AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

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.

You keep running away from the fact there no mainstream explanation for the Iron Microspheres found in the dust.
Truthers discovered nanothermite in their dust samples and we have source for the Fe spheres.
What you even on about it can’t be the source, when they have already show it was.
We days in now, and you still have no alternative explanation.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You keep running away from the fact there no mainstream explanation for the Iron Microspheres found in the dust.

But there is. You've already been shown this.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Truthers discovered nanothermite in their dust samples and we have source for the Fe spheres.

But they haven't.
And one of the sources you're using explictly states that it didn't find any nanothermite at all and that the iron spheres didn't come from thermite of any kind.

Why does the RJ Lee study say that there wasn't any nanothermite in the dust?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What you even on about it can’t be the source, when they have already show it was.

But this has been explained to you.
Your own argument proves it.

No building in history has ever been demolished by nanothermite, therefore it's impossible.

If the nanothermite explanation is impossible, then it can't be the source of the spheres.

Also, again cause it's really funny when you try to pretend to know science:
What happens when you put a candle under iron? Does it melt? The flame is 1400 degrees and you said that was enough to make the metal molten.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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?

This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak, every steel framed building that caught fire would collapse. There is dozens of steel framed erected building have caught fire and burned for hours and hours and never collapsed down.
On 9/11 they dropped down in 40 minutes. Fire spray on protection holds for three plus hours and stops the steel from getting too hot. Fires don’t continue to burn the same section for hours, fires burn out fairly quicky without fuels and combustibles.   

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You keep running away from the fact there no mainstream explanation for the Iron Microspheres found in the dust.

There is

Truthers discovered nanothermite

They didn't. They discovered common compounds like iron and aluminium.

If my house collapsed, and truthers sifted through the rubble they would discover such explosive compounds as ammonium nitrate used in dynamite (printer-ink) and hydrogen peroxide used in liquid explosives (laundry detergent)

Oh and if my office building collapsed, they would find many, many iron microspheres. Conclusion: nano/super-thermite secret controlled demolition

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But there is. You've already been shown this.

Which experiment show us all and enlighten me to how this occurred inside the building. I be waiting i bet.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak  

Now you're claiming that steel doesn't weaken when it gets hotter?

You sure are doing a lot of science today cheerful.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Now you're claiming that steel doesn't weaken when it gets hotter?

You sure are doing a lot of science today cheerful.

The steel coated with fire protection up to 3 hours in the towers
One of the towers collapsed in 40+ minutes.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Which experiment show us all and enlighten me to how this occurred inside the building. I be waiting i bet.

Go back and watch the video from Mick West or read his arguments. You've been shown them before.

Now going back to the points you dodged
Why does the RJ Lee study say that there wasn't any nanothermite in the dust?

You will again dodge this question.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak,

Wow, so you are actually claiming that fire doesn't weaken steel?

That all of this is bull****
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284995632_Properties_of_Steel_at_Elevated_Temperatures

That everything we know and can demonstrate about steel vs fire temperatures is bull****?

That's your claim..

Here's the engineering forum
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=431

Shall I check there?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The steel coated with fire protection up to 3 hours in the towers
One of the towers collapsed in 40+ minutes.

But why would it be coated with fire protection if steel doesn't weaken when it gets hot?

When steel is at 1000 degrees clesius, how much of it's strength does it have? 100%?

This seems like something a welder would know, so I'm betting that you're going to dodge since you won't know.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Go back and watch the video from Mick West or read his arguments. You've been shown them before.

.

Pick one where he explains how the Fe spheres got produced inside the building.
Using butane and welding torches to make them is a non starter here.,

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow, so you are actually claiming that fire doesn't weaken steel?

That all of this is bull****
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284995632_Properties_of_Steel_at_Elevated_Temperatures

That everything we know and can demonstrate about steel vs fire temperatures is bull****?

Cheerful is just that much more of an expert.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Pick one where he explains how the Fe spheres got produced inside the building.
Using butane and welding torches to make them is a non starter here.,

Lol no thanks. They are all viable explanations and I'm not going to go through them in detail with you when you're not capable to sticking to topics and you'll ignore anything you can't deal with.

Watch the videos and take up your issues with him on his forum.

In the meantime:
Why does the RJ Lee study say that there wasn't any nanothermite in the dust?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Fire spray on protection holds for three plus hours and stops the steel from getting too hot.

We know the fireproofing was compromised.

Conspiraloons of course ignore this.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Fires don’t continue to burn the same section for hours, fires burn out fairly quicky without fuels and combustibles.   

We know that 90,000 liters of jet fuel were dumped into the building, further igniting combustibles like plastic, carpet, paper, curtains causing an inferno hot enough to weaken and sag the trusses.

Conspiraloons of course ignore this.

Dohnjoe

Imagine reaching a level of denial where you literally just deny science flat out

salmocab

I regularly read these forums for a giggle, there would almost certainly have been arc flash present in all these events which burns at 10,000 degrees if I remember correctly. That would melt most metals I’d think and quite quickly too

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow, so you are actually claiming that fire doesn't weaken steel?

