The Trapping of Screw Loose Change

November 3, 2011
by Jeffrey Strahl
911truth.org

Dear Readers,
Please submit your comments on this article at the link at Amazon, here, as provided below by Mr. Strahl.
911Truth.org published this article; the author is not available to be reached through email to this site. We look forward to reading your comments there. – Ed.

In mid-October 2011, I posted a review of David Ray Griffin's new book, 9/11 Ten Years Later -- When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed at Amazon, here.

[Related Info: David Ray Griffin's Fake Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes Theory Debunked Again]

This review drew comments from James B, one of the two top people at Screw Loose Change, a leading "debunking" website used as a reference by many an internet opponent of 9/11 truth. The result was a major debunking of Screw Loose Change. This piece is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap's nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. The focus of our exchange was the evidence regarding events at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11, where three steel frame high-rises were destroyed. This is the part of my review which is relevant to the debate:

Being someone with an engineering degree, it's no surprise that I find the strongest part to be Chapters 2 through 4, which deal with the three steel hi-rises which came down on 9/11. Chapter 2 has been posted previously on the web as an article, a challenge to left-leaning despisers of 9/11 truth to explain nine apparent miracles required to explain how the official story could be made congruent with the physical evidence. It is quite telling that none of the prominent left commentators mentioned have responded to this challenge. Not even the web "debunkers" such as Screw Loose Change have been able to explain how heat caused sudden onset failure, something which is impossible, given the nature of heat as heightened molecular activity which can only lead to gradual failure preceded by softening and sagging, in contrast to extreme cold (e.g. liquid nitrogen application) which sucks out energy from molecular activity, or of course demolition. None of them have been able to explain the presence of molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel, or even to make a coherent argument as to the presence of molten iron, even though NIST's own investigators failed to find steel samples subjected to fires which were heated to the point at which structural steel loses 50% of its strength, 1112 deg F, let alone melt structural steel. In fact, hardly any of the samples even made it to 500 deg F. And there has been little response to WTC7 falling at free fall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds, something NIST said was impossible, or the horizontal ejections of large steel beams, or any of the other key bits of evidence.

In Chapter 3, Griffin takes on Bill Moyers and Robert Parry and their complete failure to deal with the WTC evidence. In Chapter 4, he discusses the Building What campaign to publicize the facts behind WTC7. Debunkers should be challenged to explain all this material.

A bit of background regarding the presence of molten iron and molybdenum, and vaporized lead and steel in the WTC dust and debris: A steel beam recovered from WTC7, the third tower which was destroyed on 9/11, though not hit by a plane nor subject to a serious fire, was examined by a team of engineering professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which identified the beam as being clearly from WTC7 due to the type of steel used. They found evidence of a eutectic reaction, i.e., the penetration of the beam's steel by sulfur, which resulted in such severe erosion of the beam that the steel had holes in it. The presence of sulfur is itself a mystery, but so is the fact that this reaction required a temperature of 1,000 deg C (1,832 deg F), far in excess of what even NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the government agency which carried out the official investigation of the WTC, stated was present. By the way, NIST stated air temperatures during the fires as if they were metal temperatures, when in fact it takes a long time for a fire of a certain temperature to heat steel to the same level, given the high thermal conductivity of steel. In addition, the steel was partially vaporized, a phenomenon which requires a temperature of 2,861 deg C (5,182 deg F). The report on this beam was included in the 2002 FEMA report on the WTC, the initial government investigation. But NIST's 2008 report on WTC7, which noted the FEMA report and incorporated much of it, left out the part on the WPI investigation, and indeed stated that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

The dust created by the destruction of the WTC towers was analyzed by several different entities. One was the RJ Lee Group, a laboratory hired by Deutsche Bank, whose building's roof had lots of this dust deposited on it. The bank wanted to demonstrate that the dust came from the WTC for insurance purposes. The investigation, which verified the WTC origin of the dust, found a large percentage of molten iron in the form of spheres, 5.87%, vs. 0.04% iron content in normal building dust. This "normal" iron content also does not take the form of spheres. Such a form requires steel/iron to be melted and tossed in the air, which as with all fluids results in the liquid drops taking a spherical shape to minimize surface tension. This led the investigators to conclude that the iron had melted during the event. The melting point of iron is 1,538 deg C (2,800 deg F). RJ Lee also found evidence of vaporized lead, which requires a temperature of 1,749 deg C (3,180 deg F). The dust was also investigated by the US Geological Survey (USGS), which also found the extremely high level of iron, and also discovered evidence of molten molybdenum, which requires a temperature of 2,623 deg C (4,753 deg F). This was not made public until a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by a team of scientists forced the disclosure. In addition, there were numerous reports of large pools of molten iron/steel under the site of the WTC towers, lasting for weeks. NASA satellites detected extremely hot spots underground.

Screw Loose Change (SLC) has managed to come up with "explanations" for just about everything that happened on 9/11, both the physical evidence and other. Most of these make no sense. Some are absolutely laughable. Those who would rather deny the fact that 9/11 was an inside job are OK with any explanation which appears to confirm their "skepticism," and gladly grasp onto anything, however spurious, offered as "9/11 truth debunking." But SLC has been totally silent, or at least evasive, regarding the evidence for molten and/or vaporized metals. I believe this is because this evidence is the Achilles heel of the official story.

Without knowing a full inventory of the weapons in the arsenal of the US armed forces, including special operations units and the CIA, and without having full access to the evidence, one cannot reach a complete conclusion as to what created such high temperatures. Nanothermite was indeed detected in ample amounts in the WTC dust, but it may not represent the full story. This is why I avoid attributing the evidence to any particular weapon. Such attribution is unnecessary. We do know that only three possible explanations are possible: volcanic activity, proximity to a hot star like the sun, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. The first two causes can be ruled out. By deductive reasoning, this leaves us with the third, however much we may not like the conclusion.

