AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

banie01

King Mob wrote: »

.

A random flash can be explained by any number of things. But it can't have been a thermite reaction as it's been prove that there's no byproducts of a thermite reaction.

That CS has now embraced the UV release as having happened, despite in another thread not even being aware of the UV release a thermite reaction creates, is just another example of trolling IMO.
The UV release, indeed the lack of it!
Was dealt with extensively in a previous thread, but now as CS has once again contradicted himself so often he needs a distraction.

So now we have a random whit flash as evidence of the UV release?
A random white flash...
When CS's theory relies on the simultaneous ignition of massive amounts of the magical nanothermite to allow a "controlled" demolition.

This is dishonesty and trolling on a huge scale.

King Mob

banie01 wrote: »

That CS has now embraced the UV release as having happened, despite in another thread not even being aware of the UV release a thermite reaction creates, is just another example of trolling IMO.
The UV release, indeed the lack of it!
Was dealt with extensively in a previous thread, but now as CS has once again contradicted himself so often he needs a distraction.

So now we have a random whit flash as evidence of the UV release?
A random white flash...
When CS's theory relies on the simultaneous ignition of massive amounts of the magical nanothermite to allow a "controlled" demolition.

This is dishonesty and trolling on a huge scale.

Oh, I'm convinced you can argue against cheerful exclusively using things he said himself on one occasion or another..

Timberrrrrrrr

King Mob wrote: »

Oh, I'm convinced you can argue against cheerful exclusively using things he said himself on one occasion or another..

He's like Trump, He will deny he said it and then when he is shown the post he either claims you misunderstand what he really meant or just ignores the facts and goes off on another tangent, repeatedly ignoring ignoring ignoring until its forgotten about.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

A random flash can be explained by any number of things..

This thread amusing on so many levels and disconnect from reality is interesting.It no wonder 9/11 taken so long to be solved when people see this evidence and still think something else happened.

White flash appears (it so bright it not blocked by the darkness of the fires, smoke and soot- white light appears in thermic reactions
The Yellow liquid pouring out of the towers (in the white's light vicinity ) 100 percent evidence melting happening in this location.
Iron Microspheres in the dust Molten Iron (1500 degrees Celsius)-official story no melting happened inside the building at all.
Steel melted, reported by FEMA (an unusual phenomenon)
I'm out, I let you guys bury your head in the sand.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But that doesn't explain why there's no aluminium oxide.
If there's not aluminium oxide, then there was no thermite reaction. End of story.

Also, RJ Lee stated that the iron they found was not the result of a thermite reaction, it was produced by heat. So the iron they found was not a product of a thermite reaction.

Posted this evidence already do you read? 
In a fire- The Aluminum oxide turns to a fume ( white smoke)  
You have a silly belief there be this neatly formed Al powder substance there after the destruction of the towers. Forgetting here is Al oxide reacts in a fire 

Even some of the Al oxide got recovered after the fire it likely hardened to a slag with Iron- and other things and be noted in studies as just elemental Al with Iron. 

Yes correct RJ Lee group does say heat caused it, so therefore that rules out a conventional explanation for the molten Iron.. 

NIST in their report and repeating myself- said fires were only 1000 degree Celsius and no steel melted inside the building at all .

How does Iron melt when its melting point temp higher?

When you bury your head in the sand you don't notice the issues with the official story.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Posted this evidence already do you read? 
In a fire- The Aluminum oxide turns to a fume ( white smoke)  

That doesn't matter even if true. There would still evidence of it.
Smoke just just fly away completely. It would still leave residue of alminuim oxide.

But aluminium oxide doesn't just turn into white smoke and fly away without a trace. That's a very silly suggestion with no scientific basis and is a pathetic attempt at a handwave.

There wasn't any aluminium oxide. Therefore, there's no thermite reaction

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes correct RJ Lee group does say heat caused it, so therefore that rules out a conventional explanation for the molten Iron.. 

Yes. Heat caused it.
It does rule out it being caused by thermite however as thermite doesn't produce iron via melting. It provides it via a reducing process.

Therefore the iron is not a byproduct either.

So no byproducts, no thermite.

I believe this is the 10th time you've declared that "you're out"

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. Heat caused it.
It does rule out it being caused by thermite however as thermite doesn't produce iron via melting. It provides it via a reducing process

Rest of it, just speculation. Nobody knows truly what would have happened here. We do know Al oxide reacts in a fire and turns to a fume like vapour (similar to white smoke)

Second point (quote) spot on. What's happening in the Harrit nanothermite study!!! What producing the molten Iron in their study- you just said it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Rest of it, just speculation. Nobody knows truly what would have happened here.

It's not speculation. It's what's in the RJ Lee study/
[QUOTE=Cheerful Spring2;11352731
We do know Al oxide reacts in a fire and turns to a fume like vapour (similar to white smoke)[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't. And still there would be some present. Claiming that it all vanished without a trace is silly.

[QUOTE=Cheerful Spring2;11352731
Second point (quote) spot on. What's happening in the Harrit nanothermite study!!! What producing the molten Iron in their study- you just said it. [/QUOTE]
But it's not. Firstly, the Harrit study is a fraud.
Secondly, they claim that it was a thermite reaction and that their iron was the result of reducing, not melting.

The RJ Lee study states that the iron was produced by melting, not because of a reduction reaction.
Do you not know what the difference between reduction and melting?

It's not a byproduct.
So we see no byproduct. Therefor no thermite reaction.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

I
But it's not. Firstly, the Harrit study is a fraud.
Secondly, they claim that it was a thermite reaction and that their iron was the result of reducing, not melting.

The RJ Lee study states that the iron was produced by melting, not because of a reduction reaction.
Do you not know what the difference between reduction and melting?

You still not able to see the problem here

RJ Lee says temps were hot enough to melt Iron and vaporise it- nobody else agrees with them, a point you have failed to understand

Do you not know 1000 degrees Celsius and 1530 degrees Celsius are not even in the same ball park- terms of heat?

RJ Lee correct though temps were hot enough to melt steel.

What happens when nanothermite ignited ( high heat source of energ (15y+ Molten Iron sphere appear) the signatures are there the spheres got produced by a thermic reaction.

Harrit Fe spheres chemistry matches the chemistry of Fe spheres in the WTC dust.
Nanothermite produces heat enough to melt steel and iron + Fe spheres

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Y
RJ Lee correct though temps were hot enough to melt steel.

Lol, still with this...
This argument has shown to be utter nonsense. Keep using it though.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What happens when nanothermite ignited ( high heat source of energy+ Molten Iron sphere appear) the signatures are there the spheres got produced by a thermic reaction.

But the RJ Lee study says that's not the case.
They say that it was produced in the fires, not by thermite.
They say that it's the result of melting, not a reduction.
In a thermite reaction it produces iron via reduction, not melting.

The phrase "high heat source of energy+ Molten Iron sphere appear" is absolute nonsense and sounds like something a child pretending to be a scientist would make up.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Harrit Fe spheres chemistry matches the chemistry of Fe spheres in the WTC dust.

No, it doesn't. At all.
The RJ Lee study did not find any thermite and does not mention thermite.

It states that there was no aluminium oxide was found and the iron was the result of melting, not a thermite reaction.

There was no thermite cheerful.
Accept it.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, still with this...
This argument has shown to be utter nonsense. Keep using it though.

But the RJ Lee study says that's not the case.
They say that it was produced in the fires, not by thermite.
They say that it's the result of melting, not a reduction.
In a thermite reaction it produces iron via reduction, not melting.

The phrase "high heat source of energy+ Molten Iron sphere appear" is absolute nonsense and sounds like something a child pretending to be a scientist would make up.


No, it doesn't. At all.
The RJ Lee study did not find any thermite and does not mention thermite.

It states that there was no aluminium oxide was found and the iron was the result of melting, not a thermite reaction.

