AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes but i never brought it up here in the first place. You even thanked Dohnjoe for the post he made. Come on now tell others to follow the rules?

He didn’t drag the topic down into free fall. The post was about structural engineering and the damage caused by fire to steel construction.

Overheal

How do you explain the lack of aluminum oxide?

We should see equal parts aluminum oxide and pure iron, these are the two byproducts left behind by a thermite reaction.

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn’t exclude the possibility of flash points in the fire that were hotter.

Or the fact that with windows blown out across the floors of the WTC that fires would have very likely have been drawing large amounts of forced air through the building and with a resultant increase in temperature of all fire in the building.

I'd posit an "open" fire as burning in an open area such as a field with no chimney or forced draught effect.

Much like a fire in a fireplace at home, simply placing newspaper over the hearth opening will increase the draught and the rate and temperature of combustion.

The fire resultant from the aircraft at the WTC cannot be considered as open fires, particularly during the fuel burn off phase.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

He didn’t drag the topic down into free fall. The post was about structural engineering and the damage caused by fire to steel construction.

Read the quotes again - and did not provide a link to either.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read the quotes again - and did not provide a link to either.

What I’m telling you which applies equally to everyone here is that free fall discussion belongs in the free fall thread.

The fact that the quote mentioned a building fell does not make it a free fall post.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

How do you explain the lack of aluminum oxide?

We should see equal parts aluminum oxide and pure iron, these are the two byproducts left behind by a thermite reaction.

How do you explain the lack of Iron oxide in the list? It's a silly question.

Debunkers even accept there was Iron Oxide, but not listed!!!!

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

What I’m telling you which applies equally to everyone here is that free fall discussion belongs in the free fall thread.

The fact that the quote mentioned a building fell does not make it a free fall post.

Was it off topic? You're showing your bias here again for one side on the forum.

King Mob

I believe cheerful's entered the phase where he's going to moan about Overheal being a terrible moderator, declare he's leaving forever (for the 10th time I think) and/or attempt to get himself banned.

In my opinion this is all a pretty transparent act to avoid problems he can't address and to avoid the fact that he's kind of snookered himself again.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How do you explain the lack of Iron oxide in the list? It's a silly question.

Debunkers even accept there was Iron Oxide, but not listed!!!!

Iron oxide would be present regardless. That’s not interesting. The buildings were made up of thousands of tons of iron. If not hundreds of thousands. Iron rusts, and forms iron oxide on its skin. It would be frightfully interesting however to find equal parts aluminum oxide microspheres where we find iron microspheres.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Was it off topic? You're showing your bias here again for one side on the forum.

I’m telling you and him then right now where that topic belongs.

That’s the end of the discussion.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Iron oxide would be present regardless. That’s not interesting. The buildings were made up of thousands of tons of iron. If not hundreds of thousands. Iron rusts, and forms iron oxide on its skin. It would be frightfully interesting however to find equal parts aluminum oxide microspheres where we find iron microspheres.

It not on the list so it invalidates your entire position. Al is listed (aluminum)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not on the list so it invalidates your entire position. Al is listed (aluminum)

Lol.
Aluminium oxide is not listed.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not on the list so it invalidates your entire position. Al is listed (aluminum)

Where we see close ups of 100 nanometer iron microspheres we should see an equal number of 100 nanometer aluminum oxide microspheres.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Where we see close ups of 100 nanometer iron microspheres we should see an equal number of 100 nanometer aluminum oxide microspheres.

You disputing the XEDS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy

Al+ Iron oxide+ silicon Oxygen.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You disputing the XEDS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy

Al+ Iron oxide+ silicon Oxygen.

Shows me irons, iron oxides, alumina silicates, some aluminum, but no aluminum oxides.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You disputing the XEDS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy

Al+ Iron oxide+ silicon Oxygen.

This is not from the RJ Lee study.

Also, I'm a bit unclear what your response and explanation is.

It seems you're claiming that there was aluminium oxide, which would be a contradiction of the RJ Lee study which says there wasn't any...

Is the RJ Lee study wrong now?

King Mob

Was looking for something else, but instead found this:


Kinda weird how in their "debunk" of Mick West AE9/11 they still use the RJ Lee study as evidence...

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Shows me irons, iron oxides, alumina silicates, some aluminum, but no aluminum oxides.

There is a high concentration of aluminum + Iron oxide in the red layer. This is the ingredients for thermite.

If there was no reaction- explain the Fe Iron spheres after the burning test?



Previously molten Iron- on the burned Red layer.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There is a high concentration of aluminum + Iron oxide in the red layer. This is the ingredients for thermite.

But you were claiming earlier that there was no iron oxide...?

Also still not seeing any explanation for the lack of aluminium oxide...

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There is a high concentration of aluminum + Iron oxide in the red layer. This is the ingredients for thermite.

If there was no reaction- explain the Fe Iron spheres after the burning test?



Previously molten Iron- on the burned Red layer.

The thermite reaction is, 1 part iron oxide + 1 part aluminum -> aluminum oxide + iron.

Where is the aluminum oxide?

Cheerful Spring2

According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C) under 100% air conditions.

Most organic compounds have a constant-pressure adiabatic flame temperature in a narrow range around 1950 °C.

It would be no surprise to find Iron spheres here correct.

9/11 fires are 1000 degrees Celsius. All mainstream studies about the collapse of the Twin Tower says this.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Was looking for something else, but instead found this:


Kinda weird how in their "debunk" of Mick West AE9/11 they still use the RJ Lee study as evidence...

How could anyone extrapolate "nano-thermite" from this report when the explanation is right there in black and white, from the authors of the report

This whole debate is so contrived.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

The thermite reaction is, 1 part iron oxide + 1 part aluminum -> aluminum oxide + iron.

Where is the aluminum oxide?

You disputing the science here.
The Red layer was burned and molten Iron appeared.
There is an oxide of Al in the matrix.
Chemical analysis showed there was elemental Al.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C) under 100% air conditions.

Most organic compounds have a constant-pressure adiabatic flame temperature in a narrow range around 1950 °C.

It would be no surprise to find Iron spheres here correct.

9/11 fires are 1000 degrees Celsius. All mainstream studies about the collapse of the Twin Tower says this.

Cheerful, firstly, you lied when you said I was on ignore.

Secondly, RJ Lee himself is saying that the iron microspheres were formed by the fires and that this was perfectly reasonable.
He does not say anything about nanothermite.

Are you calling RJ Lee, the guy behind the study, is lying?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9/11 fires are 1000 degrees Celsius. All mainstream studies about the collapse of the Twin Tower says this.

Yeah, but it's not an exact science since they have to theorise about the temps, it could have been hotter for a period. National Geographic used the same jet fuel in their experiment and it burnt at up to 2,000c. The steel took just a few minutes before it failed.

Not that it matters, 1000c is more than enough to severely weaken load bearing steel to the point of failure and cause thermal expansion

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There is an oxide of Al in the matrix.

Lol..

The RJ Lee study showed there wasn't any aluminium oxide.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Chemical analysis showed there was elemental Al.

Elemental aluminium is not aluminium oxide.
You've been arguing up and down that when the study says "iron" they can only possibly mean elemental iron.
You are contradicting yourself in a very embarrassing way.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You disputing the science here.
The Red layer was burned and molten Iron appeared.
There is an oxide of Al in the matrix.
Chemical analysis showed there was elemental Al.

There is no aluminum oxide shown. Elemental aluminum was a large part of the building. Thousands of tons of aluminum exoskeleton. The planes themselves were aluminum primarily. Not to mention any amount of furnishings that were aluminum, like office equipment and appliances.

No the problem here is you are saying iron microspheres formed as a result of being burned in the lab at what, 460 C or whatever right.

So, the byproducts of that burning, if it is thermite, should be 1 part elemental iron, 1 part aluminum oxide. If the elemental iron shows up as microspheres the aluminum oxide would show up as microspheres also.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah, but it's not an exact science since they have to theorise about the temps, it could have been hotter for a period. National Geographic used the same jet fuel in their experiment and it burnt at up to 2,000c. The steel took just a few minutes before it failed.

Not that it matters, 1000c is more than enough to severely weaken load bearing steel to the point of failure and cause thermal expansion

The Jet fuel has an open air burn temp of 1030 degrees Celsius ( 9/11 conditions) and No side of the debate to date has denied that.
You decided to push the temp up higher and may have got hotter, and what do you base this on?
This is a forum for dealing with recognized details 'dreaming it' not acceptable, NIST says no steel melted therefore no pure Iron product or component inside the building could have melted down inside the building to make pure Iron spheres.
The experiment silly- placed a pool of liquid fuel under a thinly H- steel beam and set it on fire. Steel had no fireproofing, had no shear studs, had no construction fittings to keep it from sagging. Just placed on a barrier from one end to the next and allowed to sag till it fell off.

You forget here all steel is not equal. Steel has different stabilities, and strengths and some steel will diminish and soften faster. 

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is a forum for dealing with recognized details 'dreaming it' not acceptable

Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahaahahaahahaa

[laughs in controlled demolition]

King Mob

And just a reminder from the first post in the thread:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Chris Sarns:
West isn't qualified to second-guess the RJ Lee Group. Let's look at this description of what the consulting firm does: "With more than 30 years in the business of testing materials, RJ Lee had the needed expertise in industrial forensics, in determining the severity of an environmental hazard, and of health risks."

RJ Lee is clear that "the microspheres were formed during the event" — not before, not after, but "during." There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis.

Richard J. Lee, founder of the RJ Lee Group itself says:

The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

Nothing about nanothermite there.

And regarding the formation of the microspheres, which both Cheerful and AE9/11 contend can only have been formed by thermite, Richard Lee states:

What about the Iron mircospheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can easily be removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vapourised. Like drops of water the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form.

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/www.nmsr.org_rjlee.jpg

No mention of thermite at all.

And given that the study also shows that there's no aluminium oxide present, it completely debunks the nanothermite theory.

As AE9/11 said:
There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis.