It is your choice to live in the TV fantasy Nightmare, I don't I see the reality. The empty buildings were pulled.end of story.
I haven't even been here for 12 years ! Oh I have shown plenty and still do on occasion, when I can be bothered with you lot. but if anyone really doubts the official story they don't have to look far to find proofs, the internet is full of them, as is the footage. Not my job to play with shills or dye hard believers of all the Gov tells 'em.
Do all Truthers opt out of basic grammar? Writing posts that are barely comprehensible seems to be a common trend amongst Truthers. Zup wit dat?
<sigh> 12 years since 9/11.....and you confuse 'plenty' with 'nothing' And you damn well better be bothered enough to back up your ludicrous claims.
You're the one who tried to claim the higher the energy density the better it's "cutting" power. Clearly, you are wrong on this. I already knew explosives had a low energy density, you're the one learning new things here koko. So back to the chart, it clearly shows a material which exceeds the limit for thermite. The limit for thermite, according to harrits on quantity, should be 93Kj/g, yet harrit measured as much as 7500Kj/g in some of his chips. How is this possible koko?
nice shift, I asked you for YOUR working definition of energy "density" not make any claim of the sort. Until you define your use and meaning of density its just another red herring. the combustion argument fails as a red herring if iron spheres are found, unless they can also be found by igniting only the paint. if that is your point then you have some ground to start with otherwise just another trougher rabbit hole.
The refining or iron ore, usually an oxide, by the bloomery process involves heating iron ore in a charcol fire. This can be done in a clay furnace in your back yard. Obviously, it does not take a lot of heat. In the paint chips, you have a carbon source and iron ore in very fine particles. Not at all a great leap of the imagination, huh?
nope if I were the type to leap, where is the data that the paint found results in spheres, more of your grossly oversimplified generalities imo.
Nice dodge koko. If you need me to define density for you then I think you need to go back to primary school and leave the 9/11 talk for the big boys. Again, a dodge. I've already told you how spheres got in the samples. The gray layer is steel. Melting-point depression means that small portions of the already tiny gray layers can melt at temperatures lower than the normal melting point of steel. In this case, Harrit et al heating his chips up to over 700C. No surprises there. But we are not interested in the gray layer. We are talking about the composite of the red layer. 1. How is it possible for "thermite" composite to only contain 2% aluminium? 2. Why would "thermite" to contain Kaolin? 3. Why does Harrit's samples exceed the theoretical limit by over a factor of 150? 4. Why does Jones refuse to release the FTIR and TEM data taken 4 years ago? 5. Why was there so much (450,000KG) of UNREACTED material left in the dust? 6. How much, therefore, must have their been in the towers to begin with? How is this possible? 7. The Bentham authors all disagree with exactly how these tiny chips of "thermite" were used. Two of them openly state they have no idea. How do you think it was used? Try not to dodge this time, koko.
ok then we run with the standard definition and you are wrong about the cutting claim. ok so then show me the data than small iron will melt at lower temps than large iron. it was a composite of what was floating in the air. Its depends on how creative you can be. lol now show us some data.
Actually, koko is just going to dodge this, so i'll go ahead and answer for him. Call it the "model" answers. 1. How is it possible for "thermite" composite to only contain 2% aluminium? (Not impossible, but the result will be pathetically weak, to the point of being totally useless) 2. Why would "thermite" to contain Kaolin? (Because it's not thermite) 3. Why does Harrit's samples exceed the theoretical limit by over a factor of 150? (Because it's not thermite, what he measured was the combustion of an organic matrix/epoxy resin) 4. Why does Jones refuse to release the FTIR and TEM data taken 4 years ago? (Because it shows the chips are not thermite) 5. Why was there so much (450,000KG) of UNREACTED material left in the dust? (Because it's not thermite. Thermite is self consuming, there should only be minimal, if any, trace of it left) 6. How much, therefore, must have their been in the towers to begin with? (Assuming the thermite was budget and so only 90% of the thermite in the towers self consumed, that means there would have to have been 4,000,000Kg of thermite in the towers to begin with) How is this possible? (It's not) 7. The Bentham authors all disagree with exactly how these tiny chips of "thermite" were used. Two of them openly state they have no idea. How do you think it was used? (i'll leave this one for koko)
There is only one definition, and no, I am correct with my claim. "cutting" does not depend on energy density. Otherwise, why didn't they use bacon fat? Remember; 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
Uh, what? Short term memory loss koko? Your claim is that because the blue line has a higher peak than the red (known thermite) line, it is "better suited for fast cutting" which is absolute nonsense. The peak in the blue line proves the substance cannot be thermite, it exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite, because thermite has a low energy density. 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
yeh I get a kick out of what you do not see in that, and if you run the math on those 2 graphs you will discover I am correct. You (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up when you added your version of what you thought I meant to it, not what I really meant, you still dont get it LOL
Duck and cover koko. I have proven your claim false and all you can do is cower and say "that's not really what I meant but I'm not going to tell you what I really mean tee hee hee". Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. You're not fooling any body here koko, just to let you know. Here, let me break it down question by question. See if we can progress from there. Koko, according to Harrit's own words, what is the theoretical limit of thermite's energy density?
more deference. I told you what I really meant what I did not do is tell you how I made that conclusion and left it up to you to figger it out, and you continue to fail. Oh and squarely in your face is polar opposite to cower. Here is a question for you, so what? What do you think is your basis. You said that small pieces of iron melt at lower temperatures I asked for your data and you keep trying to impasse that important consideration. LOL
why is that so important to you? 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?
Clearly it must be, otherwise why else are you avoiding the answer. Koko, according to Harrit's own words, what is the theoretical limit of thermite's energy density?
why is that so important to you? 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? oh and show where jones calimed it was "thermite", I dont recall him ever making that claim.