There was no thermite cheerful.
Accept it.

Your clueless
Find me one mainstream collapse study that says fires inside the building reached the melting of Iron.
If you can't- have wasted your time on here for two years.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Find me one mainstream collapse study that says fires inside the building reached the melting of Iron.

Cheerful, that's not our argument.

You still haven't actually addressed the lack of aluminium oxide.
You still haven't explained why you think RJ Lee is wrong about how the iron wasn't formed in a thermite reaction.

There was no thermite.
Your theory has been debunked by a study you posted.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, that's not our argument.

You still haven't actually addressed the lack of aluminium oxide.
You still haven't explained why you think RJ Lee is wrong about how the iron wasn't formed in a thermite reaction.

There was no thermite.
Your theory has been debunked by a study you posted.

Your deflection does not work here.

I have addressed it, don't like my explantation. I not going to repeat the post for your benefit.

The Fe- spheres were found in WTC dust ( so previously molten Iron formed in the buildings just before collapse)

Mainstream Studies ( NIST the main one denies heat was high enough to melt steel- never mind elemental Iron (has a higher melting point)- this is too challenging of a statement for your mind for some reason?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have addressed it, don't like my explantation. I not going to repeat the post for your benefit.

No, you haven't at all. You've just declared that it vanished in puffs of white smoke.
That's the silliest handwave you could think of.

The RJ Lee study shows that there was no aluminium oxide.
Therefore there is no thermite.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Fe- spheres were found in WTC dust ( so previously molten Iron formed in the buildings just before collapse)

And the RJ Lee study showed that wasn't caused by thermite.
So again, no thermite.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mainstream Studies ( NIST the main one denies heat was high enough to melt steel- never mind elemental Iron (has a higher melting point)- this is too challenging of a statement for your mind for some reason?

But again, that's not what we've been explaining to you.
We've shown you dozens of ways to form iron microspheres that don't require giant superhot fires. All of them are applicable. None of them you've actually addressed.

We've not seen anything from you to explain the lack of aluminium oxide or iron produced via reduction.

I thought you were done?
I assume that's like how I was on ignore?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

No, you haven't at all. You've just declared that it vanished in puffs of white smoke.
That's the silliest handwave you could think of.

The RJ Lee study shows that there was no aluminium oxide.
Therefore there is no thermite.


And the RJ Lee study showed that wasn't caused by thermite.
So again, no thermite.


But again, that's not what we've been explaining to you.
We've shown you dozens of ways to form iron microspheres that don't require giant superhot fires. All of them are applicable. None of them you've actually addressed.

We've not seen anything from you to explain the lack of aluminium oxide or iron produced via reduction.

I thought you were done?
I assume that's like how I was on ignore?

Smarty pants, have a unique view, provide the science? Stop saying it can’t and doesn’t do this , and stuff like that, its annoying.
I posted a link to the website and was about Al oxide. They stated in a hot fire Al would fume. There goes your oxide powder and will turn to a vapour in the air.
If you dispute this provide your own link?

RJ Lee showed no such thing
Confirmed something in the dust that’s a hallmark of a thermite reaction ( the Iron Fe spheres) ]
If you had read the RJ Lee study or the blogs postings correctly, notice mentioned, the Iron would vaporise in their explanation ( a temp over 2800 degrees Celsius) Again ignored.
If you had read the report- notice the dust in background buildings when clean up was ongoing and Fe spheres left over from construction in these buildings was only 0.04% weight. The WTC dust identified as having 5.8% weight ( you talking thousands and thousands of Iron molten spheres in the dust made before collapse)

They're not dozens of ways- this again is a false statement.
You have shown in this thread many times- still don’t know the difference between oxidation and reduction?
Steel Wool, flint steel and oxygen produce Iron oxide spheres- but you did not know that- fell into the trap of believing Mick found some molten Iron here:)

It same for the other experiment (oxidation process occurred) not a reduction to pull the iron from the Iron oxide
99 percent of Mick experiments are not applicable to the towers when it was on fire. The only legitimate one is friction (steel on steel hit each other) but then again unlikely to create fresh balls of Molten Iron. Likely an oxide from the steel making particles (iron oxide and some silicon based spheres)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Smarty pants, have a unique view, provide the science?

Lol. This is the most childish thing you've said.:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Stop saying it can’t and doesn’t do this , and stuff like that, its annoying.

It you find it annoying then stop making false and silly unscientific claims. Stop lying about your links. Stop misrepresenting things. Stop pretending to understand and know things you don't.

If you keep doing those things like you do in every post, then I'm going to keep pointing it out.

If you like you can pretend to put me on ignore again.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I posted a link to the website and was about Al oxide. They stated in a hot fire Al would fume. There goes your oxide powder and will turn to a vapour in the air.

Lol. Nope. That's a misrepresentation at best.
Where in your website that all the Aluminium oxide just vanishes without leaving any trace?
It does not say that because the notion is silly and ridiculous.

Fuming doesn't mean vaporise. And even if all the aluminum oxide would still be there and settle with the dust, falling as aluminium oxide microspheres.
There's no aluminium oxide anywhere in any scientific report.
This is because there wasn't any.

No aluminium oxide, no thermite. That's a simple scientific fact.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

RJ Lee showed no such thing
Confirmed something in the dust that’s a hallmark of a thermite reaction ( the Iron Fe spheres) ]

But it did show that.
It showed there was no aluminium oxide.
It showed that the iron found wasn't produced by a thermite reaction.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you had read the RJ Lee study or the blogs postings correctly, notice mentioned, the Iron would vaporise in their explanation ( a temp over 2800 degrees Celsius) Again ignored.

And again, it's you not understanding sciencitific concepts and misrepresenting and misunderstanding clear statements.

RJ Lee himself stated that there was no thermite present.
He said that they were caused by the fires. He does not reject the official story.

The rest is your twisting of reality to fit so you don't have to admit to being wrong.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you had read the report- notice the dust in background buildings when clean up was ongoing and Fe spheres left over from construction in these buildings was only 0.04% weight. The WTC dust identified as having 5.8% weight ( you talking thousands of Iron molten spheres in the dust made before collapse)

Firstly you are misrepresenting what the study says.
Secondly, your grammar and writing are again so bad, I can't actually decipher what you're claiming.

"was only 0.04% weight" and "The WTC dust identified as having 5.8% weight" are not correct sentences.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They're not dozens of ways- this again is a false statement.
You have shown in this thread many times- still don’t know the difference between oxidation and reduction?

I do know the difference. You apparently don't know the difference between reduction and melting and you don't seem to understand what oxide is.
Again, you show complete ignorance about scientific terms and topics.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Steel Wool, flint steel and oxygen produce Iron oxide spheres- but you did not know that- fell into the trap of believing Mick found some molten Iron here:)

Again, and?
You call them iron sphere even though you also said that they weren't pure iron since they came from steel.
This is also a contradiction to your other claims that the spheres were 100% pure iron.

And again, in another point you ran away from, even if they were pure iron spheres at one point, they wouldn't be for very long. Pure iron, when it's exposed to air, oxidises. That's a scientific fact.

So the study would ahve had to have found iron oxide spheres. It's impossible that they found pure iron spheres.

Flint and steel also produce the exact same kind of microspheres as it begins with a flake or chip of pure iron that oxidises.
It's the same when any steel gets hit very hard.

So again, to ask a question you keep running away from:
Why do believe there were pure iron microspheres when there's no evidence for them?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It same for the other experiment (oxidation process occurred) not a reduction to pull the iron from the Iron oxide
99 percent of Mick experiments are not applicable to the towers when it was on fire.

Which you claim by lying and accusing him of falsifing his experiments. You are too much of a coward to state that to his face directly.

And again, you claim that the iron microspheres were created via reduction, but the RJ Lee study states clearly they weren't. It states they were created via melting.
Melting is not reduction.
You keep confusing these terms.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The only legitimate one is friction (steel on steel hit each other) but then again unlikely to create fresh balls of Molten Iron. Likely an oxide from the steel making particles (iron oxide and some silicon based spheres)

That statement is scientifically nonsense and has no backing whatsoever.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. This is the most childish thing you've said.:rolleyes:


It you find it annoying then stop making false and silly unscientific claims. Stop lying about your links. Stop misrepresenting things. Stop pretending to understand and know things you don't.

If you keep doing those things like you do in every post, then I'm going to keep pointing it out.

If you like you can pretend to put me on ignore again.


Lol. Nope. That's a misrepresentation at best.
Where in your website that all the Aluminium oxide just vanishes without leaving any trace?
It does not say that because the notion is silly and rediculous.


But it did show that.
It showed there was no aluminium oxide.
It showed that the iron found wasn't produced by a thermite reaction.


And again, it's you not understanding sciencitific concepts and misrepresenting and misunderstanding clear statements.

RJ Lee himself stated that there was no thermite present.
He said that they were caused by the fires. He does not reject the official story.

The rest is your twisting of reality to fit so you don't have to admit to being wrong.

Firstly you are misrepresenting what the study says.
Secondly, your grammar and writing are again so bad, I can't actually decipher what you're claiming.

"was only 0.04% weight" and "The WTC dust identified as having 5.8% weight" are not correct sentences.


I do know the difference. You apparently don't know the difference between reduction and melting and you don't seem to understand what oxide is.
Again, you show complete ignorance about scientific terms and topics.


Again, and?
You call them iron sphere even though you also said that they weren't pure iron since they came from steel.
This is also a contradiction to your other claims that the spheres were 100% pure iron.

And again, in another point you ran away from, even if they were pure iron spheres at one point, they wouldn't be for very long. Pure iron, when it's exposed to air, oxidises. That's a scientific fact.

So the study would ahve had to have found iron oxide spheres. It's impossible that they found pure iron spheres.

Flint and steel also produce the exact same kind of microspheres as it begins with a flake or chip of pure iron that oxidises.
It's the same when any steel gets hit very hard.

So again, to ask a question you keep running away from:
Why do believe there were pure iron microspheres when there's no evidence for them?


Which you claim by lying and accusing him of falsifing his experiments. You are too much of a coward to state that to his face directly.

And again, you claim that the iron microspheres were created via reduction, but the RJ Lee study states clearly they weren't. It states they were created via melting.
Melting is not reduction.
You keep confusing these terms.


That statement is scientifically nonsense and has no backing whatsoever.

Back to ignore again. You at it again providing no evidence to back your statements and whataboutery post.

Ted_YNWA

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Back to ignore again. You at it again providing no evidence to back your statements and whataboutery post.

Either ignore someone or don't, this constant advertising of the fact is childish.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Back to ignore again. You at it again providing no evidence to back your statements and whataboutery post.

I was never on ignore.

You're simply running away again because you can't address anything.

The RJ Lee study is the nail in the coffin for your silly conspiracy theory.
It shows for a fact there was no thermite of any kind present in the building.
It shows for a fact there was no aluminium oxide.
It shows the iron they found was not formed by reduction during a thermite reaction.
It shows there were no other signs of a thermite reaction anywhere.
It shows that the microspheres could have been and were formed by a variety of different ways.

You can't explain the lack of aluminium oxide. You have to lie and dodge and run away.
You can't explain why all the iron wasn't formed by reduction. You have to lie and dodge and run away.
You can't explain why the study doesn't show or support anything about your silly theory. You have to lie and dodge and run away.
You can't explain away all the different methods for how the microspheres formed. You have to lie and dodge and run away.

You haven't been able to address any of Mick Wests points.
You haven't been able to explain the shady dishonest tactics of AE9/11 on this topic.
You haven't been able to a single scrap of evidence for your theory in nearly 20 years of wasted research and effort.

All you have is that the RJ Lee study used the word "melted". That's it.
You are clinging to that one word and your silly narrow interpretation of it. You are ignoring all the other parts of that study.

The only reason you haven't just turned on the RJ Lee study, like you do whenever a source is shown to be against the conspiracy, is that AE9/11 snookered themselves and declared that the study was infallible and perfect.
And since you can't go back on your original claims that the study can't be questioned, you're stuck as well.

It's very funny. And you've done an excellent job in showing that 9/11 truthers are ridiculous, petty, ignorant and dishonest.

Timberrrrrrrr

King Mob wrote: »

I was never on ignore.

You're simply running away again because you can't address anything.

The RJ Lee study is the nail in the coffin for your silly conspiracy theory.
It shows for a fact there was no thermite of any kind present in the building.
It shows for a fact there was no aluminium oxide.
It shows the iron they found was not formed by reduction during a thermite reaction.
It shows there were no other signs of a thermite reaction anywhere.
It shows that the microspheres could have been and were formed by a variety of different ways.

You can't explain the lack of aluminium oxide. You have to lie and dodge and run away.
You can't explain why all the iron wasn't formed by reduction. You have to lie and dodge and run away.
You can't explain why the study doesn't show or support anything about your silly theory. You have to lie and dodge and run away.
You can't explain away all the different methods for how the microspheres formed. You have to lie and dodge and run away.

You haven't been able to address any of Mick Wests points.
You haven't been able to explain the shady dishonest tactics of AE9/11 on this topic.
You haven't been able to a single scrap of evidence for your theory in nearly 20 years of wasted research and effort.

All you have is that the RJ Lee study used the word "melted". That's it.
You are clinging to that one word and your silly narrow interpretation of it. You are ignoring all the other parts of that study.

The only reason you haven't just turned on the RJ Lee study, like you do whenever a source is shown to be against the conspiracy, is that AE9/11 snookered themselves and declared that the study was infallible and perfect.
And since you can't go back on your original claims that the study can't be questioned, you're stuck as well.

It's very funny. And you've done an excellent job in showing that 9/11 truthers are ridiculous, petty, ignorant and dishonest.

I'm not posting here anymore, it's obvious now that he will lie/deflect and manipulate over and over. He posts for reaction and he gets it, this subject is him feeding his over inflated ego to try make himself sound intelligent. Its exhaustive reading his lies and manipulation and he just isn't worth the effort.

Carry on if you want but honestly we all know he will be posting the same shìte and lies in 12 months time.

Overheal

Harrit et al. Said they burned the chips and it burned at 460C or something, so according to them it was thermite but they don’t mention any smoke and even if they did mention a smoke they’d still have to run a chemical analyses on the smoke to prove that it was in fact fuming off copious amounts of aluminum oxide. Their study doesn’t show any presence of any aluminum oxide. They should still see aluminum oxide particles under the microscope as well. They don’t identify any. Nobody does.

There’s no getting around this.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

Harrit et al. Said they burned the chips and it burned at 460C or something, so according to them it was thermite but they don’t mention any smoke and even if they did mention a smoke they’d still have to run a chemical analyses on the smoke to prove that it was in fact fuming off copious amounts of aluminum oxide. Their study doesn’t show any presence of any aluminum oxide. They should still see aluminum oxide particles under the microscope as well. They don’t identify any. Nobody does.

There’s no getting around this.

We also have to bare in mind that cheerful previously tried to insinuate that nanothermite didn't produce aluminium oxide because "the chemistry was different."
He also tried to claim that when the RJ Lee study mentioned Aluminium, they were also including aluminium oxide.

He knows this is a major, theory killing issue. He knows he can't address it. He knows he can't now reject the RJ Lee report or claim it's wrong in someway.
He's tried to get around it.

Hence why I think he'll be throwing a strop in the next few posts to bail out of the thread.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Harrit et al. Said they burned the chips and it burned at 460C or something, so according to them it was thermite but they don’t mention any smoke and even if they did mention a smoke they’d still have to run a chemical analyses on the smoke to prove that it was in fact fuming off copious amounts of aluminum oxide. Their study doesn’t show any presence of any aluminum oxide. They should still see aluminum oxide particles under the microscope as well. They don’t identify any. Nobody does.

