• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dispelling Myths: The "Impossible Maneuver"

Deuce said:
I've repeatedly answered this part:

Iron microspheres are a product of any combustion.

A campfire creates iron microspheres if you put iron in it. This isn't evidence of high temperature combustion.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter one whit, a microscopic iota, an iron microsphere what you have answered, or how many times you have said it, will say it, Deuce, for you are not remotely any kind of expert. Notice, as always your ZERO evidence. Notice who liked your post, your fellow never provide any evidence conspiracy theorists.

RJLeeGroup described a unique WTC 911 dust signature and indeed it was. These were iron microspheres created by the nanothermite reactions, the same nanothermite that had absolutely no legal/legitimate reason to be in WTC dust.

However, RJ Lee had written an earlier report in 2003, entitled “WTC Dust Signature Report,” which contained much more about iron. It said: “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust … but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.” [21] This 2003 version of the report even pointed out that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal). [22] This earlier version also explicitly stated that iron and other metals were “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [23]

Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911
Click to expand...
 
camlok said:
It doesn't matter one whit, a microscopic iota, an iron microsphere what you have answered, or how many times you have said it, will say it, Deuce, for you are not remotely any kind of expert. Notice, as always your ZERO evidence. Notice who liked your post, your fellow never provide any evidence conspiracy theorists.

RJLeeGroup described a unique WTC 911 dust signature and indeed it was. These were iron microspheres created by the nanothermite reactions, the same nanothermite that had absolutely no legal/legitimate reason to be in WTC dust.
Click to expand...

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/skitched20131014115551.jpg__119_Layer_2_RGB8__20131209_102521.jpg

Iron microspheres from hydrocarbon fire using steel wool.
 
camlok said:
It doesn't matter one whit, a microscopic iota, an iron microsphere what you have answered, or how many times you have said it, will say it, Deuce, for you are not remotely any kind of expert. Notice, as always your ZERO evidence. Notice who liked your post, your fellow never provide any evidence conspiracy theorists.

RJLeeGroup described a unique WTC 911 dust signature and indeed it was. These were iron microspheres created by the nanothermite reactions, the same nanothermite that had absolutely no legal/legitimate reason to be in WTC dust.
Click to expand...

You opened the door. Cam , please tell your education and work experience that would lead a reader to believe what you post is true.

As far as the RJ Lee Group dust study. It would serve you better to read the actual report than the cherry picking done by some of your sources you use.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
 
mike2810 said:
You opened the door. Cam , please tell your education and work experience that would lead a reader to believe what you post is true.
Click to expand...

Sure mike, it comes from scientists, peer reviewed studies, architects, engineers, physicists, ... . Compare that to your Mick West's and the arch fraud Michael Shermer. Compare that to your latest "scientist" and his wacky studies that you have abandoned, Frank Greening.

mike2810 said:
As far as the RJ Lee Group dust study. It would serve you better to read the actual report than the cherry picking done by some of your sources you use.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
Click to expand...

You, a self admitted USGOCT conspiracy theorist, offering advice as to where I [anyone] should look for the truth, is ludicrous in the extreme. You bring something forward and you "think" I should unbundle the distractions and diversions you USGOCT conspiracy theorists constantly throw up to divert from the truth.
 
camlok said:
Sure mike, it comes from scientists, peer reviewed studies, architects, engineers, physicists, ... . Compare that to your Mick West's and the arch fraud Michael Shermer. Compare that to your latest "scientist" and his wacky studies that you have abandoned, Frank Greening.



You, a self admitted USGOCT conspiracy theorist, offering advice as to where I [anyone] should look for the truth, is ludicrous in the extreme. You bring something forward and you "think" I should unbundle the distractions and diversions you USGOCT conspiracy theorists constantly throw up to divert from the truth.
Click to expand...


So the science from Universities, credited labs, etc. don't match up to AE911T type sites. Got it.

Yes, there is no sense in providing links to credible sites for you to look at. You are beyond hope.

So you have no personal experience in aviation, metallurgy, investigations etc. You just read from sites you like. Got it.
 
mike2810 said:
So the science from Universities, credited labs, etc. don'tSIC match up to AE911T type sites. Got it.
Click to expand...

You haven't got anything. Not once have you got anything. Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal, matched only by your dishonesty, all of this combines to make up the sum total of the USGOCT conspiracy theorists' dog and pony show.

Is there any use discussing these things with borderline illiterate conspiracy theorists, mike, whose sole purpose is inane diversions and distractions?

mike2810 said:
Yes, there is no sense in providing links to credible sites for you to look at. You are beyond hope.

So you have no personal experience in aviation, metallurgy, investigations etc. You just read from sites you like. Got it.
Click to expand...

mike's "yes, we have no bananas" reply. Nothing but your usual diversions and distractions, mike. You guys have no credible sites. It's hilarious how you all go on with your usual dog and pony routine. Such is the nature of dyed in the wool USGOCT conspiracy theorists who soldier on in their delusions without evidence.
 
camlok said:
Is there any use discussing these things with borderline illiterate conspiracy theorists, mike, whose sole purpose is inane diversions and distractions?
Click to expand...
How did Wittenberg get his facts so wrong camlok?

Keep on runnin'!
 
camlok said:
When it is pointed out to you how deceptive you are, how you lack the expertise to comment on these science issues by pretending to be an authority, you run and get the same kinds of people.
Click to expand...

You wanted evidence, there's a photo.

Everyone knew you'd ignore any and all evidence that refutes you. :)
 
camlok said:
You haven't got anything. Not once have you got anything. Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal, matched only by your dishonesty, all of this combines to make up the sum total of the USGOCT conspiracy theorists' dog and pony show.

Is there any use discussing these things with borderline illiterate conspiracy theorists, mike, whose sole purpose is inane diversions and distractions?



mike's "yes, we have no bananas" reply. Nothing but your usual diversions and distractions, mike. You guys have no credible sites. It's hilarious how you all go on with your usual dog and pony routine. Such is the nature of dyed in the wool USGOCT conspiracy theorists who soldier on in their delusions without evidence.
Click to expand...

Only diversion is your failure to answer questions honestly.

It is pretty clear what sources you use. It if interesting that they are not well received by the scientific or academic world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom