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)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
People don't see good and don't look up information.
Coal fire how hot is it?
Explantation
According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C)
900 degrees Celsius higher than the fires on 9/110 -
-
So cheerful, you are now disagreeing with yourself and you are calling into question the work of the RJ Lee group rather than just give up your debunked theory.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »People don't see good and don't look up information.
Coal fire how hot is it?
Explantation
According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C)
900 degrees Celsius higher than the fires on 9/11
That's very intellectually dishonest.
Also, you've been switching between the notions that the microspheres were formed by heat and that they were formed as a by product of the thermetic reaction.
Which is it?
I suspect you are dishonestly claiming it's both so you can use different arguments to suit your position.
Richard Lee states that they were caused by heat, not a thermite reaction.
So again, the RJ Lee group's study debunks the nanothermite theory.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Even if you cherrypick RJ Lee, it doesn't explain away the lack of aluminum oxide. There should be heaps of it.
The position we agree on is- Iron Fe Microspheres were identified. My position is different to how they got produced though inside the building!
My basic disagreement is the fires were not hot enough inside the building to make them. When mainstream studies dispute temperatures higher than 1000 degrees Celsius then I don’t regard my approach here as absurd at all!
Steel has a lower melting point than Iron and molten Iron sphere is not what you discover in dust after building fires. This is disputed evidence? Clear the air and i am open to a correction!
Another poster on here believe is RJ Lee is concurring with Mick West and backs him up.
Applied to the Towers in what way?
Hurricane blast furnace?
How does Iron vaporise inside the twin towers?
How hot where the temps (“red hot or hotter?) All this is discounted by the other poster.
Harrit
Quote:
“Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminium is present. The iron oxide and aluminium are intimately mixed in the red material.
There’s a list of chemical materials found in the WTC dust not presented on this list by RJ Lee and nobody complains there and this material was not an isolated powder substance with the residue after burn noticeable in experiments ( you find the video online) I saw no dripping coming off the burned chips in the experiment.
When a low flame (hit the chip) at 430 degrees Celsius a white hot flame enveloped the chip and no standard thermite mix can accomplish that at temperatures this low. The temp of the white flame after burn was between 1500 degrees Celsius and 2500 degrees Celsius. A gassy substance was also released (might be carbon or something else Harrit unsure)
The chemical particles are ingrained in a very tightly packed chip matrix. We can’t compare standard thermite to this highly advanced military grade material. I know another poster thinks we staring at thermite here and is not an advanced incendiary with unique chemistry.
0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »T
My basic disagreement is the fires were not hot enough inside the building to make them.
This is directly contradicted by the report you are citing. Specifically the 3rd paragraph
0 -
Cheerful, I don't understand why you are pretending I'm on ignore. It's very odd.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Another poster on here believe is RJ Lee is concurring with Mick West and backs him up.
And RJ Lee does concurr with the official story. He says so.
He specifically outlines how the iron microspheres formed.
You are saying he, and his groups study is wrong, in contradiction to the original post you made.
RJ Lee also does not at all say anything about thermite or any kind.
He specifically stats that the spheres were created by heat, not as a byproduct of a thermite reaction of any kind.
Claiming that he and his study supports the conspiracy theory is dishonest. Doubly so after this letter.
This argument is nonsense and shows that you don't actually know what you're talking about.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »The chemical particles are ingrained in a very tightly packed chip matrix. We can’t compare standard thermite to this highly advanced military grade material. I know another poster thinks we staring at thermite here and is not an advanced incendiary with unique chemistry.
You previously quoted the debunked Harritt study saying:
You and the frauds at AE9/11 are claiming that the magicnanothermite is composed of iron oxide and aluminium.The iron oxide and aluminium are intimately mixed in the red material.
It doesn't matter how "highly advanced military grade" it is or if it's in a "tightly packed chip matrix", the chemical reaction will remain fundamentally the same.
That chemical reaction is given in the equation:
For any kind of thermitelike material that uses iron oxide and aluminium as it's reactants, the byproducts are going to iron and aluminium oxide in equal amounts.
That is true for thermite. It's true for nanothermite.
If you are going to claim that there were different chemicals involved, then this contradicts your previous claims and the findings of the Harrit paper.
I asked you before to provide the chemical equation for nanothermite's reaction, but we all know that you are unable to provide this.
So if it was nanothermite, there would be lots of iron and aluminium oxide.
But according to RJ Lee, for whom you have no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of...
1. there was no aluminium oxide. (You have not at all addressed or explained this.)
and
2. the iron found was produced by heat, not the byproduct of a thermite reaction.
So since there are none of the byproducts of a thermite reaction of any variety present in the dust of 9/11, there was no thermite or any variety
Even if you're right and the temperatures given in the official story were wrong and they were in reality higher, then you still have to reject the notion of nanothermite because of the lack of byproducts.
No byproducts = no nanothermite.
RJ Lee's study shows that there were no byproducts.
So you have to find another explanation for how it got so hot in the buildings...
Perhaps a space laser of some kind...0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »The position we agree on is- Iron Fe Microspheres were identified. My position is different to how they got produced though inside the building!
My basic disagreement is the fires were not hot enough inside the building to make them. When mainstream studies dispute temperatures higher than 1000 degrees Celsius then I don’t regard my approach here as absurd at all!
Steel has a lower melting point than Iron and molten Iron sphere is not what you discover in dust after building fires. This is disputed evidence? Clear the air and i am open to a correction!
Another poster on here believe is RJ Lee is concurring with Mick West and backs him up.
Applied to the Towers in what way?
Hurricane blast furnace?
How does Iron vaporise inside the twin towers?
How hot where the temps (“red hot or hotter?) All this is discounted by the other poster.
Harrit
Quote:
“Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminium is present. The iron oxide and aluminium are intimately mixed in the red material.
There’s a list of chemical materials found in the WTC dust not presented on this list by RJ Lee and nobody complains there and this material was not an isolated powder substance with the residue after burn noticeable in experiments ( you find the video online) I saw no dripping coming off the burned chips in the experiment.
When a low flame (hit the chip) at 430 degrees Celsius a white hot flame enveloped the chip and no standard thermite mix can accomplish that at temperatures this low. The temp of the white flame after burn was between 1500 degrees Celsius and 2500 degrees Celsius. A gassy substance was also released (might be carbon or something else Harrit unsure)
The chemical particles are ingrained in a very tightly packed chip matrix. We can’t compare standard thermite to this highly advanced military grade material. I know another poster thinks we staring at thermite here and is not an advanced incendiary with unique chemistry.
So let's move past that: you contend the heat was thermitic. Cool. Ok. Let's work with that.
We don't know that the chips are military, or advanced military grade. There are military specs on thermite, I am sure, but these have not been compared to milspec aka MIL-STD. Jumping to the conclusion they are military or some advancement without proof is a bias.
So, in the lab, when they burned the chips they clearly would have seen byproducts of the reaction. These should be: Iron, and Aluminum Oxide. They were not.
You want to suppose that it was NOT an FeO(III)+Al reaction, and that's your prerogative. However, none of these papers bring forward any alternative chemical reaction that would both explain the composition while showing it is hot enough to melt structural steel. I don't see the byproducts of a thermitic reaction here. The chemistry is universal, there are only a handful of thermitic fuels and catalysts:
"Thermites have diverse compositions. Fuels include aluminium, magnesium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. Aluminium is common because of its high boiling point and low cost. Oxidizers include bismuth(III) oxide, boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,IV) oxide."
So, you say alright yeah we see Silicon and Aluminum in the spectrogram right?
Well, you can make thermite from Aluminum and Silicon dioxide. But, the byproducts are still aluminum oxide and pure silicon. Even then, it makes a poor weapon, bc it's not self-starting, it requires sulfur. We do see pure sulfur in the analysis, Also, witnesses would have reported distinct odors and off-color flames.
eg.
http://thehomescientist.blogspot.com/2010/03/experiment-silicon-dioxide-thermite.html
"This composition is extremely hard to ignite, so I added sulfur as well. "
Sulfur helper reaction: 3S + 2Al -> Al2S3
Actual thermite: 3SiO2 + 4Al -> 2Al2O3 + 3Si
"After the reaction, I broke apart the slag and found a number of pieces of pure silicon metal. These were caked in aluminum oxide and aluminum sulfide, and smelled awful. I treated the pieces with hydrochloric acid to remove this, since silicon is very resistant to acids. This worked beautifully and gave me some excellent samples for my element collection, shown in the last photo. The best part of all this was that I made metal from sand!
"You can see the blue flame once the reaction got started, caused by burning sulfur (the smell was less pleasant). This reaction burned for a much longer time than the other compositions I've done, and much hotter as silicon's melting point is 2577 degrees Fahrenheit!"
There's no aluminum sulfide in the WTC dust. No indication, thusly, that the aluminum and the sulfur chemically reacted. And we would still expect to see heaps of aluminum oxide. Harrit did not report finding it. Neither did RJ Lee. So, what other possible chemical reaction buttresses the thermite theory?0 -
This is directly contradicted by the report you are citing. Specifically the 3rd paragraph
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Iron has a higher melting point than Steel, still overlooking this
There should be no previously Iron molten spheres in the dust ( the temperatures here are correct)
Rj Lee fault they revealed in their paper how it happened. Every argument you guys have here falls apart here.
Iron melting point
1,538 °C0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Iron has a higher melting point than Steel, still overlooking this
There should be no previously Iron molten spheres in the dust ( the temperatures here are correct)
Still well above the plastic strength limit of either material class.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F
I posted a video of jet fuel burning at 2,000 FIron has a higher melting point than Steel, still overlooking this
There should be no previously Iron molten spheres in the dust ( the temperatures here are correct)
So you are claiming the RJ Lee report is incorrect?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
You wrote "FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F"
I posted a video of it burning at 2,000 F
Which would indicate it's upper limit is 2,000 F
I am correcting that right there.
Iron melted
what temp is that?
Read RJ Lee statement again ( they claim Iron vapourised higher temp )
No melting occurs at this temp :rolleyes:
0 -
You keep posting this photograph but where is the actual document?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Iron has a higher melting point than Steel, still overlooking this
There should be no previously Iron molten spheres in the dust ( the temperatures here are correct)
Rj Lee fault they revealed in their paper how it happened. Every argument you guys have here falls apart here.
Iron melting point
1,538 °C0 -
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Iron melted what temp is that?
Read RJ Lee statement again ( they claim Iron vapourised higher temp )
No melting occurs at this temp :rolleyes:
Okay so you are arguing that Jet fuel cannot burn at 2000 F.
AND You're arguing it is a FACT that it burns between 800 to 1500 F, or 427 C to 816 C.
AND you also have reiterated that the fires at WTC were at least 1030 C.
So which is it?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement