It is not a variant. It has only one component of thermite. Idiot boy Harrit does not demonstrate that it has the other required component, but he does show an additional, useless component. He does not show free, metalic aluminum, and mentions that all of the aluminum that he does find are in the kaolin crystals. He also fails to notice that the polymer in which these components are suspended prevents the iron oxide from having intinmate contact with the aluminum-bearing kaolin crystals. Thus, what he has is bloody PAINT. Ask any competent chemist what would contain iron oxide, kaolin and a polymer resin, and they will, if thbey have any common sense, tell you that it is PAINT. Are you following me here?
so the chart was bull(*)(*)(*)(*) then, they both cant be true that and were they taken from the same place, I think not not that it mattters a whole hel of a lot since thermate is only a small percentage of the whole demolition picture
He's referring to the DSC chart idiot boy Harrit did, when they cooked their "chip" to 700C and were surprised it burned, and plotted it against a completely different reaction curve from a Tilloston et al Fe/Al nanothermite burn. Except their burn well exceeded (by over a factor of 150) the theoretical limit of thermite. Fail on their behalf, but they still said they had thermite, and koko believed them without question. Now he's making excuses for them by claiming they had a "variant" of thermite. Apparently koko has no idea what "theoretical limit" means, nor does he understand why anything exceeding that limit cannot possibly be what they claim. Koko doesn't understand that the Bentham paper's conclusions, the ones he is defending, is based on the claimed discovery of an Iron Oxide/Aluminium thermitic mix, not any other type of thermite variant. Koko doesn't understand the DSC testing is useless. Koko doesn't understand that TEM and FTIR are the competent methods of identifying a sample. Koko doesn't acknowledge the dishonesty of Harrit et al that they completed their own FTIR and TEM tests, but never released the data. Koko cannot understand that, based on the Al content found, his claimed red/gray "thermite chip" cannot be anymore than 3% thermite. Koko cannot understand why so much, and I mean in the hundreds of tons, of this UNREACTED material was found in the dust. Koko doesn't do science. Koko doesn't do math. Hell, koko hasn't even read the paper. I'll tell you what, koko, show me one piece of evidence, just one, that you believe proves the use of thermite.
Idiot boy Hsarrit refuses to give anyone else access to his samples to verify his work. However, by idiot boy's own statements, there should have been tons of that stuff in the dust anywhere. So Millette just dragged a magnet through his own samples collected around the scene and found the same exact material. If you want the same tests run on what idiot boy has, talk to Harrit. Be advised that you may have to have your communications translated into Moronic for Harrit's benefit.
doo dee do both have approximately the same average capacity, blue delivers higher power than red and is better suited for fast cutting operations.
I detest misleading graphs, like nists bogus wct7 descent graph. I suppose because I have seen so much of it out here my mind automatically makes the corrections but its unlikely noobs have those skills
You cut off some of the data that shows the difference between paint and thermite. You can't even do academic fraud properly.
and you get negative ignition how exactly? LMAO the parts cut off are meaningless, thats why they are cut off.
The graph shows that the material is absorbing more heat than it is emitting. You are cherry-picking.
WRONG. Nice editing of the graph, by the way. "corrected scale"??? No, not corrected, you cannot shift something which is Endothermic and make it exothermic simply by shifting a line you imbecile. Energy density does not represent "high power" or the "cutting" ability of anything. This is why Harrit et al failed so ****ing hard when they did this test. Energy Density is of very little concern to a materials ability to explode or 'cut'. Chocolate chips have 50 times the energy density of thermite, does that mean I could take down a building with chocolate? No. THEORETICAL LIMIT. The blue line exceeds the limit for thermite. Thermite has a low energy density, can be no more than 3.9kJ/g. Furthermore, as I have pointed out to you twise already, by the amount of Al found in the chips, the contents of the chips could be no more than 3% thermite. Which means the theoretical limit for the energy density should be 93kJ/g. Harrit et al measurements were off by a factor of 150! What do you not understand about this? Thermite cannot exceed its theoretical limit. If a materiel does, it's not thermite. Yet again koko, you fail totally at understanding what you are talking about. Yet again, you do not understand science. But maybe now, you may understand why Harrit's choice is performing a DSC test was both highly incompetently, useless, irrelevant, and downright dishonest, as a method of "proving" what a material is or isn't.
What's funny is you failed by shifting a line on a graph and tried passing it off as "corrected". What is funny is you have no idea what energy density means. What is funny is that thermite has a low energy density, but you don't know why. What is funny is that high explosives have a low energy density, but you still don't know why. Here is some comparison. Gun Powder - 3 Kj/g Thermite - 3.9 Kj/g TNT - 4.6 Kj/g HMX - 5.5 Kj/g Wood - 16.2 Kj/g Sugar - 17 Kj/g Animal Fat - 37 Kj/g Jet Fuel - 42.8 Kj/g Maybe instead of thermite, the conspirators should have painted the steel with bacon grease to bring the towers down. That would make sense to you, right koko?
Since all the footage we have is in fact digitally enhanced all arguments are mute. The buildings were simply pulled, completely empty buildings were pulled in the normal way. No one was hurt. All that we saw was make believe digital 'Hollywood' style make believe.
on the contrary that is what demolishes your whole premise and you dont know why! LMAO cant even get your charts right.
None of the footage was 'digitally enhanced',so all arguments are NOT moot None of the buildings were 'pulled' and unfortunately it was all horribly real
