Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Read what RJ lee said in their blog, and some people on this forum, twisted the interpretation.
Iron vapourised.
Ok lets look and see the temp for vapour Iron.
Iron melts at 1538 °C and turns into a gas at 2862 °C. Gold is somewhat similiar, melting at 1064 °C and boiling at 2856 °C. Mercury, the only liquid metal, requires "only" 356 °C to boil.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-make-metals-evaporate-vaporize
Next what temp does coal based fires burn at.
According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C) under 100% air conditions. More or less air will decrease the temperature. This means that the maximum temperature of a coal fire in a forge is about 3,500°F (1,927°C).
Fire reach these temps inside the towers NO0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Iron Fe Microspheres- is evidence a thermite reaction occurred.
It's not at all. It's nonsense you've made up as a make-believe qualifier. You can write whatever you want in this thread, you can claim anything is a fact.
The world is flat: fact. My subjective imagination of that is evidence of that, fact.
There are no rules from stopping anyone doing this in here, it's a special place
0 -
-
-
It's not at all. It's nonsense you've made up as a make-believe qualifier. You can write whatever you want in this thread, you can claim anything is a fact.
The world is flat: fact. My subjective imagination of that is evidence of that, fact.
There are no rules from stopping anyone doing this in here, it's a special place
I read what they said in the Q and A. In their scenario no Iron melted inside the building.
15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). ( A36 steel its 1400 degrees Celsius)
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
They again ignore some of the steel found had material missing at the surface, in the boundaries, melted away, and left holes in it
NIST
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
RJ Lee study backs up the truthers position how the heat was generated inside the towers on 9/11
You blinded by official dogma to notice.
Iron vapourised. in one explantation.
Ok lets look and see the temp for vapour Iron.
Iron melts at 1538 °C and turns into a gas at 2862 °C. Gold is somewhat similiar, melting at 1064 °C and boiling at 2856 °C. Mercury, the only liquid metal, requires "only" 356 °C to boil.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...orate-vaporize
Next
Temp does coal based fires burn at.
According to "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 10th, coal gas burns at about 3,590°F (1,977°C) under 100% air conditions. More or less air will decrease the temperature. This means that the maximum temperature of a coal fire in a forge is about 3,500°F (1,927°C).
Fires reach these temps inside the towers NO and whataboutery will not change that.
RJ Lee is outlining temps that exceeded the temps proposed by NIST in their study.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »RJ Lee study backs up the truthers position how the heat was generated inside the towers on 9/11 You blinded by official dogma to notice.
But it doesn't.
It proves that there wasn't any aluminium oxide and that none of the iron was the result of reduction.
They show that there was no thermite reaction.
End of story.
In fact, the only truther theory it can possibly support is the space laser theory.
The space laser theory is now far more supported and reasonable than you silly debunked nanothermite nonsense.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »I read what they said in the Q and A
Not one person, in the past 20 years, has ever provided credible support that all the buildings were loaded with thermite and "blown up".
Your current argument is based around "iron microspheres = thermite" and that's completely refuted and debunked.
Like every other thread, you just keep playing this denial game, and amazingly reach a final point where the nonsense is actually exhausted (incredibly) and then you start all over again.
You've done this so many times. You'll do precisely the same in another thread in several weeks/months time
Joining any of these threads is like peering into an insane asylum.0 -
Al+ Iron oxide in the red layer matrix of the nanothermite, ingredients of thermite :rolleyes: XEDs of the chemistry
Ignite it, and burn the ingredients have Molten Iron Fe Spheres as a byproduct.
NIST admitted in their report- a strange smoke appeared at the location of the white flame :eek:
When heated high enough- Al oxide turns to a plume of white smoke.0 -
They are the ingredients now?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Al+ Iron oxide in the red layer matrix of the nanothermite, ingredients of thermite :rolleyes: XEDs of the chemistry
You've claimed a few times that they weren't. You've also changed you mind several times.
However, they are also the ingredients of a great many things.
They aren't the byproduct.
Yes, that's true with thermite.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Ignite it, and burn the ingredients have Molten Iron Fe Spheres as a byproduct.
But RJ Lee states that all of the iron spheres are the result of melting, not reduction. So we know they aren't the byproduct of a thermite reaction.
(Also "Iron Fe spheres" is not a correct term. If you say iron, the Fe is redundant. I suspect that this is because you don't know what Fe means.)
And?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »NIST admitted in their report- a strange smoke appeared at the location of the white flame :eek:
When heated high enough- Al oxide turns to a plume of white smoke.
The smoke doesn't just vanish.
Not all of the aluminium oxide vanishes.
The single link you're provided for this claim does not say that all of the aluminium oxide vanishes and it does not say that all of it does become smoke.
This is a very silly and childish excuse you've come up with, and I'm afraid it's not adequate.
If there was a thermite reaction, there would be a lot of aluminium oxide in the dust.
There isn't, so there wasn't any thermite.0 -
-
Not one person, in the past 20 years, has ever provided credible support that all the buildings were loaded with thermite and "blown up".
Your current argument is based around "iron microspheres = thermite" and that's completely refuted and debunked.
Like every other thread, you just keep playing this denial game, and amazingly reach a final point where the nonsense is actually exhausted (incredibly) and then you start all over again.
You've done this so many times. You'll do precisely the same in another thread in several weeks/months time
Joining any of these threads is like peering into an insane asylum.
I don't think you read James Milette study and reviewed it.
He confirmed the same chemistry elements in his chips too:eek: (harrit not lying about the chemistry)
He found silicon, Al and Iron oxide in the red layer
The appearance and description of the plates is different. Milette claims the silicon bonded with Al to make a clay and not free Al to make it a nanothermite
Oystein, already accepted as fact there is nano- Iron oxide particles in the red layer (uniform) at 100 nm.
The guy who debated him found out in 2006 a gram of nano- Iron oxide particles costs 80 to 100 dollars to make and order.
Too expensive to be found in red primer paint.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Where does the smoke go when you light a fire
lol
"smoke = thermite"
Wait, try to make the smoke out as "mysterious"0 -
Which poster are you refering to?Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »The other poster thinks its a solid powder again that will all appear in one spot to be noticed
Cause noone has claimed "its a solid powder again that will all appear in one spot to be noticed"
I think this is another fib you're telling to avoid an issue you don't want to talk about.
Why are you still pretending I'm on ignore?0 -
Harrit is a truther and a crank (so is Jones)
Harrit is so insane he claimed there was never an investigation into 9/11 and that no one was wanted for it.
These are the types of people you hold up. They are lunatics at best, deceptive manipulators at worst.
Return to deflection tactics. Can't refute points made. Character assassination, next choice
Debunkers are not serious about the debating the facts, they only care about winning an argument.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »There no issue. Al oxide burns in very hot temperatures and turns to a white plume of smoke that blows away in all directions.
You can even see it here in standard reactions of thermite. This is a test outside in ideal conditions where there is no added heat.
Inside the towers , after the reaction, the hot fires be burning whatever residue left.
NIST highlighted it on page 344. Unusual flame :rolleyes:
Then it would be trivial to collect a sample and prove its aluminum oxide.
Nobody has.0
Advertisement