Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
No, I'm just pointing out where you are being dishonest and are twisting and misunderstanding facts.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »As a debunker you trying to cast doubt on what has occurred here.
You do that a lot, so there's a lot to point out.
But that's not what the study says.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Explained and outlined for weeks now the Fe-spheres formed inside the building on 9/11
When the planes hit the building, and the time before the collapses, is when the Fe- spheres got made, end of story.
But the other ways are examples to show that there's many ways to produce iron microspheres without giant roaring fires and melting down steel beams.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »RJLee group does not claim they got made outside the building, and yet you still go to great lengths to confuse here, and bring up others ways to make them, and the theory does not apply here for the building at all (fire striker no)
Also, you stated that it was impossible for iron to reach melting point without a massive source of heat. However, the example of the fire striker shows that's nonsense. A fire striker can produce melting iron and microspheres.
You believe that's impossible.
No, they didn't. This has been explained to you.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »RJ Lee group study- there was a massive amount of elemental Iron Spheres found in the WTC dust.
Elemental iron oxidises and becomes iron oxide when exposed to the air.
You are now saying that this isn't the case. You are again denying basic science.
It's extra funny because this seems like something a welder would know. But you don't, so I again doubt your claims.
And?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Elemental Iron has a melting point of over 1500 degrees Celsius. NIST says fires on 9/11 were 1000 degrees Celsius. Only for a brief period when the jet fuel burned.
Ok, here's the chemical equation for a thermite reaction:Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »How many times do I have tell you this again Nano thermite and thermite are different..
What's the chemical equation for a nanothermite reaction?
I fully expect you to dodge the question completely.
It will be very funny.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Why would I do that when that's not what I claimed they said?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Find an actual quote in the RG Lee group paper with them claiming the Fe- spheres were made by torches, arc welding, fire striker and so on?
Why would I do that when you dodged the quest I asked?
And now you're changing it.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »F
RG Lee group specifies they got made during the during the event not afterwards and not before it. You're twisting the findings here.
They don't say: "not afterwards and not before it."
That phrase or anything like it is not in the study.
I'd ask you to provide a quote that shows otherwise, but we both know you can't and won't do that.
Further, the study doesn't actually define "event" clearly.
The could be talking about the entire attack. They could be referring to just the fire. They could be refering to just the collapse. They could be referring to the whole event from the attack to the rescue operation to the clean up.
It's ambiguous, but they didn't need to specify, because that wasn't part of the studies goals.
Yes, you keep saying, but you don't seem to actually understand what you're talking about.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »F
Fe- spheres are previously molten Iron. That cool to a spherical shape.
And again, there's many ways to produce them that doesn't require giant fires or magic thermite.
I provided an example of one. Since you didn't address it, that shows you can't show it's wrong, impossible or unlikely, you're just not honest enough to admit that.
And on that topic, you have again failed to produce the chemical equation for nanothermite. This is because you don't know it and you're too dishonest and cowardly to admit that you don't know it.
So, since you don't know it and can't contradict it, we have to use the chemical equation for normal thermite.
The materials don't really change the basics of the equation as they all involve oxides.
Also you've previously claimed that elemental iron is one of the byproducts and that aluminium is a component.
Thus, we can use the equation for normal thermite. If you disagree, you're going to have to provide a more accurate equation.
So the equation for thermite is:
And as we can see, aluminium oxide is a byproduct.
The RJ Lee shows no aluminium oxide (according to your very strict definition of terms), so therefore it proves that there was no thermetic reaction.
The RJ Lee study shows your theory is false.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »This is good to see a top construction news site based in Canada now wrote an article.
The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) has formally filed a Request for Correction with the NIST following a new and detailed four-year analysis by a team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).
It says the World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 collapse was a “near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building” and dismissed the NIST finding that heat from the fire caused beams to “walk off” their moorings.
Sept. 11, 2001 is the tragedy of when two hijacked planes hit the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers sending debris tumbling onto WTC 7. The NIST claimed that embers ignited a fire which then caused the 47-storey building to collapse on itself at 5:20 p.m., hours after the initial incident that morning.
“We have filed a request for correction because the NIST report is wrong,” says Ted Walter, spokesperson for AE911T, which is a group of 3,000 engineers, scientists and architects, including more than a dozen Canadians ones, that paid US$316,000 for the study.
“From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions,” said Walter.
The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger “thermal movements” at a critical base plate support.
Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on “science and engineering” and accept that controlled demolition is a plausible cause.
https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report
"The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a “controlled demolition” and says its only interest is in ensuring that there’s no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault."
lol
I don't think I've ever seen a less accurate use of the phraseology, 'ie.'Oxidation occurs when the oxidation state of a molecule, atom or ion is increased.
The opposite process is called reduction, ie Molten Iron spheres.
'n pure oxygen, things which are normally not flammable, such as iron or steel, can become very flammable.
In the following demonstration, a piece of steel wool is heated in a Bunsen burner flame, and then thrust into a jar containing pure oxygen. The iron glows with a bright yellow-orange color as it becomes hot enough to melt slightly, and throws off a shower of sparks. The slight "tick" sound heard during the demo is the sound of the glass jar breaking from the intense heat of the reaction. (The procedure is shown at three different levels of magnification [link].)'
https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/burning_iron/burning_iron.htm
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
"The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a “controlled demolition” and says its only interest is in ensuring that there’s no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault."
lolI don't think I've ever seen a less accurate use of the phraseology, 'ie.'
'n pure oxygen, things which are normally not flammable, such as iron or steel, can become very flammable.
In the following demonstration, a piece of steel wool is heated in a Bunsen burner flame, and then thrust into a jar containing pure oxygen. The iron glows with a bright yellow-orange color as it becomes hot enough to melt slightly, and throws off a shower of sparks. The slight "tick" sound heard during the demo is the sound of the glass jar breaking from the intense heat of the reaction. (The procedure is shown at three different levels of magnification [link].)'
https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/burning_iron/burning_iron.htm
Bunsen burner flame
The hottest part of the Bunsen flame, which is found just above the tip of the primary flame, reaches about 1,500 °C (2,700 °F).
NIST says in their paper fires are only 1000 degress Celcius no Iron or steel melted
0 -
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Bunsen burner flame
The hottest part of the Bunsen flame, which is found just above the tip of the primary flame, reaches about 1,500 °C (2,700 °F).
NIST says in their paper fires are only 1000 degress Celcius no Iron or steel melted
There are other means of exposing iron to oxygen than this method. It does not require 1500 C of heat to accomplish. Flint and steel works on this principle:
"Iron, whether man-made objects or naturally occurring in rocks, will rust upon exposure to oxygen in the air. The act of rusting is actually an exothermic reaction called “oxidation”, which is a fancy way of saying when iron touches the oxygen in the air a reaction occurs; the iron rusts (turns into iron oxide) and gives off heat. In other words, it burns.
The simplified chemical reaction can be expressed as:
Fe2 + O2 = Fe2O3 + heat
Or in simple English:
Iron + Oxygen = Rust + Heat
Rusting (oxidizing) is the exact same thing as burning, but unlike a campfire usually you will hardly notice it. Because of the relatively size of a typical iron object, the heat it gives off as it rusts dissipates too quickly for the heat to accumulate and be of much use.
Copyright © SurvivalTopics.com Read more at: http://survivaltopics.com/flint-and-steel-what-causes-the-sparks/"0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Flint and Steel is just Iron oxide (rust) Are we going to stick to the facts here today or not? RL Lee group found massive amounts of pure Iron Fe spheres in 6 percent of WTC dust. Formed during the WTC event.
If we're sticking to facts: Flint is flint, Steel is steel, and Rust is rust. Flint is a sedimentary cryptocrystalline form of the mineral quartz, categorized as the variety of chert that occurs in chalk or marly limestone. In other words: flint is not rust..
Iron Fe spheres melt at 1500 degrees Celsius. If you believe they can make elemental Fe Spheres at lower temperatures provide the science?
I would tell you to skip to @#
# but please admire his indulgent intro.
This wilderness-bro accomplishes the production of iron spheres with his bro-ness, flint, steel, and a microscope.
Calling this "pure iron" is misleading - the reason these spheres don't continue to combust is they have already developed a skin of iron oxide. In the case of steel that can also be a skin of carbon oxides.0 -
-
-
-
-
Overheal: you're posting experiments are unrelated- have no application to the WTC event. There single experiments on Youtube. Are you missing the point here there was an abundance of Fe spheres found in the WTC dust?
How did the Iron melt inside the building?
Explain the process- what temp.
Keep in mind NIST says no steel melted (therefore no Iron melted either)0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement