AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

storker

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

It shows poor critical thinking on your part. The lack of an alternative explanation does not make your explanation the correct one. Especially when one considers its source.

To borrow a phrase, this is the "conspiracy of the gaps".

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Like i said.

There is no alternative hypothesis will explain the massive amount of elemental Iron microspheres found in the WTC dust. Turning your back to the evidence does not change the discoveries. Truthers found some unignited nanothermite chips in their dust samples and burned them and when ignited the Iron rich spheres appeared. The paper provides a substantive explanation here. Skeptics like Mick on the other hand look at low probability events that could not have started inside the building and produced the amount of Iron/sphere reckoned here by RJ and Lee. I suggest you look at the actual evidence instead of thinking there nothing here.

You can't face up to reality here not my issue.
You have no credible theory to explain it and clear to everyone who has no bias.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There is no alternative hypothesis will explain the massive amount of elemental Iron microspheres found in the WTC dust.

There is.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is.

What is it then, how many times do i have to ask?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You be banned already on another forum for telling lies.

I haven't told any lies. You lie constantly.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

But you haven't.
Your source isn't viable.
Partly because it's not shown by any evidence. And partly because one of the papers you're citing actively says that there is no nanothermite in the dust.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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,

All of them. We already told you that.
Particles of iron and steel can form microspheres when exposed to flame.
The same is true if steel is hit hard enough.
Microspheres are also produced in construction and in things like cutting steel.

But this is all moot because again, your own argument has proven that the nanothermite explanation is false and impossible.
I don't understand why you are disagreeing with yourself and why you keep ignoring that fact.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

All of them. We already told you that.
Particles of iron and steel can form microspheres when exposed to flame.
The same is true if steel is hit hard enough.
Microspheres are also produced in construction and in things like cutting steel.

If only the evidence was that simple and you again ignoring the conclusions of the study.

The Iron Microspheres formed during the event.
Not before or after How many times do i have to repeat this?
Produced during the construction is not RJ and Lee claim.

Like i posted already
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.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What is it then, how many times do i have to ask?

Because you do nothing in good faith here. When a plausible explanation is presented that everyone else gets then you either

1. "Don't understand" it
2. Deny it

Here is a direct quote from the RJ Lee group

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

RJ Lee are suggesting that the buildings were blown up? if yes, please point their affirmation of this (I fully expect you to invent some story surrounding this)

And now answer the question: what happens to steel at 1000c?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If only the evidence was that simple and you again ignoring the conclusions of the study.

The Iron Microspheres formed during the event.
Not before or after How many times do i have to repeat this?
Produced during the construction is not RJ and Lee claim.

But the RJ Lee study doesn't actually say that.
You are misrepresenting them.

Further, you are misrepresenting Mick Wests explanations as several of them work DURING the event. Particularly the fire and the hitting steel very hard.

You are also actually ignoring the actual conclusions of the study.
The RJ Lee Study concludes that there wasn't any nanothermite found.
They specifically say that the microspheres were not made by any kind of thermite.

Why does the RJ Lee study not show the nanothermite in the dust like the other study?
Why does the RJ Lee study not say that the iron microspheres were caused by thermite of some kind?
Why does the RJ Lee study not mention the fact that the dust would be inconsistent with a fire based collapse?
Why does the RJ Lee study not find any exotic materials or other explosives like you believe were there?

You keeping ignoring those and at this point hundreds of other questions.

Like i posted already
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."

Again, Mick West doesn't disagree or second guess the study at all. That's a misrepresentation from the con men at AE9/11.
It's also very funny and hypocritical that you are posting this given that you, a man who can't do basic math or tell I from L, has second guess entire fields of experts in areas of physics, maths, history, biology and architecture and engineering. You previously said you knew better than Hulsey because you were a welder.

The funniest part is you don't seem to get or understand this irony.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because you do nothing in good faith here. When a plausible explanation is presented that everyone else gets then you either

1. "Don't understand" it
2. Deny it

Here is a direct quote from the RJ Lee group



RJ Lee are suggesting that the buildings were blown up? if yes, please point their affirmation of this (I fully expect you to invent some story surrounding this)

And now answer the question: what happens to steel at 1000c?

Obviously unable to read
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC.

Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
That's fine, but what temperature? Until you know the temp, you can't confirm how hot they believed it got.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Obviously unable to read

Another insult claiming I can't read - third one this thread

I answered your question, why didn't you answer mine?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Obviously unable to read
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC.

Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
That's fine, but what temperature? Until you know the temp, you can't confirm how hot they believed it got.

How hot do they believe it got?
Please quote them.

Also where they say that the temperatures the official story says weren't high enough to produce what they found.


I'm betting we're about 5 posts away from you declaring yourself more of an expert than the people in the RJ Lee study.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Another insult claiming I can't read - third one this thread

I answered your question, why didn't you answer mine?

You answered better than King mob i give you that.

How hot?
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC.
This does make sense, but that aint happening at 800c to 1000c
Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

I am curious what temp they had in mind do you know?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

I'm betting we're about 5 posts away from you declaring yourself more of an expert than the people in the RJ Lee study.

Note the manufactured qualifier. "But RJ Lee didn't provide X, and until we know X then their report definitely means 'splosions"

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You answered better than King mob i give you that.

How hot?
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC.
This does make sense, but that aint happening at 800c to 1000c
Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

I am curious what temp they had in mind do you know?

But again, candle flames can produce iron microspheres.
Why would the temperature inside the building matter?

Also, again why does the study say there was no nanothermite in the dust? Were they wrong there?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But again, candle flames can produce iron microspheres.
Why would the temperature inside the building matter?

Iron in the towers would not melt till went over 1400 degrees Celsius. RJ. Lee obvously does believe that occurred.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You answered better than King mob i give you that.

No. As usual you immediately moved the goalposts

AE911 maintains the idiotic nonsense that "iron microspheres = thermite"

"lots of iron microspheres = like totally thermite"

There's iron microspheres everywhere, you use a brillo pad to clean a pot? iron microspheres.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Iron in the towers would not melt till went over 1400 degrees Celsius.

But cheerful, no one is claiming that the iron in the towers melted. That's a dishonest misrepresentation you've been corrected on hundreds of times.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ. Lee obvously does believe that occurred.

Cool. Quote where the study says that.

Also you are again ignoring that the RJ Lee study says there was no nanothermite in the dust.
Why does it say that?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But cheerful, no one is claiming that the iron in the towers melted. That's a dishonest misrepresentation you've been corrected on hundreds of times.


Cool. Quote where the study says that.

Also you are again ignoring that the RJ Lee study says there was no nanothermite in the dust.
Why does it say that?

RJ and Lee is. They even state the very high temperatures produced the Iron-rich spheres inside the building.
Quote here.
Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
Iron rich spheres are molten, the Iron melted. You can only produce them when you heat the Iron high enough for the process to begin.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ and Lee is. They even state the very high temperatures produced the Iron-rich spheres inside the building.
Quote here.
Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

Yes. And where do they state the temperature was above what the other authorities say it was?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Iron rich spheres are molten, the Iron melted. You can only produce them when you heat the Iron high enough for the process to begin.

You don't seem to understand how they are formed at all.

You also again don't seem to understand what the word molten means.
They aren't molten. They're solid.
How can you be a welder and not know what the word "molten" means...?

And again, you are ignoring what the rest of the Study says.
Why are you ignoring it?

RJ Lee study says there was no nanothermite in the dust.
Why does it say that?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Also, again why does the study say there was no nanothermite in the dust? Were they wrong there?

The Nano thermite is at the nanoscale you need specialised equipment to identify its properties and to most observation it just looks like flakes of paint in the dust. When they did a chemical analysis the XEDs chart showed there was embedded nano particles of Aluminum and Iron oxide. This is nano-engineering very advanced chemistry.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

RJ Lee study says there was no nanothermite in the dust.
Why does it say that?

