AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

I posted a video which completely debunks it. Beyond any shadow of a doubt. One which you ignored.

R.J. Lee said the Iron Microspheres were produced during the event. It explained multiple times on this thread they were not made before the event, or after. Mick experiments is making Iron spheres using welding torches, butane flames, and other ways.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, I never said that steel wasn't made of Iron.
Why are you lying?

You did i remember.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You did i remember.

Lol sure you do.
I'm sure everyone believes you.

R.J. Lee said the Iron Microspheres were produced during the event.

They don't say that they were produced by any kind of thermite however. Stop misrepresenting things.

Mick experiments is making Iron spheres using welding torches, butane flames, and other ways.

Also a misrepresentation.

We also know for a fact, using your own argument that nanothermite can't be the explanation for the spheres.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

They don't say that they were produced by any kind of thermite however. Stop misrepresenting things.


.

It is important to clarify here again scientists found the nanothermite in the WTC dust.
Leading debunker Oystein agrees the dust samples collected by the truther community are legitimate. He may disagree about the findings, he does accept the dust samples are not fake.
Truther red/gray chips when burned produce Iron Microspheres- we have a source.
Debunkers have no source to explain it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It is important to clarify here again scientists found the nanothermite in the WTC dust.

but they didn't find any.

Also reading the RJ Lee study and they don't say anything about finding nanothermite at all. They don't mention finding anything at all that could be the nanothermite you believe others found.
Why is that?

Also, again the study doesn't say that the Iron Microspheres came from any kind of thermite.

Is the RJ Lee study wrong now?

And again, your argument has shown that nanothermite can't be the source of the spheres. So all of that is irrelevant.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

I am curious what youtube video he watched that made him change his entire theory to the secret Nazis.
Also why he was so willing to go with that conspiracy given his other claims about the Nazis during the holocaust.

The Jews and Saudis and CIA and FBI and Mossad and the President and Biden and basically everyone all working together is so cumbersome and complex to make up. Hard work.

Apparently just easier to pin everything on secret Nazi's.

Here I'll demonstrate: Nazi's are evil. They escaped to the US. Since they tried to take control of Germany it "only makes sense" they would try to take over the US. However since they were Nazi's they had to do it covertly. Something something, they were responsible for JFK and 9/11..

Sprinkle a bunch of bull**** in there to make it sound more "historical" and off you go..

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It is important to clarify here again scientists found the nanothermite in the WTC dust.

Lol, a bunch of conspiracy enthusiasts and quacks found some compounds sent to them by anonymous internet people, and decided were "explosives". Any future reference to them, no matter that they didn't support any explosive theory was evidence of.. an explosive theory

The same way Bigfoot hunters are always finding "evidence" of Bigfoot, strange that..

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Apparently just easier to pin everything on secret Nazi's.

Here I'll demonstrate: Nazi's are evil. They escaped to the US. Since they tried to take control of Germany it "only makes sense" they would try to take over the US. However since they were Nazi's they had to do it covertly. Something something, they were responsible for JFK and 9/11..

But not Holocaust denial. Oddly there's no nazis behind that...

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Lol, a bunch of conspiracy enthusiasts and quacks found some compounds sent to them by anonymous internet people, and decided were "explosives".

Then they published that work in a shady as **** journal that basically publishes whatever without peer review.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

but they didn't find any.

Also reading the RJ Lee study and they don't say anything about finding nanothermite at all. They don't mention finding anything at all that could be the nanothermite you believe others found.
Why is that?

Also, again the study doesn't say that the Iron Microspheres came from any kind of thermite.

Is the RJ Lee study wrong now?

RJ. Lee composition here.


The collected samples from background buildings to compare with buildings that had WTC dust.
In a typical building there was only 0.04 Fe spheres, so there they could tell, was not left over spheres from construction.
The WTC dust itself had a composition of 5.87 percent of weight- rounded off to six percent of all the WTC dust had Iron molten spheres.
Iron Microspheres is molten Iron. How does a local fire at 800c inside the building make them? To melt steel you need a temperature of 1400c or higher. There efficiently produced when you ignite Aluminum and Iron oxide and left byproduct is Iron Microspheres.

storker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"If something can't be explained it means some unexplained conspiracy took place" - conspiracy enthusiasts

As I've pointed out before, creationists use this tactic too. They think all you need to do it poke a bit of a hole in evolutionary theory and that makes Genesis true.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ. Lee composition here.