Links to the information I have provided can be found at the following two articles by David Ray Griffin: "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven," September 14, 2009, and "Left Leaning Despisers of 9/11 Truth: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?," July 6, 2010.

What follows is the exchange, with some of my comments in brackets. I left out comments by others. I tried to keep the original exchange as complete as possible so one can get its full flavor. Some readers may wonder why all the repetitions have been kept intact. I'm doing so because leaving them in demonstrates how James B. and Screw Loose Change evade questions, repeatedly bring up arguments that have already been discredited in the specific debate, and attempt the same lying via quoting out of context and false attribution.

This is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap's nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. I edited down repeat quotations by both myself as well as James B, leaving them in full only where these quotes are necessary for context. I also left out most of my "trapped rat" remarks, which are OK in the context of the debate, but need not be repeated as often. The full exchange can, of course, be viewed at the Amazon review; the URL is provided at the very beginning of this article.

To offer feedback on this piece, please click the Amazon review URL and post comments there. Please make note if you are doing so as a result of reading this piece at 911Truth.org, and be sure to quote sections relevant to your comment, as appropriate.

James B says:

"Not even the web "debunkers" such as Screw Loose Change..... or of course demolition."

But it was a gradual collapse. If you read the NIST reports there are numerous photos showing the sagging trusses pulling the perimeter beams in. FDNY helicopters reported seeing the tops of the buildings start to sag minutes before the collapse. FDNY personnel at WTC7 detected the building leaning and making creaking noises hours before it collapsed. Why do you ignore all of this?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Fantasies. A "leaning" building does not fall down in perfect symmetry. NIST in fact did not in its report show any fires persisting more than a couple of hours in any part of WTC7. Videos do not show any of the towers with "sagging tops." For an actual case of what happens to a hi-rise overwhelmed by fire, see the Windsor Building in Madrid, about the same size as WTC7, burned for 24 hours, had some floors collapse, it demonstrated visible sagging, but it did not fall. "Gradual collapse" takes hours, not even a few minutes, pieces of the towers weren't falling off, one second the buildings were still, the next second they were going down.

And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel. Don't expect any help from Screw Loose Change on that.

The fires in all three buildings were asymmetric. This would result in asymmetric damage. Asymmetric damage cannot cause a symmetric collapse, simply physics. This is why demolition is a careful process, it's very hard to bring down a structure symmetrically.

Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined showed hardly any of them reached even 250 deg C (482 F), none reached the point (600 C, 1112 F) at which steel loses half its strength. The fires in WTC2 were so weak they were near going out when the building fell, two fire crews reported being able to easily take care of them on radio right before the destruction. People walked down past the impact zone without experiencing an inferno.

And why don't you explain the WTC7 free fall while you're at it? Or horizontal ejections? Or the tops of the two main towers being shredded at the very beginning of each destruction, precluding their acting as "pile drivers," the core of the official story? If you're planning a long process of nit-picking, it won't work.
And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel.

James B. Says:
"Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined ..... so weak they were near going out "

Uhh, which is it? You can't keep a coherent narrative for two paragraphs.
[This is very typical of how SLC deals with questions on its website, trying to insult the intelligence of anyone who diverges from its correct line, which is the official story]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, it is you who cannot read. NIST examined samples of structural steel which showed fire damage, as i stated in the review. The fact that these samples didn't reach high temperatures at all, even for building fires, demonstrates that the fires didn't get all that hot, which makes the presence of the molten and vaporized metals even more of a blatant contradiction of the official story. The hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, under prime conditions (isolation, carefully regulated fuel supply, forcing of pressurized air) wouldn't be able to come up with the temperatures necessary to account for the molten/vaporized metals, but in fact these fires weren't even hot hydrocarbon fires. It's clear that something else caused those metals to melt or vaporize.

James B. Says:

Dude, either temperatures got that hot, or they didn't. You are proposing some Schroedinger's cat scenario where temperatures did not get above 250 degrees, but were somehow above 3000. So either NIST was wrong (or you are misquoting them, which you actually are, but I will skip that topic for the moment because it is fun screwing with idiots) or temperatures did not reach as hot as you are claiming. It can't be both.
[This is a common tactic of "debunkers," and even of some who call themselves "9/11 truth activists" who contend the WTC was not brought down by demolition. They attempt to respond to this contradiction by making it seem as if "truthers" are trying to have it both ways, have temperatures be fairly low and quite high at the same time. It's an attempt to obfuscate.]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, you are either thick beyond belief or you are just trying to troll and are desperate. "Temperatures" in the abstract isn't the question here. The fire temperatures and fires-caused steel temperatures is one thing, whereas temperatures required to explain the molten/vaporized metals is totally another. The fires did not heat the vast majority (98%) of inspected fire-affected steel to 250 deg C (482 F), and none of it to the point where steel softens significantly (50% loss of strength), which is 600 deg C (1112 F). Yet there is evidence of molten and vaporized metals which require temps of 2800 deg F (molten iron), 3100+ deg F (vaporized lead), 4700+ deg F (molten molybdenum) and over 5000 deg F (vaporized steel). This evidence can therefore not be accounted for by the fires which erupted due to the plane impacts. Something else besides the fires melted and/or vaporized those metals. Surely this would be easy to understand even for someone with no science or math beyond 7th grade.

If someone traveled between two spots at a rate which suggested they had to move at over 1000 mph, and they allegedly did so by a car, and the car shows no evidence of being able to travel faster than 120 mph, and in fact no evidence it even reached 60 mph, there is no Schroedinger's cat scenario, they simply didn't travel with that car.

And do prove the "misquote," if you dare, the numbers are out of the NIST report. See http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

James B. Says:

No, this happens because the average Truther has the reading comprehension of an overcaffeinated Chihuahua. NIST did not say that the beams were not heated above 250 degrees, but that the beams which had enough paint on them to be identified as having come from the targeted area were not heated above 250 degrees. Any beams heated above that temperature did not have paint, thus they could not identify where they came from.

This Truther logic is kind of like saying that the police interviewed the survivors from a mass shootings, and none of the survivors reported that they were fatally shot, therefore nobody died.

"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core."

From the NIST report. You might want to try and read it.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05130.pdf

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, what temperatures the fires heated the steel to is irrelevant to the core argument i challenged you with. Not even NIST claims that the fires were hotter than some 1400 deg F (which does not directly translate to metal temperatures, see below). And even this temperature would still make it impossible to explain the molten/vaporized metals as being the result of these fires. Using the car analogy from above, even if you can prove the car did travel at 120 mph, that would still not explain how the person could have traveled between two points in such time as to have required a speed of 1000 mph. Nothing can explain such temperatures except explosive and/or incendiary devices.

NIST pleading the small size of the samples is like a guy murdering his parents and then pleading for mercy on the basis that he's an orphan. It was the decision of the US government together with the city government of New York to destroy almost all the structural steel except for these few samples, to ship it all off to China in violation of city, state and national arson laws, in the face of loud protests by Fire Engineering Magazine and other professional organizations.

NIST has no material evidence of steel heated to over 600 deg C., indeed hardly any of steel heated above 250 C. Its conclusion that steel was heated above that point is strictly the result of mathematical models, and we know thanks to whisteblowing that these models were tortured, manipulated to create such temperatures. NIST of course refuses to provide details of its models. We do know how NIST's video model of its WTC7 report is totally at odds with actual videos of WTC7's fall, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY
NIST also has tried confounding air temperatures during the fires and steel temperatures, as if structural steel doesn't conduct away heat very efficiently, as if it doesn't take a long time to heat steel, as if the fires were really that hot for very long, as if the fires actually lasted a long time at all.

But again, the key point is that the fires can in no way explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence. This is why Screw Loose Change has avoided the question.

James B. Says:

You claim it was heated above 3000. Make up your freaking mind. Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It was quite clear that i was talking about steel heated by fires, not of steel in general. Indeed, NIST has no material evidence of steel heated by fires to over 600 deg C (1112 F), and hardly any of steel heated by fires to over 250 deg C (482 F). And yet, there is evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temps of around 2800 F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. And i suspect you comprehend this perfectly well, but are simply trying to obfuscate matters and change the topic so you won't have to explain the molten/vaporized metals.

NIST knew perfectly well about a steel beam from WTC7 which showed evidence of sulfidation, with holes in it, investigated by a team from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, reported on in the FEMA 2002 report on the WTC and discussed even in the New York Times. The team knew this beam was from WTC7 and stated so, having recognized the signature of the WTC7 steel. Yet NIST's report on WTC7 claimed no steel was recovered from the structure, thus avoiding discussing this beam, which showed evidence of vaporization as well.

You are trying to avoid dealing with the molten/vaporized metals, Screw Loose Change has consistently done so. This is a clear signal that it cannot deal with this evidence, and hopes it goes away. It won't. I'll keep reminding readers that you are unable to deal with it.

James B says:

Actually we have done dozens, if not hundreds of stories on supermagiconanothermite, to the point that I got tired of discussing the subject. It is a magical amorphous subject which to Truthers can have any properties. It is an explosive, it is an incendiary, it can be painted on, it is invisible, it is fire resistant, it is undetectable by any known means! Arguing it with Truthers is kind of like arguing the properties of unicorn horns with a Harry Potter fan.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are once again trying to change the topic, it won't work. Fact is, there was evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temperatures of around 2800 deg F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. All these temperatures are way in excess of any possible temperatures achievable in hydrocarbon fires (as in the fires which erupted in the buildings after the plane impacts, or in WTC7 supposedly due to debris from WTC1), let alone the temperatures that were actually observed in any of the steel samples examined by NIST. The melting and/or vaporizing of the metals was not the result of the fires, but of something else, and there is no logical alternative to the cause being explosive and/or incendiary devices. NIST knew of the evidence for these molten/vaporized metals, but avoided the question. And you are doing the same.

James B, you are like a rat caught in a trap which continues to bare its teeth and act as if it's capable of inflicting damage, fully knowing it cannot move. You will try to talk about everything, including the kitchen sink, in trying to avoid dealing with this, but you won't succeed. You are trapped. It is inevitable that when you defend a story full of holes, you will eventually fall into one of the holes.

James B says:

I think it was ground up unicorn horns. They are known to burn at high temperatures.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It's fun to watch the rat squirm and squeal and otherwise try to pretend it isn't hopelessly trapped. The more the rat does this, the tighter the trap's grip.

I have long told people that Screw Loose Change's obvious evasion of the molten/vaporized metals evidence shows the best thing to hit them with. Great to finally do so and watch them ground to a halt. Screw Loose Change is finished. My advice to them: shut down the site, open a new one under new names, this way they will able to get away with what they've been doing for a bit longer, till they're exposed again.

We could of course start talking about other stuff which will act as a trap for them, like WTC7 free fall. But it's too much fun watching them squirm.

