AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

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?
.

They found no burned chips in the dust. The spheres obviously are left over particles from whatever was left after collapse. The only found unignited chips.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Ok. So?
You should talk to him about his points.
But I get the feeling it's the same deal as Mick West where you're too afraid of him to interact directly.

You've ignored my points again to go on a weird tangent about your other weird obsession with people from other forums.

You lied about the RJ Lee because you don't understand it and likely haven't read it.
The RJ Lee study disproves your theory as they specifically say there's no nanothermite. You have shown that they should have detected it since it was bigger than the microspheres they did detect.
You tried to lie and claim that they nanothermite was too small for them to detect, but you tripped yourself up. Again.

The other study you cling to is a fraud by con men.

You have ignored and dodged pretty much every point we've brought up. You can't address anything because you don't know anything.
You are just repeating what you are told to say by the conmen at AE9/11.
When you are forced to actually think and argue those points however, you utterly embarass yourself.

The 9/11 truth movement is dead. You are pretty much one of the last few gullible suckers who think there's anything to it and you're in the same category as moon hoax believers, flat earthers, creationists and holocaust deniers.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The only found unignited chips.

Quote the RJ Lee study where they say this.

Cause I have read it and it doesn't say that.
It doesn't say anything about nanothermite.

Because there was no nanothermite.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So?
You should talk to him about his points.
But I get the feeling it's the same deal as Mick West where you're too afraid of him to interact directly.

You've ignored my points again to go on a weird tangent about your other weird obsession with people from other forums.

You lied about the RJ Lee because you don't understand it and likely haven't read it.
The RJ Lee study disproves your theory as they specifically say there's no nanothermite. You have shown that they should have detected it since it was bigger than the microspheres they did detect.
You tried to lie and claim that they nanothermite was too small for them to detect, but you tripped yourself up. Again.

The other study you cling to is a fraud by con men.

You have ignored and dodged pretty much every point we've brought up. You can't address anything because you don't know anything.
You are just repeating what you are told to say by the conmen at AE9/11.
When you are forced to actually think and argue those points however, you utterly embarass yourself.

The 9/11 truth movement is dead. You are pretty much one of the last few gullible suckers who think there's anything to it and you're in the same category as moon hoax believers, flat earthers, creationists and holocaust deniers.

I have had chats with him bright guy more informed than Mick West.
I lied about nothing this is you again adding stuff to sentences and pretending I said something when I have not.
All I said was RJ. Lee claimed 6 percent of dust has Iron Microspheres and formed during the event.
I not once said RJ Lee confirmed nanothermite in the dust again twisting my posts for your amusement is lazy  
You off in tangents now that RJ Lee was looking for Nano thermite when there is no evidence for that.
We entering into speculation theory here what RJ Lee may or not found. Do that somewhere else, I stick to the reported findings we know.
At the nanoscale, yes it’s a needle in haystick, and finding it means nothing you still have to carry out tests to see what it is and its time consuming. It took a long time for work to be completed because you need the right equipment.  It took 3 plus years before the paper was published. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have had chats with him bright guy more informed than Mick West.

No, I don't believe that.
I think he embarased you completely and now you are moaning about him in other forums because you are afraid of talking to him again.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I lied about nothing this is you again adding stuff to sentences and pretending I said something when I have not.

Cheerful, I haven't added anything to any of your quotes. That's a lie.

You said:

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

So please quote where they said this in the RJ Lee study.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

All I said was RJ. Lee claimed 6 percent of dust has Iron Microspheres and formed during the event.

But that's not all you said.
You've made a bunch of conclusions and misrepresentations based on their study and ignored other parts.
And again, the study still doesn't say what you claimed it said.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I not once said RJ Lee confirmed nanothermite in the dust again twisting my posts for your amusement is lazy  

Yes, they didn't find any nanothermite.
If there was any nanothermite, they would have found it when they found the microspheres.
But they didn't. Because there wasn't any.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We entering into speculation theory here what RJ Lee may or not found. Do that somewhere else, I stick to the reported findings we know.

lol
The reported findings is that they didn't find any nanothermite.
They didn't find any other explosives.
They didn't find any "exotic material."
They didn't find any evidence for space lasers or mini nukes or holograms.

