Of course not, you never even read the paper. But, for your information, Jones/Harrit refer to thermite, nano-thermite, or super-thermite 62 times in their paper. Jesus christ the title of the paper is "active thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust" Nice dodge, by the way. Koko, according to Harrit's own words, what is the theoretical limit of thermite's energy density? Answer the question, and we can begin to move on to its relevance.
as a comparison to the reaction? would you have preferred walnuts and rare steak? What else should they compare it to when that is what it look like? ah.....active thermitic material..... so something has a response and signature that is very similar to thermite and it left iron rich spheres just like thermite and you find that conclusion crazy, I would say he was right on target and has accurately described the observation. (*)(*)(*)(*) that blue line is waaaaaaaay better for demolition than than the red one. you dodged that question too, tell us why the blue line is much better for demolition
Thermitic material is thermite. He did not get a response anywhere near thermite. According to your incorrect understanding, therefore so is bacon fat. Stop dodging the question. Koko, according to Harrit's own words, what is the theoretical limit of thermite's energy density?
I base that partly on the contents of the chips, the quantity of alleged elemental Al found, and the theoretical limit of thermite. So, Koko, according to Harrit's own words, what is the theoretical limit of thermite's energy density?
what about iron oxide and magnesium? will that yield a thermetic release? or does it have to be aluminum?
Thermite is a mix of powered aluminum and some type of metal oxide. So yes, it has to be aluminium. Fe2O3 + 2Al is the thermite which the Bentham paper claims to have found. But again koko, according to Harrit's own words, what is the theoretical limit of thermite's energy density? You seem to have issues understanding things in larger quantities, so we're doing this point at a time. When you answer, we shell move onto the next point.
but jones never claimed it was thermite. he said it was a thermetic reaction, which can be any number of materials exhibiting those properties. you have a problem now dont you. I cut your nose off at the pass in my first couple posts and you never saw it coming,. still dont. my advice to you, the best thing you can do right now is have someone re-write your script LOL
This is lining up for another stundie. Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen you write. Thermitic Reaction can ONLY come from THERMITE. THERMITIC = THERMITE. Holy mother of ****! I cannot believe what I am reading. And YES, to reinforce before what you dodged, you HAVE to have Aluminium for Thermite. No Aluminium = No Thermite. Period. Fine, because you will not answer, i'll just post all the answers again. Harrit stated in his paper that the peaks on his DSC tests exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite (3.9Kj/g). Why does it exceed it? Because Harrit et al performed their DSC IN AIR instead of an inert gas. Therefore the peak he is getting is not from thermite (which is self oxidizing and does not require atmospheric oxygen), its simply the combustion of the organic matrix of the paint, which has a higher energy density than thermite! Remember koko, thermite has a low energy density. Bacon fat has 10 times the energy density of thermite, but you cannot use that to blow up a building, hence supporting what I have been trying to get through your skull that a higher peak on a DSC does not correlate to a materials ability to demolish buildings!! Gun Powder - 3 Kj/g Thermite - 3.9 Kj/g TNT - 4.6 Kj/g HMX - 5.5 Kj/g Harrit et al Sample - 7.5Kj/g Wood - 16.2 Kj/g Sugar - 17 Kj/g Animal Fat - 37 Kj/g Jet Fuel - 42.8 Kj/g But what is more damning. Harrits own conclusion is based on the discovery of an Iron Oxide + Aluminium powder thermite. Yet Harrit's own results show that the largest quantity of aluminum found is tiny compared to other elements like carbon and oxygen. By the amount of Al needed to be mixed with Iron for thermite (mix of 1:3), the maximum thermite content of the chips can be no more than 3% thermite. The theoretical limit of energy density should be no more than 93J/g, Harrit measured 7,000J/g, harrit was off by a factor of 150 too much! And because they burned their chips in air instead of an inert gas like Argon or Nitrogen, the DSC peaked when the organic matrix ignited. The Bentham paper even clearly states this! But the funny thing is, Harrit's chips (a)-(d) do not even contain elemental aluminium, as proven by James Millette. Where did Harrit get his "elemental aluminium" from? From a Tnemic primer paint chips, which he failed to label, and tried to pass it of as a "contaminated" chip "identical" to Chips (a)-(d). LOL. Except his "contaminated" chip's EDX test matches perfectly to Tnemic paint. Again, some facts for koko for the paper he has still failed to read. In the Bentham paper there are more than one type of red material. 