James B says:

Uhh yeah, because I run my blog, and even my life based on the ignorant comments of random people on the Internet... Oh yes, you have caught me, if you keep us this cunning game the Truth movement will continue its 10 year success of accomplishing absolutely nothing other than breaking up marriages and embarrassing itself in front of relatives.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Watch the rat really squirm and squeal even louder as the trap holding it is lowered into a bucket full of water. It's obvious you have nothing to say to counter the molten/vaporized metals evidence. Even your joke about the unicorn horns was recycled, you wheeled it out months ago on your blog in an attempt to respond to a question about molten molybdenum, which you never responded to. At Screw Loose Change, you were able to get away with not answering. Here you won't. The world's watching. Screw Loose Change stands exposed as fraud.

James B says:

The world is watching? Dude, there are like 3 people commenting on this thread, and you and I are 2 of them. Have delusions of grandeur much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

A lot of people read this without commenting. And everyone who reads this or hears about it will find out that Screw Loose Change is totally tongue-tied when it comes to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals.

James B. Says:

Oh yes, I am well aware of Truther JAQing off, where you Just Ask Questions, without having to actually take a stand on anything, thus they can conveniently never be wrong! It is not science, science involves making falsifiable claims, it is religion.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing from the trapped rat. The points at which metals melt or vaporize are known facts, and this is hard core science. The temperatures required for these are far above anything remotely possible with hydrocarbon fires. No way to produce such temperatures without direct human intervention, barring a volcano which somehow remained undetected by everybody, or a star like the sun approaching the WTC site.
The only possible explanation for this molten/vaporized metals evidence is the use of explosive and/or incendiary devices. Any such evidence at a scene of a fire would normally require an investigation for explosives or accelerants, per the national fire protection code. This is a firm scientific conclusion. I won't accuse you of "religion," you are simply trying to evade dealing with evidence which you obviously cannot deal with.

James B says:

Yes, I am well aware of Harrit's "science" in which he made the shocking discovery of finding rust and aluminum in the debris from a collapsed building. He then paid $800 to some online journal based out of Pakistan to get his paper published in such a sloppy process that the editor of said journal was not even aware of the paper and resigned in protest after the fact. That is what you call "science".

And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, if you didn't know what caused the fire. In this case even the most dimwitted observer can figure out that the fire was caused by a jetliner crashing into both of the buildings. It was in the all papers.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

This is not an actual rat trap, but a virtual one. Unlike with a real trap, the rat can actually leave any time. But at the same time, every time it comes back, it ends up trapped as tightly as it was when it left. A real rat which managed to escape a trap wouldn't return to it, but then we know that rats are smarter than some people. This virtual trap is in fact what a cat would design, as this way it can torture the rat forever without having it die, ending the fun.

James B talks of "religion." Given that he believes in some miracles, including the presence of molten and/or vaporized metals without apparent reason, he is the one relying upon religion, a mystical belief in the official conspiracy story.

"And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, It was in the all papers."

So we see on TV someone getting punched in the face. An hour later, his head explodes. A dimwitted observer like James can figure out that the head exploded because of the punch. A more intelligent observer would inquire whether there's any evidence that the victim was shot in the head by something. An independent investigator has found bullet fragments in the brain. The dimwitted observer insists that these fragments mean nothing, in fact refuses to explain them.
Again, the fires caused by the plane impacts could not have caused metals to melt and/or vaporize. The finding of such evidence should have led investigators to inquire why it was present. The guidelines clearly state that evidence of molten (let alone vaporized) metals should lead to investigation, since the apparent causes *may not provide a full explanation.* In fact, they may have had nothing to to with what happened.
You keep trying to change the topic to the fires. Forget it, you've been trapped. The fires cannot explain this evidence. And neither can you. So keep squealing, it's fun to watch.

James B. Says:

Once again, you claim that NIST said that they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees. Additionally none of the thousands of firemen, police officers, demolition contractors, FEMA workers, NIST investigators or FBI agents found any signs of the use of explosives such as detonators, triggering devices, shaped charges, det cord, nor were there any recordings of the effects of these massive explosions such as warped metal or deafening explosions which should blow out every window within blocks. How can they respond to evidence which you say they did not find?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are again trying to change the conversation. The evidence in discussion here is the evidence of the presence of molten/vaporized metals. Given the temperatures necessary to melt and/or vaporize these metals are FAR higher than anything remotely achievable via the hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, and the absence of either a volcano or a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices could have been responsible for the presence of these molten/vaporized metals. Do you dare deny the existence of this evidence?

As for your totally false assertions above.
" they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees." I have in fact repeatedly stated in this regard that this refers to heating *by the fires.* As for signs of the use of explosives, none of the investigators looked for such evidence, after all as a NIST spokesperson said that they knew it wasn't there, so why bother looking.

But this is besides the point here. There is indeed lots of evidence for molten/vaporized metals. You haven't been able in the least to explain this evidence, in fact you keep trying your hardest to not deal with it, to shift the conversation. It won't work. Your further squirming will only tighten the trap.

James B says:

The whole site was looked through with a fine tooth comb. They trucked all the debris out to Fresh Kills where the FBI literally sifted through it, pulling out remains and such. Somehow they missed all that det cord. I have seen thermite used in military grenades. Aside from the fact that it is not used in building demolitions, it produces very distinctive marks. As do shaped charges (aside from the unmistakably loud boom). There is no way thousands of first responders could have missed these distinctive signs on thousands of beams. One beam which was sulfidized in a eutectic reaction, which in no way was related to the actual collapse of the building, does not a controlled demolition make.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Your claim that the sulfidized beam due to a eutectic reaction is "not related to the actual collapse of the building" is an assertion not backed by anything. There is also the fact that NIST failed to mention it and instead claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the team investigating this beam stated that it was easy to tag as being from WTC7. And there is no mention of the temperature required for such a reaction, far higher than any fire temperatures claimed even by NIST. Nor is there a mention of the fact that this beam was "partially vaporized."

And besides, this beam is not the only evidence of molten/vaporized metals, far from it. Again, the squealing trapped rat tries to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand. Let us remind him and anyone who might be fooled by him what this topic is: the presence in the dust and site debris of molten and vaporized steel/iron, vaporized lead, and molten molybdenum. These require temperatures far in excess of what hydrocarbon fires are capable of producing. James has totally failed to address this or even acknowledge it.

James B. Says:

Dude, it is in the FEMA report. You are basing your argument off of it, have you even bothered to read it? The temperatures required are much lower than you claim. Well within the reach of an normal office fire, much less one resulting from two airplane crashes.

"It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F)."

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Nice try, James B. You left out certain parts of that report.

"Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 �C (1,800 �F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel...."
This is closely followed by
"The larger sulfides further into the steel are the more stable manganese sulfides that were formed when the steel was made. The smaller sulfides that have formed as a result of the fire do not contain significant amounts of manganese, but rather are primarily sulfides containing iron and copper. These sulfides have a lower melting temperature range than manganese sulfide. (Here is where your quote starts) It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F)."
So the temperature you are trying to pass off actually applies to one region of the steel, the inner part. The outer part required a temperature of 1000 deg C (1800 deg F) for the evidence to be explained, far higher than anything even NIST claims. Not to mention that what NIST passes off as steel temperatures are actually air temperatures due to the fires, it takes a while to heat steel to such temperatures due to its conductivity. You must be a used car salesman.
Best of all, James B, *you totally fail to explain the partial vaporization reported not only by the Worcester Poly team but also by Dr Astaneh-Asl of UC Berkeley. This requires a temperature of 5182 deg F. *
And why did NIST totally leave out this part of the FEMA report, and state that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the Worcester team stated that this beam was clearly from WTC7 due to the steel used to make it?!!!!

You also fail to account for the nearly 6% molten iron spheres content of the WTC dust, or for vaporized lead or for molten molybdenum. Squeal, squeal, trapped rat. Every time you come back, the trap will be as tight.

James B says:

Aww, Truther "anomaly hunting" whereby Truthers take any perceived anomaly or unexplained phenomenon and use that as a license to create the most elaborate speculative explanation, regardless of whether it is inconsistent or even possible. "Hey, what are my keys doing on the dresser? I know I left them in my coat pocket. The only explanation must be that time travelling gnomes using their cloaking shields snuck into my house and stole my keys, used them to play pranks on people and then replaced them without being seen. But I am too smart for them!"

I am reading Michael Shermer's the Believing Brain, which explains why otherwise intelligent people believe in things like ghosts, faeries, homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories. You guys might want to read it sometime.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

James B.: You are apparently not very bright, coming back into a situation in which you were caught in an outright lie. You quoted the FEMA report out of context, making it seem as if the steel beam examined by the WPI team was subject to temperatures of "only" 700-800 deg C (as if such temps were present anyway), when in fact the full quote shows otherwise.

If someone is reading this and doesn't understand what you did, i'll provide them with another example. Someone (call him/her A) says "It's horrible that even in the 1950s, there were people who thought lynching is a good thing." James B would then accuse A of being a racist and present a "quote" in which he/she states "lynching is a good thing." You are a shameless liar, James B.

Of course, it's understandable. You have been caught like a trapped rat, unable to explain evidence of molten/vaporized metals, which would require temperatures FAR, FAR in excess of anything even NIST claimed were present, let alone anything for which there is evidence that the fires caused. This would obviously require explosives and/or incendiary devices, since there are no volcanos or hot sun-like stars in the area. It is not an "unexplained phenomenon." So, unable to explain it off, even with a nonsensical pseudo-explanation, you resort to prattling about Shermer's BS and all sorts of other stuff. That's nothing more than the squealing of a trapped rat. By the way, Shermer is a proven liar regarding 9/11, just like you.

(Edit to add this URL regarding Michael Shermer's record of lying and fraud, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/)

James B says:

Whether sulfidation required 800 degrees or 1000 is irrelevant. Both are well within the range of temperatures produced by even a common housefire, much less a major fire produced by crashing jetliners. Yes, I understand Truthers don't like Shermer. I have even seen them heckle him at a book signing. Rationalism is to truthers like garlic to a vampire.

James B says:

And it is hilarious that you are citing Dr Astaneh-Asl as supporting your theories, considering he has been one of the leading proponents of the NIST explanation of the collapses. You get someone with his qualifications on your side, instead of theologians and failed designers of mini-malls like Richard Gage, and I will start to take you seriously.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Shameless lying and squealing by the trapped rat. 1000 deg F, 1832 deg F, is 4-600 degrees F above any temperature claimed even by NIST, whose claims are totally unproven. Hydrocarbon fires cannot achieve such temperatures (1800) except under carefully controlled environments, i.e. insulation, air injection,..... Even 12-1400 deg F fires require mixing and fuel supply conditions that are/were not present in the WTC fires. The claim that this can happen in common housefires is comedy. But besides, the beam was partially vaporized, *required a temp of over 5100 deg F,* as i pointed to you earlier, which you are still evading. And reading the link i provided shows how little credibility Shermer has.

James B says:

NIST was only concerned about the temperatures leading up to the collapse. The fires burned for weeks, it is entirely expected that at some point the temperatures would reach higher levels. There are plenty of studies showing higher temperatures during common building fires. 5100 is above the temperatures produced even by thermite, so assuming that these are even correct observations, your magical thermite argument does not work anyway.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

The vaporization citation came not only from Astaneh-Asl, but from the WPI team. You're squealing some more, trapped rat.
AE911 Truth has on its team structural engineers, including some who have their own companies, even people with demolition experience. They include the designer of the PGE building in downtown San Francisco and the architect of Transamerica Pyramid, also in SF. Lots of lots of experience, unlike your total illiteracy in engineering. Astaneh-Asl by the way also complained of the destruction of the evidence. The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people. By the way, there is zero evidence that Richard Gage is a "failed designer," but the claim that there are no structural experts on my side is 100% bogus.
So you quoted from the FEMA report trying to make it look like the sulfidized beam resulted from a temp of under 800 deg C. Then when you got caught you claim that 1000 deg C is not that different. So why did you leave out so much of that quote, trying to make it seem as if the temps required were lower?
And you left out the fact that the beam came from WTC7, as noted by FEMA, yet NIST claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing by the trapped rat. Where did i make a "magical thermite argument"? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims. It is not at all expected that the fires would keep burning hot, as the jet fuel burned within a few minutes, and building materials do not support fires which create anywhere near the temperature of burning jet fuel. The persistence of extreme heat http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html under the WTC site for weeks is in fact a total anomaly if one accepts the official account, given the lack of both oxygen and fuel for such fires. Show us studies of temps of 1000 deg C during common fires, if you dare.

And what's this "assuming that these are correct observations"? The iron spheres composing almost 6% of the WTC dust is in the evidence, so is vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. More desperate thrashing by the trapped rat.

James B says:

"The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people."

Ooh, goodie gumdrops for you. And everyone knows that YouTube editorials are the way "real science" is done. When shall I expect all of their peer-reviewed studies explaining how supermagiconanothermite blew up the World Trade Centers?

James B says:

"Where did i make a "magical thermite argument"? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims."

Well that is the primary theory proposed by AE911truth and Mr. Harrit, who commented below, all of whom apparently you support. If they are wrong, perhaps you should let them know? What do you think caused all of these anomalies you are complaining about? C-4. HMX? Nuclear Weapons? Star Wars Death Beams? You claim to be the expert, while I am just an uninformed commentor, take a stand.

James B says:

Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, you don't in the least apologize for falsely attributing something to me, the same false attribution you have done earlier. This goes along with your quoting the FEMA report out of context, and when quote pretending that it doesn't matter anyway.
I don't know what caused those metals to melt and/or vaporize. I don't have access to the files of the Pentagon's secret weapons programs. But it is clear that the temperatures required for these results are far in excess of any fires, and they are not the result of a volcano or a nearby hot star. Hence, by deductive reasoning, they can only be explained as the result of the use of explosives and/or incendiary devices. If you see someone's head explode to dust sized particles an hour after being punched in the face, you know it's neither the result of the punch nor of spontaneous combustion, but of some weapon, whether you know or don't know what the weapon is.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

"Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot."

So you are saying temperatures hot enough to melt steel (almost 2800 deg F)occur at every major fire? Temperature hot enough to vaporize lead (over 3100 F)? To melt molybdenum (over 4700 F)? To vaporize steel (over 5100 F)? Your squeals are turning downright screechy. The trap gets ever tighter.

James B says:

LOL OK, sorry dude. It wasn't supermagicthermite, it was some unnamed supersekrit Pentagon weapon instead. My bad!

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

In other words, James B., you cannot explain the high temperatures required. Keep thrashing and squealing, trapped rat.

James B says:

You can't either! Saying it was some super secret magic invisible Pentagon weapon is no more scientific a theory than me claiming it was powdered unicorn horn.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Wrong. I stated it was an explosive and/or incendiary device. It certainly wasn't fire, nor a volcano, nor a star. This is called "deductive reasoning," James, see the analogy of the exploding head. That's solid science.

James B says:

No, the scientific method requires that claims be repeatable, testable and falsifiable. Making vague claims about mythical and amorphous military explosives and/or incendiaries is neither.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Being someone with an engineering degree, i know perfectly well about the scientific method, which by the way excludes quoting out of context and false attribution, something you've repeatedly done here. In fact, i have doubts about your science credentials.

It is a scientific fact that temperatures like those necessary to explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence are attainable only via special tools, explosives and/or incendiary devices, volcanos, or close proximity to an active star (which is of course a thermonuclear reaction). Volcanos and stars are ruled out, unless you wish to claim one of these was present without gaining notice. Special tools could possibly account only for molten iron, and certainly not in the quantity detected in the WTC dust (5.87%). And they cannot account for vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. Hence, by deduction, only one choice is left.

Same with the video of the person whose head is seen exploding into tiny dust size pieces an hour after a punch to the face. One doesn't need to know what weapon was used to know that this was the result of the use of some weapon. A trained medic can tell that a wound is a gunshot without knowing what weapon was used.

James B says:

Uhh, dude, explosives don't vaporize metals. They aren't even particularly hot, just fast reacting. May not be a scientist, but I am retired army.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Then you learned very little in the army. My brother was an officer in the Corps of Engineers. If you're talking conventional explosives, you are right, but that's hardly all the explosives available, even per public knowledge.

And the secret research programs have an even wider "menu" to choose from. Most people in the army don't know what's going on there, you need a security clearance for that, and if you talk about what you know to unauthorized people, your pubic area would be subjected to hot sulfuric acid. If you were in that program, why, i'm sure you'd tell us everything. Ha, ha!!

A real rat knows better than to keep coming back to the same trap, and even worse, to get itself trapped even more with each visit. Now you've admitted to not being a scientist. And yet you've attacked the science credentials of all sorts of people. Well, doesn't take a scientist to understand that the temperatures required for molten/vaporized metals are possible as a result of only a very few plausible causes, and that once all of them except one are ruled out, the one remaining is the only explanation possible, regardless of how distasteful the conclusion may be.

James B says:

Oh yes, those mythical super secret weapons, just like the hidden anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon and David Ray Griffin's voice morphing devices from Terminator 2. I think they used one of those laser cutting devices I saw in Mission Impossible. Isn't baseless speculation fun? Remember, everything in real life is just like the movies.
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing and thrashing from the trapped rat. Right, there are no secret weapons programs.

Fact is, deductive reasoning is part of the scientific method. Applying deductive reasoning to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals, ruling out a volcano and a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices can account for the temperatures necessary to explain this evidence. And with each return to this trap, you are trapped ever tighter. You have two choices: leave this debate in humiliation, or keep returning and get further entrapped by getting caught in new lies. You've already been caught quoting out of context and making the same false attribution twice, the second time after being informed and acknowledging it. Each time you come back, your credibility is shredded even further.

James B says:

I am sure there are, but using that as an excuse to make accusations is hardly scientific. In the evolution/Intelligent Design argument this is known as the "God of the Gaps", where the ID'ers use any real or perceived unexplained issue in biology to say "well, then the only explanation is that God did it". While this is theoretically possible, it is hardly scientific. The Holocaust deniers do the same thing with their "No holes no Holocaust" argument. Science is about providing a falsifiable theory which better fits observations than the alternative, not just pointing out perceived anomalies and attributing them to mythical secret weapons or unseen deities.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I did not attribute them to any specific weapon, mythical or not, or to deities, seen or not. The only reasons that metals melt or get vaporized is extremely high temperatures. I already listed the temperatures required to create the evidence which was seen. There are only three causes of such high temperatures: explosives and/or incendiary devices (including but not limited to nuclear weapons), volcanos, and proximity to hot stars. The last two are ruled out, which leaves only the first.

The analogy with an unexplained issue biology is completely false, as the information regarding this issue is incomplete. The analogy with Holocaust deniers is completely nonsensical, i have no idea what "No holes" means, i doubt anyone else does, including you. And there is a huge amount of evidence for the Holocaust. On the other hand, there are only three alternative explanations for temperatures of 2800 to 5100 deg F. Two of them are ruled out, which leaves only one, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Again, an observation of someone's head blowing up into dust sized particles an hour after being punched can be deduced to be the result of the firing of a particular weapon at their head, whether that weapon is known or not. A wound can be ascertained by a trained observer to be the result of a gunshot, regardless of the specific weapon used. Your insistence that the weapon be identified is nonsensical, especially given the number of unknown (to the general public) weapons in the arsenal. And sure, there are no secret programs, the US never had a huge secret project to develop the A-bomb.

Unless you can come up with another cause for the temperatures required to explain molten/vaporized metals, you have just caused the trap to tighten some more.

James B says:

It is a reference to your old buddy Michael Shermer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of-li_b_84154.html

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I posted earlier a review of Shermer's article in Scientific American "debunking" 9/11 truth.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.html
You can read his advancing of the "pancaking" explanation of the WTC destruction, right as NIST was renouncing the theory as being without evidence. You got good buddies, James.

And you have yet to answer to being quote with deliberate quoting out of context, and deliberate false attribution. Your believability is noted in its total absence.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

And i looked at the Shirmer article. The lack of holes in the roof of the gas chamber does not preclude gas coming in from a different direction. But the presence of molten/vaporized metals has only three possible causes, and two of them are out of the question.

And Shirmer continues the same crap as in the SciAm article i posted a link to the critique of, of making it seem as if "truthers" are claiming that the official story is false because the fires couldn't melt the structural steel. It was in fact the first version of the official story (which is now on its fourth version) which explained what happened as a result of the fires melting the steel structure, as pointed out in the critique. The critique and many analyses since also point out the impossibility of all versions of the official story which rely upon the steel being weakened. The four different versions of the official story contradict each other, and are each contradicted by the facts of the evidence. It's quite amazing that some defenders of the official story are still peddling versions which have been discarded by the official purveyors, while others have gone along with the extreme changes in the story without batting an eye. It's easy to conform, takes zero brains. Straight out of Nineteen Eighty Four.

James B says:

I didn't take anything out of context. You were the one who repeatedly claimed that NIST said that the beams were not heated over 250 degrees, omitting the fact that they specifically said those were not representative of all the beams.

I would agree that Shermer is not an expert on 9/11 issues. He hasn't wasted much time taking on you idiots. Unfortunately I have. His work on skepticism and belief systems in general though is quite good.

As far as "molten metal" you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are truly a shameless liar. What i pointed out that you took out of context was from the FEMA report about the sulfidized beam, making it seem as if this phenomenon required temps of only 7-800 deg C to be explained. Do you really think everybody here is so stupid that they forgot how i illustrated your out-of-context quoting by posting the entire passage and showing what you left out? You think the readers here are like the ones at SLC?

"I would agree that Shermer is not an expert....... is quite good."

He has written an article for Scientific American and keeps speaking out on it. His complete acceptance of the official story, in fact of versions of it which have been disavowed even by NIST, shows how much of a "skeptic" he is. He is guided far more by belief than by science.

"As far as "molten metal" you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required."

This is your proof that fire can melt steel? You think the steel in steel wool is the same steel used for structural steel? This may go over with your ignorant readers at SLC, but i happen to have a degree in mechanical engineering, and i took courses in metallurgy. There are lots of different types of steel, different mixtures (carbon content is a big factor), depending upon the intended use. Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel. And it is also composed of very fine fibers, i.e. not in the form of thick beams. Thus, it has a large ratio of surface area per given unit of mass. Try doing this experiment with a thick structural steel beam. This comparison is strictly for glueheads. And besides, the evidence showed IRON spheres, iron doesn't melt till some 2800 deg F. But now you have trapped yourself some more by suggesting "other possible answers." So what are these answers? What can explain temps of 2800 deg F to 5100+ deg F? Show us how you can melt molybdenum or vaporize steel with this battery setup of yours.

James B says:

No, at SLC I would have more than 3 readers...

"Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel."

But you are the only one insisting that any molten iron comes from structural steel. There are literally millions of sources of iron, including human blood. Once again, the fact that you can't account for every phenomenon is a large chaotic situation does not give you the right to create your own fantasy to explain it.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

As if i was talking about numbers. Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science.

The iron in human blood is not in the form which would ever show up as molten iron spheres. Your assertions are strictly science for glueheads and paint thinner sniffers. On second thought, maybe it's not only your loyal readers who failed 8th grade science.

Regular building dust has only .04% iron content. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron content, in the form of spheres, demonstrating that melting occurred during the event, per the lab which did the analysis (RJ Lee). And maybe human blood explains molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel as well, eh? And you compound your situation further by trying to attribute the evidence to chaos theory. You have just tightened the trap further. Now what, trapped rat?

Only three sources can account for temps hot enough to melt iron, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel: volcanos, proximity to hot stars, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. Special tools could account for some molten iron, but not in the quantity detected in this instance, and cannot account for the other phenomena. The first two of the three are ruled out. This leaves the third. Maybe James B. will tell us that when someone's head is observed blowing up into dust sized pieces an hour after being punched that this doesn't necessarily mean he/she was shot in the head by something, that such a conclusion is unwarranted unless the weapon can be identified. Unless you can provide another explanation for such high temperatures, you have been caught in yet another lie.

And notice, everyone, how James B. didn't even try to further contest the fact that he quoted out of context. His credibility has sunk below zero.

James B. says:

"Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science. "

Possibly, we get a lot of comments from Truthers. We allow open comments. Skeptics are immediately banned from any Truther site. They don't seem to be too big on this whole free spech/open dissent thing. ironic.

Wait a minute, I just showed you that a cigarette lighter can produce molten metal under the right condition, now you are saying this can only be caused by explosives and incendiaries. ADD much?

James B says:

Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?

Comparing normal building dust to one of the largest building disasters in the world is a rather bizarre comparison anyway. That is like going to an airplane crash and saying, "A normal landing does not have near this amount of ripped body parts and debris. What could account for that?"

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Sure you allow open comments, greeted with abuse and pushed out. SLC doesn't even rise to the level of garbage.

"Wait a minute, I just showed......... ADD much?"

Typical of the personal insults you use at SLC. If anyone is showing attention deficit, it is you. The quote from me which you are responding to does not say "molten metal" in the abstract. It specifies four phenomena. Are you claiming that a cigarette lighter can melt structural steel, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel? If so, you have reached amazing depths of ignorance. If not, you have just tried to lie your way out. Either way, you have tightened the trap further.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

"Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?"

Deliberate false attribution number three on your part. Iron *powder* is what's present in regular building dust, not molten iron spheres, and certainly in much smaller proportions than what was observed. And vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel are not present in such dust, i never said anything of the sort. You are left with nothing but lies.

Another of your stupid comparisons, this one comes back to bite you. Ripped body parts and debris of course constitute evidence for a crash. A high proportion of molten iron spheres in dust likewise indicates that the iron melted during the event which created the dust, cannot be explained as something which was already present. This required a temperature of at least 2800 deg F. The other molten and vaporized metals required far higher temperatures. Keep squirming and squealing.

James B says:

LOL And you actually inspected all of that iron dust to make sure that none of them were in the shape of spheres? Or is your evidence based on the fact that you get to pick the synonym? I love Truther science. It is so... flexible.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

If someone were to read this, they would be justified in thinking that i'm paying you to post here and look stupid. You got it backwards, the iron particles were ALL in the shape of spheres, exactly what happens when iron melts and is flung about, due to surface tension. The wording "spheres" is per the professional laboratory RJ Lee and the USGS, which did the examining, not per some "truthers." You got all your legs stuck in the trap, and now you've added your tail.

James B says:

I am talking about the "powder" which you claim to be perfectly natural, as opposed to the spheres which are created by supersekrit pentagon weapons. Go ahead and pay me, I could use the cash. I find you amusing, but I don't have any delusions that this conversation will change the world. In another 10 years, you will be in the same place you are now, posting incoherent rants on the internet and accomplishing nothing.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Before anything else, let's remind the audience that you quoted out of context, then asserted it didn't matter anyway, then tried to make it look as if my charge pertained to a completely different passage you quoted. A lie compounded thrice. And you have falsely attributed stuff to me three times. You haven't got a shred of credibility left.

[quote of previous post]

Such spheres are created by metal melting and then being flung in the air, which is what gives the molten metal bits a spherical shape, surface tension due to its moving in liquid form, just as with falling water drops. Melting metal in a furnace and the flinging the fluid would also create such spheres. Iron powder requires neither melting nor flinging in the air, you can get iron powder for instance by rubbing the metal with emery cloth. Melting by itself isn't enough to create spheres, neither is flinging in the air, of course. I'm sorry i attributed to you 8th grade science knowledge, you obviously didn't get that far.

And your last two sentences are nothing more than an attempt to extricate yourself from the trap. As i've said previously, you can leave any time, this being a virtual trap, not a real one. But any time you come back, the trap will be as tight as ever. And any time you come back and open your mouth, you in fact cause the trap to tighten by putting forth more lies and more garbage. The whole world will be able to come here and observe how one of the principals of Screw Loose Change is trapped like a rat, whether you leave now or keep coming back.

James B. says:

"Before anything else, let's remind the audience "
Audience? Look at the line right above the posts:
"Tracked by 3 customers"
Delusions of grandeur, much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You tried this before, James, it drew a bunch of comments. Your lying and complete cluelessness are here on exhibit for the world to see, which people will, at the time of their own choosing.

[For many more refutations of James B from the Debunking the Debunkers blog click here.]