So since those are the findings that are actually reported in the study, we can conclude none of those things were present.
Unless you want to second guess the RJ Lee study? Cause that would be funny and hypocritical of you.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

At the nanoscale, yes it’s a needle in haystick, and finding it means nothing you still have to carry out tests to see what it is and its time consuming. It took a long time for work to be completed because you need the right equipment.  It took 3 plus years before the paper was published. 

Yes, published in a vanity journal that was pay to publish and had no peer review or oversight.
It was a con. You were fooled by it because you are desperate.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, I haven't added anything to any of your quotes. That's a lie.

You said:

So please quote where they said this in the RJ Lee study.

Information from the Harrit study not the RJ. Lee study. Correction provided now.
I too busy to reply to the rest, enough time spend on this today maybe tomorrow.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Information from the Harrit study not the RJ. Lee study. Correction provided now.
I too busy to reply to the rest, enough time spend on this today maybe tomorrow.

After how many pages :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

After how many pages :rolleyes:

This King mob mistake- not mine friend. Why should I be correcting his mistakes?

Quoting this sentence in black. I have said this in past about the Harrrit study. He just formed in his mind an opinion this is me talking about the other study. The context and post he took it from should have told him what it is about.
"they did a chemical analysis the XEDs chart showed there was embedded nano particles of Aluminum and Iron oxide.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This King mob mistake- not mine friend. Why should I be correcting his mistakes?

Quoting this sentence in black. I have said this in past about the Harrrit study. He just formed in his mind an opinion this me talking about the other study. The context and post he took it from should have told him what it is about.
"they did a chemical analysis the XEDs chart showed there was embedded nano particles of Aluminum and Iron oxide.

More lies as you try to squirm your way out of the hole you have dug yourself.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

More lies as you try to squirm your way out of the hole you have dug yourself.

You can't read, he even quoted that sentence in his last post moron.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Information from the Harrit study not the RJ. Lee study. Correction provided now.

Again you did not state this in your original post. You were talking about the RJ Lee study. Then without indicating you were changing topic you talked about " they did a chemical analysis."

This is a result of your poor writing skills, tendancy to confuse and conflate things and just blatantly lie.

If you weren't talking about the RJ study it would have been a simple matter of you just stating that. Instead you ignored it as you do with all points you find difficult.

I think what happened here is you confused the two studies. Most likely because you haven't read either.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I too busy to reply to the rest, enough time spend on this today maybe tomorrow.

No. You're running away again. You won't respond to any of the points because you haven't responded to them at any point when I brought them up in previous pages.
You'll come back posting some other rant on a new tangent to deflect from your latest embarrassment.

The RJ study disproves your theory as it finds no evidence for your theory in the dust.
If you are going to disagree with the study that would make you a hypocrite as you would be second guessing the study. And as you have demonstrated constantly you are not at all qualified to second guess anything.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You can't read, he even quoted that sentence in his last post moron.

Personal abuse because I pointed out you are wrong? Stay classy.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again you did not state this in your original post. You were talking about the RJ Lee study. Then without indicating you were changing topic you talked about " they did a chemical analysis."

False. I said nothing about the RJ Lee study. If i believed they had why would i have taken days to tell you this
This is the post
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.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Personal abuse because I pointed out you are wrong? Stay classy.

You think your friend always right., when his not.

quickbeam

Mod: Cheerful Spring2: Watch your language, and perhaps reacquaint yourself with the charter if you can't post without attacking posters.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again you did not state this in your original post. You were talking about the RJ Lee study. Then without indicating you were changing topic you talked about " they did a chemical analysis."

This is a result of your poor writing skills, tendancy to confuse and conflate things and just blatantly lie.

.