That all of this is bull****
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284995632_Properties_of_Steel_at_Elevated_Temperatures

That everything we know and can demonstrate about steel vs fire temperatures is bull****?

That's your claim..

Here's the engineering forum
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=431

Shall I check there?

I love how you unable to read.
Was the steel exposed and had no protection? No, is your answer
You trying to claim the steel was uncoated here and the fire was just weakening steel everywhere in the building. This is fake news.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Imagine reaching a level of denial where you literally just deny science flat out

Huh, some get stronger at certain temperatures. Neat. I didn't know that.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol no thanks. They are all viable explanations and I'm not going to go through them in detail with you when you're not capable to sticking to topics and you'll ignore anything you can't deal with.

The purpose of this discussion is to identify the source for the Iron Microspheres inside the building.
It’s laughable I can not get straight answer from you guys. It posts and posts of deflection.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I love how you unable to read.

Perfectly well able to read.

This is what you wrote

This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak, every steel framed building that caught fire would collapse. There is dozens of steel framed erected building have caught fire and burned for hours and hours and never collapsed down.

It is that weak. Steel is vulnerable to fire.

Are you suggesting it isn't?

What happens to steel at 1000c? how much does it weaken by?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

. They are all viable explanations

Again False.
RJ. Lee made a specific claim they formed during the event. Not before (construction) or after (collapse) Still have got that point yet and we are days in now.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The purpose of this discussion is to identify the source for the Iron Microspheres inside the building.
It’s laughable I can not get straight answer from you guys. It posts and posts of deflection.

But we do answer you directly. You're the only one doing any dodging.

I don't know who you think you're fooling...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again False.
RJ. Lee made a specific claim they formed during the event. Not before (construction) or after (collapse) Still have got that point yet and we are days in now.

But that's not what the study says.
But the RJ Lee study does say that there wasn't any nanothermite found in the dust.
The study also says that the microspheres weren't produced by nanothermite.

I think you haven't actually read it...

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The purpose of this discussion is to identify the source for the Iron Microspheres inside the building.

We know the source. Topic is finished.

But you keep attempting, in a bizarre way, to repeatedly and falsely suggest it's from "explosives", part of "controlled demolitions" brought all the buildings down, which is completely unsupported nonsense of course.

The pretense going on from you in here is incredible. It's like a flat-earther constantly creating/replying to their own flat-earth threads in the belief that by doing so, there is some "debate" on the subject.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But we do answer you directly. You're the only one doing any dodging.

I don't know who you think you're fooling...

...

You be banned already on another forum for telling lies.
I provided a source for the Fe spheres in the dust, The truthers have an explanation.
Mick and your kind do not. Mick has experiments which one is it that shows how the Fe spheres got produced in the twin towers?
Pick one please,

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We know the source. Topic is finished.

This forum is overrun with debunkers who don't want to explain their theory about this subject.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I provided a source for the Fe spheres in the dust, The truthers have an explanation.

This is completely false.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is completely false.

Post 108.,
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058078139&page=8

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We know the source. Topic is finished.

But you keep attempting, in a bizarre way, to repeatedly and falsely suggest it's from "explosives", part of "controlled demolitions" brought all the buildings down, which is completely unsupported nonsense of course.

The pretense going on from you in here is incredible. It's like a flat-earther constantly creating/replying to their own flat-earth threads in the belief that by doing so, there is some "debate" on the subject.

Its like the drunk in the pub who doesn't know when to go home or the kid who ends up kicking an orange football up against the wall alone at night.

Almost 20 years after the event, the truther movement is dead (in the absence of any credible evidence) yet Cheerful is citing a study that was debunked over a decade ago, admitting to PMing Mick West and writing nonsense like "There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis."

Its great banter.

Its over Cheerful. Case closed. Now you just need to come to terms with the fact that you've wasted so much time involved in the rubbish.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Its like the drunk in the pub who doesn't know when to go home or the kid who ends up kicking an orange football up against the wall alone at night.

Almost 20 years after the event, the truther movement is dead (in the absence of any credible evidence) yet Cheerful is citing a study that was debunked over a decade ago, admitting to PMing Mick West and writing nonsense like "There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis."

Its great banter.

Its over Cheerful. Case closed. Now you just need to come to terms with the fact that you've wasted so much time involved in the rubbish.

It shows how dishonest debunkers are on this forum, when they unable to provide an alternative explanation.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This forum is overrun with debunkers who don't want to explain their theory about this subject.

This is your excuse. You are one of the few 9/11 truthers on boards. And you are, so far, the only one who believes secret Nazi's carried it out.

We know what happened on 9/11. You are arguing against history (and science) for a theory you can't detail, let alone support.

You are constantly dishonest, for example you keep claiming that you are finished but come back again, and each time with the same recycled stuff.

Again, anyone can sit here writing hundreds of "X was an inside job" posts, there are no rules against that. That's not evidence of anything.

You can't just claim something, you have to demonstrate it to others, but you can't, so you label everyone as "debunkers" in a vain effort to dismiss massive logical and reasoning gaps in your beliefs