or iron, and we have the RJ Lee Report mentioning vaporized lead. So what's to account for this vaporized lead? Office fires? Or something else? Edited by Avenger, Mar 31 2008, 10:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Mar 31 2008, 11:04 AM Post #2 |
|
the temperatures required to vaporise lead would have melted steel. the debunkers are often fond of using the mantra "the fires did not have to melt the steel, the fires only needed to weaken the steel", so by that logic the towers would have collapsed before the temperature got high enough to vapourise lead. the presence of vapourised lead (and therefore molten steel/iron) proves the fires did not cause the collapse. |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | May 13 2008, 06:26 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
bump. |
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 14 2008, 08:48 AM Post #4 |
|
Mr Jones is very good at telling half truths isnt he? Lead gives off fumes when molten, progressively more so as it increases temperature from its melting point, at around 1000deg C it gives off harmful amounts of fumes and it is necessary to ventilate any area where it is being cast. Health and safety regulations advise against raising the temperature above 500degC without adequate protection from fumes. http://tinyurl.com/3mhtna http://tinyurl.com/5zycgk http://tinyurl.com/3s4ww5 Imagine the amount of molten lead at around 1000deg C in the wtcs. All those UPS batteries on the 81st floor of wtc2 would cause a lot of fumes. Edited by tharg, May 14 2008, 12:53 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | May 14 2008, 09:46 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Good point about the evaporated lead. So what about the molten iron? |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | May 15 2008, 07:43 AM Post #6 |
|
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel). Click here: Page 17 RJ Lee report Edited by Headspin, May 15 2008, 07:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 15 2008, 08:33 AM Post #7 |
|
Spherical iron particles are also found in abundance in MSW incinerator fly ash, running at around 1000deg C. Why do you think that is? Could it be due to reactions happening with other chemicals being released, lowering the melting point, just like with the corrosive sulphide attacks we were discussing? Otherwise how could they form in flyash? |
![]() |
|
| JFK | May 15 2008, 08:41 AM Post #8 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 15 2008, 08:56 AM Post #9 |
|
And your point is? Edited by tharg, May 15 2008, 08:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| JFK | May 15 2008, 09:19 AM Post #10 |
![]()
|
What is missing and why ? |
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 15 2008, 09:28 AM Post #11 |
|
I will let you explain for yourself the meaning of your post and how it relates to the topic under discussion, in your own good time. |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | May 15 2008, 09:36 AM Post #12 |
|
a lot of questions and a lot of speculation there. can you cite anything at all? or can we all go home now? btw, fly ash comes from burning coal, much higher than 1000C i would think. |
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 15 2008, 09:45 AM Post #13 |
|
MSW incinerators operate at about 1000deg C. Heres a little debate between Frank Greening and Steven Jones for you. http://tinyurl.com/477rcf Edited by tharg, May 15 2008, 09:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Headspin | May 15 2008, 10:16 AM Post #14 |
|
greening there says 1400C, not 1000C for incinerators, and he cites no source. I am not sure what you want me to take from those letters, if you think there is something in there that moves this thread forward in terms of molten iron, please point it out. |
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 15 2008, 10:30 AM Post #15 |
|
MSW incinerators operate at about 1000deg C. Google for it. Yes, I have no idea at all why the presence of iron particles in ash from incinerators burning at 1000deg C could possibly have any relevance to this subject.
|
![]() |
|
| Headspin | May 15 2008, 01:10 PM Post #16 |
|
the lack of burning coal in any (let alone significant) quantities at the wtc would seem to rule out the possibility of the spheres being fly ash. |
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 15 2008, 02:09 PM Post #17 |
|
The spheres result from the burning of municipal solid waste at around 1000 deg C, Im not sure you have understood the relevance of that yet. Keep thinking. |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | May 15 2008, 06:00 PM Post #18 |
|
particles and spheres are not necessarily the same as previously molten spheres, your avoidance of the word molten is telling. If it is your contention that the iron spheres found in the WTC dust were not molten, then you need to explain why, since it is widely accepted by independent experts that the iron spheres in the WTC dust did melt. The central issue is that of molten iron, because the presence of molten iron/molten steel contradicts the official story - the implication of molten iron/steel is that there is a source of energy involved in the destruction of the towers and WTC7, not accounted for in the official explanations. Edited by Headspin, May 15 2008, 07:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| tharg | May 16 2008, 03:46 PM Post #19 |
|
The spheres were clearly molten, that is not the issue Im debating, Headpin. How they actually were produced and by what particular chemical reaction, hasnt been explained. I have shown examples how of these particles are produced from a fire far lower in temperature than that necessary to melt steel, fuelled by products available in any office or house fire. The conclusion from that, isnt too difficult to work out. Of course, just because you have zero evidence of a thermitic reaction, doesnt mean you should let reality get in the way of your ,sorry I mean Steven Joneses, theories. Edited by tharg, May 16 2008, 03:47 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Headspin | May 16 2008, 09:50 PM Post #20 |
|
a thermate reaction explain the composition and morphology of the wtc molten iron-alumina spheres precisely. your claim of "hasn't been explained" is quite false. page 17: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf This claim is unlikely and obscure for many reasons and you have backed it with NO evidence, so it remains just speculative assertions. steel melts at different temperatures according to the carbon composition, iron has a melting point of 1500C. incinerators produce spheres by burning coal at high temperatures. the wtc towers and building 7 were not coal fired incinerators operating at high temperatures. The conclusion from that is that you frequently use logical fallacies and unfounded assertions as explanations. we have just been discussing evidence of a thermite reaction, which indicates you do not understand the meaning of the word "evidence". for your understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence reality is not what you want to believe, you are confusing reality with delusion.
Edited by Headspin, May 16 2008, 09:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic » |








2:07 PM Jul 11