There’s no getting around this.

Dr. James Millette find in his chips?
MVA Scientific Consultants

The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon

The only argument here is Dr Milette claims the Silicon/ Al bonded and Harrit claim it not bonded in the matrix.

Free elemental nanoparticles + nano Iron oxide we have nanothermite.
The two sides are in diagreement is the Al elemental.
Harrit tests show molten Iron after burn- so who do you believe.
There is Al in the chips Millette tested! The Al did not come from the steel.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dr. James Millette find in his chips?
MVA Scientific Consultants

The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon

The only argument here is Dr Milette claims the Silicon/ Al bonded and Harrit claim it not bonded in the matrix.

Free elemental nanoparticles + nano Iron oxide we have nanothermite.
The two sides are in diagreement is the Al elemental.
Harrit tests show molten Iron after burn- so who do you believe.
There is Al in the chips Millette tested! The Al did not come from the steel.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm

So no aluminum oxide, then.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Free elemental nanoparticles + nano Iron oxide we have nanothermite.

This statement is meaningless nonsense. It's technobabble.

You've been asked repeated to post the chemical equation for what you think nanothermite is, but you've ignored the question every time because you can't do it.
This is mostly likely because you don't know what chemical equations are or how to write them.

Also previously you ahve stated that the nanothermite was iron oxide and aluminium. That's what the frauds at AE9/11 claim too based on their sham paper.
If this is the case, then there would be aluminium oxide in the dust.

You now seem to be rejecting that position again and changing your mind to claim that the nanothermite wasn't iron oxide and aluminium.

This shows that you have no actual theory, you're just making up things as they go to best fit your beliefs.

Overheal

Harrit et al. made it clear when they claimed to have found thermite material that they were referencing Aluminum + Iron Oxide.

So, if its thermite we should see iron particulate (we do) and aluminum oxide particulate (we do not).

A grave and undermining blow to the entire branch of 9/11 science claiming to have proven thermite reaction occurred.

Ipso

Why is it that this belief system is essential to some people’s lives?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Free elemental nanoparticles + nano Iron oxide we have nanothermite.

Also, on top of being a nonsense statement, it's also a bit of fib:

Nano-thermite (thermatic nanocomposite energetic material) has been studied in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. A TEM image of a thin section of that material was published by R. Simpson11 in 2000 and
shows material that is made up of approximately 2 nanometer iron oxide particles and approximately 30 nanometer aluminum metal spheres (Figure 21).

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm

Nanothermite is iron oxide and aluminium. That means it's byproducts are iron and aluminium oxide.

There was no aluminium oxide found in the WTC dust.
The iron found was not produced by the reduction in the thermite reaction.
Therefore, there was no nanothermite.

Cheerful, you might want to switch to space lasers. It's far far more plausible...

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Harrit et al. made it clear when they claimed to have found thermite material that they were referencing Aluminum + Iron Oxide.

So, if its thermite we should see iron particulate (we do) and aluminum oxide particulate (we do not).

A grave and undermining blow to the entire branch of 9/11 science claiming to have proven thermite reaction occurred.

Thermites are a class of compounds used for various purposes like welding, extraction of metals from ores, or, by the military, as an incendiary capable of damaging tanks and other equipment. The most common form of thermite is based on aluminum powder and iron oxide; the term "thermite" is therefore often used as a synonym for the aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture. Thermite reactions are highly exothermic - i.e. they release relatively large amounts of energy. The common aluminum/iron oxide thermite mixture reacts into aluminum oxide, which is present in a whitish aerosol/"smoke", and iron, present as molten iron at temperatures of up to 4,500° F.

Overheal

Ipso wrote: »

Why is it that this belief system is essential to some people’s lives?

Forbidden knowledge complex. Disbelief that it happened. etc.