AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

Poster above has not woken up to fact yet NIST said no steel melted, therefore no Iron (melted) either to produce Molten Iron.

Commonsense. some posters lack.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Poster above has not woken up to fact yet NIST said no steel melted, therefore no Iron (melted) either to produce Molten Iron.

Commonsense. some posters lack.

The poster above thought he was on ignore. Guess that wasn't true.

And no one is ignoring what the NIST said. We just know that you are twisting and misrepresenting things. We're not that arsed to reexplain this to you for the 20th time.

Especially when the only reason you're bringing it up is because you want to deflect from the fact the RJ Lee study has completely disproven your silly nanothermite theory.

Even if you are right about the temperatures (you're not) and they are higher than the NIST says and they were the cause of the "molten" iron, then that wasn't due to nanothermite.
Something else would have to be increasing those temperatures because it can't be nanothermite.

RJ Lee has shown that there was no byproducts of nanothermite, therefore there wasn't any thermite.
Case closed again.

Cheerful Spring2

RJ Lee study backs up the truthers position how the heat was generated inside the towers on 9/11 You blinded by official dogma to notice.

Iron vapourised. in one explantation.

Ok lets look and see the temp for vapour Iron.
Iron melts at 1538 °C and turns into a gas at 2862 °C. Gold is somewhat similiar, melting at 1064 °C and boiling at 2856 °C. Mercury, the only liquid metal, requires "only" 356 °C to boil.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...orate-vaporize

Next
Temp does coal based fires burn at.
According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C) under 100% air conditions. More or less air will decrease the temperature. This means that the maximum temperature of a coal fire in a forge is about 3,500°F (1,927°C).

Fires reach these temps inside the towers NO and whataboutery will not change that.

RJ Lee is outlining temps that exceeded the temps proposed by NIST in their study.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ Lee study backs up the truthers position how the heat was generated inside the towers on 9/11 You blinded by official dogma to notice.

But it doesn't.
It proves that there wasn't any aluminium oxide and that none of the iron was the result of reduction.
They show that there was no thermite reaction.
End of story.

In fact, the only truther theory it can possibly support is the space laser theory.
The space laser theory is now far more supported and reasonable than you silly debunked nanothermite nonsense.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I read what they said in the Q and A

Not one person, in the past 20 years, has ever provided credible support that all the buildings were loaded with thermite and "blown up".

Your current argument is based around "iron microspheres = thermite" and that's completely refuted and debunked.

Like every other thread, you just keep playing this denial game, and amazingly reach a final point where the nonsense is actually exhausted (incredibly) and then you start all over again.

You've done this so many times. You'll do precisely the same in another thread in several weeks/months time

Joining any of these threads is like peering into an insane asylum.

Cheerful Spring2

Al+ Iron oxide in the red layer matrix of the nanothermite, ingredients of thermite :rolleyes: XEDs of the chemistry


Ignite it, and burn the ingredients have Molten Iron Fe Spheres as a byproduct.

NIST admitted in their report- a strange smoke appeared at the location of the white flame :eek:
When heated high enough- Al oxide turns to a plume of white smoke.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Al+ Iron oxide in the red layer matrix of the nanothermite, ingredients of thermite :rolleyes: XEDs of the chemistry

They are the ingredients now?

You've claimed a few times that they weren't. You've also changed you mind several times.

However, they are also the ingredients of a great many things.
They aren't the byproduct.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Ignite it, and burn the ingredients have Molten Iron Fe Spheres as a byproduct.

Yes, that's true with thermite.
But RJ Lee states that all of the iron spheres are the result of melting, not reduction. So we know they aren't the byproduct of a thermite reaction.

(Also "Iron Fe spheres" is not a correct term. If you say iron, the Fe is redundant. I suspect that this is because you don't know what Fe means.)

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST admitted in their report- a strange smoke appeared at the location of the white flame :eek:
When heated high enough- Al oxide turns to a plume of white smoke.

And?

The smoke doesn't just vanish.
Not all of the aluminium oxide vanishes.
The single link you're provided for this claim does not say that all of the aluminium oxide vanishes and it does not say that all of it does become smoke.

This is a very silly and childish excuse you've come up with, and I'm afraid it's not adequate.

If there was a thermite reaction, there would be a lot of aluminium oxide in the dust.
There isn't, so there wasn't any thermite.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

The smoke doesn't just vanish.

Haha, I was about to write "smoke comes from thermite, smoke was witnessed at the event, therefore thermite was used"

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not one person, in the past 20 years, has ever provided credible support that all the buildings were loaded with thermite and "blown up".

Your current argument is based around "iron microspheres = thermite" and that's completely refuted and debunked.

Like every other thread, you just keep playing this denial game, and amazingly reach a final point where the nonsense is actually exhausted (incredibly) and then you start all over again.

You've done this so many times. You'll do precisely the same in another thread in several weeks/months time

Joining any of these threads is like peering into an insane asylum.

I don't think you read James Milette study and reviewed it.

He confirmed the same chemistry elements in his chips too:eek: (harrit not lying about the chemistry)
He found silicon, Al and Iron oxide in the red layer

The appearance and description of the plates is different. Milette claims the silicon bonded with Al to make a clay and not free Al to make it a nanothermite

Oystein, already accepted as fact there is nano- Iron oxide particles in the red layer (uniform) at 100 nm.
The guy who debated him found out in 2006 a gram of nano- Iron oxide particles costs 80 to 100 dollars to make and order.
Too expensive to be found in red primer paint.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Oystein has already

Cheerful, again we don't know who this guy is. We don't care what he agreed with or didn't agree with.
The people who disagree with you aren't a big hive mind or a shared organisation.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Haha, I was about to write "smoke comes from thermite, smoke was witnessed at the event, therefore thermite was used"

Where does the smoke go when you light a fire
The other poster thinks its a solid powder again that will all appear in one spot to be noticed

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

harrit not lying about the chemistry

Harrit is a truther and a crank (so is Jones)

Harrit is so insane he claimed there was never an investigation into 9/11 and that no one was wanted for it.

These are the types of people you hold up. They are lunatics at best, deceptive manipulators at worst.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Where does the smoke go when you light a fire

lol

"smoke = thermite"

Wait, try to make the smoke out as "mysterious"

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The other poster thinks its a solid powder again that will all appear in one spot to be noticed

Which poster are you refering to?
Cause noone has claimed "its a solid powder again that will all appear in one spot to be noticed"

I think this is another fib you're telling to avoid an issue you don't want to talk about.

Why are you still pretending I'm on ignore?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Harrit is a truther and a crank (so is Jones)

Harrit is so insane he claimed there was never an investigation into 9/11 and that no one was wanted for it.

These are the types of people you hold up. They are lunatics at best, deceptive manipulators at worst.

Return to deflection tactics. Can't refute points made. Character assassination, next choice

Debunkers are not serious about the debating the facts, they only care about winning an argument.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers are not serious about the debating the facts, they only care about winning an argument.

It's historical fact, it's already established, it's taught in schools around the world.

You are completely denying that and claiming an alternative history took place, one involving secret Nazi's

Yet whenever anyone asks you, you can't even begin to explain what happened..

All of this denial is an Alex Jones circus act to hide the fact that you think your changeable imagined version of history is actually real..

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mark basile an independent chemical engineer confirmed Harrit findings online. He not involved in the truth movement until much later. He collected dust samples independently from museums and universities and did his own tests.

He confirmed there is Al and Iron oxide in the chips. He burned his chip at the same temperatures as Harrit outlined in his study- pure molten Iron was produced.

That's confirmation from someone who tested the dust and not involved in the Harrit study.

Even James Millette admits there Iron oxide and Aluminum/ Silicon in his chips samples.
His claiming the silicon and Al is bonded in the matrix and not free Al to enable a reaction.

In the Harrit paper- there Iron oxide, silicon, Al, some carbon in the red layer and small traces of sulfur and other chemicals. Explain the sulfur content FEMA could not identify in their report and its origin.

So, no aluminum oxide still.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Harrit reported a white smoke came off the red/grey chips when he burned them in the DSC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_scanning_calorimetry

no they didn’t.

Even if they had, which they didn’t, they’ve have to have shown the smoke was in fact aluminum oxide, which they didn’t.

NIST themselves said a white plume (smoke) was saw in the sky in their study. At the event on 9/11

Even if they had, they would have to have shown the smoke was in fact aluminum oxide, which they didn’t.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's historical fact, it's already established, it's taught in schools around the world.
..

In the history books Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and 19 hjackers acted alone no others involved.
Reality is there was a bigger, wider network providing support to the 19.
What we know today is not in the history books.
Saudi government officials and Saudi spies worked with the 19 to pull off the plane hijacking on 9/11. Something i have said for years on here.
You denied the importance of this years ago. [/I
]Watch the Tucker video- they even talk about the CIA actively interrupting a court drama playing out, with 9/11 families are now suing the Saudi government for their role and involvement in the 9/11 attack.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There no issue. Al oxide burns in very hot temperatures and turns to a white plume of smoke that blows away in all directions.

You can even see it here in standard reactions of thermite. This is a test outside in ideal conditions where there is no added heat.

Inside the towers , after the reaction, the hot fires be burning whatever residue left.



NIST highlighted it on page 344. Unusual flame :rolleyes:

Then it would be trivial to collect a sample and prove its aluminum oxide.

Nobody has.

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

These are the types of people you hold up. They are lunatics at best, deceptive manipulators at worst.

A wise, and now dead man.
Once told me that you know a person best by those he associates freely with...

Makes sense

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ Lee study backs up the truthers position how the heat was generated inside the towers on 9/11 You blinded by official dogma to notice.

Iron vapourised. in one explantation.

Ok lets look and see the temp for vapour Iron.
Iron melts at 1538 °C and turns into a gas at 2862 °C. Gold is somewhat similiar, melting at 1064 °C and boiling at 2856 °C. Mercury, the only liquid metal, requires "only" 356 °C to boil.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...orate-vaporize

Next
Temp does coal based fires burn at.
According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C) under 100% air conditions. More or less air will decrease the temperature. This means that the maximum temperature of a coal fire in a forge is about 3,500°F (1,927°C).

Fires reach these temps inside the towers NO and whataboutery will not change that.

RJ Lee is outlining temps that exceeded the temps proposed by NIST in their study.

This just makes your case worse:

You argued aluminum oxide “vaporized” and that’s why we don’t see any evidence of a single trace of it.

Now you argue the iron vaporized and as evidence point to quantities of trace evidence of iron particles in the WTC dust.

Can’t have it both ways. This just underlined the fact that if aluminum oxide was produced by a chemical reaction, it would be there. It isn’t.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Al+ Iron oxide in the red layer matrix of the nanothermite, ingredients of thermite :rolleyes: XEDs of the chemistry


Ignite it, and burn the ingredients have Molten Iron Fe Spheres as a byproduct.

NIST admitted in their report- a strange smoke appeared at the location of the white flame :eek:
When heated high enough- Al oxide turns to a plume of white smoke.

And yet nobody has shown any confirmation in any of this analyses that there is in fact any trace of aluminum oxide.

So, that’s still bunk.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Then it would be trivial to collect a sample and prove its aluminum oxide.

Nobody has.

Where would all the white smoke go blowing in the air? New York is a metropolitan area, and smoke could travel a long distance. Never mind the fact the towers came down and spread dust for miles

The iron will always be there its solid spheres.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Return to deflection tactics. Can't refute points made. Character assassination, next choice

Debunkers are not serious about the debating the facts, they only care about winning an argument.

So says the lad who shouts case closed on the regular.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Where would all the white smoke go blowing in the air? New York is a metropolitan area, and smoke could travel a long distance. Never mind the fact the towers came down and spread dust for miles

The iron will always be there its solid spheres.

They collected dust from all over downtown Manhattan to normalize the profile for WTC Dust.

And in none of it did they find Aluminum Oxide.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

This just makes your case worse:

You argued aluminum oxide “vaporized” and that’s why we don’t see any evidence of a single trace of it.

Now you argue the iron vaporized and as evidence point to quantities of trace evidence of iron particles in the WTC dust.

Can’t have it both ways. This just underlined the fact that if aluminum oxide was produced by a chemical reaction, it would be there. It isn’t.

You are mixing things up again.
RJ Lee discussed two ways to make them. Iron vapourised + coal based fires in a furnace.

How do you melt Iron in 1000 degrees Celsius heat inside the towers
Nobody wants to answer this and provide the experiment- why not?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

They collected dust from all over downtown Manhattan to normalize the profile for WTC Dust.

And in none of it did they find Aluminum Oxide.

Have you spoken with them to confirm this? The white Smoke coming out of the towers at 110 stories high up. It could have gone anywhere.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You are mixing things up again.
RJ Lee discussed two ways to make them. Iron vapourised + coal based fires in a furnace.

How do you melt Iron in 1000 degrees Celsius heat inside the towers
Nobody wants to answer this and provide the experiment- why not?

There’s no proof of any aluminum oxide.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Have you spoken with them to confirm this? The white Smoke coming out of the towers at 110 stories high up. It could have gone anywhere.

RJ Lee’s methodology is posted up on AE911.

You distrust AE911 and RJ Lee now?

Still no evidence of aluminum oxide.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

There’s no proof of any aluminum oxide.

Show us how the Iron content melted in the 1000 degrees Celsius fire inside the Twin Towers. You're avoiding the issue and topic of the thread

Overheal

Section 5.1 Sampling Design and Statistical Analysis.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Show us how the Iron content melted in the 1000 degrees Celsius fire inside the Twin Towers. You're avoiding the issue and topic of the thread

We already went over the alternative explanation (sparks) in great length and vivid detail.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Show us how the Iron content melted in the 1000 degrees Celsius fire inside the Twin Towers. You're avoiding the issue and topic of the thread

We're still waiting for you to explain where all the aluminium went and why all of the iron found wasn't produced by the reduction of the thermite reaction.

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

We're still waiting for you to explain where all the aluminium went and why all of the iron found wasn't produced by the reduction of the thermite reaction.

Well, no, he’s already explained what he thinks happened. We’re past that. Now, we are interested in proving the actual existence of aluminum oxide in the WTC Dust. But, since clearly there isn’t any, it seems to succinctly lay the thermite theory to rest.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Section 5.1 Sampling Design and Statistical Analysis.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

And? The collected samples from the disaster zone area. There no evidence they searched building rooftops all across New York, from this unique zone, and visited people apartments to collect dust samples. The section 5.1 does not confirm your position. Al oxide smoke could have blown in all directions at that height to anywhere and never found or tested. What would it even resemble if it hit a hard surface?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

We already went over the alternative explanation (sparks) in great length and vivid detail.

No you haven't.

How does steel hitting steel produce Molten Iron?
Provide the video.
Cutting and machinery tools is not accepted

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

And? The collected samples from the disaster zone area. There no evidence they searched building rooftops all across New York, from this unique zone, and visited people apartments to collect dust samples. The section 5.1 does not confirm your position. Al oxide smoke could have blown in all directions at that height to anywhere and never found or tested. What would it even resemble if it hit a hard surface?

So then you’re refuting the findings of RJ Lee and think the profile of WTC Dust is bunk?

Well, that’s interesting. But, also, doesn’t bring us any closer to proof of any aluminum oxide.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

No you haven't.

How does steel hitting steel produce Molten Iron?
Provide the video.
Cutting and machinery tools is not accepted

We went over it. The examples provided aptly demonstrate the science. Your childish rejection of the findings is noted.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

So then you’re refuting the findings of RJ Lee and think the profile of WTC Dust is bunk?

Well, that’s interesting. But, also, doesn’t bring us any closer to proof of any aluminum oxide.

Answer the question. It's dishonest to not provide an explantation that fits the evidence on 9/11

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Answer the question. It's dishonest to not provide an explantation that fits the evidence on 9/11

Which is why we are confused when you try to assert it was thermite despite the fact that does not fit the evidence on 9/11 - there was no aluminum oxide present.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Which is why we are confused when you try to assert it was thermite despite the fact that does not fit the evidence on 9/11 - there was no aluminum oxide present.

Iron melted RJ Lee said it in their paper
Explain the science behind it, the process of 1000 degrees Celsius fires melting down Iron to a molten state?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Iron melted RJ Lee said it in their paper
Explain the science behind it, the process of 1000 degrees Celsius fires melting down Iron to a molten state?

This just circles us back around to aluminum oxide again.

Overheal wrote:

Iron doesn’t melt at 1000 C.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been hotter.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been thermite.

Therefore, you argue, there had to be aluminum oxide.

Therefore, you must prove that aluminum oxide was present.

NIST didn’t find aluminum oxide.

AE911 didn’t find aluminum oxide.

UAF didn’t find aluminum oxide.

RJ Lee didn’t find aluminum oxide.

Harrit et al. didnt find aluminum oxide.

Therefore, by your argument, it couldn’t have been thermite.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Iron melted RJ Lee said it in their paper
Explain the science behind it, the process of 1000 degrees Celsius fires melting down Iron to a molten state?

Cheerful, even if you are right about the temperature, it can't be caused by nanothermite.
There has to be another explanation, because it's been shown that the nanothermite explanation is impossible.

We can go into that in more detail (again) if you just accept reality and admit that the lack of aluminium oxide shows that there was no thermite.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

This just circles us back around to aluminum oxide again.

You have no theory how it was done, just be honest.
RJ Lee position is the Iron melted therefore the heat was (above 1500 degrees Celsius) and allowed this change to have taken place in the metal.

NIST temps make this change from Iron to molten Iron impossible.
1000 degrees celsius not high enough to start melting the Iron content.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have no theory how it was done, just be honest.
RJ Lee position is the Iron melted therefore the heat was (above 1500 degrees Celsius) and allowed this change to have taken place in the metal.

NIST temps make this change from Iron to molten Iron impossible.
1000 degrees celsius not high to start melting the Iron content.

It’s from sparks, Cheerful. Anyone can recreate them. It meets the criteria full force for scientific replication.

No aluminum oxide no thermite.

Case closed, as you say.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

It’s from sparks, Cheerful. Anyone can recreate them. It meets the criteria full force for scientific replication.

.

You don't know why this logic is flawed.
What is happening in the steel, flint (no huge amounts of flint in the towers) and oxygen test? What kind of spheres are produced?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don't know why this logic is flawed.
What is happening in the steel, flint (no huge amounts of flint in the towers) and oxygen test? What kind of spheres are produced?

Flint is but one material that can be used to easily spark steel.

Steel against steel will spark steel.

Last I checked there was plenty of steel in the structure as it came crashing down on itself.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

flint (no huge amounts of flint in the towers)

No one has claimed that there was a huge amount of flint in the building.
Steel doesn't require flint to create sparks.
Striking steel on steel produces sparks, which can form molten iron microspheres.
This has been proven for centuries since it was first observed in a microscope by Robert Hooke.

Overheal

It would have to be that Robert Hooke is a time traveler sent by the lizard people to keep people from realizing 9/11 was an inside job. :rolleyes: