To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why would i join another debate? You're making claims in this one so I'm asking you (and still waiting) for evidence to back your claims up. You have yet to answer one question or post evidence for your claims.

I provided enough evidence already to debunk your beliefs about 9/11

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Waffle. She gave no opinion about the paper scientifically. If you find a quote that says differently please share it.

No chain of custody is nonsense.

Mark Basille a chemist also collected WTC dust independently from this study and he also found red/grey chips. The Skeptics don't disagree the red/chips were found in the dust they just side with Dr Milettee and Oystein conclusions (Oystein is a 9/11 debunker on the international sceptic forum.

Aluminium pedestal whilst searching for aluminium? Provide a quote for this information before I comment on this?

You need a quote?
Did you not actually read the paper you are holding as the smoking gun?
Open your .pdf and scroll to page 10 as a quick example.
"Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The
inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon
conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM)."

The papers methodology is fundamentally flawed, but sure I'm sure you will find some magic way to ignore that too.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Aluminium pedestal whilst searching for aluminium? Provide a quote for this information before I comment on this?

But further illustration as if it's needed, that you not only have no actual understanding of the science underpinning your claims, but that you actually didn't even read the paper fully yourself.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I provided enough evidence already to debunk your beliefs about 9/11

You haven't debunked anything! You have avoided answering any questions and instead constantly derailed the whole thread by going off on wild tangents about what YOU believe!

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

But further illustration as if it's needed, that you not only have no actual understanding of the science underpinning your claims, but that you actually didn't even read the paper fully yourself.

Your assertion is nonsensical. How did the aluminium get on to the chips from the pedestal? Do you think the scientists were scrapping it on? Would it not just sit on the surface of the chip if that was the case? You think they not notice?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 You know what pedestal is, don't you?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your assertion is nonsensical. How did the aluminium get on to the chips from the pedestal? Do you think the scientists were scrapping it on? Would it not just sit on the surface of the chip if that was the case? You think they not notice?

If they are so blase about cross contamination im the lab why trust anynif their samples that were collected by non science people and mailed to them?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If they are so blase about cross contamination im the lab why trust anynif their samples that were collected by non science people and mailed to them?

Dr Milette who is Skeptic also found Aluminium but he claims it was bounded with silicon.

Harrit claim is Aluminium was free and separate from the silicon

There scientists there not idiots they know about cross-contamination.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your assertion is nonsensical. How did the aluminium get on to the chips from the pedestal? Do you think the scientists were scrapping it on? Would it not just sit on the surface of the chip if that was the case? You think they not notice?

Seriously?
That is your stance?

You a little taken aback at the glaringly obvious forensic error made by those eminent scientists?

Again your ignorance of the science is astounding. The study "claims" thermite on the basis of elemental aluminium.
That is, aluminium present on an atomic level.
Using an aluminium mount to assess the samples, introduces an immediate danger of cross contamination
All findings of "thermite" on the basis of the review are at the very least spurious and at worst outright fraudulent.
No respectable study would knowingly introduce cross contamination as a direct part of their methodology, yet this team did!

A credible study would ensure different mounting media to eliminate that as a possibility.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

banie01 You know what pedestal is, don't you?

It's what you place yourself and your search for the "truth" on I'd assume

In case your wondering...
That is how one answers a direct question.
Maybe if you go back over the thread and start addressing those asked of you, it will cease being such a train wreck.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

It's what you place yourself and your search for the "truth" on I'd assume

In case your wondering...
That is how one answers a direct question.
Maybe if you go back over the thread and start addressing those asked of you, it will cease being such a train wreck.

The red/grey chips sat on a carbon Conductive tab that stops cross contamination. The Aluminium pedestal is irrelevant here.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The red/grey chips sat on a carbon Conductive tab that stops cross contamination. The Aluminium pedestal is irrelevant in the case.

The carbon tab is used to conduct the SEM beam, it is not protection against cross contamination.

You are now defending the use of aluminium as a media when its use had to be pointed out to you and confirmed.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

The carbon tab is used to conduct the SEM beam, it is not protection against cross contamination.

You are now defending the use of aluminium as a media when its use had to be pointed out to you and confirmed.

You only have a point if the red/grey chips sat on a surface made of Aluminium.

Was it sitting on a Carbon tab or aluminium?

Even then no sense the aluminium doesn't flake off by itself and form similar size plates of Aluminium

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You only have a point if the red/grey chips sat on a surface made of Aluminium.

Was it sitting on a Carbon tab or aluminium?

Even then no sense the aluminium doesn't flake off by itself and form similar size plates of Aluminium

You are being deliberately obtuse!
There were no similar sized plates of aluminium, the study claims elemental free aluminium.
Molecular particles.
Any finding of free aluminium in there sample is rendered moot by the potential cross contamination introduced by aluminium mounting media.

What's more, no study has replicated their find of free aluminium and even Milletes study which you 1st dismissed and just a few posts ago wheeled out as a weak refutation ..
Did not find free aluminium, it was bound to other elements.

No other study has replicated the finding of elemental free aluminium. None.
A simple fact in science is that for a finding to have merit, it must be repeatable!
Where is the independent confirmation?

The logical source of free aluminium, in a study searching for just that is via cross contamination.
The paper is fundamentally flawed, your understanding of its premise even more so.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You are being deliberately obtuse!
There were no similar sized plates of aluminium, the study claims elemental free aluminium.
Molecular particles.
Any finding of free aluminium in there sample is rendered moot by the potential cross contamination introduced by aluminium mounting media.

What's more, no study has replicated their find of free aluminium and even Milletes study which you 1st dismissed and just a few posts ago wheeled out as a weak refutation ..
Did not find free aluminium, it was bound to other elements.

No other study has replicated the finding of elemental free aluminium. None.
A simple fact in science is that for a finding to have merit, it must be repeatable!
Where is the independent confirmation?

The logical source of free aluminium, in a study searching for just that is via cross contamination.
The paper is fundamentally flawed, your understanding of its premise even more so.

You claim you know the study. Ok the chip ignited at 430c and produced Iron Rich molten microspheres (1500c)

What your explanation?

Free Aluminium just means it separate from other components.

The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminium is contained in tiny plate-like structures

False the red/grey chips sat on a carbon tab. No cross contamination occurred. You are the only person making this false claim.

False Mark Basille an independent scientist requested and contacted Steven Jones and asked for a sample to confirm their findings. He also found the Aluminium was separate from the silicon.

Cheerful Spring

Three of the people involved in this study.



Dr. Harrit has a Chemistry PhD from the University of Copenhagen faculty member and currently conducts research at the prestigious Nano-Science Center.

Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, who has a PhD in Materials Science and Engineering. Farrer is the TEM lab director at Brigham Young University

Dr. Steven Jones, a Professor Emeritus at BYU with a PhD in Physics.

King Mob

Cheerful, you have been telling fibs again.
I never claimed that thermite could melt through steel.
I've been pointing out that it can't melt steel into large flowing rivers. Nor can it melt steel so that it's still hot or molten days later.
Please provide proof that it can do these things and apologise for your dishonest misrepresentations.

King Mob

Also, lol at you listing these guys qualifications.
Dr Judy Wood is just as qualified.

She has a PhD in material science which makes her far far more qualified than a person who just has a PhD in physics.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you believe 9/11 firefighters are truthful and honest people?


So you believe NIST? Nobody saw molten steel or Steel melted? NIST claims no video or photographic evidence exists

What this then, an imaginary video a video send here to earth from the twilight zone?

that's not a video of molten steel chief.

Do you have physical evidence of molten steel? Did not a single fire fighter have a body or helmet cam or anything that would be proof? It should be eed everywhere if it was flowing as you claim

Can you distinguish metal types just by looking at them? Would be hard enough in a lab never mind in full gear with a building falling down around you.


Final point, if a fire isn't enough to melt steel then how does any fireman have any experience of it and enough to recognise it?
Perhaps they are all closet nano thermite fanciers?

GreeBo

Btw even the video is titled " molten metal " not steel.
If it every existed at all it could have been any type of metal.

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

that's not a video of molten steel chief.

Do you have physical evidence of molten steel? Did not a single fire fighter have a body or helmet cam or anything that would be proof? It should be eed everywhere if it was flowing as you claim

Can you distinguish metal types just by looking at them? Would be hard enough in a lab never mind in full gear with a building falling down around you.


Final point, if a fire isn't enough to melt steel then how does any fireman have any experience of it and enough to recognise it?
Perhaps they are all closet nano thermite fanciers?

I not going back over this again.

This is molten steel in the rubble on 9/11





For Kingmob it a grainy picture, but hey what can you do he still deny the evidence if you produced the explosives for him.

King Mob

Yup, still a grainy photo with no sourcing from someone who lies constantly and is no more trustworth than the people who suggest it was space lasers..

Please withdraw your false claim about my statements thanks.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Milette who is Skeptic also found Aluminium but he claims it was bounded with silicon.

Harrit claim is Aluminium was free and separate from the silicon

There scientists there not idiots they know about cross-contamination.

Explain the difference.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not going back over this again.

This is molten steel in the rubble on 9/11





For Kingmob it a grainy picture, but hey what can you do he still deny the evidence if you produced the explosives for him.

That picture looks like someone cutting through steel with an angle grinder, that is sparks not "flowing molten steel" and before you ask i worked in construction for 20 years so yes i do know what cuttling steel looks like.

Dohnjoe

Yup, we're starting to get all the "photos of molten steel" coming into the thread

If unsure, submit it to metabunk or international skeptics, many of these have been debunked in the past as superheated metal, aluminium with impurities, angle-grinders producing sparks, paper and material on fire (yes really) and others

We'll be getting the "cut metal beams" soon that did the rounds on AE911

36 pages, still no credible evidence of a controlled demolition

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That picture looks like someone cutting through steel with an angle grinder, that is sparks not "flowing molten steel" and before you ask i worked in construction for 20 years so yes i do know what cuttling steel looks like.

Was it a magical angle grinder?

Sparks dont fall to the ground and hang around they burn out and disappear. That not sparks that a yellow/red liquid.

It looks like exactly like molten steel.

By the way, I worked in a welding/engineering company roughly about 10 years ago.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was it a magical angle grinder?

Spark don't fall to the ground and hang around they burn out and disappear. That not sparks that a yellow/red liquid.

It looks like exactly like molten steel.

But again: Thermite cannot produce a pool of molten steel.
If you are arguing that it's molten steel, then you can't claim there was thermite.

That picture would then disprove your theory.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

By the way, I worked in a welding/engineering company roughly about 10 years ago.

Calling bull**** on this. You are a liar and you can't do basic physics. You have no credibility here.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was it a magical angle grinder?

Sparks dont fall to the ground and hang around they burn out and disappear. That not sparks that a yellow/red liquid.

It looks like exactly like molten steel.

By the way, I worked in a welding/engineering company roughly about 10 years ago.

And you can tell this from.a grainy picture taken from so far away? :rolleyes:

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And you can tell this from.a grainy picture taken from so far away? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't be surprised if that photo wasn't actually from Ground Zero at all...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But again: Thermite cannot produce a pool of molten steel.
If you are arguing that it's molten steel, then you can't claim there was thermite.

That picture would then disprove your theory.

I never said was thermite, like how many times do I have to tell you this?

Scientists are claiming they discovered nano-thermite. I also never said it was only nano-thermite was used to take down WTC7.

If thermate is melting steel. What you think happens after this use your brain. Steel is made of Iron. It going to melt and you going to see a slag of iron dripping off. That going to mix with hot temp fire and other materials.