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
AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Cool. Where does it say it was due to nanothermite?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »You have no leg to stand on now. I'm sure you spin anyway
RJLee group confirms my opinion on page 17. Confirmation the steel/Iron melted like I said had to have occurred here.
Where does it say that the building was demolished?
Where does it say "extreme temperatures"?
It's also funny because the study actually says:Particles of partially burned or melted plastic (vesicular carbonaceous
particles), not expected in “normal” dust, were commonly observed in
WTC Dust due to the fire that accompanied the WTC Event. Additionally,
the concentrations of various burned phases and the characteristics of
specific phases, also proved to be excellent “fingerprints” for WTC Event
dusts.Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or
were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust
Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced
combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC
Dust. Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materialsIn addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of
heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic,
bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting
and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens,
and paint during the WTC Event.
Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly
if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially
combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building
dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.
Also note how there's no mention of nanothermite, explosives or exotic materials.
Note how there's no mention of the temperatures accepted by rational people being wrong.
Again, claiming that this study agrees with your silly conspiracy theory is completely and utterly dishonest.
It's also funny cause it's very obvious that you have only just now read it.
You are confusing what the study says with your silly notion that whole beams of metal melted into puddles and rivers.
This is because you are desperate for any kind of point and you are very dishonest and willing to twist things completely to suit your desperation.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Lol. What are you talking about about?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Kingmob salty I exposed his whataboutery on here.. For days his said I was wrong,and is now confronted with the truth and still tries to twist it, funny stuff. Best to ignore him.
Again, none of that is true.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »RJLee group finished their study in 2003-04 and what likely has occurred here is, they found there was a massive amount of Fe Spheres in the dust and believed the temperatures of the fires got that hot inside the buildings to melt Iron and Steel. Not their fault really!
You however are now second guessing the report based on nothing.
You are not qualified to second guess the report.
But you can produce iron microspheres a lot of ways that don't require you to melt down entire steel beams.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »The Reality is normal office fires are not hot enough to melt steel or Iron. Steel and Iron melted inside the building is more evidence the truthers are right.
I've made several points about your dishonest claims cheerful. Are you going to ignore them and run away again?0 -
Lol. What are you talking about about?
Again, none of that is true.
You however are now second guessing the report based on nothing.
You are not qualified to second guess the report.
But you can produce iron microspheres a lot of ways that don't require you to melt down entire steel beams.
Your nonsense exposed, stop talking.
RJ Lee group outlines at the very bottom how this happened inside the building, so wake up from your sleep.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Confirmed I was right here.
You're too stubborn to admit you're wrong about anything.
No cheerful, it doesn't.
You are either desperate or delusional.
Them saying the word "melted" does not prove any of your claims right.
It doesn't prove that there were being rivers and pools of molten metal.
That's not what the says.
It also still does not address any of the points you're running away from or make your previous claims any less dishonest.
The study does not support your conspiracy theory.
I'm not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting it or you are being let down by your poor level of reading comprehension.
I will explain this to you as your level:
When they are referring to the melted metal, they are referring to the tiny microscopic pieces that form the microspheres.
In case it's a new word to you, Particle which means "a very small piece." These very small pieces are what melt.
This is why they form shiny spheres.
Even when microspheres are formed when say you hit some steel really hard, tiny bits of metal break off from the impact and have become very hot from the friction and the energy of breaking off. This melts the tiny flakes, and surface tension (a big word for you, I know) forms them into a round shape.
This is why you see bright glowing sparks from metal if you hit it in the right way.
The metal object itself does not melt. The tiny parts that break off do.
And again, this is one way you can produce microspheres without melting down an entire bar of metal.
I tried to explain it like I would to a small child, but I think you are still going to ignore it and stick to the tactic you are currently attempting.
This tactic seems to be "Nyah Nyah, they said "melted" that means I win."0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
No cheerful, it doesn't.
You are either desperate or delusional.
Them saying the word "melted" does not prove any of your claims right.
It doesn't prove that there were being rivers and pools of molten metal.
That's not what the says.
It also still does not address any of the points you're running away from or make your previous claims any less dishonest.
The study does not support your conspiracy theory.
I'm not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting it or you are being let down by your poor level of reading comprehension.
I will explain this to you as your level:
When they are referring to the melted metal, they are referring to the tiny microscopic pieces that form the microspheres.
In case it's a new word to you, Particle which means "a very small piece." These very small pieces are what melt.
This is why they form shiny spheres.
Even when microspheres are formed when say you hit some steel really hard, tiny bits of metal break off from the impact and have become very hot from the friction and the energy of breaking off. This melts the tiny flakes, and surface tension (a big word for you, I know) forms them into a round shape.
This is why you see bright glowing sparks from metal if you hit it in the right way.
The metal object itself does not melt. The tiny parts that break off do.
And again, this is one way you can produce microspheres without melting down an entire bar of metal.
I tried to explain it like I would to a small child, but I think you are still going to ignore it and stick to the tactic you are currently attempting.
This tactic seems to be "Nyah Nyah, they said "melted" that means I win."
Lies lies and more lies.
Spherical Iron particle is the FE spheres found in the WTC dust.
The outline clearly in their report, why this happened- steel/iron melted inside the building.
You can keep up this nonsense, and try to fool people on here, thinking you have some knowledge reality is your clueless.
Now it melted Metal
0 -
-
-
Which parts are lies cheerful. Be specific.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Lies lies and more lies.
Yes. I know. What is your point here?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Spherical Iron particle is the FE spheres found in the WTC dust.
Yes. Small steel/iron particles melted to form iron microspheres.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »The outline clearly in their report, why this happened- steel/iron melted inside the building.
I'm not trying to fool any one.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »You can keep up this nonsense, and try to fool people on here, thinking you have some knowledge reality is your clueless.
Now it melted Metal
If anyone believes I'm wrong and cheerful is right, anyone at all, please say so.
0 -
Which parts are lies cheerful. Be specific.
Yes. I know. What is your point here?
Yes. Small steel/iron particles melted to form iron microspheres.
I'm not trying to fool any one.
If anyone believes I'm wrong and cheerful is right, anyone at all, please say so.
All of it, but i don't have all day to make posts. This is a full time job for you.
Why are you twisting this info? How hot would it need to be for FE spheres to appear? What temps does Steel and Iron start melting at? Answer honestly.0 -
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »In a different thread on here, you spent the guts of a week claiming that IB was the international symbol for pound and not LB as others pointed out to you on many, many occasions. You even mocked one of the lads for claiming it should have been LB, insulting their intelligence. Then, lo and behold, when you realised you had been caught with your jocks around your ankles, you claimed it was an honest mistake.
You are also now claiming another honest mistake with your mix up of the Harrit and RJLee studies.
There was absolutely no way that you made an honest mistake with the IB / LB nonsense.
There is also zero percent chance that you have made an honest mistake now with mixing up the lee / harrit studies.
Like, 0%. There is no way you could have mixed up the two with everybody talking about the studies, constantly.
Here's what I think: You made a claim, said something was in the study which was not, then defended it blindly until you were backed into a corner and had no option but to put up or shut up. Then, you held your hands in the air....."whoops, sorry guys.....I f*cked up" and continued on like nothing happened.
You are barely comprehensible at times. Your writing style is a disgrace. You are an abject lesson in how to cherry pick bits and pieces that suit your agenda, even going so far as to quote posts that are asking you multiple questions, editing those out, and responding to the one question that you have copied and pasted from elsewhere.
You are intellectually dishonest, a master at deflection, and you behave like an 8 year old when they're caught lying, by projecting your own shortfalls onto others and claim it is they who are lying, cherry-picking, contradicting and deflecting.
You, sir, are a disgrace. A charlatan and a spoofer. I don't know how the regulars find it in themselves to keep rebutting your bullsh1t with the same answers that you have ignored on previous occasions. But I'm glad they do.
Your posts alone have done more damage to the 'truther' movement than anybody I've ever had the misfortune to read.
What embarrassing you guys don't know the melting point of steel and Iron.
The Iron would have to have melted at this Celsius for the FE spheres to appear.
The fires only reached 1000 degrees Celsius so the official narrative is false.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement