AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

Robert Hooke. produced Iron oxide spheres. The steel not Iron. He oxidised the steel with the flint and oxygen Fun reading the explantations on here.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Robert Hooke. produced Iron oxide spheres. The steel not Iron. He oxidised the steel with the flint and oxygen Fun reading the explantations on here.

None of that silliness explains away the lack of aluminum oxide.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He oxidised the steel with the flint and oxygen

Cheerful that's not how that works. At all. Your statement makes no sense.

Also, you say that he produces iron microspheres, but you then say that "The steel not Iron." which I think means that iron microspheres can't come from steel...
I'm not sure, your writing is often unclear and hard to understand.

This would also be a contradiction as you are claiming that Iron microspheres came from the Steel inside the building.

You seem to be confused on that steel, iron and oxidation are.

And again regardless of how you understand the specifics he was able to melt iron to produce iron microspheres without a huge fire.

Hitting steel on steel also produces microspheres in pretty much the same way.

So we have an explanation for how the microspheres were created. And we have seen that there was no nanothermite.
Case closed.

King Mob

And just to really drive the point home:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-019-00847-3

Observed initial spark temperature in this work mostly ranged within 1500°C to 1700°C. Results show evidence of both melting and oxidation of the sparks.

Cheerful Spring2

All right let’s try this one more time
Big claim: video and link please.
Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron. I have never seen in my life and don’t buy it. 

My view is the Nano thermite explains everything- Molten Iron spheres+ extreme heat.
RJ Lee position is the Iron melted inside the buildings due to fire.

NIST and RJ Lee fire explantation is not the same.
NIST fires are at lower temperatures, can not melt Iron. There no way around this, the Iron will only melt at above 1500 degrees Celsius.

Debunkers will try to hide that by linking to papers where cutting tools, and machinery equipment are making sparks at very high temps that possibly could melt the Iron. None of these techniques can be applied when there fires inside the buildings on 9/11. You have limited number of ways to make the spheres of pure Iron.


 

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

All right let’s try this one more time
Big claim: video and link please.
Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron. I have never seen in my life and don’t buy it. 

My view is the Nano thermite explains everything- Molten Iron spheres+ extreme heat.
RJ Lee position is the Iron melted inside the buildings due to fire.

NIST and RJ Lee fire explantation is not the same.
NIST fires are at lower temperatures, can not melt Iron. There no way around this, the Iron will only melt at above 1500 degrees Celsius.

Debunkers will try to hide that by linking to papers where cutting tools, and machinery equipment are making sparks at very high temps that possibly could melt the Iron. None of these techniques can be applied when there fires inside the buildings on 9/11. You have limited number of ways to make the spheres of pure Iron.


 

Your view can’t possibly be valid without clear and irrefutable evidence of aluminum oxide

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

All right let’s try this one more time
Big claim: video and link please.
Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron. I have never seen in my life and don’t buy it. 

You are misrepresenting what we're claiming in several different ways.
I'm not sure if it's because it's deliberate and you're desperate or because you genuinely don't understand. Probably it's a mixture of both.

We, and science in general aren't claiming "Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron."
That is not an accurate summation of our points.
We do not and did not say that the two pieces of steel that strike each other melt.
That's a misrepresentation on your part.

We also do not and did not say that just hitting two pieces of steel forms molten droplets.
That's another misrepresentation on your part.

You constantly misrepresent things. It doesn't help you. It only makes you look more and more desperate and dishonest.

The fact remains that striking steel on steel can produce sparks. Sparks can form iron microspheres.
End of story.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

My view is the Nano thermite explains everything- Molten Iron spheres+ extreme heat.
RJ Lee position is the Iron melted inside the buildings due to fire.

But it can't be nanothermite as there's no aluminium oxide and the iron microspheres you are pointing to where not created by reduction.

There's no evidence of any of the by products of a thermite reaction.
If there was a thermite reaction, especially one as massive as you believe, then there would be abundant evidence of byproducts.
There's no by products, so there was no thermite.

And yes, RJ Lee's position is that the building was collapsed by a fire. Not thermite or a controlled demolition.
It's weird that you're disagreeing with the study given your opening post.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Your view can’t possibly be valid without clear and irrefutable evidence of aluminum oxide

You got an explanation, don't like it. In NIST scenario there be no molten Iron so we are at crossroads.

You have taken a different road here.

Only way to find out is sending RJ Lee an email and ask them, did you test for Al oxide smoke?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You got an explanation, don't like it.

No, your explanation just wasn't true and it was very silly.

If there was a thermite reaction, there would be abundant evidence for aluminium oxide. It would be as prevalent as the evidence for iron.
There is no aluminium oxide, so no thermite reaction.

Cheerful Spring2

Poster above forgetting again these are nanoparticles of Iron oxide and Al
Thermite combinations - grams of Al powder and grams of Iron Oxide is mixed for the reaction. Lots of residue left over.
The quantities are very different.

Ted_YNWA

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Poster above forgetting again these are nanoparticles of Iron oxide and Al
Thermite combinations - grams of Al powder and grams of Iron Oxide is mixed for the reaction. Lots of residue left over.
The quantities are very different.

More meaningless babble. What residue was left over??



Also as has been mentioned multiple times, there was not even a trace of Aluminium Oxide found, so no thermite.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Poster above forgetting again these are nanoparticles of Iron oxide and Al
Thermite combinations - grams of Al powder and grams of Iron Oxide is mixed for the reaction. Lots of residue left over.
The quantities are very different.

Again? And?
Those are the reactants, not the products.
You claimed previously that the iron microspheres that they did find were of nanoscale and they were the direct product of the reduction in a thermite reaction.
If that's the case, we should see an equal amount of aluminium oxide to the iron microspheres found by RJ Lee's study.

Further, you claim that this nanothermite took down the buildings. This requires a lot of nanothermite, so the relative sizes of the thermites don't apply.
There would still be an abundance of the products and there would be plenty of aluminium oxide to find.

And again, RJ Lee was looking for things on the nanoscale (which is things that are measured in nanometers, not micrometers as you claimed earlier).
If there were nanoscale particles, RJ Lee would have found them.
This goes even more so if the particles were the size of a "strain of hair" which is measured in micrometers, not nanometers.

But we don't see any of those.
We don't see any aluminium oxide at all. This is because there was no thermite reaction.
This fact has been proven.

Also, the poster above is confused why you're refering to him as "the poster above"

Cheerful Spring2

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

More meaningless babble. What residue was left over??



Also as has been mentioned multiple times, there was not even a trace of Aluminium Oxide found, so no thermite.

It not thermite they found?
No standard thermite ignites at 430 degrees Celsius. The nanothermite livermore labs tested in 1999 flamed at the same temp as harrit red/grey chips.

Nano scale. How much Al oxide would be found at 100nm or less after reaction. Even more so when the residue in a fire burning away?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You got an explanation, don't like it. In NIST scenario there be no molten Iron so we are at crossroads.

You have taken a different road here.

Only way to find out is sending RJ Lee an email and ask them, did you test for Al oxide smoke?

It doesn’t matter: if they tested for it, they didn’t find any; if they didn’t test for it, then they didn’t find any. We still are bereft of any compelling evidence that there was any aluminum oxide particulate. Without that the thermite theory is bunk.

Cheerful Spring2

Nano-thermite. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nano-thermite. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates.

So to be that you’d be able to show aluminum oxide. There isn’t any.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

So to be that you’d be able to show aluminum oxide. There isn’t any.

Well had to be there because there Al and Iron oxide in the red layer- it's a weak point your making.

The only reason i not agreeing with you is this material not your typical thermite. The ingredients are nano particles of Al and Iron oxide and Silicon. We comparing thermite to a revolutionary new incendiary.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Well had to be there because there Al and Iron oxide in the red layer- it's a weak point your making.

But we know it wasn’t there. Because no study found it. And there have been numerous studies. Especially the researchers wanting to prove thermite would know to find aluminum oxide.

They didn’t.

Case closed.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not thermite they found?
No standard thermite ignites at 430 degrees Celsius. The nanothermite livermore labs tested in 1999 flamed at the same temp as harrit red/grey chips.

Nano scale. How much Al oxide would be found at 100nm or less after reaction. Even more so when the residue in a fire burning away?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nanoparticles are the size of pencil head or strain of hair.

A "strain" of hair is 17 μm to 181 μm.
That's micrometers.

In nanometers that's 17000 nanometers to 181000 nanometers.

You're now claiming that the nanoparticles are less than 100 nanometers.

Again, this shows you are just making things up on the fly and misusing scientific terms that you don't actually understand.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nano-thermite. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates.

What's the point you're trying to make here?

You also previously claimed that the nanothermite was in the microscale.

And nothing in that passage shows anything about it's byproducts becoming impossible to find...

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

But we know it wasn’t there. Because no study found it. And there have been numerous studies. Especially the researchers wanting to prove thermite would know to find aluminum oxide.

They didn’t.

Case closed.

Independent Chemist verified the Harrit study on his own and he confirmed the harrit paper years later. He collected dust samples from museums and universities and did his own tests. He worked on the dust and confirmed it was nanothermite.

Case not closed.

Poster above the mass of the chip is micro- the ingredients embedded in it are nano sized.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Independent Chemist verified the Harrit study on his own and he confirmed the harrit paper years later. He collected dust samples from museums and universities and did his own tests. He worked on the dust and confirmed it was nanothermite.

Case not closed.

Clearly not because he couldn’t demonstrate the presence of any aluminum oxide.

Case closed

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Independent Chemist verified the Harrit study on his own and he confirmed the harrit paper years later. He collected dust samples from museums and universities and did his own tests. He worked on the dust and confirmed it was nanothermite.

Case not closed.

But it can't have been nanothermite.
There was no aluminium oxide in the WTC dust and no experiments or papers, including the sham harrit paper have shown that there was any present.

There was no aluminium oxide, because there was no nanothermite.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Clearly not because he couldn’t demonstrate the presence of any aluminum oxide.

Case closed

Have you science papers about nanothermite/ composites to dispute their findings? You comparing it to thermite silly. Especially when standard thermite would not ignite at the temps, they saw in the dsc

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Poster above the mass of the chip is micro- the ingredients embedded in it are nano sized.

The poster above is still confused why you are calling him "the poster above".
Are you still pretending I'm on ignore?

Also, the poster above quoted you as saying:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nanoparticles are the size of pencil head or strain of hair.

Mass and size aren't the same thing.

The size of a "pencil head" or "strain of hair" is measured in micrometers, not nanometers.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You comparing it to thermite silly.

But you plagerised the wikipedia page about thermite to compare it to nanothermite.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113530612&postcount=780

Seems a bit hypocritical...

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Have you science papers about nanothermite/ composites to dispute their findings? You comparing it to thermite silly. Especially when standard thermite would not ignite at the temps, they saw in the dsc

It would still produce aluminum oxide. Lots of it.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

It would still produce aluminum oxide. Lots of it.

NIST openly admits they never tested the steel for thermite residue. Your point is a distraction.

22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

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

If you don't check, you don't know. NIST does not care about science, they already had a pre-determined answer.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST openly admits they never tested the steel for thermite residue. Your point is a distraction.
.

RJ Lee's study would have found it. They didn't.

Harrit's fraud study was actively looking for explosives and couldn't find it.

Pointing out the fact that there was no thermite reaction is not really a distraction when the theory is the towers were destroyed by thermite/nanothermite.

Your point about the NIST is a distraction.

And besides the NIST didn't look for any evidence of a space laser either...

Cheerful Spring2

This whole thread is a distraction.
RJ Lee says in their official report- the Iron melted, and this is the reason high quantities of Iron Fe spheres are in the WTC dust.
Iron could not have melted inside the building, when NIST says in their report no steel melted.
Fe spheres are previously molten Iron droplets that appear when Iron components are heated up to 1500 degrees Celsius.