Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

12728293032

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    This whole thread is a distraction.
    RJ Lee says in their official report- the Iron melted, and this is the reason high quantities of Iron Fe spheres are in the WTC dust.
    Iron could not have melted inside the building, when NIST says in their report no steel melted.
    Fe spheres are previously molten Iron droplets that appear when Iron components are heated up to 1500 degrees Celsius.
    But again, even if all of this is incorrect, it's been shown by the RJ Lee study that there was no aluminium oxide.
    No aluminium oxide means that there was no thermite reaction.

    So regardless of how the melted iron was formed, we can say with confidence that it wasn't thermite.

    You are however also wrong on several of those points.
    We can get to them once you accept reality and concede that your thermite theory has been disproven.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Iron could not have melted inside the building

    Iron is red-hot at 700c. Not melted.

    Iron, red hot or not, striking other metal or concrete can produce sparks, which can produce iron microspheres
    when NIST says in their report no steel melted.

    No molten liquid steel was found in any quantities.

    They were hosing down the rubble heap for weeks to cool it down, water + white hot steel is explosive, because the water immediately turns to steam. There would have been explosions if there was any molten steel in the rubble



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Iron is red-hot at 700c. Not melted.

    Iron, red hot or not, striking other metal or concrete can produce sparks, which can produce iron microspheres


    Fe spheres is elemental Iron.
    Heating up the steel hot enough you have Steel microspheres and Iron oxide spheres.
    Fe spheres are previously molten Iron (1530 degrees Celsius)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fe spheres is elemental Iron.

    Two pieces of steel struck together can create sparks.

    How hot are those sparks?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Two pieces of steel struck together can create sparks.

    How hot are those sparks?

    You only have molten Iron, when you melt Iron components inside the building or create them by a reduction of two elements example- nanothermite ( reaction of Al and Iron Oxide (oxygen)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Two pieces of steel struck together can create sparks.

    How hot are those sparks?

    Show the video and then show the chemical signature of the flakes coming off the steel after the sparks appear?

    Steel is an alloy mixed with other elements, there be Manganese, carbon and copper mixed in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You only have molten Iron, when you melt Iron components inside the building or create them by a reduction of two elements example- nanothermite ( reaction of Al and Iron Oxide (oxygen)
    You only have molten Iron, when you melt Iron components inside the building or create them by a reduction of two elements example- nanothermite ( reaction of Al and Iron Oxide (oxygen)

    To ask again:

    Two pieces of steel struck together can create sparks.

    How hot are those sparks?

    Bonus question: are microspheres created?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    To ask again:

    Two pieces of steel struck together can create sparks.

    How hot are those sparks?

    ?

    Thats the oxidation on the steel surface.
    Heat would have to be there to melt the steel
    That's why Richard Hooke had to use flint to make his spheres (steel microspheres and Iron oxide)


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You only have molten Iron, when you melt Iron components inside the building or create them by a reduction of two elements example- nanothermite ( reaction of Al and Iron Oxide (oxygen)
    But you're contradicting yourself now.

    The components inside the towers were steel. Not iron.

    And we also know for a fact that there was no iron produced via reduction.
    RJ Lee said all of the iron they found was created via melting, not nanothermite or thermite.

    So again, no thermite.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Thats the oxidation on the steel surface.
    Heat would have to be there to melt the steel
    That's why Richard Hooke had to use flint to make his spheres (steel microspheres and Iron oxide)
    That's not how any of that works at all.

    The sparks from flint and steel are steel that is in the process of oxidising.

    You've previously said that it doesn't matter if you refer to it as iron or steel since steel is mostly iron.
    The RJ Lee study also says this.

    So again, you've been a shown a method of producing iron microspheres without massive fires or thermite.
    Case closed.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Mick describing the process here on video.
    Mick excellent at deception and is avoiding throughout how hot he heated the Iron fillings to in his experiments.
    Mick lying again Richard Hooke never identified the unique chemistry of the spheres. How could he was born in 1635
    He even admits it Iron oxide ( and then makes unverified claim the Iron would melt also) what temp Mick?
    10,000 Iron Fe microspheres from burning a few filings :D guy a joke.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mick describing the process here on video.
    Mick excellent at deception and is avoiding throughout how hot he heated the Iron fillings to in his experiments.
    Mick lying again Richard Hooke never identified the chemistry of the spheres. How could he was born in 1635

    You're deflecting. You're getting desperate.

    You keep saying things that you and everyone else knows aren't true.

    Why?

    You're theory has been disproven by a link you posted.
    Just accept that.
    No shame in being wrong and believing something stupid.
    Lots of shame in being wrong and pretending you aren't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    No steel melted and no Iron melted inside the building according to NIST.

    NIST words not mine.
    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.


    Steel has to melt if you believe it was fires caused it
    RJ Lee just said Iron melted inside the building (steel was added in brackets) in their report.
    Both studies are not in agreement about the temperatures of the fire


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Both studies are not in agreement about the temperatures of the fire
    [/I]
    And again, even it that wasn't another dishonest misrepresentation on your part, it doesn't change anything.
    The RJ Lee study shows there were no byproducts of a thermite reaction present in the dust. So no thermite reaction happened.

    Therefore your thermite theory is debunked.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    6 percent weight of all dust found in the disaster zone had Fe spheres.
    Occurred during the event
    They make no claim workers made them afterwards.
    The Background buildings untouched by the disaster (0.04 percent)

    514236.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    False Fe spheres is a byproduct of a thermite reaction. They found that in the WTC dust.

    But RJ Lee himself stated that they were produced by melting, not a reduction reaction. If they weren't produced by a reduction reaction, then they weren't a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

    This also creates an issue for you previous claim that the byproducts were too small to find because they were nanoscale. But you now claim that they found the iron byproduct. If that's the case, then they should have also found an equal amount of aluminium oxide.
    But they didn't.

    So again, they found no by products of a thermite reaction. Therefore there was no thermite reaction.

    Your silly thermite theory is dead. Just let it go.
    You're better off switching to the space laser camp. They fit the evidence much better at this stage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    6 percent weight of all dust found in the disaster zone had Fe spheres.
    Occurred during the event
    They make no claim workers made them afterwards.
    The Background buildings untouched by the disaster (0.04 percent)

    514236.png

    And 0% weight aluminum oxide so definitely not thermite


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Poster above has not coped on yet to the contradiction in both reports.

    RJ Lee says the fires were hot enough to melt steel and Iron. NIST says the opposite no steel melted (therefore no Iron melted)
    RJ Lee is right and they are right ( temperatures did indeed get hot) then NIST collapse hypothesis for the towers is wrong


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Poster above has not coped on yet to the contradiction in both reports.

    RJ Lee says the fires were hot enough to melt steel and Iron. NIST says the opposite no steel melted (therefore no Iron melted)
    RJ Lee is right and they are right ( temperatures did indeed get hot) then NIST collapse hypothesis for the towers is wrong

    The reports don’t contradict one another: neither found aluminum oxide.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    The reports don’t contradict one another: neither found aluminum oxide.

    Untrue again. They state in logical terms how the Iron microspheres can be made in their blog. None of the temps are at 1000 degrees Celsius.

    Iron does not melt at 1000 degrees Celsius, end of story, but keep going with the fantasy if you like.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Poster above has
    The above poster still thinks it's a bit silly and funny you're pretending that the above poster is still on ignore.
    The above poster also wonders why you are typing in italics now...
    not coped on yet to the contradiction in both reports.

    RJ Lee says the fires were hot enough to melt steel and Iron. NIST says the opposite no steel melted (therefore no Iron melted)
    RJ Lee is right and they are right ( temperatures did indeed get hot) then NIST collapse hypothesis for the towers is wrong[/I][/I]
    But again, as I've stated, even if this wasn't another one of your patented dishonest and silly misrepresentations, that doesn't mean it was due to thermite.

    Even if we pretend you're right about the temperatures, there's still no byproducts of a thermite reaction.
    Even if the temperatures were higher than the NIST says, that wasn't because of a thermite reaction.

    You are also wrong about the temperatures. But the focus is currently on the fact that your theory about thermite has been proven to be impossible.
    End of story, but keep going with the fantasy if you like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Cheerful. if you have someone on ignore, you have to actively click on view post. We all know this act is complete BS, so for the second time. Drop it

    514244.PNG


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    Cheerful. if you have someone on ignore, you have to actively click on view post. We all know this act is complete BS, so for the second time. Drop it

    514244.PNG

    Ignore for me. I don't quote his posts and don't reply to every point he made in this thread.

    I understand your point; he is either on ignore or his is not :) I am little lax at times.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The sparks theory nonsense anyhow when there videos taken from every angle on 9/11- there be long trails of light particles seen on video if that truly happened here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Untrue again. They state in logical terms how the Iron microspheres can be made in their blog. None of the temps are at 1000 degrees Celsius.

    Iron does not melt at 1000 degrees Celsius, end of story, but keep going with the fantasy if you like.

    No aluminum oxide no thermite end of story


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The sparks theory nonsense anyhow when there videos taken from every angle on 9/11- there be long trails of light particles seen on video if that truly happened here.
    That's not true. Nothing anyone says requires "long trails of light particles".
    You're simply making things up now.

    Also, what you you mean by "light particles"? Do you think that sparks are made out of light? Do you believe that light is a particle?

    And still, even if that's true, it doesn't matter. The thermite theory is still proven impossible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The theory about the Al oxide falls apart here.
    Aluminium is a silvery white metal. The surface of aluminium metal is covered with a thin layer of oxide that helps protect the metal from attack by air. ..[. Aluminium will burn in oxygen with a brilliant white flame to form the trioxide alumnium(III) oxide, Al2O3./B
    https://www.webelements.com/aluminium/chemistry.html

    Al2O3 is Al oxide. Should be there just from heating the Al components inside the building with oxygen present. It not suspicious at all really, was not listed thats all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The theory about the Al oxide falls apart here.
    Aluminium is a silvery white metal. The surface of aluminium metal is covered with a thin layer of oxide that helps protect the metal from attack by air. ..[. Aluminium will burn in oxygen with a brilliant white flame to form the trioxide alumnium(III) oxide, Al2O3./B
    https://www.webelements.com/aluminium/chemistry.html

    Al2O3 is Al oxide. Should be there just from heating the Al components inside the building with oxygen present. It not suspicious at all really, was not listed thats all.

    So still no evidence of aluminum oxide.

    Yes, everyone here already understands that Aluminum Oxide is Al2O3.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    So still no evidence of aluminum oxide.

    Yes, everyone here already understands that Aluminum Oxide is Al2O3.

    Obviously there was when Al was part of the towers make up and construction :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The theory about the Al oxide falls apart here.
    It's not a theory. It's a fact. There wasn't any aluminium oxide.
    Aluminium is a silvery white metal. The surface of aluminium metal is covered with a thin layer of oxide that helps protect the metal from attack by air. ..[. Aluminium will burn in oxygen with a brilliant white flame to form the trioxide alumnium(III) oxide, Al2O3./B
    https://www.webelements.com/aluminium/chemistry.html
    It's funny, cause this is exactly the same process you said is impossible in regards to iron in flint and steel.

    We could literally copy and paste your own silly arguments against this.
    Al2O3 is Al oxide. Should be there just from heating the Al components inside the building with oxygen present. It not suspicious at all really, was not listed thats all.
    Well no, why would we?
    Heating up is not the same as burning.
    Even still, there would only be trace amounts as expected.
    There was a lot more steel at the WTC than aluminium.

    However, your theory relies on the "elemental iron" being the byproduct of thermite. The iron found makes up 6% of the dust. The aluminium oxide would also have to be 6% as a thermite reaction produces equal amounts.
    It's not reasonable that RJ Lee would report the 6% of iron, but then neglect to mention the 6% of aluminium oxide.

    And even then, the frauds behind the Harrit paper would still being looking for it.

    Yet they didn't find any at all.

    Because there was no aluminium oxide. No aluminium oxide, no thermite.


Advertisement