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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

1…1415161719

Comments

  • #902
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Robert Hooke. produced Iron oxide spheres. The steel not Iron. He oxidised the steel with the flint and oxygen :D Fun reading the explantations on here.


  • #903
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Robert Hooke. produced Iron oxide spheres. The steel not Iron. He oxidised the steel with the flint and oxygen :D Fun reading the explantations on here.

    None of that silliness explains away the lack of aluminum oxide.


  • #904
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    He oxidised the steel with the flint and oxygen :D
    Cheerful that's not how that works. At all. Your statement makes no sense.

    Also, you say that he produces iron microspheres, but you then say that "The steel not Iron." which I think means that iron microspheres can't come from steel...
    I'm not sure, your writing is often unclear and hard to understand.

    This would also be a contradiction as you are claiming that Iron microspheres came from the Steel inside the building.

    You seem to be confused on that steel, iron and oxidation are.

    And again regardless of how you understand the specifics he was able to melt iron to produce iron microspheres without a huge fire.

    Hitting steel on steel also produces microspheres in pretty much the same way.

    So we have an explanation for how the microspheres were created. And we have seen that there was no nanothermite.
    Case closed.


  • #905
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And just to really drive the point home:
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-019-00847-3
    Observed initial spark temperature in this work mostly ranged within 1500°C to 1700°C. Results show evidence of both melting and oxidation of the sparks.


  • #906
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    All right let’s try this one more time
    Big claim: video and link please.
    Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron. I have never seen in my life and don’t buy it. 

    My view is the Nano thermite explains everything- Molten Iron spheres+ extreme heat.
    RJ Lee position is the Iron melted inside the buildings due to fire.

    NIST and RJ Lee fire explantation is not the same.
    NIST fires are at lower temperatures, can not melt Iron. There no way around this, the Iron will only melt at above 1500 degrees Celsius.

    Debunkers will try to hide that by linking to papers where cutting tools, and machinery equipment are making sparks at very high temps that possibly could melt the Iron. None of these techniques can be applied when there fires inside the buildings on 9/11. You have limited number of ways to make the spheres of pure Iron.


     


  • Advertisement
  • #907
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    All right let’s try this one more time
    Big claim: video and link please.
    Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron. I have never seen in my life and don’t buy it. 

    My view is the Nano thermite explains everything- Molten Iron spheres+ extreme heat.
    RJ Lee position is the Iron melted inside the buildings due to fire.

    NIST and RJ Lee fire explantation is not the same.
    NIST fires are at lower temperatures, can not melt Iron. There no way around this, the Iron will only melt at above 1500 degrees Celsius.

    Debunkers will try to hide that by linking to papers where cutting tools, and machinery equipment are making sparks at very high temps that possibly could melt the Iron. None of these techniques can be applied when there fires inside the buildings on 9/11. You have limited number of ways to make the spheres of pure Iron.


     

    Your view can’t possibly be valid without clear and irrefutable evidence of aluminum oxide


  • #908
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    All right let’s try this one more time
    Big claim: video and link please.
    Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron. I have never seen in my life and don’t buy it. 
    You are misrepresenting what we're claiming in several different ways.
    I'm not sure if it's because it's deliberate and you're desperate or because you genuinely don't understand. Probably it's a mixture of both.

    We, and science in general aren't claiming "Steel striking another similar piece of steel, can melt it, and make droplets of molten Iron."
    That is not an accurate summation of our points.
    We do not and did not say that the two pieces of steel that strike each other melt.
    That's a misrepresentation on your part.

    We also do not and did not say that just hitting two pieces of steel forms molten droplets.
    That's another misrepresentation on your part.

    You constantly misrepresent things. It doesn't help you. It only makes you look more and more desperate and dishonest.

    The fact remains that striking steel on steel can produce sparks. Sparks can form iron microspheres.
    End of story.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    My view is the Nano thermite explains everything- Molten Iron spheres+ extreme heat.
    RJ Lee position is the Iron melted inside the buildings due to fire.
    But it can't be nanothermite as there's no aluminium oxide and the iron microspheres you are pointing to where not created by reduction.

    There's no evidence of any of the by products of a thermite reaction.
    If there was a thermite reaction, especially one as massive as you believe, then there would be abundant evidence of byproducts.
    There's no by products, so there was no thermite.

    And yes, RJ Lee's position is that the building was collapsed by a fire. Not thermite or a controlled demolition.
    It's weird that you're disagreeing with the study given your opening post.


  • #909
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    Your view can’t possibly be valid without clear and irrefutable evidence of aluminum oxide

    You got an explanation, don't like it. In NIST scenario there be no molten Iron so we are at crossroads. :)

    You have taken a different road here.

    Only way to find out is sending RJ Lee an email and ask them, did you test for Al oxide smoke?


  • #910
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You got an explanation, don't like it.
    No, your explanation just wasn't true and it was very silly.

    If there was a thermite reaction, there would be abundant evidence for aluminium oxide. It would be as prevalent as the evidence for iron.
    There is no aluminium oxide, so no thermite reaction.


  • #911
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Poster above forgetting again these are nanoparticles of Iron oxide and Al
    Thermite combinations - grams of Al powder and grams of Iron Oxide is mixed for the reaction. Lots of residue left over.
    The quantities are very different.


  • Advertisement
  • #912
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Poster above forgetting again these are nanoparticles of Iron oxide and Al
    Thermite combinations - grams of Al powder and grams of Iron Oxide is mixed for the reaction. Lots of residue left over.
    The quantities are very different.

    More meaningless babble. What residue was left over??



    Also as has been mentioned multiple times, there was not even a trace of Aluminium Oxide found, so no thermite.


  • #913
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Poster above forgetting again these are nanoparticles of Iron oxide and Al
    Thermite combinations - grams of Al powder and grams of Iron Oxide is mixed for the reaction. Lots of residue left over.
    The quantities are very different.
    Again? And?
    Those are the reactants, not the products.
    You claimed previously that the iron microspheres that they did find were of nanoscale and they were the direct product of the reduction in a thermite reaction.
    If that's the case, we should see an equal amount of aluminium oxide to the iron microspheres found by RJ Lee's study.

    Further, you claim that this nanothermite took down the buildings. This requires a lot of nanothermite, so the relative sizes of the thermites don't apply.
    There would still be an abundance of the products and there would be plenty of aluminium oxide to find.

    And again, RJ Lee was looking for things on the nanoscale (which is things that are measured in nanometers, not micrometers as you claimed earlier).
    If there were nanoscale particles, RJ Lee would have found them.
    This goes even more so if the particles were the size of a "strain of hair" which is measured in micrometers, not nanometers.

    But we don't see any of those.
    We don't see any aluminium oxide at all. This is because there was no thermite reaction.
    This fact has been proven.

    Also, the poster above is confused why you're refering to him as "the poster above":confused:


  • #914
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    More meaningless babble. What residue was left over??



    Also as has been mentioned multiple times, there was not even a trace of Aluminium Oxide found, so no thermite.

    It not thermite they found?
    No standard thermite ignites at 430 degrees Celsius. The nanothermite livermore labs tested in 1999 flamed at the same temp as harrit red/grey chips.

    Nano scale. How much Al oxide would be found at 100nm or less after reaction. Even more so when the residue in a fire burning away?
    514165.png


  • #915
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You got an explanation, don't like it. In NIST scenario there be no molten Iron so we are at crossroads. :)

    You have taken a different road here.

    Only way to find out is sending RJ Lee an email and ask them, did you test for Al oxide smoke?

    It doesn’t matter: if they tested for it, they didn’t find any; if they didn’t test for it, then they didn’t find any. We still are bereft of any compelling evidence that there was any aluminum oxide particulate. Without that the thermite theory is bunk.


  • #916
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Nano-thermite. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates.


  • #917
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Nano-thermite. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates.

    So to be that you’d be able to show aluminum oxide. There isn’t any.


  • #918
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    So to be that you’d be able to show aluminum oxide. There isn’t any.

    Well had to be there because there Al and Iron oxide in the red layer- it's a weak point your making.

    The only reason i not agreeing with you is this material not your typical thermite. The ingredients are nano particles of Al and Iron oxide and Silicon. We comparing thermite to a revolutionary new incendiary.


  • #919
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Well had to be there because there Al and Iron oxide in the red layer- it's a weak point your making.

    But we know it wasn’t there. Because no study found it. And there have been numerous studies. Especially the researchers wanting to prove thermite would know to find aluminum oxide.

    They didn’t.

    Case closed. ;)


  • #920
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It not thermite they found?
    No standard thermite ignites at 430 degrees Celsius. The nanothermite livermore labs tested in 1999 flamed at the same temp as harrit red/grey chips.

    Nano scale. How much Al oxide would be found at 100nm or less after reaction. Even more so when the residue in a fire burning away?
    514165.png
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Nanoparticles are the size of pencil head or strain of hair.
    A "strain" of hair is 17 μm to 181 μm.
    That's micrometers.

    In nanometers that's 17000 nanometers to 181000 nanometers.

    You're now claiming that the nanoparticles are less than 100 nanometers.

    Again, this shows you are just making things up on the fly and misusing scientific terms that you don't actually understand.


  • #921
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Nano-thermite. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates.
    What's the point you're trying to make here?

    You also previously claimed that the nanothermite was in the microscale.

    And nothing in that passage shows anything about it's byproducts becoming impossible to find...:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #922
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    But we know it wasn’t there. Because no study found it. And there have been numerous studies. Especially the researchers wanting to prove thermite would know to find aluminum oxide.

    They didn’t.

    Case closed. ;)

    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.

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


  • #923
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭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 :D


  • #924
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #925
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    Clearly not because he couldn’t demonstrate the presence of any aluminum oxide.

    Case closed :D

    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


  • #926
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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? :confused:

    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.


  • #927
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...


  • #928
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #929
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #930
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...


  • Advertisement
  • #931
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #932
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #933
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #934
    Cheerful Spring2
    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

    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)


  • #935
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Fe spheres is elemental Iron.

    Two pieces of steel struck together can create sparks.

    How hot are those sparks?


  • #936
    Cheerful Spring2
    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
  • #937
    Cheerful Spring2
    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.


  • #938
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #939
    Cheerful Spring2
    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)


  • #940
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #941
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    Cheerful Spring2
    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.


  • #943
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #944
    Cheerful Spring2
    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


  • #945
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #946
    Cheerful Spring2
    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


  • #947
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #948
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭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)

    514236.png

    And 0% weight aluminum oxide so definitely not thermite


  • #949
    Cheerful Spring2
    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


  • #950
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #951
    Cheerful Spring2
    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
Advertisement