AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Timberrrrrrrr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here we go, it's all being dug up and recycled again.

^^^ This!


Why does he need to create a new thread every few weeks just to post the same things

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It was discovered in certified WTC dust samples. You can see images of the substance. It not like blah blah blah...you guys claim. 

And you've just ignored everything i actually wrote in that post to rant on the same old crap again.

Pathetic.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

^^^ This!


Why does he need to create a new thread every few weeks just to post the same things

More posts not addressing the topic.
How were Iron Microspheres produced in a building that had 800c fires?
Nobody in the debunker movement wants to address that.

Like Chris Sarns said.
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.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

West isn't qualified to second-guess the RJ Lee Group.

But you are qualified to second guess literally every expert you decide to disagree with?

Lol

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How were Iron Microspheres produced in a building that had 800c fires?
Nobody in the debunker movement wants to address that.

But they did address that.
This guy called Mick West showed that there were a ton of ways to produce microspheres without high heat.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why would debunkers

You agree with 99% of conclusions on skeptical sites like Metabunk.

You don't believe in chemtrails, you don't believe we're run by the illuminati, or Reptilians, you don't believe that Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Charlie Hebdo, Paris attacks, London attacks were inside jobs, you don't think the moon landing was faked

Yet here you are with no theory, using the same Alex Jones talking points, recycling the same crap, pretending something is a conspiracy

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

More posts not addressing the topic.

The sanity of your views is always the topic.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But you are qualified to second guess literally every expert you decide to disagree with?

Lol


But they did address that.
This guy called Mick West showed that there were a ton of ways to produce microspheres without high heat.

NIST highest temp was 800c it only reached 1000c for seconds ( the airplane fuel blast).
 Pure Iron/ Molten spheres are only seen at temperature above 1400c.
Since RG- Lee declared it happened inside the building why is Mick not doing experiments to establish how they were formed inside the towers? Does he think someone was walking around with a butane torch flaming steel? This is one of his experiments believe or not

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST highest temp was 800c it only reached 1000c for seconds ( the airplane fuel blast).
 Pure Iron/ Molten spheres are only seen at temperature above 1400c.
Since RG- Lee declared it happened inside the building why is Mick not doing experiments to establish how they were formed inside the towers? Does he think someone was walking around with a butane torch flaming steel? This is one of his experiments believe or not

All of this is word salad nonsense.

Also, again it bares pointing out you're using incorrect scientific notation.

Dohnjoe

Hmmm at some point we should ask a mod here to test out a new rule. Posters with a theory must directly support that theory (without relying on denial). You know, like normal science and history.

Would be interesting..

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

All of this is word salad nonsense.

Also, again it bares pointing out you're using incorrect scientific notation.

Same nonsense and never debating the topic. Head off to another site where this kind of debating style is acceptable.

You have provided no evidence to dispute my opinion here.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Same nonsense and never debating the topic. Head off to another site where this kind of debating style is acceptable.

You have provided no evidence to dispute opinion here.

The irony :pac:

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Same nonsense and never debating the topic.

Cheerful, you have been given countless chances to actually debate your beliefs like an adult.
Every single time you have failed to do so. You are not capable of any form of debate.

You have not once addressed any point or answered any question. You have not provided any evidence for anything. And you don't even have a sane coherent theory.

This is why you are considered a joke here.

This thread is you just repeating crap from proven fraudsters about a guy you've a weird issue with. Now you are using that thread to repeat your same tired nonsense again and again.

Why are you even bothering?

And I know you don't like it because it ruins the fun you have at pretending to be an expert, but you not understanding basic science is very on topic for all of these points.
For example, you do not know how to correctly denote temperature. This is something you learn in first year of secondary school science.
Have you ever taken a science class in your life?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you have been given countless chances to actually debate your beliefs like an adult.
Every single time you have failed to do so. You are not capable of any form of debate.

You have not once addressed any point or answered any question. You have not provided any evidence for anything. And you don't even have a sane coherent theory.

This is why you are considered a joke here.

This thread is you just repeating crap from proven fraudsters about a guy you've a weird issue with. Now you are using that thread to repeat your same tired nonsense again and again.

Why are you even bothering?

Debate :D:D:D Your funny.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debate :D:D:D Your funny.

Cheerful, you are just deflecting again.

You aren't fooling anyone. You know what you're doing. We know what you're doing. Everyone who reads any of your posts can tell as well.

Why pretend?

Also it's "You're funny."
Again, this is illustrative of your poor reading and writing skills.
It undercuts you every single time you pretend to be an expert and it's made you a laughing stock.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But that's the thing it has happened before. Steel is vulnerable to fire which is why steel is covered in fire-proof cladding in buildings. Steel structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in the past due to fire. Fires of just 600c (office fires) can weaken steel up to 60%.

Happened before provide one example. Name the building where it is located in Europe,. Asia, US, Canada.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Happened before provide one example. Name the building where it is located in Europe,. Asia, US, Canada.

Name one building that was demolished using any form of thermite.
One example.
Anywhere.
Any time.

Watch how you ignore this question.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Name one building that was demolished using any form of thermite.
One example.
Anywhere.
Any time.

Watch how you ignore this question.

Was the question for you?
I addressed this already and you just ignore it.
Read the thread.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Was the question for you?
I addressed this already and you just ignore it.
Read the thread.

Lol, see. Question ignored.

This is because you know the answer exposes your argument to be silly.
That's why you are ignoring it.

Why are you using your argument when you know it's bad? Isn't that dishonest?

And no cheerful, you've never addressed this point. You are lying once again.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you are just deflecting again.

You aren't fooling anyone. You know what you're doing. We know what you're doing. Everyone who reads any of your posts can tell as well.

Why pretend?

Also it's "You're funny."
Again, this is illustrative of your poor reading and writing skills.
It undercuts you every single time you pretend to be an expert and it's made you a laughing stock.

Embarrassing you not able to debate properly and provide explantations. Your style of debating only works on here and would not be accepted elsewhere.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Was the question for you?
I addressed this already and you just ignore it.
Read the thread.

You were asked for an example of a BUILDING destroyed/demolished with thermite.

You answeredĺ

That’s false Metabunk found examples in history thermite was used to cut steel and bring down structures. So we know thermite can affect steel and weaken it in buildings.

Now instead of deflecting please show proof of a building bought down by thermite.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You were asked for an example of a BUILDING destroyed/demolished with thermite.

You answeredĺ




Now instead of deflecting please show proof of a building bought down by thermite.

Timber that logic makes no sense. Use your brain.

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire.. There is no known examples anywhere in the world where fire alone progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

Why do you believe in miracles?
Controlled demolition is a known method to collapse steel-framed buildings!
Fire is unlikely- what you left with?
You guys ignore the obvious.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Timber that logic makes no sense. Use your brain.

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire.. There is no known examples anywhere in the world where fire alone progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

Why do you believe in miracles?
Controlled demolition is a known method to collapse steel-framed buildings!
Fire is unlikely- what you left with?
You guys ignore the obvious.

Instead of deflecting why not post the evidence I have asked for please.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Timber that logic makes no sense. Use your brain.

Again, it's your logic, just turned on your theory.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire.. There is no known examples anywhere in the world where fire alone progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of nanothermite/exotic material There is no known examples anywhere in the world where nanothermite/exotic materials progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Controlled demolition is a known method to collapse steel-framed buildings!

But nanothermite isn't a method of controlled demolition.
It's not a known method to collapse any kind of building because it's never actually happened before.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Instead of deflecting why not post the evidence I have asked for please.

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have provided the evidence in the past

Lol.
That's a big ol' lie.
You have not once provided any evidence of any type of thermite ever being used to demolish a building.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

No you haven't


Please post the evidence here for your claim, I don't want links to sites or long winded blogs full of maybe this or that.

Please post evidence that proves your claim 100% or close this idiotic thread, it's not like you dont have another 300 to spout your lies in anyway.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No you haven't


Please post the evidence here for your claim, I don't want links to sites or long winded blogs full of maybe this or that.

Please post evidence that proves your claim 100% or close this idiotic thread, it's not like you dont have another 300 to spout your lies in anyway.

Maybe you don't read good like Kingmob?

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

Why is so important to prove a negative?
You have to ignore all findings here, and that makes no sense, maybe it does for you guys.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Maybe you don't read good like Kingmob?

I have provided the evidence in the past
.

Deflection again cheerful. This is why you aren't capable of debate like an adult.
We're asking you to provide examples of buildings demolished by nanothermite.
You said your provided this in the past and you had examples.
This was a lie.

You are now dodging and deflecting from this point because you have again been caught out in a lie.
Again, you are dismissing your own arguments as crap.

I'm just not sure if you realise that's what you're doing or not.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Maybe you don't read good like Kingmob?

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

Why is so important to prove a negative?
You have to ignore all findings here, and that makes no sense, maybe it does for you guys.

So just as I thought

No evidence, just more waffle from you.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Deflection again cheerful. This is why you aren't capable of debate like an adult.
We're asking you to provide examples of buildings demolished by nanothermite.
You said your provided this in the past and you had examples.
This was a lie.

You are now dodging and deflecting from this point because you have again been caught out in a lie.
Again, you are dismissing your own arguments as crap.

I'm just not sure if you realise that's what you're doing or not.

This is why, i don't believe you debate honestly. This was from days ago (below) and still waiting on an answer. We now gone off into different tangents about thermite collapsing other buildings and avoiding the topic.

Reason the Iron Microspheres is an important aspect.

This part you continue to ignore and even made a claim Mick addressed it is a big fat lie.
Mick trying to claim they were formed after the event, during a clean up or by another reason!


Highlighted here why the Iron Microspheres supports the truther version of events..
During their toxicological study of the WTC dust, the RJ Lee Group found that up to 6% of the weight of the dust was composed of previously molten iron microspheres.
Additional evidence of extreme temperatures, unaccounted for in the WTC official story.
NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers) below the required temp for creating Molten Iron spheres.

You may find it nonsense, but Iron Microspheres is a byproduct of a thermatic reaction.