It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 90
17
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Look it pointless debating this with you, when you don't understand the work performed here.
I showed you the XEDs that undoubtedly demonstrates the silicon XEDs had no Alumiuium. 
Everything you write, I have discussed already. 
Come back to me when you have done experiments to contradict the harrit study. Right now the debunkers theories are absurd. 




posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s start one by one.

You claim an ignition temperature of 430 c is a property of aluminum iron oxide thermite?

One. There are many materials that will ignite at 430 c in an oxygen atmosphere.

Two.



en.m.wikipedia.org...

Oxygen balanced iron thermite 2Al + Fe2O3 has theoretical maximum density of 4.175 g/cm3 an adiabatic burn temperature of 3135 K or 2862°C or 5183°F (with phase transitions included, limited by iron which boils at 3135 K)

Snip

Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires a sparkler or easily obtainable magnesium ribbon, but may require persistent efforts, as ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, pyrotechnic initiators, or other common igniting substances.[14] Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it doesn't ignite, as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.[citation needed] It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly.[32]



What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s start one by one.

You claim an ignition temperature of 430 c is a property of aluminum iron oxide thermite?

One. There are many materials that will ignite at 430 c in an oxygen atmosphere.

Two.



en.m.wikipedia.org...

Oxygen balanced iron thermite 2Al + Fe2O3 has theoretical maximum density of 4.175 g/cm3 an adiabatic burn temperature of 3135 K or 2862°C or 5183°F (with phase transitions included, limited by iron which boils at 3135 K)

Snip

Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires a sparkler or easily obtainable magnesium ribbon, but may require persistent efforts, as ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, pyrotechnic initiators, or other common igniting substances.[14] Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it doesn't ignite, as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.[citation needed] It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly.[32]



What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.


 I should just ignore you, but i try to help you. 
I never asserted that. I told you the red/grey chips ignited at 430c and they discovered in the residue after burn Iron molten Microspheres!
That clear signified evidence a chemical reaction had taken place.
Tilleston and Gash test of nanothermite gel, it ignited at around 520c. 
Nobody defends the nano thermite gel and red/grey chemistry is exact. What does show the nano thermite runs wild at lower temps compared to the measured standard conventional thermite!!
Standard thermite- energy output is about 3.8 kilojoules- but if there different chemicals included with the mixture, the kilojoules can be often higher!
 Harrit has found various chemicals in the red/grey layer with the Iron Oxide and Alumimum. .
You can't contrast thermite to nanothermite- since the reactivity is different.  Energy releases are much higher because there is not a slow energy release.

Oystein the person you keep copying and pasting info from- recognizes the tilleston nanothermite ignited at about 520c.  This 400c below normal convenional thermite. Standard thermite is incredibly hard to ignite. You find various heat ignition statements- 900c to 1600c to just get it flared up. And thermite after ignition can be as hot 2000c to 3000c. 
Basille added the flame was white-hot- so that typically 1500c. It maybe be hotter? I just stick to 1500c references.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


I should just ignore you, but i try to help you.
I never asserted that. I told you the red/grey chips ignited at 430c and they discovered in the residue after burn Iron molten Microspheres!


Again. I have cited at least two sources that iron oxide particles small enough with sufficient surface area will vaporize in fires to form micro iron spheres. Is that false.

I have cited numerous sources that micro iron spheres are no exclusive to burning thermite. Iron Microspheres are inherit to many processes.

You


Tilleston and Gash test of nanothermite gel, it ignited at around 520c.

What is thermite gel?

Ok. What does that have do with Harrit’s paint chips igniting at 430c? And that aluminum iron oxide thermite is required to be white hot, and is usually ignited by a burning magnesium fuse with temperatures around 4000F.

What you ignored is this

What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.


You


Oystein the person you keep copying and pasting info from- recognizes the tilleston nanothermite ignited at about 520c.


The below From Oystein?




An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

By pteridine

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Based on this figure, we may approximate the following theoretical and measured energies:

Not measured in this experiment:
HMX = 5.5 kJ/g
TNT = 4.5 kJ/g
TATB = 4.1kJ/g
Thermite = 3.9 kJ/g
Measured in this experiment:
Chip #1 = 1.5 kJ/g
Chip #2 = 2.5 kJ/g
Chip #3 = 7.5 kJ/g
Chip #4 = 5.9 kJ/g

The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material. This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing. By other analyses, they appear similar.
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive as a composite. Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g -- below that of chips #3 and #4. How can this be?
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants. We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we DON’T include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy/gram of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.
Jones is vague about this problem and says on p27. “We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.” What might that energetic material be? Jones has no clue. His team lacks the chemical knowledge to postulate a reasonable composition. It has no nitrogen, so it is not one of the explosives shown. It is energetic when burning in air. So is candle wax. Volatilized, it will produce gas but it does not seem to be otherwise energetic. How can this problem be resolved? What experiment must be done to show the possibility of thermite or some composite?
As I have stated above, thermite and explosives have their own oxidants built in. burning hydrocarbons do not. How can Jones discriminate between explosives, thermite and plain old burning paint?
He can re-run the DSC under an argon atmosphere. What a simple and elegant solution. Under argon, all the energy coming out will be from the thermite and its energetic additives. If there is no energy coming out, there is no thermite and all those contortions and obfuscations are for naught. Why wouldn’t Jones do this obvious experiment? Maybe he did and didn’t like the results.



Is the below thread here at ATS by Oystein?


An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper
page: 1

pteridine

www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 9-12-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

How big did you say the iron particles and the supposed aluminum particles are in the Harrit WTC Dust?



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
a reply to: Salander So engineers can't be wrong? Because....it seems like it. Maybe you can share some secret knowledge with us. I mean, it's pretty clear what happened. Funny how you selectively believe experts when it suits your narrative, verses believing an obvious chain of events; perfectly clear to 1000s of people.



Engineers that are humans are only humans, if that isn't too difficult to comprehend.

The tendency to deceive and prevaricate comes from humans employed in government. For the team, those humans lie, cheat and steal, to borrow from Sec State Pompeo, if you recall his making that statement.

The 911 government narrative fails close inspection. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by all the known facts.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
In a local fire I say that's unlikely.. 
I will be careful with experiments, as there may be a reduction agent present. Mick (Steel Wheelbarrow) may have comprised a reduction material that induced the Iron Oxide to flare up and create those Iron spheres if that what they are?
Still Unsure if they are with no further testing performed by him to confirm the chemistry. 

I'm open to other evidence-  
Iron oxide and a local fire create Iron microspheres. You can add a video or post a genuine science. website discussing this I will study it. I speculate right now the heat is near 1500c if it arose?

To melt (FE) iron, you need 1700 celsius temp. It bears a greater melting point than Steel 1500c ( as its a human processed alloy)
The red/gray chips have Iron oxide aluminum. The change was that it separated the oxygen from the iron oxide using a ( reduction agent) + heat for the iron molten spheres to develop. 

 Iron Microspheres not going to develop in a a fire that 600c or 800c. And there no substantial documentation fires were hot as 1500c at ground zero. If I remember correctly they recorded surface temps of the rubble three days after the attack was maxed out about 600 to 700c i believe? 
So the nano thermite still the best explanation for why there are milliions of Molten Iron Microspheres in the WTC dust.

You analysis ignores the background. You have to be mindful of Harrit study from a starting point to a conclusion. You can't be selective with it.. 
It matters to them previously they had established the red/gray chips had nano-thermite particles and when burned Iron spheres formed.
Tilleston nano-thermite gel composite ignited at 520c with nanothermite particles and diverse materials. 
Harrit and the team had a science writing to confirm the nano thermite can flare up at low temps. 
You still stuck in the mentality that its standard thermite and everything learned about thermite have to apply here. It doesn't and when you get past that nonsense it all makes sense..
I presented the Tillestion and Red/gray energy+ heat test graph here. Go back you locate it.  I don't need to cide anything for you this all recognized by 9/11 debunkers.

I don't know if it typed by Oystein ( from pteridine?) I just know Debunkers have not read the report accurately. While the nanoparticles are all the same diameter, the concentration of the particles is not the same across all four chips. That something Oystein has failed or ignored when debating the energy differences. The gray layers are all not all same length. There different chemical materials in the chip that Oystein completely ignores too that can probably generate an increase of energy in the DSC. One of the red/gray chips is substantially larger than the other three. The bigger one could be 7.5kj.g chip?  He absolutely ignores it's nanothermite substance, not standard thermite. 

So stop posting the energy release post. I have discussed it numerous times now. 
edit on 9-12-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You


The tendency to deceive and prevaricate comes from humans employed in government.


Like the blatant falsehood that Nukes brought down the WTC. When there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again



New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"




Your option is pretty useless since it’s based on truth movement pseudoscience and truth movement falsehoods.
edit on 9-12-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You


The tendency to deceive and prevaricate comes from humans employed in government.


Like the blatant falsehood that Nukes brought down the WTC. When there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.


Says the fellow who can't see there is fundamental problems with NIST modelling of the WTC7 collapse. 
I still standing by for you reply about the Penthouse and Wave video!
Will you ever discuss that again?



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again



New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"




Your option is pretty useless since it’s based on truth movement pseudoscience and truth movement falsehoods.


My opinion based on facts. People are just in denial. This just how the world works. It all came out recently the OPCW covered up a false flag in Syria. The official media has not covered it. So you need to wake up the real reality of how world works. Even a journalist quit Newsweek this week because his superiors would not allow him to write about it.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You


The tendency to deceive and prevaricate comes from humans employed in government.


Like the blatant falsehood that Nukes brought down the WTC. When there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.


Says the fellow who can't see there is fundamental problems with NIST modelling of the WTC7 collapse. 
I still standing by for you reply about the Penthouse and Wave video!
Will you ever discuss that again?


Its not about NIST. You cannot provide evidence of columns being cut from the video, audio, seismic evidence. You cannot produce physical evidence of cut columns. You cannot produce evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. You cannot produce / cite evidence the steel at the WTC was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again



New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"




Your option is pretty useless since it’s based on truth movement pseudoscience and truth movement falsehoods.


My opinion based on facts. People are just in denial. This just how the world works. It all came out recently the OPCW covered up a false flag in Syria. The official media has not covered it. So you need to wake up the real reality of how world works. Even a journalist quit Newsweek this week because his superiors would not allow him to write about it.


That you cannot come to terms with the proven model that when iron particles are small enough with sufficient surface area they can vaporize to form micro iron spheres in a fire. The WTC was contaminated with micro iron spheres from many processes and sources.

Still see you will not answer.

What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.
edit on 9-12-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You


The tendency to deceive and prevaricate comes from humans employed in government.


Like the blatant falsehood that Nukes brought down the WTC. When there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.


Says the fellow who can't see there is fundamental problems with NIST modelling of the WTC7 collapse. 
I still standing by for you reply about the Penthouse and Wave video!
Will you ever discuss that again?


Its not about NIST. You cannot provide evidence of columns being cut from the video, audio, seismic evidence. You cannot produce physical evidence of cut columns. You cannot produce evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. You cannot produce / cite evidence the steel at the WTC was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.


Has lot to do with NIST because they drafted the officiial narrative about the collapse due to fire. 
You clueless about structural engineering too and what NIST said. 
I presented evidence of cuts, breaks, splits, and gaps. I believe I provided 20 images of steel at dumpsite from Oct 2001.
Most debunkers are clueless and think freefall can develop during a fire collapse. 



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You


The tendency to deceive and prevaricate comes from humans employed in government.


Like the blatant falsehood that Nukes brought down the WTC. When there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.


Says the fellow who can't see there is fundamental problems with NIST modelling of the WTC7 collapse. 
I still standing by for you reply about the Penthouse and Wave video!
Will you ever discuss that again?


Its not about NIST. You cannot provide evidence of columns being cut from the video, audio, seismic evidence. You cannot produce physical evidence of cut columns. You cannot produce evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. You cannot produce / cite evidence the steel at the WTC was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.


Has lot to do with NIST because they drafted the officiial narrative about the collapse due to fire. 
You clueless about structural engineering too and what NIST said. 
I presented evidence of cuts, breaks, splits, and gaps. I believe I provided 20 images of steel at dumpsite from Oct 2001.
Most debunkers are clueless and think freefall can develop during a fire collapse. 


What do you not get there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.

