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
1272829303133»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


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

    Clearly not aluminum oxide particles though because it shows up in precisely none of the chemical analyses for the dust or these particles you allege are some kind of super nano thermite.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Clearly not aluminum oxide particles though because it shows up in precisely none of the chemical analyses for the dust or these particles you allege are some kind of super nano thermite.

    Also explained they were observing the hard elements in the dust. There were not listing oxides. If they were Iron oxide be on the list ain't, thats a clue!

    Al sheeting everywhere in the building. Debunkers believe Al melted (don't disagree) so there goes another theory it not be hot enough.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Also explained they were observing the hard elements in the dust. There were not listing oxides. If they were Iron oxide be on the list ain't, thats a clue!

    Al sheeting everywhere in the building. Debunkers believe Al melted (don't disagree) so there goes another theory it not be hot enough.

    Without proof of aluminum oxide there is no conclusion to be reached about thermite.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Without proof of aluminum oxide there is no conclusion to be reached about thermite.

    You don't dispute steel can oxidise?

    You make excuses and that would not happen for Al?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Also explained they were observing the hard elements in the dust. There were not listing oxides. If they were Iron oxide be on the list ain't, thats a clue!
    .
    That's not true at all.
    The list you keep posting contains many things that aren't elements.

    514236.png
    For example glass and wool are not elements.
    It also lists compounds like Ca/Si, which is Calcium silicate and ironically is likely from the fireproofing.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_silicate


    The RJ Lee study would have found aluminium oxide and they would have mentioned it.
    The study was to determine the health effects of the dust. And aluminium oxide is not something you should be breathing in.

    If you are claiming the study missed or neglected to mention the aluminium oxide, you are calling them incompetent, which would be contradicting your opening post.

    You keep jumping around from explanation to explanation.
    First you claimed that nanothermite was different from thermite and wouldn't produce aluminium oxide.
    Then you claimed that it did produce aluminium oxide and that it was found.
    Then you claimed that the aluminium oxide would be too small to detect.
    Then you claimed the the aluminium oxide was is too small amounts to be detected.
    Then you claimed all the aluminium oxide would have burned away.
    Then you claimed that it would have been all washed away.
    Now you are claiming that everyone, including the authors of the sham Harrit paper, actually did find it, they just didn't mention it.

    Again, this looks like you're making up excuses out of your arse to save your debunked theory.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You don't dispute steel can oxidise?

    You make excuses and that would not happen for Al?

    As you said those are iron Fe spheres not rust spheres.

    We should see aluminum oxide spheres.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    As you said those are iron Fe spheres not rust spheres.

    We should see aluminum oxide spheres.

    There should be yes.
    Again, Al oxide spheres is not evidence of high temperatures. Al melts at 660 degrees Celsius.
    RJ Lee saw the Iron microspheres as evidence the temperatures were extreme inside the towers. They felt this evidence was unique to talk about it in their paper.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    There should be yes.
    Again, Al oxide spheres is not evidence of high temperatures. Al melts at 660 degrees Celsius.
    RJ Lee saw the Iron microspheres as evidence the temperatures were extreme inside the towers. They felt this evidence was unique to talk about it in their paper.

    Finally we agree, there should be aluminum oxide.

    Given that there isn’t we can’t possibly conclude that thermite brought the buildings down.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    RJ Lee saw the Iron microspheres as evidence the temperatures were extreme inside the towers. They felt this evidence was unique to talk about it in their paper. [/I]
    Again, you are misrepresenting him in a very dishonest way.
    He never said "extreme" temperatures.

    He did say however that all of the iron they found was formed due to heat.
    You said that it was all caused by reduction.

    Why are you jumping between agreeing with him and disagreeing with him?

    He also stated that there was no aluminium oxide found. You also seem to disagree with him in many ways on this.

    So it's very strange you think he's supporting you when you have to correct him so much.
    It's also very strange you are correcting him so much given the statement in your opening post:
    "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."

    ...

    There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Finally we agree, there should be aluminum oxide.

    Given that there isn’t we can’t possibly conclude that thermite brought the buildings down.

