AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

King Mob · 25-05-2020 3:57pm

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.

Ted_YNWA · 25-05-2020 4:03pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 4:13pm

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

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 4:20pm

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.

Overheal · 25-05-2020 4:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

King Mob · 25-05-2020 4:28pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 4:30pm

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.

Overheal · 25-05-2020 4:32pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 4:36pm

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

King Mob · 25-05-2020 4:39pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The theory about the Al oxide falls apart here.

It's not a theory. It's a fact. There wasn't any aluminium oxide.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Overheal · 25-05-2020 4:39pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 4:48pm

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.

Overheal · 25-05-2020 4:52pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 4:56pm

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?

King Mob · 25-05-2020 5:09pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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.

Overheal · 25-05-2020 5:46pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 5:56pm

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.

Overheal · 25-05-2020 5:59pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

King Mob · 25-05-2020 6:16pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 6:22pm

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

Overheal · 25-05-2020 6:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

King Mob · 25-05-2020 6:28pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We going around in tangents now, so we end the debate.

Oh, that wasn't our fault.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-05-2020 6:31pm

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:)

Dohnjoe · 25-05-2020 6:33pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We don't agree here.

There's plenty of posters who agree in this thread

Overheal · 25-05-2020 6:34pm

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.

Overheal · 25-05-2020 6:37pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I agree there should Al oxide present

Dohnjoe · 25-05-2020 6:52pm

Overheal · 29-05-2020 2:24pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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?

King Mob · 29-05-2020 2:29pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 2:33pm

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?

King Mob · 29-05-2020 2:37pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Comments