Again.

Its not about NIST. You cannot provide evidence of columns being cut from the video, audio, seismic evidence. You cannot produce physical evidence of cut columns. You cannot produce evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. You cannot produce / cite evidence the steel at the WTC was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again



New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"




Your option is pretty useless since it’s based on truth movement pseudoscience and truth movement falsehoods.


My opinion based on facts. People are just in denial. This just how the world works. It all came out recently the OPCW covered up a false flag in Syria. The official media has not covered it. So you need to wake up the real reality of how world works. Even a journalist quit Newsweek this week because his superiors would not allow him to write about it.


That you cannot come to terms with the proven model that when iron particles are small enough with sufficient surface area they can vaporize to form micro iron spheres in a fire. The WTC was contaminated with micro iron spheres from many processes and sources.

Still see you will not answer.

What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.


Show me this proven model? Details, please. Show me something?



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


I presented evidence of cuts, breaks, splits, and gaps.


Pieces showing signs of being overloaded, banged, and smashed in collapse. With on evidence / characteristics of being worked on by explosives or thermite.

By all means. Post those pictures again.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again



New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"




Your option is pretty useless since it’s based on truth movement pseudoscience and truth movement falsehoods.


My opinion based on facts. People are just in denial. This just how the world works. It all came out recently the OPCW covered up a false flag in Syria. The official media has not covered it. So you need to wake up the real reality of how world works. Even a journalist quit Newsweek this week because his superiors would not allow him to write about it.


That you cannot come to terms with the proven model that when iron particles are small enough with sufficient surface area they can vaporize to form micro iron spheres in a fire. The WTC was contaminated with micro iron spheres from many processes and sources.

Still see you will not answer.

What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.


Show me this proven model? Details, please. Show me something?


Your failing. Your speaking in terms of absolute controlled demolition with false authority when there is zero evidence. Compared to NIST’s hey. Here is a guess based on the actual video, audio, seismic, physical evidence.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You


The tendency to deceive and prevaricate comes from humans employed in government.


Like the blatant falsehood that Nukes brought down the WTC. When there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.


Says the fellow who can't see there is fundamental problems with NIST modelling of the WTC7 collapse. 
I still standing by for you reply about the Penthouse and Wave video!
Will you ever discuss that again?


Its not about NIST. You cannot provide evidence of columns being cut from the video, audio, seismic evidence. You cannot produce physical evidence of cut columns. You cannot produce evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. You cannot produce / cite evidence the steel at the WTC was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.


Has lot to do with NIST because they drafted the officiial narrative about the collapse due to fire. 
You clueless about structural engineering too and what NIST said. 
I presented evidence of cuts, breaks, splits, and gaps. I believe I provided 20 images of steel at dumpsite from Oct 2001.
Most debunkers are clueless and think freefall can develop during a fire collapse. 


What do you not get there is zero evidence of controlled demolition.

Again.

Its not about NIST. You cannot provide evidence of columns being cut from the video, audio, seismic evidence. You cannot produce physical evidence of cut columns. You cannot produce evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. You cannot produce / cite evidence the steel at the WTC was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.


Love how debunkers discount the evidence.
You inform me how the Iron melted on 9/11.
I demand a straightforward experiment that matches established conditions on 9/11.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again



New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"




Your option is pretty useless since it’s based on truth movement pseudoscience and truth movement falsehoods.


My opinion based on facts. People are just in denial. This just how the world works. It all came out recently the OPCW covered up a false flag in Syria. The official media has not covered it. So you need to wake up the real reality of how world works. Even a journalist quit Newsweek this week because his superiors would not allow him to write about it.


That you cannot come to terms with the proven model that when iron particles are small enough with sufficient surface area they can vaporize to form micro iron spheres in a fire. The WTC was contaminated with micro iron spheres from many processes and sources.

Still see you will not answer.

What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.


Show me this proven model? Details, please. Show me something?


Your failing. Your speaking in terms of absolute controlled demolition with false authority when there is zero evidence. Compared to NIST’s hey. Here is a guess based on the actual video, audio, seismic, physical evidence.


You are not wise enough to figure out what happened to the buildings. We all recognize that.




top topics



 
17
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join