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)

12467…20

Comments

  • #152
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    I posted a video which completely debunks it. Beyond any shadow of a doubt. One which you ignored.

    R.J. Lee said the Iron Microspheres were produced during the event. It explained multiple times on this thread they were not made before the event, or after. Mick experiments is making Iron spheres using welding torches, butane flames, and other ways.


  • #153
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, I never said that steel wasn't made of Iron.
    Why are you lying?

    You did i remember.


  • #154
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You did i remember.
    Lol sure you do.
    I'm sure everyone believes you.
    R.J. Lee said the Iron Microspheres were produced during the event.
    They don't say that they were produced by any kind of thermite however. Stop misrepresenting things.
    Mick experiments is making Iron spheres using welding torches, butane flames, and other ways.
    Also a misrepresentation.

    We also know for a fact, using your own argument that nanothermite can't be the explanation for the spheres.


  • #155
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »


    They don't say that they were produced by any kind of thermite however. Stop misrepresenting things.


    .

    It is important to clarify here again scientists found the nanothermite in the WTC dust.
    Leading debunker Oystein agrees the dust samples collected by the truther community are legitimate. He may disagree about the findings, he does accept the dust samples are not fake.
    Truther red/gray chips when burned produce Iron Microspheres- we have a source.
    Debunkers have no source to explain it.


  • #156
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It is important to clarify here again scientists found the nanothermite in the WTC dust.
    but they didn't find any.

    Also reading the RJ Lee study and they don't say anything about finding nanothermite at all. They don't mention finding anything at all that could be the nanothermite you believe others found.
    Why is that?

    Also, again the study doesn't say that the Iron Microspheres came from any kind of thermite.

    Is the RJ Lee study wrong now?

    And again, your argument has shown that nanothermite can't be the source of the spheres. So all of that is irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    I am curious what youtube video he watched that made him change his entire theory to the secret Nazis.
    Also why he was so willing to go with that conspiracy given his other claims about the Nazis during the holocaust.

    The Jews and Saudis and CIA and FBI and Mossad and the President and Biden and basically everyone all working together is so cumbersome and complex to make up. Hard work.

    Apparently just easier to pin everything on secret Nazi's.

    Here I'll demonstrate: Nazi's are evil. They escaped to the US. Since they tried to take control of Germany it "only makes sense" they would try to take over the US. However since they were Nazi's they had to do it covertly. Something something, they were responsible for JFK and 9/11..

    Sprinkle a bunch of bull**** in there to make it sound more "historical" and off you go..


  • #158
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It is important to clarify here again scientists found the nanothermite in the WTC dust.

    Lol, a bunch of conspiracy enthusiasts and quacks found some compounds sent to them by anonymous internet people, and decided were "explosives". Any future reference to them, no matter that they didn't support any explosive theory was evidence of.. an explosive theory

    The same way Bigfoot hunters are always finding "evidence" of Bigfoot, strange that..


  • #159
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Apparently just easier to pin everything on secret Nazi's.

    Here I'll demonstrate: Nazi's are evil. They escaped to the US. Since they tried to take control of Germany it "only makes sense" they would try to take over the US. However since they were Nazi's they had to do it covertly. Something something, they were responsible for JFK and 9/11..
    But not Holocaust denial. Oddly there's no nazis behind that...


  • #160
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Lol, a bunch of conspiracy enthusiasts and quacks found some compounds sent to them by anonymous internet people, and decided were "explosives".
    Then they published that work in a shady as **** journal that basically publishes whatever without peer review.


  • #161
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    but they didn't find any.

    Also reading the RJ Lee study and they don't say anything about finding nanothermite at all. They don't mention finding anything at all that could be the nanothermite you believe others found.
    Why is that?

    Also, again the study doesn't say that the Iron Microspheres came from any kind of thermite.

    Is the RJ Lee study wrong now?

