AE911's Response to Mick West's Iron Microspheres Talk.

econ41

Senior Member
Has anyone seen this:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...h2ku4Bb0oVmzIJ1UdL0vvG13Sv1X9FHKogcazSFkwWQf4
Metabunk 2020-05-13 22-24-30.jpg
I'm aware of the "no clicks" policy but it is a full AE911 page directed against Mick West's video about micro spheres.

The topic heading "Refuting a Demolition Denier's False Claims about Iron Microspheres"

The author is Chris Sarns IMO arguably one of the more courageous and more persuasive of the emissaries from AE911. He recently made a flying visit to one of the Facebook groups - and found a couple of competent debunkers in residence.

This post purely as an alert for Mick and others. If the topic is already known some moderator can delete the post - just let me know.

Micro-spheres is not my topic. But the opening paragraphs of the AE911 page is replete with personal denigration, straw-man evasions and misdirections which in my experience are SOP for Chris Sarn's style.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I don't think AE911T is capable of worry unless it means a drying up of their revenue stream. We've been thru nano thermite years ago and there's no there there. Sarns is simply pitching the NT nonsense to inspire donations.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Are we to expect a point by point rebuttal from Mr West here?
That is a choice for Mick West to make.

However I draw attention to Mr Sarns' stated objective from the first paragraphs of the paper:
Here, we dispel these obfuscations and falsehoods one by one for the purpose of demonstrating that the iron microspheres constitute strong evidence that incendiaries were used in the destruction of the three WTC towers on 9/11.

Note the logical dependence on 'incendiaries were used in the destruction'. Unless Mr Sarns' can 'prove' such usage was needed and was performed on 9/11 the assertion of 'strong evidence' is at best moot.

I am aware that some discussion has taken place on another medium. I'll leave it for Mr West to decide whether or not he comments and to what depth of 'point by point' he wishes to go.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was chatting about it with Sarns on Facebook a while back. Basically he can't get past the idea that iron burns, with a low ignition temperature, and makes spheres of various compositions of iron and iron oxide. He thought that the candle flame was super hot, and so was melting the iron filings. I demonstrated (video, below) that it makes no difference what the flame is (butane, candle, paper, wood), the iron filing combust just the same.

He seemed to stop responding after that. But I could have missed it, as I've been busy

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ekbk0aiX_U
 

Crusher

New Member


Yes i have seen it, and read it in full, along with all references.


But the opening paragraphs of the AE911 page is replete with personal denigration, straw-man evasions and misdirections which in my experience are SOP for Chris Sarn's style.

Having read the entire thing in full, more than just the opening paragraphs, I believe it is a scathing rebuttal to Mick West's video in question. Chris goes through, point-by-point, exposing Mick's own personal denigrations and straw-man (e.g: "Hooke has disproven the basic claim [that you need thermite to produce iron microspheres] made by these various 9/11 groups"), and misdirections (e.g: "Of these four particles, only two of them were spheres. And of these two, only one of them had the chemical composition that he describes."), leaving Mick with really no ground to stand on.

I had hoped Mick West would have been able to defend his credibility from this scathing rebuttal, and a approximately a month ago came into the forum request such, but have yet to see anything.

Is any rebuttal to Chris's article in the works? Or is the plan to leave this as it is, with this post implying it's Chris alone who is doing the personal denigration, straw-man evasions and misdirections, when such a claim must also sensibly be applied to Mick?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I had hoped Mick West would have been able to defend his credibility from this scathing rebuttal, and a approximately a month ago came into the forum request such, but have yet to see anything.
What about my responses above.

Please pick one point that Chris made that you think I have not addressed. Just one to start with please, the best one.
 

Crusher

New Member
What about my responses above.

yes, i watched your video in full, and while you spend a lot of time on 2 points, Chris had 41 rebuttals.

Please pick one point that Chris made that you think I have not addressed. Just one to start with please, the best one.

The last one:
Mick West @ 35:20:

"So, in conclusion, the evidence of iron microspheres for nano-thermite has been debunked."

Chris Sarns:

Even if he were right about other ways to create iron microspheres, which he is not, that still would not rule out the possibility that most of the iron microspheres were created by thermite. Thus, even West's conclusion, like the rest of his analysis, is fatally flawed.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You can't see how Chris's logic is flawed there?

You think that's the best point? That even if there no evidence for thermite making the spheres it does not mean termite didn't? That's not a point, it's a truism.

Pick an actual point, just one.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I'd also be interested which point @Crusher will pick that he feels Mick "lost" against Chris.

For many years, in many debates either on specifics or the big picture of 9/11 Truth claims, I have time and again challenged Truthers to pick on piece of evidence, one line of argument, that they feel is their best in context and present or defend it, - and it never happened. At one point, the whataboutism, the referrals to long YouTubes, the insults or the silences begin.

The "Argument from Microspheres" states, in short, that the relative abundance of micropheres in WTC dust cannot be explained as the result of mundane processes such as fires, friction, metal work etc, and furthermore can only be explained by the use of proportionally large amounts of nanothermite.

Mick's presentation has lots of such mundane processes.

I think what's missing on both sides is a tally of the amounts of microspheres on both sides of the equation.
This raises a question of process: whose burden of evidence is it?
I naturally think the burden lies on the side of 9/11 Truth, as they make the extraordinary claim.

Also, I am not sure if either side has looked systematically at dust from similar sites and events for comparison of the relative abundance of such microspheres.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I'd also be interested which point @Crusher will pick that he feels Mick "lost" against Chris.

For many years, in many debates either on specifics or the big picture of 9/11 Truth claims, I have time and again challenged Truthers to pick on piece of evidence, one line of argument, that they feel is their best in context and present or defend it, - and it never happened. At one point, the whataboutism, the referrals to long YouTubes, the insults or the silences begin.

The "Argument from Microspheres" states, in short, that the relative abundance of micropheres in WTC dust cannot be explained as the result of mundane processes such as fires, friction, metal work etc, and furthermore can only be explained by the use of proportionally large amounts of nanothermite.

Mick's presentation has lots of such mundane processes.

I think what's missing on both sides is a tally of the amounts of microspheres on both sides of the equation.
This raises a question of process: whose burden of evidence is it?
I naturally think the burden lies on the side of 9/11 Truth, as they make the extraordinary claim.

Also, I am not sure if either side has looked systematically at dust from similar sites and events for comparison of the relative abundance of such microspheres.
WTC collapes on 9/11 is unparalleled. Very few buildings have collapsed from fire for obvious reasons. High rise collapse from fire cases triggering mechanical failures are simply not happening and so there is nothing to compare the "dust/debris" to.... not to mention that the WTC buildings were unique structural designs/builds.
Based on Mick's examples of how these microspheres can be and are created.... it appears that finding them are a predicted artifact. I suspect the only "mystery" is how many / volume / weight would be expected? Is there any way to model this?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
WTC collapes on 9/11 is unparalleled. Very few buildings have collapsed from fire for obvious reasons. High rise collapse from fire cases triggering mechanical failures are simply not happening and so there is nothing to compare the "dust/debris" to.... not to mention that the WTC buildings were unique structural designs/builds.
Based on Mick's examples of how these microspheres can be and are created.... it appears that finding them are a predicted artifact. I suspect the only "mystery" is how many / volume / weight would be expected? Is there any way to model this?
Well, there are essentially 6 phases in the towers' life- and death cycles during which microspheres might be produced and accumulated:
  1. During construction
  2. During use
  3. While the open fires burned
  4. While they collapsed
  5. During the underground fires
  6. During deconstruction and cleanup activities
Whenever you demolish an office building, you release dust that resulted from 1, 2, 4 and 6. So go to any planned demoltion and ask if you could sample dust before, right after and long after.
Ashes from "hot" fires (3) are easy to come by or can easily be generated experimentally.
Ashes from smoldering fires burning a comparable mix of materials under comparable conditions (5) perhaps less so.
 
Top