AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Thermites are a class of compounds used for various purposes like welding, extraction of metals from ores, or, by the military, as an incendiary capable of damaging tanks and other equipment. The most common form of thermite is based on aluminum powder and iron oxide; the term "thermite" is therefore often used as a synonym for the aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture. Thermite reactions are highly exothermic - i.e. they release relatively large amounts of energy. The common aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture reacts into aluminum oxide, which is present in a whitish aerosol/"smoke", and iron, present as molten iron at temperatures of up to 4,500° F.

Precisely, so aluminum oxide should be present in the dust, and especially present in smoke from any testing of the suspect material once chemically analyzed. Neither is the case.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Thermites are a class of compounds used for various purposes like welding, extraction of metals from ores, or, by the military, as an incendiary capable of damaging tanks and other equipment. The most common form of thermite is based on aluminum powder and iron oxide; the term "thermite" is therefore often used as a synonym for the aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture. Thermite reactions are highly exothermic - i.e. they release relatively large amounts of energy. The common aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture reacts into aluminum oxide, which is present in a whitish aerosol/"smoke", and iron, present as molten iron at temperatures of up to 4,500° F.

Thermite isn't nanothermite cheerful :rolleyes:

I find it odd than any time anyone leaves off the nano- prefix you jump down their throat and use it as an excuse to ignore points because nanothermite is somehow different to thermite.
Now it suits you, you have no issue stealing from the wikipedia page about thermite.

And again, even if all 100% of the aluminium oxide aerosolises, it would still fall back down and settle with the rest of the WTC dust. It being smoke doesn't make it vanish into nothingness.
(It doesn't all aerosolise either, btw)

This also contradicts you previous claim that it vapourised. It is also inconsistant with your previous posts where you claimed that the aluminium oxide itself burned to make the white smoke, not that it was the white smoke.

Again, you are showing that your theory is just stuff you are making up on the fly.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Precisely, so aluminum oxide should be present in the dust, and especially present in smoke from any testing of the suspect material once chemically analyzed. Neither is the case.

According to this science book, the Al oxide can melt at very high temperatures (is the case on 9/11) The AI oxide in liquid form may washed away down sewer drains on the streets. They were spraying the steel down with water and other substances for weeks to cool it down and all the liquid draining somewhere.


I am sure this will not satisfy some on here.
I think the picture yesterday it good evidence. A bright white flash observed next to the perimeter steel box columns. A bright hot yellow liquid pouring out through broken windows then.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

According to this science book, the Al oxide can melt at very high temperatures (is the case on 9/11) The AI oxide in liquid form may washed away down sewer drains on the streets. They were spraying the steel down with water and other substances for weeks to cool it down and all the liquid draining somewhere.


I am sure this will not satisfy some on here.
I think the picture yesterday it good evidence. A bright white flash observed next to the perimeter steel box columns. A bright hot yellow liquid pouring out through broken windows then.

You really must stop doing this tact of posting photos of sources you’ve seen but don’t actually link to.

Aluminum oxide wasn’t “in liquid form” it wasn’t anywhere. No detection in the WTC Dust, despite the rigorous sampling methods for the dust by RJ Lee, who sampled the dust from numerous locations including under and inside office furniture and broken light fixtures etc. that were not exposed to rain etc.

Without proving the presence of aluminum oxide this theory is a bust.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Without proving the presence of aluminum oxide this theory is a bust.

If this was true. Why is he saying nobody tested for Al oxide in neighbourrhood buildings? Would he not have checked?

According to a theory advanced by a SINTEF materials scientist, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminium from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

The way ahead

"Would it be possible to perform scientific experiments that can support your theory?"

"It would certainly be possible to look specifically for solidified droplets of aluminium and aluminium oxide in the walls of the neighbouring buildings. Experiments could also be carried out to find out whether fuel tanks are cut cleanly when they plough through a network of steel beams at a speed of 800 kilometres an hour. We could also test on model scale whether an object that ploughs through a room at extremely high speed becomes covered in debris from collapsed walls, ceilings and floors."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If this was true. Why is he saying nobody tested for Al oxide in neighbourrhood buildings? Would he not have checked?

According to a theory advanced by a SINTEF materials scientist, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminium from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

The way ahead

"Would it be possible to perform scientific experiments that can support your theory?"

"It would certainly be possible to look specifically for solidified droplets of aluminium and aluminium oxide in the walls of the neighbouring buildings. Experiments could also be carried out to find out whether fuel tanks are cut cleanly when they plough through a network of steel beams at a speed of 800 kilometres an hour. We could also test on model scale whether an object that ploughs through a room at extremely high speed becomes covered in debris from collapsed walls, ceilings and floors."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm

And still no aluminum oxide found. So his theory is bunk too.

Ted_YNWA

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

According to this science book, the Al oxide can melt at very high temperatures (is the case on 9/11) The AI oxide in liquid form may washed away down sewer drains on the streets. They were spraying the steel down with water and other substances for weeks to cool it down and all the liquid draining somewhere.


I am sure this will not satisfy some on here.
I think the picture yesterday it good evidence. A bright white flash observed next to the perimeter steel box columns. A bright hot yellow liquid pouring out through broken windows then.

This "science book" is the NIST report.

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101030



Page 344

Cheerful Spring2

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

This "science book" is the NIST report.

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101030



Page 344

A white flame or flash?-

A white flame is hotter still, ranging from 1300-1500 Celsius (2400-2700° Fahrenheit).Feb 5, 2020
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-is-fire-hot-607320

They identified the plume of white smoke- many believe that's the Al oxide

NIST avoids the obvious implications.
The brightest of the flame (white flame), along with the white smoke (Al oxide), suggests some type of metal (steel?) is burning here.

Al melts at 660 degrees Celsius, it not that!

Ted_YNWA

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A white flame or flash?-

A white flame is hotter still, ranging from 1300-1500 Celsius (2400-2700° Fahrenheit).Feb 5, 2020
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-is-fire-hot-607320

They identified the plume of white smoke- many believe that's the Al oxide

NIST avoids the obvious implications.
The brightest of the flame (white flame), along with the white smoke (Al oxide), suggests some type of metal (steel?) is burning here.

Al melts at 660 degrees Celsius, it not that!

Are you claiming that Aluminium can't melt in temps of 1300-1500C??

Last time I checked 660 is less than those temperatures.

Cheerful Spring2

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Are you claiming that Aluminium can't melt in temps of 1300-1500C??

Last time I checked 660 is less than those temperatures.

NIST claiming in the link you posted a White flame burning metal whatever that means ( temp of 1300 degrees Celsius to 1500 degrees Celsius)

Steel melts at 1400 + degrees Celsius

In their Q and A they deny temps got that high inside the building.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Thermites are a class of compounds used for various purposes like welding, extraction of metals from ores, or, by the military, as an incendiary capable of damaging tanks and other equipment. The most common form of thermite is based on aluminum powder and iron oxide; the term "thermite" is therefore often used as a synonym for the aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture. Thermite reactions are highly exothermic - i.e. they release relatively large amounts of energy. The common aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture reacts into aluminum oxide, which is present in a whitish aerosol/"smoke", and iron, present as molten iron at temperatures of up to 4,500° F.

When Cheerfuls's posts read as cogent English, they are usually copy/pasted.
In this instance from here https://www.phenixxenia.org/wiki/WTC_Dust_(911_Investigator_1.1)

Another one of the dishonest habits CS has of not crediting others work and trying to use it as his own.
Indeed also when they post .png's of reports, rather than linking to the source all really irksome means of obfuscation of their sources rather than just plain link or acknowledgement.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST claiming in the link you posted a White flame burning metal whatever that means ( temp of 1300 degrees Celsius to 1500 degrees Celsius)

Steel melts at 1400 + degrees Celsius

In their Q and A they deny temps got that high inside the building.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

That’s because the structural steel members didn’t melt, they broke. At the temperatures confirmed (1000+ C), steel loses half its strength. Not rocket science.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

Another one of the dishonest habits CS has of not crediting others work and trying to use it as his own.
.

I think it was obvious that was not my work. I don't write this way, but nice try to discredit. You only post when its to attack me. No thoughts of your own on the subject.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

That’s because the structural steel members didn’t melt, they broke. At the temperatures confirmed (1000+ C), steel loses half its strength. Not rocket science.

How hot is a white flame?

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I think it was obvious that was not my work. I don't write this way, but nice try to discredit. You only post when its to attack me. No thoughts of your own on the subject.

My thoughts have been shared extensively with you previously.
If there is some portion of that, that you question or wish me to clarify, just ask.

And no cheerful, when you copy and paste without acknowledgement, it's theft, plagiarism and dishonest.
But that is par for the course in any debate with you.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

My thoughts have been shared extensively with you previously.
If there is some portion of that, that you question or wish me to clarify, just ask.

And no cheerful, when you copy and paste without acknowledgement, it's theft, plagiarism and dishonest.
But that is par for the course in any debate with you.

:pac:

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I think it was obvious that was not my work. I don't write this way, but nice try to discredit. You only post when its to attack me. No thoughts of your own on the subject.

It’s actually plagiarism to not make clear you are “quoting” and not citing your source.

In academia you would be readily expelled and discredited for the practice.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

:pac:

Brilliantly insightful contribution, should I check who you copied that from?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

It’s actually plagiarism to not make clear you are “quoting” and not citing your source.

In academia you would be readily expelled and discredited for the practice.

How hot is a white flame stop trying to deflect.

Ted_YNWA

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST claiming in the link you posted a White flame burning metal whatever that means ( temp of 1300 degrees Celsius to 1500 degrees Celsius)

Steel melts at 1400 + degrees Celsius

In their Q and A they deny temps got that high inside the building.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

The link I posted, was also the link/source you used for your image grab.

I have no idea why you are deflecting into melted steel now.

Cheerful Spring2

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

T

I have no idea why you are deflecting into melted steel now.

:D:D:D:D This statement is funny- have you read the thread and what its about. You and your friends are a joke and couldn't careless if i got banned.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

:D:D:D:D This statement is funny- have you read the thread and what its about. You and your friends are a joke and couldn't careless if i got banned.

Jesus, there's a shock!
Cheerful playing the victim and not caring if the banhammer falls...
He's a warrior for"truth" :pac: *(credit for :pac: belongs to CS2, no copyright infringement intended! :P )
That's so, so surprising.
Who could have seen it coming?

King Mob wrote: »

l

Hence why I think he'll be throwing a strop in the next few posts to bail out of the thread.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How hot is a white flame?

How hot is this?

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

Jesus, there's a shock!
Cheerful playing the victim and not carrying if the banhammer falls...
That's so, so surprising.
Who could have seen it coming?

Of course you love this Echo Chamber when the moderators are here to back you up This not a legitimate forum to discuss conspiracies it's a place to attack people for their beliefs. New posters see it, so am not the only one

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

How hot is this?

Be serious how hot is a white flamed fire?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Of course you love this Echo Chamber when the moderators are here to back you up This not a legitimate forum to discuss conspiracies it's a place to attack people for their beliefs. New posters see it, so am not the only one

Mob described your temper tantrum to a tee

King Mob wrote: »

We also have to bare in mind that cheerful previously tried to insinuate that nanothermite didn't produce aluminium oxide because "the chemistry was different."
He also tried to claim that when the RJ Lee study mentioned Aluminium, they were also including aluminium oxide.

He knows this is a major, theory killing issue. He knows he can't address it. He knows he can't now reject the RJ Lee report or claim it's wrong in someway.
He's tried to get around it.

Hence why I think he'll be throwing a strop in the next few posts to bail out of the thread.

No evidence of aluminum oxide. So now you are trying to pick fights with the mods.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Be serious how hot is a white flamed fire?

Be serious

Where is the aluminum oxide?

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Of course you love this Echo Chamber when the moderators are here to back you up This not a legitimate forum to discuss conspiracies it's a place to attack people for their beliefs. New posters see it, so am not the only one

What new posters?
The ones that you claim PM you?

The ones that if they exist, leave you alone, posting your garbled often self contradictory interpretations of what you think may have happened?

You are a proven liar, dishonest and with a repeated and demonstrable lack of any scientific understanding.

Any "new" poster who wants to support you is more than welcome, but where are they?

Apart from weisses who occasionally dips in with insight on particular points or to wind up KingMob?

Who are you talking about?

Ted_YNWA

Cheerful Spring2 wrote:

Of course you love this Echo Chamber when the moderators are here to back you up This not a legitimate forum to discuss conspiracies it's a place to attack people for their beliefs. New posters see it, so am not the only one

Your theories were discussed, and the plot holes in these were pointed out as to why they were unlikely.

Similarly, it's not an echo chamber to post whatever you like as fact.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Mob described your temper tantrum to a tee



No evidence of aluminum oxide. So now you are trying to pick fights with the mods.

There is 9 debunkers posting about 9/11 for the last year or so and myself. You don't find this odd
You guys are trying to win the argument by force of numbers. And deny all evidence when it shown to you. You guys engage in gaslighting, whataboutery, all sorts of online tricks to win. You use each others points in posts to then gang up on me and demand answers and never provide any when i ask.

I have backed up everything with links, statements, images and so forth.
Kingmob is a role model on here- we going downhill fast as a society.