AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

?

My view
Outline it clearly here again in the paper.
Common origin, it was no contaminated by workers later.
The event was the collapse of the buildings on 9/11

Kingmob reply next
The Study doesn't say either of those things. That's a misrepresentation you are putting onto the study so it will fit your preferred conclusion.

Blog post proves my point
Based upon these studies, we developed what is commonly known as the “WTC Dust Signature.” This signature demonstrated the unique characteristics of the finely pulverized dust and chemicals resulting from the WTC event and was used to indicate areas of impact in affected buildings.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob reply next
The Study doesn't say either of those things. That's a misrepresentation you are putting onto the study so it will fit your preferred conclusion.

Blog post proves my point

No where in that blog post does it say what you claim it says.

You should also use the quote function to make your posts clearer about when you are quoting something or someone and you are using your own words.

Common origin, it was no contaminated by workers later.
The event was the collapse of the buildings on 9/11

Neither of these lines appear in the text of the blog.
Nothing in the blog can be taken to mean those things.

Cheerful why do you keep ignoring the aluminium oxide issue?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

My view
Outline it clearly here again in the paper.
Common origin, it was no contaminated by workers later.
The event was the collapse of the buildings on 9/11

Kingmob reply next
The Study doesn't say either of those things. That's a misrepresentation you are putting onto the study so it will fit your preferred conclusion.

Blog post proves my point
Based upon these studies, we developed what is commonly known as the “WTC Dust Signature.” This signature demonstrated the unique characteristics of the finely pulverized dust and chemicals resulting from the WTC event and was used to indicate areas of impact in affected buildings.

So your view is outlined in the paper?

The paper found negligible evidence of aluminum. That eliminates the possibility of a thermite reaction.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

So your view is outlined in the paper?

The paper found negligible evidence of aluminum. That eliminates the possibility of a thermite reaction.

Well that doesn’t hold up because the discovery of this many molten Iron spheres suggests a thermatic reaction occurred here. There is no other explanation fits the evidence. A few microspheres here and there may be present, but in this case there too many. Even saying that NIST said no Steel melted therefore no Iron could have inside the building. It’s also impossible to change to Iron oxide to pure Iron again by steel hitting steel. This is sparks not a melting process. Iron melting point is 1500 degrees and mainstream says temps this high never occurred.

The argument about Al does not hold together when you read the Harrit paper. The nanothermite was in chip form not a powder mixing with another powder. Kingmob envisions in his head this occurred here. The ingredients burned at low temp (known to occur in nanothermite US military/lab tests)

With thermite lot higher temps are needed to ignite it. The chips seemed to dissolve when they released the energy. What the saw was a White hot flame shot out of the chip (over 1500 degrees celsius) and gas of some sort was released in the DSC and they noticed pure Iron Microspheres had formed on the end some of the burned chips.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Well that doesn’t hold up because the discovery of this many molten Iron spheres suggests a thermatic reaction occurred here. There is no other explanation fits the evidence.

You're dodging the question.
A thermite reaction produces 3 byproducts, heat, iron and aluminium oxide.

The study shows that there was no aluminium oxide.
How do you explain this?
Where did the aluminium oxide go?
Why did the RJ Lee group not find it?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It’s also impossible to change to Iron oxide to pure Iron again by steel hitting steel.

Noone has claimed this. You are misrepresenting things again.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is sparks not a melting process.

What are sparks then?
Please show the science.

Timberrrrrrrr

This is sparks not a melting process

It's as if he ignores basic science. For someone who claims to be a welder he doesn't know much about metals at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_(fire)

He found that the sparks were usually particles of the steel that had become red hot and so melted into globules

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's as if he ignores basic science. For someone who claims to be a welder he doesn't know much about metals at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_(fire)

He's also been insisting that pure iron doesn't oxidise, which I'm pretty sure is something they would cover in welding training at some point.

Overheal

The argument about Al does not hold together when you read the Harrit paper. The nanothermite was in chip form not a powder mixing with another powder.

Explain to me what you think makes Nanothermite so powerful? How does it work, exactly? What is the science?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob: you don't know the evidence, and have not got all day to explain it to you. And you ignore it anyhow.

The Reality is a leading debunker on international Skeptics forum has conceded a few points already about the nanothermite chips.

Nano Iron particles would not be found in the Towers on 9/11- Red portion of nanothermite chip has uniformly 100 nm Iron oxide.
Red portion composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles - AGREED

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

King Mob: you don't know the evidence, and have not got all day to explain it to you. And you ignore it anyhow.

The Reality is a leading debunker on international Skeptics forum has conceded a few points already about the nanothermite chips.

Nano Iron particles would not be found in the Towers on 9/11- Red portion of nanothermite chip has uniformly 100 nm Iron oxide.
Red portion composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles - AGREED

No mention of aluminum there. Can’t have a thermite reaction without 1 part aluminum 1 part iron oxide.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

He's also been insisting that pure iron doesn't oxidise, which I'm pretty sure is something they would cover in welding training at some point.

Best to ignore you from now on and starts now. You like lying too much.

I said i did not disagree yesterday, but you twist it for your own agenda.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

No mention of aluminum there. Can’t have a thermite reaction without 1 part aluminum 1 part iron oxide.

Debunkers will never get that far and admit its nanothermite

He conceded there was Nano- Iron Oxide in the Red/Grey chips. How that get there? Nano Iron Oxide expensive pre 2001.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers will never get that far and admit its nanothermite

He conceded there was Nano- Iron Oxide in the Red/Grey chips. How that get there? Nano Iron Oxide expensive pre 2001.

What does the “nano” prefix signify?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

What does the “nano” prefix signify?

I'm out. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and was wiling to debate, but you not resorting to Kingmob deflection tactics. Have a good night.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I'm out. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and was wiling to debate, but you not resorting to Kingmob deflection tactics. Have a good night.

I asked you what is meant by nano in this context because you mentioned it like some sort of commodity.

You just don’t like talking to me because I challenge you.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I'm out. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and was wiling to debate, but you not resorting to Kingmob deflection tactics. Have a good night.

As usual, refuses to answer a simple question and runs away.

Fraud!

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

I asked you what is meant by nano in this context because you mentioned it like some sort of commodity.

You just don’t like talking to me because I challenge you.

Thanking your buddies post. Your bias not hidden.
You know what you were doing

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers will never get that far and admit its nanothermite

He conceded there was Nano- Iron Oxide in the Red/Grey chips. How that get there? Nano Iron Oxide expensive pre 2001.

Let’s revisit this while Cheers puts the toys back in the pram.

If this means iron nanoparticles,

“Nano iron oxide expensive pre 2001”

How do you know what iron nanoparticles cost in 2001? Please demonstrate.

And that’s just for my amusement, because you don’t need to “buy” iron nanoparticles for iron nanoparticles to exist, just like I don’t need to buy 10 liters of aerosolized water. That’s because nanoparticles of every element exist in nature. How do we know this? Because they are elemental. Duh. 2 Hydrogen atoms have to mix with a single oxygen atom to form a water molecule. You can’t get more nano than 1 of something.

If for some lab or anally retentive reason you need to buy pure iron nanoparticles, labs sell that to spec. But if you just want to demonstrate some dust, in the real world, that contains iron nanoparticles just do this: 1) find rust 2) rub it off with your hand. You’ve just made perhaps trillions of nanoparticles, discarded countless dead skin cells, etc.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Let’s revisit this while Cheers puts the toys back in the pram.

If this means iron nanoparticles,

“Nano iron oxide expensive pre 2001”

uniform 100 nm Iron oxide particles?
Found in every red/grey chip.
Even Oystein agrees that's true.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

uniform 100 nm Iron oxide particles?
Found in every red/grey chip.
Even Oystein agrees that's true.

Let’s go with that.

Importantly, it doesn’t support any indication of the missing ingredient for thermite reaction: aluminum.

The uniformity is relative. Dirt particles are relatively uniform for example. So is sand. And rain droplets. Uniformity, if the implication here is conspiratorial, doesn’t by itself demonstrate manmade malfeasance.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Importantly, it doesn’t support any indication of the missing ingredient for thermite reaction: aluminum.

The uniformity is relative. Dirt particles are relatively uniform for example. So is sand. And rain droplets. Uniformity, if the implication here is conspiratorial, doesn’t by itself demonstrate manmade malfeasance.

First of all the Al not missing. XED chart of the chemistry of the chips.


Rain, Sand, Dirt, are not embedded in nanothermite- thermatic chips.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

First of all the Al not missing. XED chart of the chemistry of the chips.


Rain, Sand, Dirt, are not embedded in nanothermite- thermatic chips.

Neither it seems are aluminum nanoparticles. Harrit et al. do not claim to have identified any.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Neither it seems are aluminum nanoparticles. Harrit et al. do not claim to have identified any.

Think of this way.

Harrit burning the chips and they produced elemental iron microspheres. He showed it
WTC dust has a massive amount of iron microspheres formed by very high-temperature.
The Fe- spheres have the same chemistry in both studies.
We still looking for low probability event to explain the amount?
They're a source in the dust, explains why the Fe-spheres are there, Harrit team found it.

Regards the study he says there Al nanoparticles mixed with the Iron Oxide nanoparticles in the red layer.

Cheerful Spring2

Behind the Aluminum sheeting, the perimeter steel columns, are located and fixed in place (spandrels) you see a red/hot liquid pouring out through a gap.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Behind the Aluminum sheeting, the perimeter steel columns, are located and fixed in place (spandrels) you see a red/hot liquid pouring out through a gap.

So there we have it: if there was any thermitic reaction at WTC it was from existing aluminum and existing sources of rust! The jet fuel fires surely provided sufficient starting heat.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

So there we have it: if there was any thermitic reaction at WTC it was from existing aluminum and existing sources of rust! The jet fuel fires surely provided sufficient starting heat.

What not bad attempt but no.
Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started.

Aluminum sheeting + rust would have to see the experiment and the temp ignites at, could it?

The maximum temperature for towers fires is 1000 degrees Celsius. NIST messed up here and ignored the molten Iron spheres found in the dust..

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What not bad attempt but no.
Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started.

Aluminum sheeting + rust would have to see the experiment and the temp ignites at, could it?

The maximum temperature for towers fires is 1000 degrees Celsius. NIST messed up here and ignored the molten Iron spheres found in the dust..

Jet fuel burns at over 2000 C.

Heck a cigarette lighter does too.

Overheal

NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Jet fuel burns at over 2000 C.

Heck a cigarette lighter does too.

1500F= 800 degrees Celsius. Another good reason why the Molten Iron spheres discovery a problem for the official story!

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

1500F= 800 degrees Celsius. Another good reason why the Molten Iron spheres discovery a problem for the official story!

Think again.

Would it really make sense to you that jet fuel burns colder than a cigarette lighter? I should hope not.