nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

Not sure why it taken this long for AE911 truth to dispute Mick West unfounded science on his forum.
Mick will not like it his unfounded disputes got debunked by using mainstream references and footnotes.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/690-refuting-a-demolition-denier-s-false-claims-about-iron-microspheres

The part Mick West (bold in black) trying to debunk, but he can't, he distorts facts about their study on his forum.

Chris Sarns:
West isn't qualified to second-guess the RJ Lee Group. Let's look at this description of what the consulting firm does: "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."

RJ Lee is clear that "the microspheres were formed during the event" — not before, not after, but "during." There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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)

And 0% weight aluminum oxide so definitely not thermite

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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)

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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

guy a joke.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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?

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.

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)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Fe spheres is elemental Iron.

Two pieces of steel struck together can create sparks.

How hot are those sparks?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkph_NNC73g

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)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkph_NNC73g

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2

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.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST openly admits they never tested the steel for thermite residue. Your point is a distraction.
.

RJ Lee's study would have found it. They didn't.

Harrit's fraud study was actively looking for explosives and couldn't find it.

Pointing out the fact that there was no thermite reaction is not really a distraction when the theory is the towers were destroyed by thermite/nanothermite.

Your point about the NIST is a distraction.

And besides the NIST didn't look for any evidence of a space laser either...

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

It would still produce aluminum oxide. Lots of it.

NIST openly admits they never tested the steel for thermite residue. Your point is a distraction.

22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

If you don't check, you don't know. NIST does not care about science, they already had a pre-determined answer.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Have you science papers about nanothermite/ composites to dispute their findings? You comparing it to thermite silly. Especially when standard thermite would not ignite at the temps, they saw in the dsc

It would still produce aluminum oxide. Lots of it.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You comparing it to thermite silly.

But you plagerised the wikipedia page about thermite to compare it to nanothermite.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113530612&postcount=780

Seems a bit hypocritical...

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Poster above the mass of the chip is micro- the ingredients embedded in it are nano sized.

The poster above is still confused why you are calling him "the poster above".
Are you still pretending I'm on ignore?

Also, the poster above quoted you as saying:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nanoparticles are the size of pencil head or strain of hair.

Mass and size aren't the same thing.

The size of a "pencil head" or "strain of hair" is measured in micrometers, not nanometers.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Clearly not because he couldn’t demonstrate the presence of any aluminum oxide.

Case closed

Have you science papers about nanothermite/ composites to dispute their findings? You comparing it to thermite silly. Especially when standard thermite would not ignite at the temps, they saw in the dsc

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Independent Chemist verified the Harrit study on his own and he confirmed the harrit paper years later. He collected dust samples from museums and universities and did his own tests. He worked on the dust and confirmed it was nanothermite.

Case not closed.

But it can't have been nanothermite.
There was no aluminium oxide in the WTC dust and no experiments or papers, including the sham harrit paper have shown that there was any present.

There was no aluminium oxide, because there was no nanothermite.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Independent Chemist verified the Harrit study on his own and he confirmed the harrit paper years later. He collected dust samples from museums and universities and did his own tests. He worked on the dust and confirmed it was nanothermite.

Case not closed.

Clearly not because he couldn’t demonstrate the presence of any aluminum oxide.

Case closed