AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Overheal · 23-05-2020 10:58pm

If the chamber echoes from the ring of facts then I don’t see the harm in that.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 10:59pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There is 9 debunkers posting about 9/11 for the last year or so and myself. You don't find this odd
You guys are trying to win the argument by force of numbers. And deny all evidence when it shown to you. You guys engage in gaslighting, whataboutery, all sorts of online tricks to win. You use each others points in posts to then gang up on me and demand answers and never provide any when i ask.

I have backed up everything with links, statements, images and so forth.
Kingmob is a role model on here- we going downhill fast as a society.

It’s probably time for you to take stock of the reality that the population of truthers has dwindled off as the vast majority of them have been engaged by the facts and restored to skepticism.

Including myself.

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-05-2020 11:00pm

Overheal wrote: »

If the chamber echoes from the ring of facts then I don’t see the harm in that.

You deny facts. You were shown what NIST said about the fires and still deflected.

How does Iron melt in 1000 degrees Celsius heat. Never answered avoided:rolleyes:

Overheal · 23-05-2020 11:05pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You deny facts. You were shown what NIST said about the fires and still deflected.

How does Iron melt in 1000 degrees Celsius heat. Never answered avoided:rolleyes:

Iron doesn’t melt at 1000 C.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been hotter.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been thermite.

Therefore, you argue, there had to be aluminum oxide.

Therefore, you must prove that aluminum oxide was present.

NIST didn’t find aluminum oxide.

AE911 didn’t find aluminum oxide.

UAF didn’t find aluminum oxide.

RJ Lee didn’t find aluminum oxide.

Harrit et al. didnt find aluminum oxide.

Therefore, by your argument, it couldn’t have been thermite.

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-05-2020 11:06pm

Overheal wrote: »

It’s probably time for you to take stock of the reality that the population of truthers has dwindled off as the vast majority of them have been engaged by the facts and restored to skepticism.

Including myself.

You watched Tucker video.

Tucker waking up to the reality that i have talked about here for years. Some posters denied here for years Saudi Arabia played a significant role in the attacks.

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-05-2020 11:08pm

Overheal wrote: »

Iron doesn’t melt at 1000 C.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been hotter.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been thermite.

Therefore, you argue, there had to be aluminum oxide.

Therefore, you must prove that aluminum oxide was present.

NIST didn’t find aluminum oxide.

AE911 didn’t find aluminum oxide.

UAF didn’t find aluminum oxide.

RJ Lee didn’t find aluminum oxide.

Harrit et al. didnt find aluminum oxide.

Therefore, by your argument, it couldn’t have been thermite.

Strawmans- you have to deny the entire study to believe that. There molten Iron after burning and there Al and Iron oxide in the red/grey chips, end of story, have a nice day.

Iron doesn’t melt at 1000 C- exactly thats the reason the official story bull****.

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-05-2020 11:13pm

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Your theories were discussed, and the plot holes in these were pointed out as to why they were unlikely.

Similarly, it's not an echo chamber to post whatever you like as fact.

Untrue.
All the findings make a mockery of the official story.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 11:16pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Strawmans- you have to deny the entire study to believe that. There molten Iron after burning and there Al and Iron oxide in the red/grey chips, end of story, have a nice day.

Not at all: I could, at my discretion, adopt the findings of each and every one of these papers, or discredit any one of them. It doesn’t matter: none of them demonstrate any claim of the presence of aluminum oxide. This simple fact of omission is inexorable, regardless of the credibility of the sources themselves.

If they did the burn test, as they say they did, they should have reported white smoke during that experiment. They did not.

They found iron oxide.

They found aluminum.

They found iron.

They did not find aluminum oxide.

This means there is no evidence of 25% of the components of a thermite reaction.

Therefore, this presents no clear evidence of a thermite reaction.

The iron oxide is rust.

Aluminum makes up most of the outer exoskeleton of the building.

Iron is the primary element of the entire superstructure.

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-05-2020 11:24pm

Overheal wrote: »

Not at all: I could, at my discretion, adopt the findings of each and every one of these papers, or discredit any one of them. It doesn’t matter: none of them demonstrate any claim of the presence of aluminum oxide. This simple fact of omission is inexorable, regardless of the credibility of the sources themselves.

If they did the burn test, as they say they did, they should have reported white smoke during that experiment. They did not.

They found iron oxide.

They found aluminum.

They found iron.

They did not find aluminum oxide.

This means there is no evidence of 25% of the components of a thermite reaction.

Therefore, this presents no clear evidence of a thermite reaction.

The iron oxide is rust.

Aluminum makes up most of the outer exoskeleton of the building.

Iron is the primary element of the entire superstructure.

Al and Iron oxide is there in the red layer means it is nanothermite.
Are you trying to say Al and Iron oxide in the red layer can't ignite?
Molten Iron on the burned red/chips is evidence a reduction occurred:D
Read the study, and find problems with it, instead of copying and pasting Kingmob rubbish.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 11:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Al and Iron oxide is there in the red layer means it is nanothermite.
Are you trying to say Al and Iron oxide in the red layer can't ignite?
Molten Iron on the burned red/chips is evidence a reduction occurred:D
Read the study, and find problems with it, instead of copying and pasting Kingmob rubbish.

They burned the material yet didn’t find any aluminum oxide.

No aluminum oxide before or after burning.

Therefore not thermite.

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-05-2020 11:29pm

Overheal wrote: »

They burned the material yet didn’t find any aluminum oxide.

No aluminum oxide before or after burning.

Therefore not thermite.

Read it
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

If you still got issues they list the authors names and can send an email to them, to find an answer.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 11:34pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read it
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

If you still got issues they list the authors names and can send an email to them, to find an answer.

They didn’t find aluminum oxide, either.

To clarify: they did not find aluminum oxide particles. They found aluminum particles with oxidized skins. This is not what we are interested in for proving the existence of the aluminum oxide byproduct of a thermite reaction.

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-05-2020 11:59pm

Overheal wrote: »

They didn’t find aluminum oxide, either.

To clarify: they did not find aluminum oxide particles. They found aluminum particles with oxidized skins. This is not what we are interested in for proving the existence of the aluminum oxide byproduct of a thermite reaction.

Quote page 21
Other Iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which
contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section).
That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have
indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of
ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1)

The report was not written for you guys. You think scientists would not known about Al oxide be real

Overheal · 24-05-2020 12:05am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Quote page 21
Other Iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which
contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section).
That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have
indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of
ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1)

The report was not written for you guys. You think scientists would not known about Al oxide be real

Of course scientists know about aluminum oxide. Which is why they’d know to mention finding any. They didn’t.

cuppa · 24-05-2020 2:26am

This is hilarious did cheerfull post an extract from the forbidden junk science NIST , to try and prove a point in post no.784. I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

The Husely report was the big one, you said , but nope it was a wet noodle.
Then look RJ Lee. bomb look , oh wait , whoops.
But look the nist agrees with me post 748.

I think its time you actually read a science book or any book instead of taking for granted what fraudsters are telling you.

King Mob · 24-05-2020 4:42am

Overheal wrote: »

They found iron oxide.

They found aluminum.

They found iron.

They did not find aluminum oxide.

This means there is no evidence of 25% of the components of a thermite reaction.

Therefore, this presents no clear evidence of a thermite reaction.

The iron oxide is rust.

Aluminum makes up most of the outer exoskeleton of the building.

Iron is the primary element of the entire superstructure.

You also have to remember, that if we use cheerful's notion that we have to take any scientist's statement at face value and have no room for context or interpretation, RJ Lee stated that all the iron melted. It didn't reduce like how iron oxide reduces to iron in a thermite reaction.
Therefore the iron can't be the product of a thermite reaction.
So we're down to no evidence for 50% of the components of a thermite reaction. And that's no evidence for 100% of the byproducts of a thermite reaction.

King Mob · 24-05-2020 4:45am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You use each others points in posts to then gang up on me and demand answers and never provide any when i ask.
.

Cheerful, you have not once answered a question directly, clearly and honestly in the first attempt.
You barely acknowledge any questions.

Your whining doesn't ring true.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-05-2020 11:58am

cuppa wrote: »

This is hilarious did cheerfull post an extract from the forbidden junk science NIST , to try and prove a point in post no.784. I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

Quote in the NIST report (ted posted) is about the white light (flash) saw on video. NIST did not discover this.

Quote i posted is from another book- about Al oxide, can melt in very high temperatures fires.

Not the same thing, try again.

Harrit reported a white smoke came off the red/grey chips when he burned them in the DSC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_scanning_calorimetry

NIST themselves said a white plume (smoke) was saw in the sky in their study. At the event on 9/11
The Al and Iron oxide are nanoparticles- how much of the Al oxide be left over in the residue when a very hot fire has not stopped burning?
Nanoparticles are the size of pencil head or strain of hair.
It's a very different material to thermite. Standard thermite is usually measured in grams ( Al+ oxide) a lot of residue is left over when burning it in open air ( with no extra heat) outside.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-05-2020 12:20pm

Overheal wrote: »

Of course scientists know about aluminum oxide. Which is why they’d know to mention finding any. They didn’t.

Mark basile an independent chemical engineer confirmed Harrit findings online. He not involved in the truth movement until much later. He collected dust samples independently from museums and universities and did his own tests.

He confirmed there is Al and Iron oxide in the chips. He burned his chip at the same temperatures as Harrit outlined in his study- pure molten Iron was produced.

That's confirmation from someone who tested the dust and not involved in the Harrit study.

Even James Millette admits there Iron oxide and Aluminum/ Silicon in his chips samples.
His claiming the silicon and Al is bonded in the matrix and not free Al to enable a reaction.

In the Harrit paper- there Iron oxide, silicon, Al, some carbon in the red layer and small traces of sulfur and other chemicals. Explain the sulfur content FEMA could not identify in their report and its origin.

Ted_YNWA · 24-05-2020 12:30pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

According to this science book, the Al oxide can melt at very high temperatures (is the case on 9/11) The AI oxide in liquid form may washed away down sewer drains on the streets. They were spraying the steel down with water and other substances for weeks to cool it down and all the liquid draining somewhere.

I am sure this will not satisfy some on here.
I think the picture yesterday it good evidence. A bright white flash observed next to the perimeter steel box columns. A bright hot yellow liquid pouring out through broken windows then.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Quote in the NIST report (ted posted) is about the white light (flash) saw on video. NIST did not discover this.

Quote i posted is from another book- about Al oxide, can melt in very high temperatures fires.

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101030

Spot the difference game.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-05-2020 12:48pm

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101030

Spot the difference game.

The book i got it from was not NIST. The author quoted from them to make a point in their book. My apologises- you're correct.

The point still stands when NIST claiming that's a white flame burning metal. They're claiming the heat there is between 1300 degrees Celsius and 1500 degrees Celsius

In the Q and A session they said fires are only 1000 degrees celsius and no steel melted. A white flame touching steel would melt it and droplets would fall off.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-05-2020 1:10pm

NIST desperately trying to hide the fact its likely steel that's burning up. There steel and Al in the bright white location.

We can see a large steel column on the back of a truck that shows the steel had material loss. Official story it only lost strength and buckled.

You see its picture belonging to the University of Berkley

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-05-2020 1:24pm

Box Steel columns (spandrels) the Al sheeting is positioned on the outer layer in front of it.
The floor trusses are made of steel and floors of concrete.

Pictures of the construction. What metal is NIST referring to?

Exact spot where the steel is

King Mob · 24-05-2020 1:24pm

Again, see how cheerful is trying to deflect away from the issue of aluminium oxide.

He knows that's a major issue. That's why he's throwing out so many different tangents all at once.
He's hoping someone will bite on one of his many lies and distortions so the discussion can move on. He's hoping people will forget about how there was no aluminium oxide found and how that disproves his nanothermite theory.

Don't let him move the issue.

King Mob · 24-05-2020 1:39pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Al and Iron oxide are nanoparticles- how much of the Al oxide be left over in the residue when a very hot fire has not stopped burning?
Nanoparticles are the size of pencil head or strain of hair.
It's a very different material to thermite. Standard thermite is usually measured in grams ( Al+ oxide) a lot of residue is left over when burning it in open air ( with no extra heat) outside.

This is all entirely made up and contradicts all of the previous claims cheerful has made so far.

He has in the last few pages declared that nanothermite is a very different material to nanothermite. But he also plagerises from the wikipedia page about thermite to prove something about nanothermite. And he's going back to saying it's a different material.

It also contradicts his previous claim that the iron found in the RJ Lee paper was the result of the thermite reaction.
He has been yelling up and down that the iron found was "rich elementary iron" which could only be produced via reduction. This reduction only happens in the thermite reaction.
So, all of those iron spheres were until this post, the same nanoparticles that he now declares were too small to find.

This is also a lie, as the RJ Lee study found many things on the nano scale.

He asks the question he himself will not answer because he doesn't know:
"how much of the Al oxide be left over in the residue when a very hot fire has not stopped burning?"
He has no idea. He doesn't have any support for his new claims because he's making them all up.

And as a final cherry on top a "strain" of hair isn't even on the nanoscopic scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoscopic_scale

The nanoscopic scale (or nanoscale) usually refers to structures with a length scale applicable to nanotechnology, usually cited as 1–100 nanometers.[1] A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.

Human hair is 17 to 181 micrometres in diameter.

If the materials in his nanothermite were "the size of pencil head or strain of hair" then they wouldn't be nano-anything.

He clearly does not understand what the prefix means.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-05-2020 1:46pm

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:

Dohnjoe · 24-05-2020 1:55pm

Overheal wrote: »

Iron doesn’t melt at 1000 C.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been hotter.

Therefore, you argue, it had to have been thermite.

Therefore, you argue, there had to be aluminum oxide.

Therefore, you must prove that aluminum oxide was present.

NIST didn’t find aluminum oxide.

AE911 didn’t find aluminum oxide.

UAF didn’t find aluminum oxide.

RJ Lee didn’t find aluminum oxide.

Harrit et al. didnt find aluminum oxide.

Therefore, by your argument, it couldn’t have been thermite.

Debate looks long over to me. One remaining individual endlessly hitting the reply button and writing vapid nonsensical arguments is not a debate, it's simply an exercise in stamina.

The Nal · 24-05-2020 2:03pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Debate looks long over to me. One remaining individual endlessly hitting the reply button and writing vapid nonsensical arguments is not a debate, it's simply an exercise in stamina.

Its been over for a long time.

Case closed.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-05-2020 2:06pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Debate looks long over to me. One remaining individual endlessly hitting the reply button and writing vapid nonsensical arguments is not a debate, it's simply an exercise in stamina.

Of course don't let inconvenient facts impede a good story.

Molten Iron only produced when Iron melts (droplets in the air) or by a reduction process where the Iron pulled from the Iron oxide.

NIST in their report says no steel melted (1400 degrees Celsius) therefore no Iron could have melted here ( 1500 degrees Celsius) have a good debate someone was arc welding, in the towers when was on fire, and lighting flint, and so on if you like, it silly.

King Mob · 24-05-2020 2:20pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Of course don't let inconvenient facts impede a good story.

Molten Iron only produced when Iron melts (droplets in the air) or by a reduction process where the Iron pulled from the Iron oxide.

And the RJ Lee Study stated that no iron was created by a reduction process.
Therefore that proves there was no thermite reaction.
Case closed again.

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Comments