4 chips labelled a), b) c) and d) are all the same material. Chips labelled (a)-(d) do NOT contain any bulk aluminium. In the Bentham paper there is a 5th chip. This chip is unlabelled. This chip was subjected to soaking with MEK. It is refered to as the MEK chip at JREF. The MEK chip is a different material from the chips a-d) as evidenced by the EDX data in the paper. The MEK chip EDX matches that of Tnemec Red 99. EDX data on Tnemec red 99 is from Jones's own talks. The MEK chip (Tnemec red 99) contains the constituents of Tnemec Red 99. These include aluminates. The separation of bulk aluminium is the separation of these aluminates. In the Bentham paper the separation of aluminates is a one off. It's never been repeated. The separation of bulk aluminium in one sample CANNOT be extrapolated to any other red chip because they are different materials. Maybe you should actually read the paper koko? The icing on the cake is, burning a material does not give the slightest idea what that material is. The DSC is useless for any analysis of this sorts. Furthermore, because they burned their chips in air, the resulting graphs is completely and totally USELESS. FTIR, TEM, XEDS, etc (test which James Millette performed) does. These tests look right into what a material is made up from. Millette's FTIR shows the gray layer is steel, the red layer is paint. Period. That is what they are. Do you know Jones and Farrer (iirc) also did FTIR and TEM too? Even mentioned it in their paper, to be released at a later date. That was 4 years ago. They have never released them. Wonder why... That's it for me. That is all I can deal with you for now koko. I'm off to work. Maybe I'll come back in 7 hours and see if you've learned a thing or two. But I doubt it.
so you post your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing script anyway without addressing not even one of my points. incidentally if you wanna get all technical n (*)(*)(*)(*) which you dont since you just want to post your script, its really a thermic reaction in physics, not thermetic. thermetic is like a slang because its easy to grasp until someone grabs the ball and runs with it over the cliff as you have. so again: if I take a gram of garbage and burn it with a gram of thermite that in your mind proves what exactly? That no thermite existed? So if I did the same, garbage plus thermic material, (that is something capable of having a termic reaction), does that in your mind mean that a thermic reaction did not occur? because there was garbage mixed with it? What if its a magnesium recipe? Then what? oh and you forgot to mention that they did a xeds LOL if you wanna get into a fiziks debate at least have some understanding of the material you are trying to present.
The chips acted like paint, not like thermite. They contain everything that paint is supposed to contain. They contain stuff that thermite is not supposed to contain. Getting your terminology right is going to matter a whole lot to overcome that. Now answer the man's questions if you think you know more than a fire fighter who has assisted welders and chipped paint in a shipyard.
lets review your dsc chart on paint and dont forget the xeds on the residue if you were paying attention my response already sunk his titanic
I don't do chemistry. I do paint and fire investigations. CJ has a handle on the chemistry. I base my opinion on what I have experienced. The chips look like paint. Any doofus who ever worked construction would see them as paint. Paint acts the way that chucklenuts Jones describes for his chips. Paint chips catch fire when you turn an acetylene torch on them. They can burn with quite an impressive, if short-lived flame and sometimes a "pop." Jones and idiot boy Harrit started off on a couple of flase premises and never bothered to define their parameters. They are worthless as researchers.
now thats interesting LMAO and cj is running a script and cannot deal with the points I made because it took him off script. So (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obvious.
Still no progress then? 2 pages of asking koko to answer one, very simple question, and he fails to do so. Then turns around and accuses me of dodging his points. Oh how deep the delusion runs. But fine, I'll answer these before I go to bed. That you burned garbage and thermite. Of course not, but if you're trying to prove to me that there was themite mixed in with garbage, you should have isolated variables when you burned the pile, such as burning it in an inert atmosphere so that only the thermite would burn and not the garbage. Because you didn't, your results are useless. A dud question. Trying to cover up the fact you didn't know a thermitic reaction can only come from thermite. Now you're using the word 'thermic' in a completely alien way. You should really look up the meaning of words before you try and use them. What magnesium recipe? I've already told you, the Bentham paper specifically identified Fe2O3 + 2Al = 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat as their discovered themite. No variants. That is what they claimed. Specifically, the finding of Aluminium is what they based their conclusion on, because you cannot have thermite without Aluminium. Now some homework for you koko. I invite you to read through this post, and point out exactly where, and why, I am wrong.
The authors (Harritt & Jones) have refused to let anyone else use their samples. They know that they published lies.
Ok, so you done EDX, to show me that the garbage with thermite contained a host of elements. Big deal. I could do a EDX of my laptop and find the same materials, does that mean my laptop is thermite? You also done FTIR and TEM tests on the same samples of garbage and thermite, but chose never to release the results. You further refuse to release the samples for independent testings. You accuse others of replicating the experiment, but coming up with different results, of testing the "wrong" chips. At the end of the day, the ball is in your court for failing to separate the thermite from the garbage, or show in anyway that there was indeed thermite in the garbage to begin with.
thats just your conspiracy theory. - - - Updated - - - you can write a 10 volume set to evade the question, so I take it that your answer is no they did not examine the same samples. pretty worthless stuff you got.
Oh I see, you mean subsequent testing after the Bentham paper, referring to Basile burning his chips? Basile follows the same mistakes as Harrit et al, he burned his chips in air, instead of an inert atmosphere. But Basile stuffs up even more. He doesn't give temperatures. He doesn't identify which chips he is burning. He doesn't graph his results, he simply burns, takes pictures and says "look! Fire!". Then later he burns paint chips and says 'Look! They Don't React!", except again, he gives no indication of how hot he is heating them, the atmosphere he is burning them in, or even what paint he is burning, except for "Blue" and "Red" chips. I honestly don't think he understands what he is doing. Jones and others refuse to give their chips out for independent testing. They were invited by Chris Mohr several times to participate in the Millette study, to which they decline in a volley of ad hominem attacks. Instead they just skulk in the background saying "oh you chose the wrong chips, but we're not going to tell you how we distinguished the difference between the paint chips and the thermite chips". Pathetic. You support these fraudsters koko??? It goes against all logic and science. I think Ron Wieck puts it best; "If I had evidence, that contradicted the main stream account of the events on 9/11, and I was persuaded of the validity of that evidence, I would do everything in my power to win a Pulitzer Prize. I'd want to see my mug on the cover of Time and News Week, fame and fortune at my beckoning. I would seek out every main stream scientist, engineer, demolition expert I possibly could, and I would confront them with my evidence. Now the idea you have this blockbuster evidence and all you can do is skulk in the bowels of the internet?? No, no, I'm afraid not. Instead you choose to publish in some pay-to-print journal, the cheque clears so they'll publish your article, in the mean time you wouldn't dream of submitting it to a serious technical journal? What's going on here?" That about says it all. dprjones states it even more clearly in his first video; ""Baring in mind that the conclusions that they reach in this paper, basically uncovers one of the greatest conspiracies the world have ever known. Where do they go, in order to publicize their findings?? The Open Chemical Physics Journal. This, it has to be said, is an interesting choice, and by interesting, I mean, not only are the contents of the paper not appropriate for a journal proporting to cover that topic, but I also mean it in a totally and deliberately sarcastic way. The journal, is nothing short of a joke. Despite having an editorial board of 90 or so people from throughout the world, in 2009, the journal published 4 papers. To give you some idea of how staggering this is, Youtube user Thunderf00t, has published on average, 4 papers a year.
pretty tough to call jones tests junk unless you test the same samples the same way. you have a whole lot of nothing. if you object to that then give us the details on what the difference would be on the chart.
They're junk not only because he stuff up his method, but because he refuses to give his samples out for independent verification, something real scientists with real results actually do. Read the quotes above, and let me know why you think jones refuses to give his samples out or submit his paper to any serious technical journal? Or, for that matter, release the FTIR/TEM results from 4 years ago?
I asked you however what you think the difference would be between the 2 charts. you understand the question right?