You post multiple one line sentences and you expect me to follow that? We are at this for days in now and best argument you have it can’t be Nano thermite. I ask why I don’t believe it best answer you gave.
RJ. Lee in their report state the temperatures were extreme and this is the reason for the massive amount of Fe spheres in the dust.
If you knew the properties of ignition the Nano thermite igniting increases temps. Since Rj. Lee does not state any temp in their report and I can post the link we left to guess here.
I know the temp was not 1000c and you have provided no evidence to show Iron could melt at that temperature.

Cheerful Spring2

quickbeam wrote: »

Mod: Cheerful Spring2: Watch your language, and perhaps reacquaint yourself with the charter if you can't post without attacking posters.

Fair enough, but Timber has a habit of defending Kingmob at every turn. Point taken.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ. Lee in their report state the temperatures were extreme

The RJ Lee group have never claimed the temps or anything in their report were the results of controlled demolition explosives - so anything you extract from their report which points towards that is completely false.

At no point do the authors of the report indicate that the Twin Towers were blown up

At no point do they indicate anywhere that there were controlled demolitions

It constantly contradicts your beliefs that the buildings were secretly demolished

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

False. I said nothing about the RJ Lee study. If i believed they had why would i have taken days to tell you this

But cheerful, we were discussing the RJ Lee study.
The post you quoted and were replying to was refering the RJ Lee study. The previous few posts were all referring to the RJ Lee study.

You didn't specify who "they" were.
This is due to your very poor writing style.
When most people are writing it makes things clearer to specify who you are talking about before using nonspecific pronouns.

This is compounded by the fact you continually lie, misinterpret misrepresent and misunderstand things.
How was I to determine that you weren't doing these things as you typically do?

You could have simply stated that you weren't referring to the RJ study when I asked you to provide the quote.
Instead you ignored that. You also typically ignore things you can't address, so again it seemed like it was another case of you lying or misrepresenting things.

In future, it would be much easier if you write more clearly and with correct grammar while also addressing things directly and clearly.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You post multiple one line sentences and you expect me to follow that?

I post in short sentences for your benefit. You have difficulty understanding longer sentences.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We are in days in now and best argument you have it can’t be Nano thermite. I ask why I don’t believe it best answer you gave.

But that's not my argument, you're misrepresenting me.
You are also ignoring dozens of points I've made about this topic.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ. Lee in their report state the temperatures were extreme and this is the reason for massive amount of Fe spheres in the dust.

Since Rj. Lee does not state any temp in their report and I can post the link we left to guess here.

Yes. It doesn't state a temperature. It also doesn't say the temperature was unexpected or unexplainable. It doesn't say that the microspheres were impossible at the temperature in the "official story". In fact the study says the microspheres were present as a matter of fact and shows nothing to indicate they are suspicious or a sign of anything.

If your theory was true and the temperatures were higher than in reality, then the study would indicate that. The study would say that the iron spheres shouldn't be there and that the temperatures should be higher.
They would have found nanothermite.
They would have found the other by products of thermite reactions, like the much larger, much more abundant aluminum oxide microspheres.
They would have found some evidence for other explosives.
They would have found the "exotic materials" you believe were present.

The study finds none of these things.

So you either have to accept the study's findings and none of those things are present.
Or you have to reject the study's findings.

I think you reject the study's findings. This is very funny and ironic given that you now are second guessing the study and you very obviously have no qualifications to do so.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I know the temp was not 1000c and you have provided no evidence to show Iron could melt at that temperature.

But again, this is a strawman. It's a misrepresentation of what rational people are trying to explain to you.
It's dishonest.

Throwing iron particles into a candle flame produces iron microspheres.
Iron particles falling into the fires in the WTC would also produce iron microspheres.

Hitting steel with a hammer can produce iron microspheres.
Falling debris hitting steel can also produce iron microspheres.

You can produce microspheres very easily without melting down an entire steel beam.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The RJ Lee group have never claimed the temps or anything in their report were the results of controlled demolition explosives - so anything you extract from their report which points towards that is completely false.

At no point do the authors of the report indicate that the Twin Towers were blown up

At no point do they indicate anywhere that there were controlled demolitions

It constantly contradicts your beliefs that the buildings were secretly demolished

What's even more telling is that the AE9/11 falsely accuse Mick West of disagreeing with this study.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. It doesn't state a temperature. It also doesn't say the temperature was unexpected or unexplainable. It doesn't say that the microspheres were impossible at the temperature in the "official story". In fact the study says the microspheres were present as a matter of fact and shows nothing to indicate they are suspicious or a sign of anything.

.

This is nonsensical. Just creating temperatures out of thin air then.
RJ. Lee was very careful in their report to not highlight what the extreme temperature was. There no Celsius temp provided in their report anywhere.
Temperature over 1000c would be unexpected and unusual and raise additional questions.
Whatever way you want to slice it Kingmob finding Fe spheres in 6 percent of the dust is evidence of temp that was not recorded by the official story.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But again, this is a strawman. It's a misrepresentation of what rational people are trying to explain to you.
It's dishonest.

Throwing iron particles into a candle flame produces iron microspheres.
Iron particles falling into the fires in the WTC would also produce iron microspheres.

Hitting steel with a hammer can produce iron microspheres.
Falling debris hitting steel can also produce iron microspheres.

You can produce microspheres very easily without melting down an entire steel beam.

It's dishonest you keep posting this when RJ and Lee says clearly Fe spheres formed during the event.

Not before or after

Hitting steel with a hammer can produce iron microspheres ( inside the building?) Hammer hitting steel/Iron does not produce them.
Falling debris hitting steel can also produce iron microspheres (untrue) sparks from frictions, but pure Rich Iron spheres don’t form that way.
Throwing iron particles into a candle flame produces iron microspheres ( not sure what point you making here?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

the official story.

It's not a "story". Just because you dream up narratives doesn't mean history works the same way.

The facts surrounding the event are a consensus of investigations, witnesses, experts, investigators, sources, participants, recordings, statements - a culmination of everything

Your "secret Nazis" theory is the culmination of one thing, your paranoid imagination

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a "story". Just because you dream up narratives doesn't mean history works the same way.

The facts surrounding the event are a consensus of investigations, witnesses, experts, investigators, sources, participants, recordings, statements - a culmination of everything

Your "secret Nazis" theory is the culmination of one thing, your paranoid imagination

Dohnjoe you argued years ago with me Saudi Arabia played no active role in the 9/11 attack. Years later the New York Times and other mainstream publicans support my viewpoint today.

Don't say you did not, downplayed the info like crazy about the 28 pages (classified section) of the 9/11 commission report.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is nonsensical. Just creating temperatures out of thin air then.

Yes. You are creating temperatures out of thin air.
Like below:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Temperature over 1000c would be unexpected and unusual and raise additional questions.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Whatever way you want to slice it Kingmob finding Fe spheres in 6 percent of the dust is evidence of temp that was not recorded by the official story.

Here you are dishonestly misrepresenting the RJ Lee study and claiming they said the temperature was over 1000 degrees. They do not claim this.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ. Lee was very careful in their report to not highlight what the extreme temperature was. There no Celsius temp provided in their report anywhere.

Why were they being careful to not highlight the temperature?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's dishonest you keep posting this when RJ and Lee says clearly Fe spheres formed during the event.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Not before or after

Please quote exactly where they say this.

Also, why do you keep saying "RJ and Lee"?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hitting steel with a hammer can produce iron microspheres ( inside the building?) Hammer hitting steel/Iron does not produce them.

But it can. Mick West has demonstrated this.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Falling debris hitting steel can also produce iron microspheres (untrue) sparks from frictions, but pure Rich Iron spheres don’t form that way.

Here your poor writing skills have made things unclear. You are saying both that this does produce microspheres and doesn't produce microspheres.

You are also asseting that "Pure rich iron spheres" don't form that way.
Evidence for this please.
Also provide the quote from the RJ Lee study that indicates that all the microspheres found were of this "pure rich iron sphere" type.
And also please provide a source (not from conspiracy con artists) that shows nanothermite can produce "pure rich iron spheres".

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Throwing iron particles into a candle flame produces iron microspheres ( not sure what point you making here?

No, you are sure of the point. You're just avoiding it because you can't address it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dohnjoe you argued years ago with me Saudi Arabia played no active role in the 9/11 attack. Years later the New York Times and other mainstream publicans support my viewpoint today.

Don't say you did not, downplayed the info like crazy about the 28 pages (classified section) of the 9/11 commission report.

This is (as usual) a misrepresentation, it's also an attempt to divert.

You don't understand how history works. You think it's a story "made up" by someone, much in the same way you make up your theories about events like 9/11.

According to you, with 9/11, one day it was the Jews, the next it's a military jet, and the next it's "secret Nazis". You seem to think that historical events happened according to how you imagined they happened.

Think how nutty that comes across as.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. You are creating temperatures out of thin air.
Like below:

Here you are dishonestly misrepresenting the RJ Lee study and claiming they said the temperature was over 1000 degrees. They do not claim this

NIST reported maximum temperature for the fire is 1000 Celsius no higher. Lack of understanding on your part fires were much hotter.

King Mob wrote: »

Why were they being careful to not highlight the temperature?

RJ Lee group said the temperatures were extreme in their report. Extreme mean? We need a temp here to confirm the thought process and we don’t have this information. Temp above 1000 celsius would be a problem for the official story.

King Mob wrote: »

Please quote exactly where they say this.

Should you not know this? Have you not read the report?

King Mob wrote: »

But it can. Mick West has demonstrated this

Confidence. Can i see this experiment. I need a laugh.

King Mob wrote: »

You are also asseting that "Pure rich iron spheres" don't form that way.
Evidence for this please.
.

It not up to me to proof your silly theories and locate the evidence to ridicule you. Show the experiments and let see it in action.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST reported maximum temperature for the fire is 1000 Celsius no higher. Lack of understanding on your part fires were much hotter.

But the fires weren't much hotter. The RJ Lee study does not state they were higher. You lied and said that the study claims this.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ Lee group said the temperatures were extreme in their report. Extreme mean? We need a temp here to confirm the thought process and we don’t have this information. Temp above 1000 celsius would be a problem for the official story.

You've dodged the question as per normal.
The study doesn't say that the temperatures are above what other sources say.

Why do you believe they didn't state the temperature.
Being coy and evasive only serves to make it look like you have no answer. Please be direct.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Should you not know this? Have you not read the report?

Yes I have. It doesn't say that. You're misrepresenting it. You do this for pretty much everything.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Confidence. Can i see this experiment. I need a laugh.

You can look it up yourself. And then you can complain to Mick West about it if you disagree. But you won't do this however.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not up to me to proof your silly theories and locate the evidence to ridicule you. Show the experiments and let see it in action.

No, it's your claim about "pure rich iron spheres".
You can't back any of that up, so you are avoiding it again.
You can't back it up because you're making up this idea of "pure rich iron spheres".

This is why no one takes you seriously cheerful. You're doing nothing but lying and dodging.
It's silly and pathetic.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ Lee group said the temperatures were extreme in their report. Extreme mean? We need a temp here to confirm the thought process and we don’t have this information. Temp above 1000 celsius would be a problem for the official story.

We do have the information. At no point does the RJ Lee group claim there was any evidence of controlled demolition. Their report refers to collapse, never demolition or inside job.

You keep attempting to misrepresent or hide this fact.

Cheerful Spring2

What Mick actually said.
bashed off a bunch of pain chips from my red painted steel wheelbarrow and waved a butane flame over them. Result = iron microspheres

I hit my wheelbarrow with a hammer and by miracle i found some Iron Microspheres lol. Mick does not show this unique way of doing it. He just claims it happened in his post, laughable stuff.

Plenty of photographs him using hand tools and using torches, no hammer trick at all.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/making-iron-microspheres-grinding-impacts-welding-burning.9533/