The collected samples from background buildings to compare with buildings that had WTC dust.
In a typical building there was only 0.04 Fe spheres, so there they could tell, was not left over spheres from construction.
The WTC dust itself had a composition of 5.87 percent of weight- rounded off to six percent of all the WTC dust had Iron molten spheres.
Iron Microspheres is molten Iron. How does a local fire at 800c inside the building make them? To melt steel you need a temperature of 1400c or higher. There efficiently produced when you ignite Aluminum and Iron oxide and left byproduct is Iron Microspheres.

Note how iron suddenly becomes steel in the middle of this..

Dohnjoe

storker wrote: »

As I've pointed out before, creationaists use this tactic too. They think all you need to do it poke a bit of a hole in evolutionary theory and that makes Genesis true.

A good few years back there was also famously a creationist thread where literally one poster kept denying evolution to hint at creation.. one guy kept it going for hundreds and hundreds of pages

Sound familiar..

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ. Lee composition here.

Yes, but they don't have anything about nanothermite there at all. They didn't find any.
They also don't say that any of the iron spheres are the result of any kind of thermite.

You're misrepresenting a scientific paper you don't understand. Again.

Iron Microspheres is molten Iron.

Well no, they aren't molten, by definition.

How does a local fire at 800c inside the building make them?

How can you produce iron microspheres with a candle flame?
How can you produce iron microspheres by hitting something with a hammer?

There's a lot of ways to produce microspheres without a high temperature.

And all of this is moot because we've shown, using your argument that the nanothermite explanation is impossible.
These spheres can't have come from nanothermite.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Note how iron suddenly becomes steel in the middle of this..

Show me an experiment where "molten Iron" forms at 800c please.

They used A36 grade steel in the construction of the towers.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

How can you produce iron microspheres with a candle flame?
How can you produce iron microspheres by hitting something with a hammer?

There's a lot of ways to produce microspheres without a high temperature.

Huh are you really this naive?

The fourth zone of the candle (sometimes call the veil) is the faint outside blue edge that extends from the blue zone at the base of the flame and up the sides of the flame cone. It is blue because it directly meets with the oxygen of the air, and is the hottest part of the flame, typically reaching 1400o C (2552o F)
https://candles.org/candle-science/

Hitting it with a hammer? Where the experiment.

storker

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Iron Microspheres are there in the WTC dust. Saying I don’t want to believe nanothermite is the cause of it is stupid thinking. You have to provide a source then to explain the massive amount of Iron Fe spheres found. So far alternative explanation not provided by any of you.

In terms of the truth, though, all it does is possibly raise a question i.e. how did it get there? Personally I might be more interesting in delving into it and finding out things like, where/when was it found? What was the chain of custody of the evidence? Who found it? And, critically, what else could explain it? I might, but I won't because I've wasted enough time running down truther claims of proof that turned out to be not even close. Life's too short.

It's certainly interesting but, at best...at absolute best with fair weather and a strong tailwind, it might amount to a "Hmm...maybe...just maybe...there's something in it." But...having witnessed Truthers' propensity to misuse evidence, use bad science, misquote witnesses and even reports and make false claims for other evidence and having seen this this in action for myself (and busted one of the claims), I wouldn't even go that far.

What it definitely doesn't justify is the position that the microspheres are proof positive of an inside job. You're not seeking the truth, CS, you're seeking your truth. Not the same thing at all.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Huh are you really this naive?

The fourth zone of the candle (sometimes call the veil) is the faint outside blue edge that extends from the blue zone at the base of the flame and up the sides of the flame cone. It is blue because it directly meets with the oxygen of the air, and is the hottest part of the flame, typically reaching 1400o C (2552o F)
https://candles.org/candle-science/

So candles are hotter than the fires at the WTC?
Lol

Also note how the temperature there is still below the melting point of steel. So how is it at all possible to produce iron Microspheres with a candle?


You've ignored several of my points. You are avoiding them because you are once again being a dishonest coward.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

So candles are hotter than the fires at the WTC?
Lol


You've ignored several of my points. You are avoiding them because you are once again being a dishonest coward.

Yes, a candle is hotter. Are you disputing candle science?
NIST highest limit was 1000 degrees Celsius and dropped down to 800 Celsius and 600 Celsius inside when it cooled a bit.
Since there is molten Iron the temp would have to be closer to 1400 Celsius and no mainstream group believes the fire got that hot.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They used A36 grade steel in the construction of the towers.

Good. And fires weaken steel. What is the strength of structural steel at 1,100C?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes, a candle is hotter. Are you disputing candle science?

Lol This is the single funniest thing you've ever posted.

A candle can melt steel beams apparently...:rolleyes:

NIST highest limit was 1000 degrees Celsius and dropped down to 800 Celsius and 600 Celsius inside when it cooled a bit.

And as we all know, a candle when lit immediately brings the temperature of the room up to 1400 degrees Celsius.

It's also why blacksmiths just use a single candle for their work.

Tell us Cheerful, when you were pretending to be a welder, did you use a candle much at all?

Dohnjoe

Yikes, look at that..

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Good. And fires weaken steel. What is the strength of structural steel at 1,100C?

Weakening means sagging, not melting.
The highest temperature according to the mainstream was 1000c. NIST overhyping it too that fire got that hot burning paper inside the building.
Short 400c to produce Molten Iron.
Why would steel be pushed out sideways if gravity pulling everything down?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol This is the single funniest thing you've ever posted.

A candle can melt steel beams apparently...:rolleyes:

?

Huh more idiocy from Kingmbob.
Candle a single flame
Fire is not a single flame.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Weakening means sagging, not melting.

The towers didn't fall because steel melted, they fell because the steel weakened (and thermal expansion)

Temps of over 1000c in WTC 1 and WTC 2

So what happens to steel at 1000c?

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

.

Apparently just easier to pin everything on secret Nazi's.

Actually....
Given the muppetry going on!
I'm convinced that it's not secret Nazi's that it was Hydra all along!
And I found the proof in a cursory search of the internet

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Huh more idiocy from Kingmbob.
Candle a single flame
Fire is not a single flame.

Lol a Candle flame is not fire now?

Cheerful, what do you think happens when you light a candle in a room? Does the room become 1400 degrees? If not, why not?
What happens if you leave a candle under an iron plate? Does it melt through? If not, why not?

You see Cheerful it's these things that show you don't know what you're talking about.
It's these things that make us think you're telling fibs when you claim to be a welder.
It's these things that make us think you're not an adult.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The towers didn't fall because steel melted, they fell because the steel weakened (and thermal expansion)

Temps of over 1000c in WTC 1 and WTC 2

So what happens to steel at 1000c?

NIST argument is the floor trusses sagged from fire and pulled in the perimeter steel spandrels at the corners. According to NIST the floor trusses is where the collapse began not at the Hat truss- steel core.
Truthers don’t believe this, their opinion is the Hat Truss steel core was taken out and inside support was then pushed out after the implosion.
The have a powerful case when they're a massive amount of FE molten Microspheres in the dust. Temps are much higher than what the mainstream studies suggest. How it got that hot the debunkers don’t address.  

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »


The have a powerful case when they're a massive amount of FE molten Microspheres in the dust. 

You don't have a case there. That's why you keep running away from points and why you have to lie and misrepresent things.

For example, you keep quoting the RJ Lee study when it explictly states that there was no nanothermite found in the dust and that the microspheres didn't come from any kind of thermite.

Your case can't be that strong if you have to constantly reinvent reality around you.

But again, it's all moot as you've proven that the nanothermite explanation is impossible.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST argument 

No need for any of that, a high school student can understand

It's very simple, what happens to steel at 1000c?

It loses 10% of it's strength, or is it more?