You are telling this to a poster who literally believes that NIST were part of the conspiracy..

Obviously RJ Lee are in on it too..

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Nano thermite is at the nanoscale you need specialised equipment to identify its properties and to most observation it just looks like flakes of paint in the dust. When they did a chemical analysis the XEDs chart showed there was embedded nano particles of Aluminum and Iron oxide. This is nano-engineering very advanced chemistry.

lol

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

lol

That what the experiments showed.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Nano thermite is at the nanoscale you need specialised equipment to identify its properties and to most observation it just looks like flakes of paint in the dust.

Because they are flakes of paint.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When they did a chemical analysis the XEDs chart showed there was embedded nano particles of Aluminum and Iron oxide. This is nano-engineering very advanced chemistry.

That's not true at all.
Please quote exactly where the RJ Study says this and conclude it was nanothermite.
And because you ignored the question last time: where do they state the temperature was above what the other authorities say it was?

It's also bizarre because you're claiming that they couldn't detect it and that they did detect it. Which is it?

And again, if they weren't doing proper procedures, that you seem to know more about, why should we trust this paper at all?
Sounds like you're second guessing the study.

Also, called you'd pretend to be more of an expert.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

That what the experiments showed.

No, they didn't. No one has ever found proper evidence of explosives at 9/11.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Because they are flakes of paint.

False you even see the Iron spheres/balls on the end of one of the burned nanothermite chips. A thermatic reaction occurred.


This is the scientists zooming in using a microscope to see the unburned nanothermite chip found in the dust.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

False you even see the Iron spheres/balls on the end of one of the burned nanothermite chips. A thermatic reaction occurred.

Wait a second. You said that the Nanothermite chips were too small for the RJ Lee to have detected.
But now you are saying that they were bigger than the iron microspheres the RJ Lee study did detect.

How is this possible?
If they detected the microspheres, then they would have detected the nanothermite they were attached to.
But they say in their study that they didn't find any thermite of any kind.
Thermite is not mentioned at all.

How do you explain this?

Are you now going to reject and second guess the RJ Lee study?
Remind us of your qualifications to do so.

You also said:

When they did a chemical analysis the XEDs chart showed there was embedded nano particles of Aluminum and Iron oxide.

Please quote where in the RJ Lee study they said this.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Wait a second. You said that the Nanothermite chips were too small for the RJ Lee to have detected.
But now you are saying that they were bigger than the iron microspheres the RJ Lee study did detect.

The found only a few unignited Nano thermite samples in the dust, they got lucky some of the Nano thermite did not ignite. They thought it was paint chips at the beginning but the XEDs and SEDS showed the chemical composition to have ingredients of thermite but at the nanoscale. Even Oystein admits there is Iron Oxide in the chips at the nano scale, but he ignores nano Iron oxide used in paint primers is highly unlikely it very expensive even in 2001, never mind before that when the towers got build. Oystein mine opposition is there Aluminum there in the samples for it to be Nano thermite.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The found only a few unignited Nano thermite samples in the dust, they got lucky some of the Nano thermite did not ignite. They thought it was paint chips at the beginning but the XEDs and SEDS showed the chemical composition to have ingredients of thermite but at the nanoscale.

Sorry, I asked you to quote where in the RJ Lee study all of this is said.
Please quote exactly or you will be exposed as lying yet again.

Also please explain how the RJ Lee could have missed these nanothermite flakes when they are bigger than the iron microspheres.
Why did you claim previous that they were too small to detect?
Why do they not mention this nanothermite in their study?
Do you now believe that their study is wrong?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Even Oystein

I don't know who this Oystein is and I don't really care.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know who this Oystein is and I don't really care.

He is the resident expert on the international skeptic forum. He is the go-to guy on that forum about these topics.

Oystein, the guy who came up with the paint theory to explain it. Mick West often uses his explanations.