    I agree there should Al oxide present when aluminum sheathing was placed around the perimeter walls of the towers.
    You making it out, it’s an important discovery, the mainstream obliged to bring it up. It not evidence of anything unusual.
    Al sheathing oxidised (heat+ oxygen) would produce Al oxide and spheres, there no way around this.
    Al oxide was in the dust and not my problem mainstream groups failed to mention it in their report.
    Steel can oxidise so can Al in the same conditions.
    We going around in tangents now, so we end the debate.
    You have your theory, and i have mine about the Fe spheres


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I agree there should Al oxide present when aluminum sheathing was placed around the perimeter walls of the towers.
    You making it out, it’s an important discovery, the mainstream obliged to bring it up. It not evidence of anything unusual.
    Al sheathing oxidised (heat+ oxygen) would produce Al oxide and spheres, there no way around this.
    Al oxide was in the dust and not my problem mainstream groups failed to mention it in their report.
    Steel can oxidise so can Al in the same conditions.
    We going around in tangents now, so we end the debate.
    You have your theory, and i have mine about the Fe spheres

    Anything you claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    I think this thread has run its course. We seem to have put the nail in the coffin for the thermite theory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Al oxide was in the dust and not my problem mainstream groups failed to mention it in their report.
    But:
    There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis.

    Also why did you spend the last few dozen pages claiming everything BUT the idea that there should be aluminium oxide in the dust?
    You claimed that there was none, that it all vanished or got washed away, that it was too small to see or that it was in too small amounts to see.

    Where all those claims wrong?
    Why did you suggest them if they were wrong?

    This sudden change of tact to declare that there was aluminium oxide, and that all studies, including the sham Harritt paper, failed to mention it reeks a bit of desperation.
    We going around in tangents now, so we end the debate.
    Oh, that wasn't our fault.
    You have your theory, and i have mine about the Fe spheres
    And your theory is proved wrong by the RJ Lee study as it shows there was no aluminium oxide and that the iron found wasn't produced by reduction.
    Therefore, there was no thermite.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Anything you claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    I think this thread has run its course. We seem to have put the nail in the coffin for the thermite theory.

    You can close the thread have no issue at this point.

    We don't agree here. Debunkers will of course think your second line is factual:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    We don't agree here.

    There's plenty of posters who agree in this thread


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Add to that aluminum oxide is not water soluble so no chance of it all magically washing away. Even then you’d have to ignore the fact RJ Lee samples dust from all sorts of spots not exposed to water or rain or fire suppression.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You can close the thread have no issue at this point.

    We don't agree here. Debunkers will of course think your second line is factual:)

    Where’s the lie?
    I agree there should Al oxide present


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    0313b37ecc190e39ed79d5f9e844bbc7f289ee00b5a4725dea2f930e9d341fcc.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The approach you take is silly. Who in the buildings would identify criminals are coming in to plant explosives before an attack nobody thought would happen? They could have arrived at night when security was light and just did their work and went home before the workers arrived the next morning. This operation not impossible, it just takes time and having access to the building infrastructure. The people who ordered this must be influential and powerful to send men in to plant devices.

    Obviously the discovery of nanothermite suggests they're were using exotic military based chemical materials to bring the towers down on 9/11 and they tried to mask what they were doing here.

    What exotic chemical materials explain away the absence of aluminum oxide?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Overheal wrote: »
    What exotic chemical materials explain away the absence of aluminum oxide?
    I've asked many times for the chemical equation for the nanothermite. I got no response.

    Harrit and their friends at AE9/11 have all stated that the nanothermite was iron oxide and aluminium based. And in their analysis of an alleged nanothermite chips, they say nothing about exotic chemicals at all.

    Cheerful is just making up excuses.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    What exotic chemical materials explain away the absence of aluminum oxide?

    In order to do this, have to see the experiments by scientists who you trust and have tested nanothermite/composites in the lab. How much Al oxide residue would be produced when the particles in the chips found by Harrit are nanosized?

    Known Thermite experiment they use grams and grams of this stuff mixing Al powder + Iron oxide and clearly the size of the materials would matter here no?

    When you burn Al oxide in high tempatures (fire) it starts turning to a white smoke. How does one measure Al oxide smoke months and months after the attack?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    In order to do this, have to see the experiments by scientists who you trust and have tested nanothermite/composites in the lab. How much Al oxide residue would be produced when the particles in the chips found by Harrit are nanosized?
    The same amount as the iron produced.
    You claimed the iron microspheres produced were the by product of the reaction, so therefore we should see 6% aluminium oxide spheres.

    Your current excuse of the byproducts being too small has already been debunked and you've already abandoned it.
    Al powder + Iron oxide and clearly the size of the materials would matter here no?
    No, that's not how the chemistry works
    The chemical equation is the same regardless of size.


Advertisement