    RJ. Lee composition here.
    attachment.php?attachmentid=513364&stc=1&d=1589812638

    The collected samples from background buildings to compare with buildings that had WTC dust.
    In a typical building there was only 0.04 Fe spheres, so there they could tell, was not left over spheres from construction.
    The WTC dust itself had a composition of 5.87 percent of weight- rounded off to six percent of all the WTC dust had Iron molten spheres.
    Iron Microspheres is molten Iron. How does a local fire at 800c inside the building make them? To melt steel you need a temperature of 1400c or higher. There efficiently produced when you ignite Aluminum and Iron oxide and left byproduct is Iron Microspheres.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "If something can't be explained it means some unexplained conspiracy took place" - conspiracy enthusiasts

    As I've pointed out before, creationists use this tactic too. They think all you need to do it poke a bit of a hole in evolutionary theory and that makes Genesis true.


  • #163
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    RJ. Lee composition here.
    attachment.php?attachmentid=513364&stc=1&d=1589812638

    The collected samples from background buildings to compare with buildings that had WTC dust.
    In a typical building there was only 0.04 Fe spheres, so there they could tell, was not left over spheres from construction.
    The WTC dust itself had a composition of 5.87 percent of weight- rounded off to six percent of all the WTC dust had Iron molten spheres.
    Iron Microspheres is molten Iron. How does a local fire at 800c inside the building make them? To melt steel you need a temperature of 1400c or higher. There efficiently produced when you ignite Aluminum and Iron oxide and left byproduct is Iron Microspheres.

    Note how iron suddenly becomes steel in the middle of this..


  • #164
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    storker wrote: »
    As I've pointed out before, creationaists use this tactic too. They think all you need to do it poke a bit of a hole in evolutionary theory and that makes Genesis true.

    A good few years back there was also famously a creationist thread where literally one poster kept denying evolution to hint at creation.. one guy kept it going for hundreds and hundreds of pages

    Sound familiar..


  • #165
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    RJ. Lee composition here.
    Yes, but they don't have anything about nanothermite there at all. They didn't find any.
    They also don't say that any of the iron spheres are the result of any kind of thermite.

    You're misrepresenting a scientific paper you don't understand. Again.
    Iron Microspheres is molten Iron.
    Well no, they aren't molten, by definition.
    How does a local fire at 800c inside the building make them?
    How can you produce iron microspheres with a candle flame?
    How can you produce iron microspheres by hitting something with a hammer?

    There's a lot of ways to produce microspheres without a high temperature.

    And all of this is moot because we've shown, using your argument that the nanothermite explanation is impossible.
    These spheres can't have come from nanothermite.


  • #166
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Note how iron suddenly becomes steel in the middle of this..

    Show me an experiment where "molten Iron" forms at 800c please.

    They used A36 grade steel in the construction of the towers.

    513371.png


  • #167
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    How can you produce iron microspheres with a candle flame?
    How can you produce iron microspheres by hitting something with a hammer?

    There's a lot of ways to produce microspheres without a high temperature.

    Huh are you really this naive?

    The fourth zone of the candle (sometimes call the veil) is the faint outside blue edge that extends from the blue zone at the base of the flame and up the sides of the flame cone. It is blue because it directly meets with the oxygen of the air, and is the hottest part of the flame, typically reaching 1400o C (2552o F)
    https://candles.org/candle-science/

    Hitting it with a hammer? Where the experiment.


  • #168
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The Iron Microspheres are there in the WTC dust. Saying I don’t want to believe nanothermite is the cause of it is stupid thinking. You have to provide a source then to explain the massive amount of Iron Fe spheres found. So far alternative explanation not provided by any of you.

    In terms of the truth, though, all it does is possibly raise a question i.e. how did it get there? Personally I might be more interesting in delving into it and finding out things like, where/when was it found? What was the chain of custody of the evidence? Who found it? And, critically, what else could explain it? I might, but I won't because I've wasted enough time running down truther claims of proof that turned out to be not even close. Life's too short.

    It's certainly interesting but, at best...at absolute best with fair weather and a strong tailwind, it might amount to a "Hmm...maybe...just maybe...there's something in it." But...having witnessed Truthers' propensity to misuse evidence, use bad science, misquote witnesses and even reports and make false claims for other evidence and having seen this this in action for myself (and busted one of the claims), I wouldn't even go that far.

    What it definitely doesn't justify is the position that the microspheres are proof positive of an inside job. You're not seeking the truth, CS, you're seeking your truth. Not the same thing at all.


  • #169
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Huh are you really this naive?

    The fourth zone of the candle (sometimes call the veil) is the faint outside blue edge that extends from the blue zone at the base of the flame and up the sides of the flame cone. It is blue because it directly meets with the oxygen of the air, and is the hottest part of the flame, typically reaching 1400o C (2552o F)
    https://candles.org/candle-science/
    So candles are hotter than the fires at the WTC?
    Lol

    Also note how the temperature there is still below the melting point of steel. So how is it at all possible to produce iron Microspheres with a candle?


    You've ignored several of my points. You are avoiding them because you are once again being a dishonest coward.


  • #170
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    So candles are hotter than the fires at the WTC?
    Lol


    You've ignored several of my points. You are avoiding them because you are once again being a dishonest coward.

    Yes, a candle is hotter. Are you disputing candle science?
    NIST highest limit was 1000 degrees Celsius and dropped down to 800 Celsius and 600 Celsius inside when it cooled a bit.
    Since there is molten Iron the temp would have to be closer to 1400 Celsius and no mainstream group believes the fire got that hot.


  • #171
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    They used A36 grade steel in the construction of the towers.

    Good. And fires weaken steel. What is the strength of structural steel at 1,100C?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Yes, a candle is hotter. Are you disputing candle science?
    Lol This is the single funniest thing you've ever posted.

    A candle can melt steel beams apparently...:rolleyes:

    NIST highest limit was 1000 degrees Celsius and dropped down to 800 Celsius and 600 Celsius inside when it cooled a bit.
    And as we all know, a candle when lit immediately brings the temperature of the room up to 1400 degrees Celsius.

    It's also why blacksmiths just use a single candle for their work.

    Tell us Cheerful, when you were pretending to be a welder, did you use a candle much at all?


  • #173
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    1-s2.0-S2352012416300029-gr15.jpg

    Yikes, look at that..


  • #174
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Good. And fires weaken steel. What is the strength of structural steel at 1,100C?

    Weakening means sagging, not melting.
    The highest temperature according to the mainstream was 1000c. NIST overhyping it too that fire got that hot burning paper inside the building.
    Short 400c to produce Molten Iron.
    Why would steel be pushed out sideways if gravity pulling everything down?


  • #175
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol This is the single funniest thing you've ever posted.

    A candle can melt steel beams apparently...:rolleyes:

    ?

    Huh more idiocy from Kingmbob.
    Candle a single flame :confused:
    Fire is not a single flame.


  • #176
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Weakening means sagging, not melting.

    The towers didn't fall because steel melted, they fell because the steel weakened (and thermal expansion)

    Temps of over 1000c in WTC 1 and WTC 2

    So what happens to steel at 1000c?


  • #177
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    .

    Apparently just easier to pin everything on secret Nazi's.


    Actually....
    Given the muppetry going on!
    I'm convinced that it's not secret Nazi's that it was Hydra all along!
    And I found the proof in a cursory search of the internet ;)
    tenor.gif?itemid=15402763


  • #178
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Huh more idiocy from Kingmbob.
    Candle a single flame :confused:
    Fire is not a single flame.
    Lol a Candle flame is not fire now? :confused:

    Cheerful, what do you think happens when you light a candle in a room? Does the room become 1400 degrees? If not, why not?
    What happens if you leave a candle under an iron plate? Does it melt through? If not, why not?

    You see Cheerful it's these things that show you don't know what you're talking about.
    It's these things that make us think you're telling fibs when you claim to be a welder.
    It's these things that make us think you're not an adult.


  • #179
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The towers didn't fall because steel melted, they fell because the steel weakened (and thermal expansion)

    Temps of over 1000c in WTC 1 and WTC 2

    So what happens to steel at 1000c?

    NIST argument is the floor trusses sagged from fire and pulled in the perimeter steel spandrels at the corners. According to NIST the floor trusses is where the collapse began not at the Hat truss- steel core.
    Truthers don’t believe this, their opinion is the Hat Truss steel core was taken out and inside support was then pushed out after the implosion.
    The have a powerful case when they're a massive amount of FE molten Microspheres in the dust. Temps are much higher than what the mainstream studies suggest. How it got that hot the debunkers don’t address.  


  • #180
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    
    The have a powerful case when they're a massive amount of FE molten Microspheres in the dust. 
    You don't have a case there. That's why you keep running away from points and why you have to lie and misrepresent things.

    For example, you keep quoting the RJ Lee study when it explictly states that there was no nanothermite found in the dust and that the microspheres didn't come from any kind of thermite.

    Your case can't be that strong if you have to constantly reinvent reality around you.

    But again, it's all moot as you've proven that the nanothermite explanation is impossible.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    NIST argument 

    No need for any of that, a high school student can understand

    It's very simple, what happens to steel at 1000c?

    It loses 10% of it's strength, or is it more?


  • #182
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    You don't have a case there. That's why you keep running away from points and why you have to lie and misrepresent things.

    For example, you keep quoting the RJ Lee study when it explictly states that there was no nanothermite found in the dust and that the microspheres didn't come from any kind of thermite.

    Your case can't be that strong if you have to constantly reinvent reality around you.

    But again, it's all moot as you've proven that the nanothermite explanation is impossible.

    You keep running away from the fact there no mainstream explanation for the Iron Microspheres found in the dust.
    Truthers discovered nanothermite in their dust samples and we have source for the Fe spheres.
    What you even on about it can’t be the source, when they have already show it was.
    We days in now, and you still have no alternative explanation.


  • #183
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You keep running away from the fact there no mainstream explanation for the Iron Microspheres found in the dust.
    But there is. You've already been shown this.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Truthers discovered nanothermite in their dust samples and we have source for the Fe spheres.
    But they haven't.
    And one of the sources you're using explictly states that it didn't find any nanothermite at all and that the iron spheres didn't come from thermite of any kind.

    Why does the RJ Lee study say that there wasn't any nanothermite in the dust?
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    What you even on about it can’t be the source, when they have already show it was.
    But this has been explained to you.
    Your own argument proves it.

    No building in history has ever been demolished by nanothermite, therefore it's impossible.

    If the nanothermite explanation is impossible, then it can't be the source of the spheres.

    Also, again cause it's really funny when you try to pretend to know science:
    What happens when you put a candle under iron? Does it melt? The flame is 1400 degrees and you said that was enough to make the metal molten.


  • #184
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No need for any of that, a high school student can understand

    It's very simple, what happens to steel at 1000c?

    It loses 10% of it's strength, or is it more?

    This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak, every steel framed building that caught fire would collapse. There is dozens of steel framed erected building have caught fire and burned for hours and hours and never collapsed down.
    On 9/11 they dropped down in 40 minutes. Fire spray on protection holds for three plus hours and stops the steel from getting too hot. Fires don’t continue to burn the same section for hours, fires burn out fairly quicky without fuels and combustibles.   


  • #185
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You keep running away from the fact there no mainstream explanation for the Iron Microspheres found in the dust.

    There is
    Truthers discovered nanothermite

    They didn't. They discovered common compounds like iron and aluminium.

    If my house collapsed, and truthers sifted through the rubble they would discover such explosive compounds as ammonium nitrate used in dynamite (printer-ink) and hydrogen peroxide used in liquid explosives (laundry detergent)

    Oh and if my office building collapsed, they would find many, many iron microspheres. Conclusion: nano/super-thermite secret controlled demolition


  • #186
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But there is. You've already been shown this.

    Which experiment show us all and enlighten me to how this occurred inside the building. I be waiting i bet.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak  
    Now you're claiming that steel doesn't weaken when it gets hotter?:confused:

    You sure are doing a lot of science today cheerful.


  • #188
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Now you're claiming that steel doesn't weaken when it gets hotter?:confused:

    You sure are doing a lot of science today cheerful.

    The steel coated with fire protection up to 3 hours in the towers
    One of the towers collapsed in 40+ minutes.


  • #189
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Which experiment show us all and enlighten me to how this occurred inside the building. I be waiting i bet.
    Go back and watch the video from Mick West or read his arguments. You've been shown them before.

    Now going back to the points you dodged
    Why does the RJ Lee study say that there wasn't any nanothermite in the dust?

    You will again dodge this question.


  • #190
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak,

    Wow, so you are actually claiming that fire doesn't weaken steel?

    That all of this is bull****
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284995632_Properties_of_Steel_at_Elevated_Temperatures

    That everything we know and can demonstrate about steel vs fire temperatures is bull****?

    That's your claim..

    Here's the engineering forum
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=431

    Shall I check there? :)


  • #191
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The steel coated with fire protection up to 3 hours in the towers
    One of the towers collapsed in 40+ minutes.

    But why would it be coated with fire protection if steel doesn't weaken when it gets hot?

    When steel is at 1000 degrees clesius, how much of it's strength does it have? 100%?

    This seems like something a welder would know, so I'm betting that you're going to dodge since you won't know.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Go back and watch the video from Mick West or read his arguments. You've been shown them before.

    .

    Pick one where he explains how the Fe spheres got produced inside the building.
    Using butane and welding torches to make them is a non starter here.,


  • #193
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow, so you are actually claiming that fire doesn't weaken steel?

    That all of this is bull****
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284995632_Properties_of_Steel_at_Elevated_Temperatures

    That everything we know and can demonstrate about steel vs fire temperatures is bull****?
    Cheerful is just that much more of an expert.


  • #194
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Pick one where he explains how the Fe spheres got produced inside the building.
    Using butane and welding torches to make them is a non starter here.,

    Lol no thanks. They are all viable explanations and I'm not going to go through them in detail with you when you're not capable to sticking to topics and you'll ignore anything you can't deal with.

    Watch the videos and take up your issues with him on his forum.

    In the meantime:
    Why does the RJ Lee study say that there wasn't any nanothermite in the dust?


  • #195
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Fire spray on protection holds for three plus hours and stops the steel from getting too hot.

    We know the fireproofing was compromised.

    Conspiraloons of course ignore this.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Fires don’t continue to burn the same section for hours, fires burn out fairly quicky without fuels and combustibles.   

    We know that 90,000 liters of jet fuel were dumped into the building, further igniting combustibles like plastic, carpet, paper, curtains causing an inferno hot enough to weaken and sag the trusses.

    Conspiraloons of course ignore this.


  • #196
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Imagine reaching a level of denial where you literally just deny science flat out

    temperature-strength-metals-SI.png

    figure9.jpg

    figure13.jpg

    6-Figure9-1.png


  • #197
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,410 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    I regularly read these forums for a giggle, there would almost certainly have been arc flash present in all these events which burns at 10,000 degrees if I remember correctly. That would melt most metals I’d think and quite quickly too


  • #198
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow, so you are actually claiming that fire doesn't weaken steel?

    That all of this is bull****
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284995632_Properties_of_Steel_at_Elevated_Temperatures

    That everything we know and can demonstrate about steel vs fire temperatures is bull****?

    That's your claim..

    Here's the engineering forum
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=431

    Shall I check there? :)

    I love how you unable to read.
    Was the steel exposed and had no protection? No, is your answer
    You trying to claim the steel was uncoated here and the fire was just weakening steel everywhere in the building. This is fake news.


  • #199
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Imagine reaching a level of denial where you literally just deny science flat out

    temperature-strength-metals-SI.png
    Huh, some get stronger at certain temperatures. Neat. I didn't know that.


  • #200
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol no thanks. They are all viable explanations and I'm not going to go through them in detail with you when you're not capable to sticking to topics and you'll ignore anything you can't deal with.

    The purpose of this discussion is to identify the source for the Iron Microspheres inside the building.
    It’s laughable I can not get straight answer from you guys. It posts and posts of deflection.


  • #201
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I love how you unable to read.

    Perfectly well able to read.

    This is what you wrote
    This is childish thinking because if steel was that weak, every steel framed building that caught fire would collapse. There is dozens of steel framed erected building have caught fire and burned for hours and hours and never collapsed down.

    It is that weak. Steel is vulnerable to fire.

    Are you suggesting it isn't?

    What happens to steel at 1000c? how much does it weaken by?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement