AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's basically what the RJ Lee is pointing at, that the iron microspheres were produced in the building and as it fell

Yup, which is also a issue for the thermite theory.
RJ Lee states the iron was a product of melting and came from the structure of the building.

That means it can't be a product of a thermite reaction and it can't have come from a "nanothermite chip/gel/whatever".

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cheerful has tried to change the goalposts to "melted iron" here - recognise the trick?

I don't have time to look all this stuff up, but I believe that red-hot iron (700c) can easily produce iron microspheres

I also believe friction, e.g. iron striking concrete to produce sparks can result in microspheres

- Can anyone less lazy than me confirm this..

It's basically what the RJ Lee is pointing at, that the iron microspheres were produced in the building and as it fell

anything metal will spark if dragged across concrete or asphalt at speed.

Here's a car riding its rims (iron/steel) across asphalt.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Okay so you are arguing that Jet fuel cannot burn at 2000 F.
Never disputed this. You guys said it was wrong not me. You believe it burns hotter in open air:)

AND you also have reiterated that the fires at WTC were at least 1030
C.
For a period- yes it occurred. There some disagreement how much fuel was left after the planes hit the buildings. Most of the fuel ignited on impact when the planes hit ( the huge ball of fire)

So there could have been temperatures upwards of 2000 C in the ensuing explosion.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

So there could have been temperatures upwards of 2000 C in the ensuing explosion.

If no steel at all melted inside the building and this the theory in mainstream studies.

How can you have molten Iron? You skipping past the part RJ Lee said it was caused by heat and a melting process

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I also believe friction, e.g. iron striking concrete to produce sparks can result in microspheres

Robert Hooke showed that flint and steel can product microspheres back in the 1700s

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

Robert Hooke studied the sparks created by striking a piece of flint and steel together. He found that the sparks were usually particles of the steel that had become red hot and so melted into globules.[7]

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=agq2TAx91ZoC&pg=PA5&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

anything metal will spark if dragged across concrete or asphalt at speed.

Here's a car riding its rims (iron/steel) across asphalt.

And what is the temp of those sparks?

Are iron microspheres being created in that process?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If no steel at all melted inside the building and this the theory in mainstream studies.

How can you have molten Iron? You skipping over the part RJ Lee said it was caused by heat and a melting process

Sparks are a heat and melting process.

RJ Lee also never said it found the required byproducts to demonstrate it was thermite.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You skipping past the part RJ Lee said it was caused by heat and a melting process

Still skipping over the part where RJ Lee showed there was no byproducts of a nanothermite reaction.
:rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Worth mentioning here that as soon as the buildings fell, rescue workers were immediately using angle-grinders, torches and thermitic lances (to cut metal to search for survivors) and continued to do so intensely as part of the clean-up process after the attacks (for a long time)

That would also have created many of iron microspheres, it would have been everywhere..

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And what is the temp of those sparks?

Are iron microspheres being created in that process?

Oh absolutely. If I had metalworking tools I'd go and prove it. You produce enough sparks you will begin to notice a ton of microparticles.

Has to be hot enough at the boundary layer to melt the metal. Heat is produced from friction faster than it is conducted out to the bulk material, a steep temperature gradient forms. Heck if you smashed your silverware together in the pitch black you'd probably notice sparks too - you've just shot off pieces of molten silverware.

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

Oh absolutely. If I had metalworking tools I'd go and prove it. You produce enough sparks you will begin to notice a ton of microparticles.

Has to be hot enough at the boundary layer to melt the metal. Heat is produced from friction faster than it is conducted out to the bulk material, a steep temperature gradient forms. Heck if you smashed your silverware together in the pitch black you'd probably notice sparks too - you've just shot off pieces of molten silverware.

So it's safe to say that thousands of tons of collapsing steel, concrete and other materials will produce a serious amount of friction and heat, resulting in a lot of iron microspheres contained within the dust..

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

Oh absolutely. If I had metalworking tools I'd go and prove it. You produce enough sparks you will begin to notice a ton of microparticles.

Has to be hot enough at the boundary layer to melt the metal. Heat is produced from friction faster than it is conducted out to the bulk material, a steep temperature gradient forms. Heck if you smashed your silverware together in the pitch black you'd probably notice sparks too - you've just shot off pieces of molten silverware.

A lot of these experiments have been done by Mick West.
Cheerful has accused him of faking them.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Oh absolutely. If I had metalworking tools I'd go and prove it. You produce enough sparks you will begin to notice a ton of microparticles.

Has to be hot enough at the boundary layer to melt the metal. Heat is produced from friction faster than it is conducted out to the bulk material, a steep temperature gradient forms. Heck if you smashed your silverware together in the pitch black you'd probably notice sparks too - you've just shot off pieces of molten silverware.

oh absolutely. If I had metalworking tools I'd go and prove it. You produce enough sparks you will begin to notice a ton of microparticles.

Nobody denies that.

It's a strawman as this melting process began during the attack- when the planes hit and just before the towers fell down.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's a strawman as this melting process began during the attack- when the planes hit and just before when the towers fell down.

That's not what the study said.
You're misrepresenting it again.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody denies that.

You did. Many times.

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So it's safe to say that thousands of tons of collapsing steel, concrete and other materials will produce a serious amount of friction and heat, resulting in a lot of iron microspheres contained within the dust..

Correct.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody denies that.

It's a strawman as this melting process began during the attack- when the planes hit and just before the towers fell down.

Where do you derive that it categorically was produced before the building fell down? They only say 'during the WTC event' - which encompasses everything from the 1st second of the first impact to the last second of the last mote of dust settled.

For funsies, though: can I ask you, wouldn't there have been a LOT of sparks produced before, during, and after the construction of the WTC? Ironworkers did erect huge steel buildings. Sparks would have flown for years to build them, and would continue to be produced as the building was retrofitted and upgraded with elevators, conduits, windows, feature renovations, etc etc.

So it's very likely some of the microspheres existed decades before the WTC event. It's also very likely more iron microspheres ie. sparks happened during its collapse. So we get to 6% weight of dust as iron nanospheres.

And still, no evidence of aluminum oxide, and no alternative chemical reaction proposed.

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

Correct.

Strike two pieces of metal together - you can create very fine red or white hot pieces of metal, aka sparks, superheated by the friction alone.

Anyone here have a microscope? I am pretty sure it's easy to create microspheres

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Correct.

False
Show the experiment.
I now what happens here.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

False
Show the experiment.
I now what happens here.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Where do you derive that it categorically was produced before the building fell down? They only say 'during the WTC event' - which encompasses everything from the 1st second of the first impact to the last second of the last mote of dust settled.

For funsies, though: can I ask you, wouldn't there have been a LOT of sparks produced before, during, and after the construction of the WTC? Ironworkers did erect huge steel buildings. Sparks would have flown for years to build them, and would continue to be produced as the building was retrofitted and upgraded with elevators, conduits, windows, feature renovations, etc etc.

So it's very likely some of the microspheres existed decades before the WTC event. It's also very likely more iron microspheres ie. sparks happened during its collapse. So we get to 6% weight of dust as iron nanospheres.

And still, no evidence of aluminum oxide, and no alternative chemical reaction proposed.

Strawmans everywhere in this post. Have you read the report? Where did they find dust (locations?)

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

a small fiery particle thrown off from a fire, alight in ashes, or produced by striking together two hard surfaces such as stone or metal.

This is not molten Iron

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

And the colour of the sparks denotes the temperature



A pretty heated swordfight, not a jet fuel fire in sight..

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Strawmans everywhere in this post. Have you read the report? Where did they find dust (locations?)

I scanned it. I didn't see any report of aluminum sulfide or aluminum dioxide.

You argue the microspheres are the byproduct of a thermite reaction. Then, the other byproducts must be present. They are not.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

For funsies, though: can I ask you, wouldn't there have been a LOT of sparks produced before, during, and after the construction of the WTC? Ironworkers did erect huge steel buildings. Sparks would have flown for years to build them, and would continue to be produced as the building was retrofitted and upgraded with elevators, conduits, windows, feature renovations, etc etc.

So it's very likely some of the microspheres existed decades before the WTC event. It's also very likely more iron microspheres ie. sparks happened during its collapse. So we get to 6% weight of dust as iron nanospheres.

This is also a possibility that Mick West outlined in his talk.
Cheerful and AE9/11 dismiss this because of their interpretation of the wording of the RJ Lee study.

Specifically, they believe that because the study says "during the event" it means it 100% completely excludes the possibility of preexisting iron spheres.
The study of course doesn't exclude that and didn't need to as the point of the study wasn't to find out where the spheres came from.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

a small fiery particle thrown off from a fire, alight in ashes, or produced by striking together two hard surfaces such as stone or metal.

This is not molten Iron

Let's work with that: what, then, is it? What is the particle made of?

These are 2 steel swords. The only material in action here, is steel. So, what is the particle made of? It's a particle, so it's matter, and matter is made up of periodic elements.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not molten Iron

Are you saying that steel isn't made of iron?
Or that steel doesn't become molten iron?

Cause that would be really funny.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Let's work with that: what, then, is it? What is the particle made of?

These are 2 steel swords. The only material in action here, is steel. So, what is the particle made of? It's a particle, so it's matter, and matter is made up of periodic elements.

What igniting here? Explain in your own words? Is the surface of steel hitting the steel?

You believe there Iron microspheres forming here.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What igniting here? Explain in your own words? Is the surface of steel hitting the steel?

You believe there Iron microspheres forming here.

Yes. Steel is >99% Fe by volume.

Steel collides with other steel. So much friction is created at the impact site that the metal there heats up past the melting point of steel, and it is flung away with the kinetic energy imparted to it and stored heat energy, wherein it flies off as a spherical droplet that quickly dissipates heat in air <100 F, leaving a rapidly cooled particle that is still midflight and spherical.

King Mob

I'm very curious to see cheerful try to explain what sparks are made of.

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

Yes. Steel is >99% Fe by volume.

Steel collides with other steel. So much friction is created at the impact site that the metal there heats up past the melting point of steel, and it is flung away with the kinetic energy imparted to it and stored heat energy, wherein it flies off as a spherical droplet that quickly dissipates heat in air <100 F, leaving a rapidly cooled particle that is still midflight and spherical.

That is probably the most succinct explanation of the conversion of kinetic to thermal energy that I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

It's good to see you posting OH, I've missed your posts.