Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Dave Rogers]

Consequently, I predict that if you start a nail into hard wood, then glue one of the chips onto the head of a nail, then finally whack it once again, hard, if it's nano-thermite, it will ignite.

If that were true, then nano-thermite would be a strange choice for an application where it was required to experience a sudden and intense impact without igniting.

Dave

[twinstead]

As stated I don't know how it is for real, but I can tell how it looks like. You're making an assumption here backed with no name list and no quotes. I am just saying "this is not very convincing from an external POV". Now if you disagree with that, fine by me ! It's not really my problem, is it ? ;)


There is no scientific group who declares the world is round, but you must assume the vast majority of scientists from around the world DO indeed believe it is round, right?

So. In my opinion you can't hide behind the fact it's not convincing to YOU. With all due respect that is irrelevant. I suppose I could ask this question: If the "official story" of 911 is so unbelievable, then why are so many scientists from around the world keeping their mouths shut about it? You'd think they would be coming out of the woodwork to

[T.A.M.]

As stated I don't know how it is for real, but I can tell how it looks like. You're making an assumption here backed with no name list and no quotes. I am just saying "this is not very convincing from an external POV". Now if you disagree with that, fine by me ! It's not really my problem, is it ? ;)


To T.A.M.

1. Yes but... you're playing with word, aren't you ?

2.

Nope, I wonder too. All I can do is to suppose the significant dissolution they're describing really is one. Which I do because I don't see the point of analysing the paper without postulating it's honnest. Else you can detect potential landmines every two words. :P

So to sum up :
- you skipped the flame test (several paints being mentioned)
- I assume several paints, and not sample of the same paint (wouldn't make any sense, would it) for solvant
- reference to known test of several paints for resistance

No we can split hairs in four (french for overtalking small matter) but I suggest we don't go further unless you can at least tell me specifically of what use would be such a list. I am sorry but no article I've read the last two weeks is even half as detailed as this one on this sort of details, and this because scientist reading articles prefers to have something synthetical they can read reasonably quick and then ask details if needed.

So once more if you want to know, ask (in the relevant place, i.e. most likely not here :P ). OTOH if your real intention is to flame the paper and everyone that doesn't flame it by principle, I acknowledge you're at the right place, with the right tone :p

I do not call it splitting hairs, I call it a lack of critical detail on an area that is critical to a scientific investigation with a hypothesis that would fly in the face of conventional understanding.

If you are going to provide a hypothesis that opposes the accepted, mainstream theory on something then your evidence, and hence your analysis must be thorough and detailed, in particular, you must RULE OUT that your findings are not better explained by something more readily available and understandable (that the chips are paint + corrosion). Jones et al failed miserably at this both in terms of what they told us they tested, and how they tested it. They also failed to provide details of the composition of their comparative testing samples.

As well, anyone will tell you, that a known chain of custody is paramount to having your results taken seriously. Jones et al failed at this also.

The only thing their paper succeeds at, is proving how much confirmation bias they all have towards the subject. At that, they passed with flying colors.

That is how I see it, and it is how most people of this site see it. I think Dr. Greening (though I would not dare speak for him) likely sees it somewhat similar.

I do not see a point to discussing this further. I have provided you with my arguments. You have not refuted them, so much as simply seen it a different way, so let us leave it at that...

TAM:)

[tfk]

Redford


<snip>
That's your belief. If I look the facts I see lots of scientists/expert openly in the truth movement (and fact wise, I've got no rational reason to consider they're silly, as I exclude the circular logic of "they're truther so they're silly" that I can see is pretty popular here).


There are not "lots of scientists / experts ... in the truth movement". There are precious (in the sense of "misbehaving toddlers") few.

More importantly, almost every single one of the truther experts is operating outside of their fields of expertise. This drops you list of ae911t experts to about 140. And your list of experts publishing results in their field of expertise perilously close to zero.
__

In each specific event, there are a small number of fields of expertise.

Hijacking the planes: hijacking experts, communications experts, ATC experts.

Flying the planes: pilots, aerodynamic engineers.

Impact of the plane into the towers: Mechanical engineers specializing in impact & collision, structural engineers, FEA modelers, videogrammetry experts.

Collapse of the towers: Mechanical engineers, Structural engineers, Fire engineers, FEA modelers, construction engineers, video analysis experts, (and to address the issue of possible demolition) demolition engineers.

The overall "Project manager" who would direct such an investigation, tapping into all these fields as necessary, would be an expert in forensic investigations of large structure failures.

This is one of the single most glaring differences between the NIST study and any truther comments. The NIST study sought out world class experts in each of these fields. LOOK at the list of experts that put together their report.

Now look at the list of your experts, taken I suppose from ae911t and from the truther spokespeople.

The VAST number of theories that have been advanced have been by complete amateurs, with zero engineering experience.

Now look at ae911T. The vast majority of these folks have zero expertise in any of the fields associated with the collapse of large structures. And yet, it is almost uniform that they claim that they knew it was a demolition "as soon as they saw it on 9/11". This is the mark of an absolute amateur. Professionals wait to see what the evidence tells them.

Note that architects do NOT have the qualifications to analyze a collapse either. They go to structural engineers to figure out whether or not their designs will stand.

Now, of the structural and mechanical engineers that are in ae911t, few of them (AFAIK) have produced papers proving their points. And the few experts outside of ae911t that have done so have not submitted their papers to peer review. This eliminates their value to the general public, who are not equipped to wade thru the arguments.

The few real experts that you have that have spoken within their fields (Judy Wood, for example) have produced embarrassingly flawed work.

So, what you really have is a tiny group (perhaps 15?) of amateurs, producing un-reviewed nonsense outside of their fields of expertise. Plus an even smaller group of experts (perhaps 5?) producing embarrassing nonsense within their field of expertise. And none of it peer reviewed.

In other words, the technical brain trust of the truth movement has produced nothing in 7+ years.


Now maybe there's a lot of scientists in the debunker movement, maybe even more but as long as they don't start their own association we can't seriously count them. In the meantime that's hundreds to tens balance. If any conclusion could be taken from by a new comer it's that the scientific community is rather convinced by truther.


As others have pointed out, there were no groups of scientists or engineers who joined committees "approving" the Warren Commission report, the Challenger or Columbia shuttle investigations, the Hyatt Regency disaster, or the OKC bombing investigation either. Engineers have learned to acknowledge the competence and depth of knowledge of experts working in their respective fields.

Here is a website for professional civil engineers. http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
Show me the "debate" on the NIST commission report. Answer: there ISN'T one.

Here is a page that lists the groups of engineers & architects in the US. http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Adding it up, there are about "123,000 members of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA (American Institute of Architects) ... 120,000 members of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) ... 370,000 members of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) ... 40,000 members of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) ... 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report." For every engineer that is a member of each of those societies, there are, of course, several engineers who are not.

So, a "most favorable" number for your contention is about 140 (total of structural, civil & mechanical engineers in ae911t) out of at least a million (counting just structural, civil & mechanical engineers in the US alone).

I would also be happy to provide you with the names of about 400 engineers who explicitly support the NIST findings by virtue of their journal-published works based upon those findings. Before I do, tho, I want to know what concession that you will make regarding this issue.

I've been a working Project Engineer (mechanical) for 34 years. I know personally perhaps 200+ engineers and 100+ scientists that I've met in that time. I do not know of ONE that believes the "truther woo".

I am certain that there are many "technical people" that do, however. Because I've also known idiosyncratic, iconoclastic "characters" at every company for whom I've worked who said that they believed that the US did NOT fly to the moon. Whether they truly believed it or not, I cannot say. But saying that they did not believe it was an integral part of their chosen, colorful persona.

Gage is at AIA right now. He will come away with a bunch of signatures. (He claimed "about 50" as of yesterday.) His presence there is known to everyone. It's probably the most "interesting", perhaps newsworthy (?) thing there. I suggest that, when he posts his new converts on his website, we take the number of REAL architects out of the total attendance of REAL architects as a first order approximation. Not of the number who believe in a controlled demo, but who believe, as he phrases it, that a new investigation is needed.

Last point. As I mentioned, architects are informed about buildings, but not experts on why they stand or fall. This thesis is PROVEN by the real architect, Gage, and his cardboard boxes. But I can assure you that neither Gage nor Jones will EVER bring their dog & pony show before an audience of structural or mechanical engineers. They would get laughed off of the stage.

College kids are impressionable. Real engineers DELIGHT in being rude.

It's part of our "charm".

tom

[Redford]

T.A.M. : you did'n't said of what specifical use would be such a list. Apart from that you don't need to repeat yourself for the rest, I got it that it's what you think and it's perfectly fine.

tfk : this is going OT, isn't it ? I am sorry but I've no time for this. I won't discuss this apart to say

- that I compared NIST reporth authors CV and ae911's list and found roughly same ratio of same experts.

- Also according to your theory of "one expert is only expert in his very field", Sunstealer has no relevant things to say about the article. Well, I think otherwise.

- Last, I think the fact that you have to do a lot of reasoning to convince me the support of the scientific community to the official explanation is not only an assumption is the key issue I am trying to show you (note that it's a communication issue). It's not damn complicated to launch a website/association and start to raise some signatures for the supposedly numerous scientists ready to support "round earth". Still it's not there. As long as it's not their, it's trusting you or trusting tangible CVs and quotes. No doubt some will trust you first, but those ones probably doesn't need to be convinced in the first place.

[Redford]

If the "official story" of 911 is so unbelievable, then why are so many scientists from around the world keeping their mouths shut about it? You'd think they would be coming out of the woodwork to

Missed that one, sorry. Again, this is OT. I'll just say this : you make an assumption here. I do to, thus. Mine is to say that 600 building specialists putting their names on ae911 is a quite big figure according. Because for each of them you can count several others that are convinced to but don't put their names on it. Now if I consider Gage's ressources (money, time), and my own experience of convincing and audience, it looks (no matter the topic) like a pretty good ratio.

But figures is really something that anyone can twist in it's own belief (like going from 600 specialists to 15 lunatics ;-) so I have another critaeria : I count the people changing side. AFAIK it's always joining truther, not leaving them. But maybe you know cases I don't know ?

[metamars]

I created a new thread with quotes from Professor Jones, Gregg Roberts and Dr. Greening (plus a couple of bonus emails of my own :) ) , at the911forum (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/email-correspondence-on-active-thermitic-paper-abridged-t157.html)

The idea is to just quote emails, with any commentary to go into other threads.

[Redford]

That's really great! Thx a lot metamars.

[metamars]

That's really great! Thx a lot metamars.

You're welcome. I'll be adding to the thread as new emails come in. Dr. Greening has just sent one regarding his unaddressed points, though I've requested that he fix it up, as it has all sorts of strange characters in it. Thus, I haven't uploaded it, yet.

[chillzero]

OK - the last few posts were ok to let people know about the other thread. Please keep this one back on topic from here.

[tsig]

T.A.M. : you did'n't said of what specifical use would be such a list. Apart from that you don't need to repeat yourself for the rest, I got it that it's what you think and it's perfectly fine.

tfk : this is going OT, isn't it ? I am sorry but I've no time for this. I won't discuss this apart to say

- that I compared NIST reporth authors CV and ae911's list and found roughly same ratio of same experts.

- Also according to your theory of "one expert is only expert in his very field", Sunstealer has no relevant things to say about the article. Well, I think otherwise.

- Last, I think the fact that you have to do a lot of reasoning to convince me the support of the scientific community to the official explanation is not only an assumption is the key issue I am trying to show you (note that it's a communication issue). It's not damn complicated to launch a website/association and start to raise some signatures for the supposedly numerous scientists ready to support "round earth". Still it's not there. As long as it's not their, it's trusting you or trusting tangible CVs and quotes. No doubt some will trust you first, but those ones probably doesn't need to be convinced in the first place.

Well you could take some college courses in physics and strength of materials then you could reach your conclusions based on knowledge and data rather than faith.

[T.A.M.]

T.A.M. : you did'n't said of what specifical use would be such a list. Apart from that you don't need to repeat yourself for the rest, I got it that it's what you think and it's perfectly fine.


The use of such a list would tell us which, if any of the paint(s) Jones allegedly tested, might have been used in the WTC. Paints, as others have explained here, and elsewhere, can have a WIDE VARIATION in composition, and characteristics. As a result, unless Jones has tested some of the paints that would have been used in the WTC, in particular the red primer, then his tests are USELESS.

The lack of investigation into other sources for the chips, is proof positive that Jones either (A) he is a horrible scientist, or (B) as such confirmation bias, as to make his investigation on this matter useless. Take your pick.

TAM:)

[Redford]

Oh oh, moving the goal post here, aren't we ?

I didn't ask why it would be useful to test other paints. Because I know why and they know too, as they did it.

I am asking of what specific use would be the list of the paints they have tested, considering no one knows exactly, apart from Tnemec, what paints were used here and there in the huge complexe. You have a list of paint : a few pick in a pool of dozen, or hundred, or thousands of paints/suspect. What use is that list ?

[T.A.M.]

T.A.M. : you did'n't said of what specifical use would be such a list. Apart from that you don't need to repeat yourself for the rest, I got it that it's what you think and it's perfectly fine.

tfk : this is going OT, isn't it ? I am sorry but I've no time for this. I won't discuss this apart to say

- that I compared NIST reporth authors CV and ae911's list and found roughly same ratio of same experts.

- Also according to your theory of "one expert is only expert in his very field", Sunstealer has no relevant things to say about the article. Well, I think otherwise.

- Last, I think the fact that you have to do a lot of reasoning to convince me the support of the scientific community to the official explanation is not only an assumption is the key issue I am trying to show you (note that it's a communication issue). It's not damn complicated to launch a website/association and start to raise some signatures for the supposedly numerous scientists ready to support "round earth". Still it's not there. As long as it's not their, it's trusting you or trusting tangible CVs and quotes. No doubt some will trust you first, but those ones probably doesn't need to be convinced in the first place.

The use of such a list would tell us which, if any of the paint(s) Jones allegedly tested, might have been used in the WTC. Paints, as others have explained here, and elsewhere, can have a WIDE VARIATION in composition, and characteristics. As a result, unless Jones has tested some of the paints that would have been used in the WTC, in particular the red primer, then his tests are USELESS.

The lack of investigation into other sources for the chips, is proof positive that Jones either (A) he is a horrible scientist, or (B) as such confirmation bias, as to make his investigation on this matter useless. Take your pick.

TAM:)

Oh oh, moving the goal post here, aren't we ?

I didn't ask why it would be useful to test other paints. Because I know why and they know too, as they did it.

I am asking of what specific use would be the list of the paints they have tested, considering no one knows exactly, apart from Tnemec, what paints were used here and there in the huge complexe. You have a list of paint : a few pick in a pool of dozen, or hundred, or thousands of paints/suspect. What use is that list ?

I have quoted your original post, and my reply, because I find it odd, that you would accuse me of moving the goal posts, when I simply answered your question. You asked me what use would the list be, so I answered.

Anyway, I will turn it around and have you answer this...why do you think he didn't include the list of the paint types (specific names etc...). If you think he did not, simply due to length limitation for the paper, well...I think you are not only Naive, but perhaps blinded as well.

I'll tell you what I think. I think he PURPOSELY left such things out because he knew that if he did, we (as well as any of the scientific community who might read his paper) would have the ammunition to prove that his elimination of "paint" as a source of the chips was INADEQUATE.

You cannot ELIMINATE, by any stretch, PAINT as a material, from the list of possible alternative sources (and more likely I might add) if you have not tested paints that were used within the WTC. Now we know the Tnemec Red Primer WAS USED, so why did he NOT test this paint??? We can speculate, but why has he not answered to this?

I remember reading somewhere, I do believe, that you are early in your science education or career (may be that was someone else), but if you are, then you should probably not use Jones et al as examples or role models. Any good scientist will tell you that SPECIFICS are incredibly important, as is REPRODUCIBILITY of your results by INDEPENDENT analysis.

TAM:)

[Redford]

I am not early, I am not in at all (and it would be a bite late to change that...). My wife is a searcher (in social psychologie) thus, so I get some insight on how the world of science works... to a certain point :P

No back to business : I think you didn't get my question at all. I formulated it several time so maybe I am not doing this well. My point is that the list is not included because it's would not be a useful info to anyone. You failed so far to bring any contradiction to that statement and that's the question I am asking. Of what use would such a list be to anyone ? The ony reason I can see for that list to get some use is that you think they lied about their test so people can double check them. Well IMO :

a) it's very unlikely considering the test (what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?)

b) if you know what paint were used in WTC (and AFAIK, apart from TRPP nothing is really known so that's another reason that make your point senseless to me), you don't need to know their list : just take a torch and do it !

BTW Tnemec red primer paint is ruled out by Greening and Sunstealer from what I get. The question is rather paint featuring kaolin for Sunstealer or "other, unknown paints" for Greening. So I *really* don't see where any of this would lead anyone anywhere...

Hmm. Hope Sunstealer to be back soon with answers to my questions !

[katertje]

I wonder , Did Jones make his dust samples available to other researchers ?

[Arus808]

nope.

[Redford]

Lol, yes he did. henryco, posting here was one of them. I also read somewhere that some other team is currently investigating those samples too.

[T.A.M.]

I am not early, I am not in at all (and it would be a bite late to change that...). My wife is a searcher (in social psychologie) thus, so I get some insight on how the world of science works... to a certain point :P

No back to business : I think you didn't get my question at all. I formulated it several time so maybe I am not doing this well. My point is that the list is not included because it's would not be a useful info to anyone. You failed so far to bring any contradiction to that statement and that's the question I am asking. Of what use would such a list be to anyone ? The ony reason I can see for that list to get some use is that you think they lied about their test so people can double check them. Well IMO :

a) it's very unlikely considering the test (what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?)

b) if you know what paint were used in WTC (and AFAIK, apart from TRPP nothing is really known so that's another reason that make your point senseless to me), you don't need to know their list : just take a torch and do it !

BTW Tnemec red primer paint is ruled out by Greening and Sunstealer from what I get. The question is rather paint featuring kaolin for Sunstealer or "other, unknown paints" for Greening. So I *really* don't see where any of this would lead anyone anywhere...

Hmm. Hope Sunstealer to be back soon with answers to my questions !

1. I believe, the Tnemec primer was not ruled out, but rather was determined not to be the source for ALL of the samples. I believe they are considering multiple sources for the chips, of which the primer COULD be one.

2. I have answered your question. The list would be useful to prove how vigilant or (lack there of) Jones et al were at eliminating paint as a source. If they tested one or two paints, NEITHER OF WHICH were used in the WTCs, then it would prove they did VERY LITTLE to eliminate paint as a source. IF however, they tested 8-10 paints, and let us say 50-75% of them were in use in the WTCs, then I would say their attempt to eliminate the paints as sources, IN THIS REGARD (the tests they did perform) was better.

3. I am not saying it had to be (the list) in the front, or even in the main "materials and methods" part of the paper, but a list in an appendix would be considered STANDARD fair in such a paper/analysis. This is where he failed, IMO.

with regard to your (a) point, given you are a non-scientist, on what basis do you make your claim? Show me the science behind that, or is it just your "gut instinct"?

As well, just because the only paint listed in NIST (IIRC) was the primer, does not mean that a list does not exist somewhere, of other paints used in the WTC.

All this aside, it is a minor point in terms of investigating it further. My bone of contention is that it is considered proper scientific procedure to list the details of the materials you test...End Of Story.

I wonder , Did Jones make his dust samples available to other researchers ?

Yes, he gave it to 2 other truthers to test.

TAM:)

[WilliamSeger]

My point is that the list is not included because it's would not be a useful info to anyone. You failed so far to bring any contradiction to that statement and that's the question I am asking. Of what use would such a list be to anyone ? The ony reason I can see for that list to get some use is that you think they lied about their test so people can double check them. Well IMO :

a) it's very unlikely considering the test (what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?)

b) if you know what paint were used in WTC (and AFAIK, apart from TRPP nothing is really known so that's another reason that make your point senseless to me), you don't need to know their list : just take a torch and do it !

BTW Tnemec red primer paint is ruled out by Greening and Sunstealer from what I get. The question is rather paint featuring kaolin for Sunstealer or "other, unknown paints" for Greening. So I *really* don't see where any of this would lead anyone anywhere...

The list of paints tested would be very useful, specifically to see whether or not it contained paints that were likely used in the WTC, and biased researchers might not be the best judge of that. But there isn't any need for speculation about Tnemec, when there are still some actual WTC steel samples in a hangar at JKF. To assume that it isn't Tnemec because the currrent formula contains zinc is to presume that the 1960s formula didn't, either. Why guess about that when you can test the actual stuff?

[Redford]

1. Not from what I read.

2. Do you have / know if there is a list from WTC paints ? My understanding is that the list isn't known apart from TRPP. I've seen no mention of it so far. If such a list exist, I can see your point, finally. Thus I am pretty sure that most reference their could have been are lost apart from what was used initially.

3. Did you ask them ? It's common practice to ask about details to the author. That's how, for instance, Jones learned that Tillotson et al. did their DSC in air, and that's how, by not asking before speaking, a lot of people here made agressive misstatements on the matter like "it's never made in air, boo".

My a) point : I explained it with common sense "what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?". I don't expect paint to be fireproofing but I assume paints are tested under fire and that a paint producing exothermic peak and material ejection at relatively low temperature would not pass security tests.
Moreover no one here has been able to test any paint under the fire and show any spark / material ejection. Considering it's a simple / cheap test to do I consider it should at least be done before discussion hypothesis.

[katertje]

He should be willing to send some of his naothermite containing dust to qualified people .

[BenBurch]

Yes he should. I will pledge $50 to a fund to pay for testing by a reputable group like Underwriter's Laboratories.

[alienentity]

Much is being made about the formation of 'iron-rich spheres', indeed Dr. Jones was quoted 'The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures'. I take it they are claiming that this indicates temps of 1400 C or higher (in the paper).

I see that figures 24 - 28 show XEDS spectra of various materials, and that the 'WTC' samples show a number of elements including Mg, Ti, S, K, Ca in addition to O, Fe and Si.

Sunstealer states that it is misleading to call the spheres 'iron-rich', since there is also much Oxygen. But there is a large O peak in the XEDS of commerical thermite also - aren't these similar?
What I'm interested in is whether there is any hard evidence one way or another as to whether the spheres are indeed proof of extremely high temps, as Jones claims.

Anyone?

[Drs_Res]

Yes he should. I will pledge $50 to a fund to pay for testing by a reputable group like Underwriter's Laboratories.

I'll second that.

I will pledge $50.00 (USD) to a fund to pay for testing by a reputable group like Underwriter's Laboratories.

So that's $100.00 now.

[katertje]

Otherwise he is withholding evidence (in case it actually is evidence)

Finding tiny pieces of material that look like nanothermite is still something else than evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 I believe .



Pyrotechnics used to be a hobby of me. sometimes I needed very fine Aluminium powder for flash compositions, but you can't buy this stuff over here, so I bought some cheap 'silver' paint wich contains very fine Aluminium powder. In order to seperate the aluminium powder from the organic binders I heated a can of this paint with a very small hole in the lid. The aluminium powder that was left behind was very fine, and therefore suited for high energetic compositions (it burned very fast with Fe2O3) .
so the idea that the nanothermite is just paint doesn't sound very strange to me.

[ElMondoHummus]

(*Bump*)

Issues regarding the findings in this paper are being raised in another thread. I am bumping this thread in order to bring it back to the first page for those reraising the Bentham papers points.

[henryco]

Much is being made about the formation of 'iron-rich spheres', indeed Dr. Jones was quoted 'The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures'. I take it they are claiming that this indicates temps of 1400 C or higher (in the paper).

What I'm interested in is whether there is any hard evidence one way or another as to whether the spheres are indeed proof of extremely high temps, as Jones claims.

Anyone?

Molten iron (many microspheres are almost pure iron or iron oxyde) is a proof of extremely high temps: 1400°C.
To reach these temps you need to concentrate the heat released by a reaction in a small volume.

- The reaction of a given volume V of Thermite gives enough energy to ideally melt ~ 2V of iron
(16kJ/cc for thermite; 7.8kJ/cc to melt iron: (470 J/(°C.kg) x 1500°C + 270000J/kg) x 8000/1O^6 kg/cc)

- The reaction of a given volume V of Coal (carbon) gives enough energy to ideally melt ~ 10V of iron
(79kJ/cc i.e ~ 5x more than thermite)

But each C atom needs an oxygen molecule from the air thus a volume V of Carbon needs
32/12 (ratio of molar masses ) times 2267/1.43 (ratio of densities) times 5 (20% of oxygen in the air) = ~ 20000 V of air.

Therefore when a very small organic or pure carbon particle burns in the air, its energy is released very fast (because it is very small i.e big S/V ratio ) but this energy is released in a huge volume ~ 20000 V so a tiny iron particle (volume V also) around can only get ~1/20000 of this total energy. So it cannot reach the temps able to melt it (see above) . Thus for quite obvious reasons coal or any organic stuff that needs the air oxygen can only melt iron when the heat is accumulated in time and concentrated in space as in a blast furnace.

Let us investigate the extreme case of an organic and iron microparticles confined together into a very small chamber (comparable to their size) and submitted to an air flow ~ thousands of V on a very short time scale (because you must be faster than the dissipative effects which are also very effective for such microparticles ).
But then the particles must also retain much of the heat which is hardly believable ( the air flow would at the same time produce energy lost at high rates). So even this extreme scenario is untenable.

Therefore i see no way to reach the temps of molten iron for such a reaction at the microscopic scale. The reductant and oxydiser (good english ?) must be together in the chips allowing the heat to be released concentrated in a small volume as for a thermitic reaction: high density of energy needed! organic stuff +oxygen = very low energy density because huge volume!

I really need no more to be convinced that the chips are highly energetics by themselves and knowing their composition and the composition of the residuals the evidence is clearly for a Fe2O3 +Al thermitic reaction.


Fred

[Lenbrazil]

Molten iron (many microspheres are almost pure iron or iron oxyde) is a proof of extremely high temps: 1400°C.
To reach these temps you need to concentrate the heat released by a reaction in a small volume.

It is my understanding that were would expect to find such spheres in WTC dust from flyash and that compounds in Jones' dust samples would have lowered the melting point of iron.

IIRC there are links about flyash on this forum but can anyone provide a link indicating that elements in the dust affect the melting poit of Fe?

[T.A.M.]

Yes, but the "claim" from Jones and co, is that these spheres WERE NOT present prior to the "ignition" of the "chips", and only appeared AFTER the alleged "reaction".

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Just a walk in the park with a pen knife for some scrapings and a vial to put your paint chip in.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM11BD
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/76404732-5b2e-4add-8a14-00f06d3ec93.jpg

[BigAl]

Just a walk in the park with a pen knife for some scrapings and a vial to put your paint chip in.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM11BD
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/76404732-5b2e-4add-8a14-00f06d3ec93.jpg

There is in Manhattan an I-beam from WTC as a new monument.
It's on Church a block or two above Vesey, on the east side by the church. It's reachable for the purposes of getting a sample.

There is a plaque but I didn't get a chance to read it.

[newton3376]

Hi all....Im new to this forum so forgive me if this has already been discussed....

Im not quite sure I understand the point of the "resistance" test....they give the equation for resistivity (RA/L) and then tested the red material saying its resistivity was too high....

How many samples did they take for the measurement?
How many different red chips did they test?
What kinds of paint are they comparing this to?
Are they comparing the sample to brand new paint or paint that has been aged?
Could there be contaminates in this .5mm * .5mm are of "red material" that could create a lower than expected resistivity?

There are so many details missing from this test...it seems difficult to gather any data at all from it.

I would never conduct a resistivity test with so little specifics given...its seems like a very poor test indeed.

Does anyone have more information on this test they conducted?

Thanks.

[metamars]

Molten iron (many microspheres are almost pure iron or iron oxyde) is a proof of extremely high temps: 1400°C.
To reach these temps you need to concentrate the heat released by a reaction in a small volume.

- The reaction of a given volume V of Thermite gives enough energy to ideally melt ~ 2V of iron
(16kJ/cc for thermite; 7.8kJ/cc to melt iron: (470 J/(°C.kg) x 1500°C + 270000J/kg) x 8000/1O^6 kg/cc)

- The reaction of a given volume V of Coal (carbon) gives enough energy to ideally melt ~ 10V of iron
(79kJ/cc i.e ~ 5x more than thermite)

But each C atom needs an oxygen molecule from the air thus a volume V of Carbon needs
32/12 (ratio of molar masses ) times 2267/1.43 (ratio of densities) times 5 (20% of oxygen in the air) = ~ 20000 V of air.

Therefore when a very small organic or pure carbon particle burns in the air, its energy is released very fast (because it is very small i.e big S/V ratio ) but this energy is released in a huge volume ~ 20000 V so a tiny iron particle (volume V also) around can only get ~1/20000 of this total energy. So it cannot reach the temps able to melt it (see above) . Thus for quite obvious reasons coal or any organic stuff that needs the air oxygen can only melt iron when the heat is accumulated in time and concentrated in space as in a blast furnace.

Let us investigate the extreme case of an organic and iron microparticles confined together into a very small chamber (comparable to their size) and submitted to an air flow ~ thousands of V on a very short time scale (because you must be faster than the dissipative effects which are also very effective for such microparticles ).
But then the particles must also retain much of the heat which is hardly believable ( the air flow would at the same time produce energy lost at high rates). So even this extreme scenario is untenable.

Therefore i see no way to reach the temps of molten iron for such a reaction at the microscopic scale. The reductant and oxydiser (good english ?) must be together in the chips allowing the heat to be released concentrated in a small volume as for a thermitic reaction: high density of energy needed! organic stuff +oxygen = very low energy density because huge volume!

I really need no more to be convinced that the chips are highly energetics by themselves and knowing their composition and the composition of the residuals the evidence is clearly for a Fe2O3 +Al thermitic reaction.


Fred

Very interesting post. I myself had suggested, in one of the physforum.com 911 mega-threads, that most of the heat generated by the WTC fires was lost via venting through broken windows.

However, in large fires, you have major heat transfer through radiation. Counteracting that, in terms of radiative head absorbed by a column, is radiative heat absorbed by smoke.

The problem is really horribly complex. I attended a lecture once on advanced computer analysis of a flame, and they even created a genetic algorithm for one piece of the problem.

Anyway, the point is made that simplistic comparisons to more energy-dense materials like paper, are silly. Do you mind if I copy your post, verbatim, to the911forum.freeforums.org?

[Leviath]

I haven't been able to study the paper thoroughly yet but just wanted to make one point about the DSC analysis.

10 degrees celcius per minute as heating rate strikes me as way too fast for a sample of unknown substance. Especially as it is not conducted in inert atmosphere and there is (as far as I understand) an unknown organic matrix.

In my lab we analyse samples for ignition temperature on a daily basis. Now it is normal to use 10 degrees per minute as heating rate in industrial labs as the one I'm connected to. But for more accurate measurments it's recommended to go as low as 0,5 degrees per minute. But you don't have time for that on a daily basis for obvious reasons.

I'll see if I got time to study it more.

[Jono]

Thus for quite obvious reasons coal or any organic stuff that needs the air oxygen can only melt iron when the heat is accumulated in time and concentrated in space as in a blast furnace.

Well that would go for liquified iron, however "molten" is usually used as a colloqial term describing something that is starting to lose its initial integrity and change throuh heat, bending or behaving like cookie-dough, licorice etc.
It's something any swordsmith could traditionally expect if leaving the sword too long in the burning coals et al. If they did, and then struck that hammer on that steel, or iron, you could at times get something of an explosion were parts of the material were released with force like projectiled dripplets.

I'm not a building though, just a smithy.

[henryco]

Do you mind if I copy your post, verbatim, to the911forum.freeforums.org?

of course you can copy it , if it helps or if someone else can find the bug in what i say i'll be interested...

the complications are expected when you want to reach an accurate picture of what is going on, not when the energy densities are orders of magnitude below the necessary threshold...

fred

[moorea34]

Metamars : and your comments about that paint ?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4669003&postcount=168

It gives the same energy than thermite !

Is it not amazing ?

;)

[alienentity]

I've still got a few questions regarding the 'thermitic material' in the red/grey chips. I'd appreciate any specific answers to them!

1) Does anyone know what the ignition temp of nanothermites or nanothermite sol-gels are? Kevin Ryan claims that the red/grey chips combusted at the same temperature as those.

2) Jones et al. are claiming that the formation of 'iron-rich' spheres' after ignition of the chips proves that combustion temperature was at least 1400 C. Can anyone provide good evidence to disprove that claim?

3) methyl ethyl ketone was used as a solvent to demonstrate the difference between ordinary paints and the red/grey chips. According to Steven Jones, while paint samples did dissolve, the chips did not. But apparently there was some dissolution of the chips after all, as the materials did separate out to a degree - how does one interpret such behavior?

4) The (mass?) of red/grey chips is approx. = .1% of dust in samples collected. Any good ideas what the total amount of the chip material might have been? I know the WTC dust contained many different materials, according to the USGS 'plaster, paint, foam, glass fibers and fragments, fiberglass, cement, vermiculite (used as a fire retardant instead of asbestos), chrysotile (asbestos), cotton fibers and lint, tarry and charred wood, and soot.' (Chemical and Engineering News, 2003 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html )

The article above cites 'more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan'. I'm not sure how accurate that figure is, but .1% of that would be 1000 tons! That's a huge amount of material, certainly not plausible for nanothermite as envisioned by Jones et al.

[pteridine]

The lack of chemical knowledge by Jones, et. al. is astounding. The use of a solvent such as MEK instead of methylene chloride, DMF, or DMF-DMSO to attack the organic matrix further confirms that no chemists were involved in the analyses. Couple that with the ridiculous conductivity test [have conductivity meter, need work] and one can see why no real journal would publish this trash.

[Leviath]

2) Jones et al. are claiming that the formation of 'iron-rich' spheres' after ignition of the chips proves that combustion temperature was at least 1400 C. Can anyone provide good evidence to disprove that claim?
To form spheres like those described by Jones the material should have been exposed to temperatures close to or above the melting point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jones et al never showed that the spheres were not present before the combustion. This is something they perhaps should address.

4) The (mass?) of red/grey chips is approx. = .1% of dust in samples collected. Any good ideas what the total amount of the chip material might have been?
It's impossible to tell from this paper. With the totally random and undocumented sampling procedure you can't tell wether these samples are representative or not.

[FineWine]

To form spheres like those described by Jones the material should have been exposed to temperatures close to or above the melting point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jones et al never showed that the spheres were not present before the combustion. This is something they perhaps should address.


It's impossible to tell from this paper. With the totally random and undocumented sampling procedure you can't tell wether these samples are representative or not.


I've been a member of this forum for two months. I came in when the discussion about Jones's paint chips was just getting started. One thing we can do here is post a reminder every month that Jones and his accomplices have not yet seen fit to submit their samples to any independent lab for testing. April has passed, and May has passed. I would bet that we will be ticking off the months far into the future.

[T.A.M.]

Not that I am a defender of the Jones paper, as I think it is incredibly poor in terms of its scientific content, approach, or lack there of, but from the paper, page 19 (journal page#):


In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope,
and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent
or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs
taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20).
The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest
in this study; none were observed in these particular chips
prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate
the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above
the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the
high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures
indicate that a chemical reaction occurred.

So according to them, the spheres were not there (in the chips, they do not say anything about them being the dust or not) prior to heating.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Not that I am a defender of the Jones paper, as I think it is incredibly poor in terms of its scientific content, approach, or lack there of, but from the paper, page 19 (journal page#):



So according to them, the spheres were not there (in the chips, they do not say anything about them being the dust or not) prior to heating.

TAM:)

This is true, but if we presume they were indeed formed during heating, then Sunstealer's observation that the spheres are rather heterogenous must be taken into account. The reason for that is because the melting point would probably be considerably lower than it would be had the spheres been truly homogenous iron.

From my point of view, though, I'd like some corroboration that the spheres were not already present and simply not easily observable in the dust. I know that sounds suspicious, but given most of the authors prior works, it's a fair challenge. If it turns out that they truly were not present previously, then I'd like to see some further analysis of said spheres, not mere assertions built on the former Jones paper.

[T.A.M.]

This is true, but if we presume they were indeed formed during heating, then Sunstealer's observation that the spheres are rather heterogenous must be taken into account. The reason for that is because the melting point would probably be considerably lower than it would be had the spheres been truly homogenous iron.

From my point of view, though, I'd like some corroboration that the spheres were not already present and simply not easily observable in the dust. I know that sounds suspicious, but given most of the authors prior works, it's a fair challenge. If it turns out that they truly were not present previously, then I'd like to see some further analysis of said spheres, not mere assertions built on the former Jones paper.

100% agree. As a matter of fact, I feel all of his paper and it's results are suspect, and unproven, until verified by a TRULY INDEPENDENT (no contact or relationship with Jones or any of the paper's authors) lab. What is amazing, is the silence about this paper now.

TAM:)

[henryco]

I have spent much time trying to find again the kind of bi-layered red/grey staff i had shown in my presentation...in vain !
I could only find numerous red only chips which most probably have nothing to do with the grey/red chips of Harrit and co photos. These do not seem to produce any
iron microsphere below 500°C (actually not big enough to be seen with the optical microscope, i'll try the electronic microscopy soon) and they crush when i try to catch them with my needle while i was told that the genuine chips are much more resistant...

Since according the authors the proportion of the "genuine chips" in the samples is large, i suspect there is something wrong with my samples: either falsified or not representative... or:
It's also possible that i have lost the most interesting material when i first extracted a few monthes ago the more magnetic particles : the one i extract now are less magnetic (for instance i see much less iron microspheres than i did) and only a much more powerful magnet allows me to extract them.

I would need another sample!

i have a third one which i did not pay enough attention because it was collected with a vacuum cleaner in an appartment (so great contamination by other staff than WTC dust). In this sample i can see many dark grey staffs with irregular red spots but these are so tiny particles that i can hardly extract them for testing in my small furnace. I'm going to try again...


Fred

[T.A.M.]

My suggestion Fred/Henry, in the name of science.

Get samples from someone independent of Jones. I am sure there are a number of other sources out there who have samples of WTC dust. If what Jones says is true, the red/grey chips should be found in any of the samples, in some quantity.

Just a suggestion.

TAM:)

[henryco]

My suggestion Fred/Henry, in the name of science.

Get samples from someone independent of Jones. I am sure there are a number of other sources out there who have samples of WTC dust. If what Jones says is true, the red/grey chips should be found in any of the samples, in some quantity.

Just a suggestion.

TAM:)

But my samples are not from Jones as far as i have understood. Each were sent independently (a different person) from the others. The common denominator is a tract in NY asking people if they have dust to send it for a scientific investigation related to health issues...

[T.A.M.]

So you received multiple samples, from multiple sources, not from Jones? Were the samples from the same people who sent Jones his samples?

My point is this. There are other labs, other institutions, who have conducted numerous tests on WTC dust. They are, in all likelihood, completely independent of Jones and the people he obtained his samples from. There for, to insure COMPLETE Independence from Jones, in terms of sample sourcing, the best thing would be to contact one of these researchers/labs, and ask for a sample of their collected dust.

If the red/grey chips show up in their samples, you can at least make a claim that these samples are found consistently through ALL WTC dust samples, not just those from Jones (or those who sent him the samples). If the red/grey chips are not found in these independent samples, then you have to wonder, BIG TIME, why the chips would be in Jones samples, and not in independent samples.

TAM:)

[newton3376]

I've been a member of this forum for two months. I came in when the discussion about Jones's paint chips was just getting started. One thing we can do here is post a reminder every month that Jones and his accomplices have not yet seen fit to submit their samples to any independent lab for testing. April has passed, and May has passed. I would bet that we will be ticking off the months far into the future.

Dont expect anything anytime soon....

To be honest Im still trying to figure out WTF was the "resistivity" test supposed to prove...

I couldn't stop laughing when I read that particular paragraph in the Jones paper....what a load of crap.

[henryco]

So you received multiple samples, from multiple sources, not from Jones?

exactly

Were the samples from the same people who sent Jones his samples?


No

[T.A.M.]

exactly


No

So did these "people" who sent you samples (I am assuming they sent them to you and not Jones), did they give you,

(A) contact information (or were the packages sent anonymously)?
(B) Did they give you any detail as to where they collected the dust, how they collected, and how long ago?

And are you saying that in these independent samples you originally found the red/grey chips, but now you cannot?

Thanks

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I have spent much time trying to find again the kind of bi-layered red/grey staff i had shown in my presentation...in vain !
I could only find numerous red only chips which most probably have nothing to do with the grey/red chips of Harrit and co photos. These do not seem to produce any
iron microsphere below 500°C (actually not big enough to be seen with the optical microscope, i'll try the electronic microscopy soon) and they crush when i try to catch them with my needle while i was told that the genuine chips are much more resistant...

Since according the authors the proportion of the "genuine chips" in the samples is large, i suspect there is something wrong with my samples: either falsified or not representative... or:
It's also possible that i have lost the most interesting material when i first extracted a few monthes ago the more magnetic particles : the one i extract now are less magnetic (for instance i see much less iron microspheres than i did) and only a much more powerful magnet allows me to extract them.

I would need another sample!

i have a third one which i did not pay enough attention because it was collected with a vacuum cleaner in an appartment (so great contamination by other staff than WTC dust). In this sample i can see many dark grey staffs with irregular red spots but these are so tiny particles that i can hardly extract them for testing in my small furnace. I'm going to try again...


Fred

You were told the other chips were much more resistent? I am confused henry. In any of the samples you were sent, did you EVER, yourself, find any of these chips? I am asking because you say you were told the chips were much more resistent, but if you had handled and experimented on the chips themselves, first hand, would you not know that they were more resistant yourself?

I am just trying to get a grasp of your work, what you have done, who provided you with the original material, were there red/grey chips in any of your samples at any time, etc...

Please clarify...thanks

TAM:)

[The Platypus]

I thought this paper was the 'smoking gun', the thing that was going to finally prove the 'inside job', it was going to be a huge deal, embraced by the scientific community, blown up all over the media and accepted by the world, vindicating the 911 cult minions once and for all...

Gee what happen to all that? hmmm i wonder... LOL

[henryco]

So did these "people" who sent you samples (I am assuming they sent them to you and not Jones), did they give you,

(A) contact information (or were the packages sent anonymously)?
(B) Did they give you any detail as to where they collected the dust, how they collected, and how long ago?

And are you saying that in these independent samples you originally found the red/grey chips, but now you cannot?

Thanks

TAM:)

(A) yes (adress or email)
(B) yes : all useful details provided

I found one red/gray chip, the one i studied in details and presented some time ago on my website. I cannot find others (!?) , though i cannot exclude that some rare tiny red staff in my samples could be from red/gray chips ... .

I can only agree with other searchers that the red only chips are very fragile
As for the genuine red/grey ones i dont know...(didnt test that with the single one i had found and studied)...

[T.A.M.]

(A) yes (adress or email)
(B) yes : all useful details provided

I found one red/gray chip, the one i studied in details and presented some time ago on my website. I cannot find others (!?) , though i cannot exclude that some rare tiny red staff in my samples could be from red/gray chips ... .

I can only agree with other searchers that the red only chips are very fragile
As for the genuine red/grey ones i dont know...(didnt test that with the single one i had found and studied)...

So you found ONE chip? in all of the different samples you had, you found ONE chip that was red/grey? That doesn't sound like Jones' stuff. He was finding them in all the samples, wasn't he?

All of your findings were based on one chip? So did you do an MEK wash? Once you did, it was game over for repeating anything I guess.

Sounds to me like you need to get some fresh samples. I am sure that there are many labs who analyzed the dust, who might donate some to you, if you ask.

So how did they know to send them to you themselves? Did you leave your name and address on this "Tract" you speak of? Can you clarify how you SEQUESTERED the samples in the first place?

Thanks.

TAM:)

[henryco]

So you found ONE chip? in all of the different samples you had, you found ONE chip that was red/grey? That doesn't sound like Jones' stuff. He was finding them in all the samples, wasn't he?
All of your findings were based on one chip?

yes, but there can be a simple explanation. The first extraction of iron rich material with a magnet i did probably selected the most interesting material ... (microspheres and gray part of the chips very magnetic) . But i only used it to search for the microspheres. ..i thought i would just need to reextract later some more material to look for the chips...but i certainly lost the most interesting chips with this first extraction.


So did you do an MEK wash? Once you did, it was game over for repeating anything I guess.


no MEK wash.

Sounds to me like you need to get some fresh samples.

exactly

I am sure that there are many labs who analyzed the dust, who might donate some to you, if you ask.

not so sure!

So how did they know to send them to you themselves? Did you leave your name and address on this "Tract" you speak of? Can you clarify how you SEQUESTERED the samples in the first place?

All searchers interested left their coordinates, to later be sent the samples. I also directly call for samples on my website.
I sequester the iron rich particles with a magnet

best

Fred

PS: anyone can do that: buy a 100 USD student microscope and a magnet.
select the interesting staff, put it in a kiln (just need to know
someone who is doing ceramics or pottery ), see if it generates iron microspheres...

[T.A.M.]

Fred;

Given all of the other examinations of the WTC dust by other labs, why do you think there is no mention of these mysterious red/grey chips by any other lab? There is no mention of their existence, let alone what they might be.

Do you think (A) they intentionally ignored them, (B) they felt they were paint chips, and hence labeled them as such, or (C) there samples probably did not contain the chips.

Thanks

TAM:)

[henryco]

yes, but there can be a simple explanation. The first extraction of iron rich material with a magnet i did probably selected the most interesting material ... (microspheres and gray part of the chips very magnetic) . But i only used it to search for the microspheres. ..i thought i would just need to reextract later some more material to look for the chips...but i certainly lost the most interesting chips with this first extraction.


the second more likely explanation is that my sample was falsified by people
who dont want me to find the red/gray chips in it: easy to do: extract the genuine red/gray chips of interest from a 911 sample and put in place many red only chips of the kind you can find on a 911 monument in NY (redpaint chips) and send it to me.

Fortunately there was at least one big red/gray chip remaining in the sample
probably a genuine one since it had all the properties mentionned by Harrit, Jones and co, as far as i could check , but unfortunately i could not perform the ignition test to have the complete evidence that it was highly energetic.

I need new samples!

[BasqueArch]

I thought this paper was the 'smoking gun', the thing that was going to finally prove the 'inside job', it was going to be a huge deal, embraced by the scientific community, blown up all over the media and accepted by the world, vindicating the 911 cult minions once and for all...

Gee what happen to all that? hmmm i wonder... LOL



Nice post by Volatile 6-11-09

Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...

[henryco]

Fred;

Given all of the other examinations of the WTC dust by other labs, why do you think there is no mention of these mysterious red/grey chips by any other lab? There is no mention of their existence, let alone what they might be.

Do you think (A) they intentionally ignored them, (B) they felt they were paint chips, and hence labeled them as such, or (C) there samples probably did not contain the chips.

Thanks

TAM:)

B is a likely scenario: in order to conclude that these are not just redpaint chips you need further analysis to find evidence for elemental Al and you need to test them at ignition. You would do these tests only if you a priori suspect thermite ... but probably these lab were not ready to even imagine such a possibility.

I also believe in D: labs didnt find them.
Indeed, the labs did not concentrate on the iron rich part of the dust. If you dont do so you can easily miss the particles of interest.

[T.A.M.]

I wonder if these chips were not simply red paint on a metallic or grey primer. The primer could be of tougher texture, and would have been less exposed to the elements etc... so might have been what made the red/grey chips resilient, but the red chips you have found (perhaps the red paint with no primer attached) are very fragile.

I also find it hard to believe, given the very thorough analysis I have read by a number of these labs, that they would miss these chips. Paint (lead and nolead) are mentioned in these analysis as a major component of the dust, yet Jones paper, he does not mention finding paint at all...does that not seem odd???

Fred. Next time you get samples, look for paint as well as thermite, and see what you come up with.

TAM:)

[Jackanory]

I wonder if these chips were not simply red paint on a metallic or grey primer. The primer could be of tougher texture, and would have been less exposed to the elements etc... so might have been what made the red/grey chips resilient, but the red chips you have found (perhaps the red paint with no primer attached) are very fragile.

I also find it hard to believe, given the very thorough analysis I have read by a number of these labs, that they would miss these chips. Paint (lead and nolead) are mentioned in these analysis as a major component of the dust, yet Jones paper, he does not mention finding paint at all...does that not seem odd???
Fred. Next time you get samples, look for paint as well as thermite, and see what you come up with.

TAM:)

It may be of little relevence but here goes.

I fabricated and formed many steel objects/structures in the early 80's. Mainly decorative wrought iron works, steel gates, steel fencing, security grills etc as well as manufacturing larger 'i' beam and 'girder' frames for larger structures.

The metal protection and cosmetics was always completed using paints.

The finished product and bare material was initially coated in what we called 'Red Lead' or 'Red oxide' - Red Paint. To us this was effectively to prevent rust. Once dried we would then apply a grey primer, somtimes a few coats. This would mostly be done using a brush, however larger pieces where sometimes sprayed. No technical or scientific values involved in how thick, just get it on.

The customer would then determine the final colour if a gate or railing. The 'i' beams or 'girders' where painted red with a differnt paint.

Not sure if that helps at all.

[henryco]

I also find it hard to believe, given the very thorough analysis I have read by a number of these labs, that they would miss these chips. Paint (lead and nolead) are mentioned in these analysis as a major component of the dust, yet Jones paper, he does not mention finding paint at all...does that not seem odd???

Fred. Next time you get samples, look for paint as well as thermite, and see what you come up with.

TAM:)

OK , apart from the USGS do you have links where i could read the other labs results
regarding the dust analysis?
thanks

F

[T.A.M.]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241534
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1240917
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1031/pdf/OF2005_1031_508.pdf (PDF)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=239769

For starters. I am sure a good search with google scholar will help more.

Can't guarantee you can get all of them without a subscription, but I know a couple of them are free.

TAM:)

[Jackanory]

Can someone clarify if the steel structural columns, beams, trusses etc that went in to make up the WTC where infact coated with a protective rust resiliant paint, either prior to instalation or once in situ.

Can someone also clarify whether or not a grey primer was also used to coat these steel structural elements of WTC.

If a grey layer of primer wasnt present on construction then the samples the mad prof produced cant have come from said steel structure.

I would also pose the question as to why any grey 'primer' would have been used at all. Having never set foot inside WTC i am not sure if any steel structure was actually visible, unless for architectural cosmetics. If not, then i would ask why the need for primer? Primer is a key for another layer of paint. Red lead or red oxide would be used to coat the bare material as a protective barrier against corrosion and applied directly to the steel. Primer would only be added ontop of red lead/oxide if a third 'cosmetic' colored paint was required.

Essentially, i see no reason why any steel members would need anything other than a red lead/oxide coating if hidden from view.

Please forgive my ignorance if this is of no relevence or if i have missed something. I am just a simple....................:)

[henryco]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241534
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1240917
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1031/pdf/OF2005_1031_508.pdf (PDF)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=239769

For starters. I am sure a good search with google scholar will help more.

Can't guarantee you can get all of them without a subscription, but I know a couple of them are free.

TAM:)

Thanks but i noticed no new very meaningful info for me...

I have analyzed the false red only chips at the electronic microscope: these contain Aluminum, Iron, oxygen and carbon in quite the same proportions as the true red/gray chips and these are very numerous in my samples while the red/gray one shoud be numerous according the article ! mine never produce molten iron when heated even up to 900°C! they are not two sided and the aspect is very different (not homogeous) from the one of the red part in the articles photos.

So my conviction is that my samples were falsified: the material of interest was removed and a kind of paint that can mimic efficiently the red/gray chips was put in place (many such chips) but the real ones were not removed with 100% efficiency since i was able to find at least a single one a few monthes ago.

I believe the control, manipulation and substitution must take place at the level of our post offices here in France. I noticed very suspect and systematic abnormal delays at my own post office.

So if you have new samples to send to me, you should pass them to someone that will give them to me directly ... (no email please ! )

I dont know if the falsification is from the criminals friends or some of the truthers who dont want me to be associated with this research...

Fred H-C

[T.A.M.]

Thanks but i noticed no new very meaningful info for me...

I have analyzed the false red only chips at the electronic microscope: these contain Aluminum, Iron, oxygen and carbon in quite the same proportions as the true red/gray chips and these are very numerous in my samples while the red/gray one shoud be numerous according the article ! mine never produce molten iron when heated even up to 900°C! they are not two sided and the aspect is very different (not homogeous) from the one of the red part in the articles photos.

So my conviction is that my samples were falsified: the material of interest was removed and a kind of paint that can mimic efficiently the red/gray chips was put in place (many such chips) but the real ones were not removed with 100% efficiency since i was able to find at least a single one a few monthes ago.

I believe the control, manipulation and substitution must take place at the level of our post offices here in France. I noticed very suspect and systematic abnormal delays at my own post office.

So if you have new samples to send to me, you should pass them to someone that will give them to me directly ... (no email please ! )

I dont know if the falsification is from the criminals friends or some of the truthers who dont want me to be associated with this research...

Fred H-C

Fred;

Up until now your explanations and dialogue have seemed reasonable, and rational. Now, however, I think things are turning.

Are you suggesting that your samples had an "abundance" of the chips that Jones discusses, the alleged "Thermite" chips, but that someone purposely took your mail, opened it, removed these chips, and replaced them with "red only" chips that would not react like the original chips?

If this is your reasoning, then I am afraid I will have to consider your position, and paranoia on par with Jones et al, and unless something changes, the dialog ends here.

TAM:)

[henryco]

Fred;

Up until now your explanations and dialogue have seemed reasonable, and rational. Now, however, I think things are turning.

Are you suggesting that your samples had an "abundance" of the chips that Jones discusses, the alleged "Thermite" chips, but that someone purposely took your mail, opened it, removed these chips, and replaced them with "red only" chips that would not react like the original chips?

If this is your reasoning, then I am afraid I will have to consider your position, and paranoia on par with Jones et al, and unless something changes, the dialog ends here.

TAM:)

T.A.M
My samples are full of chips which have nothing to do with the chips described in the articles. These are almost perfect doubles:
1) same appearance on one face : same red color!
2) same range of sizes
3) same composition: Carbon, oxygen, Iron, Aluminum, Silicium in the same proportion

almost because

1) Dont produce molten iron even when heated to more than 900°C
2) Have the same chemical composition after being heated to more than 900°C
3) Not double sided: red /red rather than red/shiny grey

According to the articles the red/grey chips should be numerous while in my articles the
red/red chips are more numerous...so i'm afraid there are only two possible ways for understanding this:

1) The red-gray chips were completely invented or the th truthers were provided with
fake samples to deceive them
2) My red-red chips were added and the genuine red/gray ones removed...

I dont know which way to understand these facts is the most paranoiac one...probably you know better than me.

To be Honest i should also follow a little bit the first paranoia way:

If 911 was an inside job, its not a problem to make the common citizen believe that Al Qaeda did it. If i were one of the perpetrators i could even travel and give conferences in the USA and in Europe with wonderful powerpoints (the architectes and ingeniers one for instance) and movies (for instance the italian movie: Zero) showing that 911 was an inside job, just for fun and to make money... indeed people are totally under control through the control of the medias. The important thing if you do that is to be sure that there are enough (not so many) absurd or silly claims in your presentation so that any honest expert in the concerned fields can explain why your are just an idiot conspirationist....and you can be sure the subject will remain as exotic as the UFOs, for long...

Much more problematic is to also deceive intelligence agencies from other countries : impossible ! these have their experts and the collapse of WTC7 is much more than sufficient to convince them that there is something wrong with the official story. But another kind of deception can take place which goal would be to hide the exact type of secret technology that was used to bring down the towers. Nanothermite or another technology based on the understanding kept secret for years by militaries of the new physics behind cold fusion for example?

Many features, in particular pure iron spheroids which crackled surfaces cooled down very rapidly are also commonly seen in experiments involving very powerful electric discharges ( The new physics that occurs there is the same as behind the historical electrolysis experiment that have shown extra production of heat: in these micro-discharges are also involved, in the palladium porous structure). These discharges produce what is often called "strange radiations": nobody (at least among searchers working in public labs today) understands this physics and these objects. These were discovered by many searchers independently all over the world and given different names (ectons, micro lighting-balls, Electrum Validum...and of course strange radiations) : much bigger ones are also naturally produced by much more powerful electric discharges in the atmosphere: lighting balls.
Some time ago i believed powerful discharges was used at the WTC using capacitors. The discharges may have been triggered by the piezoelectric effect: as you can see in the USGS data: the girder coatings have Titanium but also Baryum and strontium and i think its very hard to understand the high levels of baryum and strontium (quite the same) in these coatings.
As you know high capacitors commonly use baryum titanate often mixed with strontium titanate. My understanding for a long time was that the weakening and superficial melting of the column was obtained thanks to these discharges and the very large fluxes of the strange radiations they produced heating them very efficiently. But i progressively gave up the idea because of the discoveries of nanothermite red/gray chips.
The problem is now that i cant find them so i can suspect again that nanothermite was completely invented to hide the other technology which secret is believed crucial (as you probably know it was demonstrated by a Russian team that the half life of Uranium radionucleides is modified in presence of the strange radiations so you can imagine why it is kept secret!).

Nanothermite or something else?:
For anybody in the USA reading my post and whishing to understand better what happened on 911, it's very important to realize that checking the red/gray chips hypothesis is something anybody can do at home: its straightforward!

If you personally know a new_Yorker who still has WTC dust contact him (independently, discretely, no email , no phone). Then you just need a small magnet , a needle, a 50 dollars microscope and a kiln (or know someone who is doing pottery or ceramics). Find the red/gray chip yourself, heat it yourself in your kiln, check yourself the appearance of the metallic microspheres at less than 500°C...and help me do the same.
This is crucial to help me choose between my two paranoias !!

best

Fred






De : Frédéric Henry-Couannier <fhenryco@yahoo.fr>
À : Gregg Roberts <groberts@ae911truth.org>; Frank Legge <flegge@iinet.net.au>
Cc : harrit@fys.ku.dk; Steven <hardevidence@gmail.com>; Keogh Justin <justin.keogh@gmail.com>; Larsen Brad <brlbu@sisna.com>; Ryan Kevin <kncryan@msn.com>; A Carson <azcarson@gmail.com>; Shane Geiger <shane.geiger@gmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 17 Juin 2009, 11h10mn 59s
Objet : Re : Re : Problem !

The most recent sample i received with nothing but red-only chips (or may be red/orange as Keven says) inside was from Steve White (collected in a loft at 18 Warren street).

I'm wondering how many among you did themselves the crucial ignition test and have noticed themselves the appearance of iron microspheres...please clarify

Best

F

[240-185]

Do you accuse the main French Post Company to have altered the samples you received?

[T.A.M.]

T.A.M
My samples are full of chips which have nothing to do with the chips described in the articles. These are almost perfect doubles:
1) same appearance on one face : same red color!
2) same range of sizes
3) same composition: Carbon, oxygen, Iron, Aluminum, Silicium in the same proportion

almost because

1) Dont produce molten iron even when heated to more than 900°C
2) Have the same chemical composition after being heated to more than 900°C
3) Not double sided: red /red rather than red/shiny grey

According to the articles the red/grey chips should be numerous while in my articles the
red/red chips are more numerous...so i'm afraid there are only two possible ways for understanding this:

1) The red-gray chips were completely invented or the th truthers were provided with
fake samples to deceive them
2) My red-red chips were added and the genuine red/gray ones removed...

I dont know which way to understand these facts is the most paranoiac one...probably you know better than me.

To be Honest i should also follow a little bit the first paranoia way:

If 911 was an inside job, its not a problem to make the common citizen believe that Al Qaeda did it. If i were one of the perpetrators i could even travel and give conferences in the USA and in Europe with wonderful powerpoints (the architectes and ingeniers one for instance) and movies (for instance the italian movie: Zero) showing that 911 was an inside job, just for fun and to make money... indeed people are totally under control through the control of the medias. The important thing if you do that is to be sure that there are enough (not so many) absurd or silly claims in your presentation so that any honest expert in the concerned fields can explain why your are just an idiot conspirationist....and you can be sure the subject will remain as exotic as the UFOs, for long...

Much more problematic is to also deceive intelligence agencies from other countries : impossible ! these have their experts and the collapse of WTC7 is much more than sufficient to convince them that there is something wrong with the official story. But another kind of deception can take place which goal would be to hide the exact type of secret technology that was used to bring down the towers. Nanothermite or another technology based on the understanding kept secret for years by militaries of the new physics behind cold fusion for example?

Many features, in particular pure iron spheroids which crackled surfaces cooled down very rapidly are also commonly seen in experiments involving very powerful electric discharges ( The new physics that occurs there is the same as behind the historical electrolysis experiment that have shown extra production of heat: in these micro-discharges are also involved, in the palladium porous structure). These discharges produce what is often called "strange radiations": nobody (at least among searchers working in public labs today) understands this physics and these objects. These were discovered by many searchers independently all over the world and given different names (ectons, micro lighting-balls, Electrum Validum...and of course strange radiations) : much bigger ones are also naturally produced by much more powerful electric discharges in the atmosphere: lighting balls.
Some time ago i believed powerful discharges was used at the WTC using capacitors. The discharges may have been triggered by the piezoelectric effect: as you can see in the USGS data: the girder coatings have Titanium but also Baryum and strontium and i think its very hard to understand the high levels of baryum and strontium (quite the same) in these coatings.
As you know high capacitors commonly use baryum titanate often mixed with strontium titanate. My understanding for a long time was that the weakening and superficial melting of the column was obtained thanks to these discharges and the very large fluxes of the strange radiations they produced heating them very efficiently. But i progressively gave up the idea because of the discoveries of nanothermite red/gray chips.
The problem is now that i cant find them so i can suspect again that nanothermite was completely invented to hide the other technology which secret is believed crucial (as you probably know it was demonstrated by a Russian team that the half life of Uranium radionucleides is modified in presence of the strange radiations so you can imagine why it is kept secret!).

Nanothermite or something else?:
For anybody in the USA reading my post and whishing to understand better what happened on 911, it's very important to realize that checking the red/gray chips hypothesis is something anybody can do at home: its straightforward!

If you personally know a new_Yorker who still has WTC dust contact him (independently, discretely, no email , no phone). Then you just need a small magnet , a needle, a 50 dollars microscope and a kiln (or know someone who is doing pottery or ceramics). Find the red/gray chip yourself, heat it yourself in your kiln, check yourself the appearance of the metallic microspheres at less than 500°C...and help me do the same.
This is crucial to help me choose between my two paranoias !!

best

Fred






De : Frédéric Henry-Couannier <fhenryco@yahoo.fr>
À : Gregg Roberts <groberts@ae911truth.org>; Frank Legge <flegge@iinet.net.au>
Cc : harrit@fys.ku.dk; Steven <hardevidence@gmail.com>; Keogh Justin <justin.keogh@gmail.com>; Larsen Brad <brlbu@sisna.com>; Ryan Kevin <kncryan@msn.com>; A Carson <azcarson@gmail.com>; Shane Geiger <shane.geiger@gmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 17 Juin 2009, 11h10mn 59s
Objet : Re : Re : Problem !

The most recent sample i received with nothing but red-only chips (or may be red/orange as Keven says) inside was from Steve White (collected in a loft at 18 Warren street).

I'm wondering how many among you did themselves the crucial ignition test and have noticed themselves the appearance of iron microspheres...please clarify

Best

F

Fred;

Thank you for your civil reply. I apologize for the harshness of my comments earlier, but the suggestions you made at that time seemed to be ONLY in favor of someone planting the red only chips within your sample.

Here is what I suggest to clarify the matter. I provided you with 4 different papers. I am sure there are other labs besides these, who have WTC dust samples...especially medical labs, where they were analyzing the dust for toxins/teratogens etc...

My suggestion is that you approach as many labs as you can, and ask them for samples of their dust. These labs have no reason to manipulate the samples. As well, you need not be specific in what you are looking for when you sequester the samples...you just wish to perform an independent analysis of the dust...that is all.

In doing this you eliminate any contact with Dr. Jones, or the truth movement, or those who would want to, either way, taint the samples or the results.

Just a suggestion, as I can see that even though you may be someone who believes the govt was in on it (or not, you have not stated clearly your position), like Dr. F. Greening, you (unlike many others) seem to place the science above all else.

Good luck with your research...keep up updated.

On a side note, did you find any grey fragments, that might have represented the "grey side" of the dual layered chips. In other words, is it possible that the dual layered chips, came apart for some reason?

TAM:)

[henryco]

F

On a side note, did you find any grey fragments, that might have represented the "grey side" of the dual layered chips. In other words, is it possible that the dual layered chips, came apart for some reason?

TAM:)

Why the red part would not react and produce molten iron without the gray part?: the Aluminum is still there in those chips even after heating up to more than 900°C

I just want to stress that the frst hypothesis i follow in my previous message is of course very unlikely but only the analysis of new sample will allow me to clarify this.

[T.A.M.]

Why the red part would not react and produce molten iron without the gray part?: the Aluminum is still there in those chips even after heating up to more than 900°C

I just want to stress that the frst hypothesis i follow in my previous message is of course very unlikely but only the analysis of new sample will allow me to clarify this.

Yes, and that is why I suggested requesting samples from multiple labs. My suggestion is request the samples from multiple labs, including some of the medical labs that analyzed the dust for toxins/teratogens. I am sure if you inform them you are a scientists in France who wishes to conduct some independent tests on the dust, some of them would be willing. Have the samples sent to an unnamed post office box, or have them sent to someone you trust.

Otherwise, I suspect you will never eliminate your suspicions of tampering.

TAM:)

[henryco]

Yes, and that is why I suggested requesting samples from multiple labs. My suggestion is request the samples from multiple labs, including some of the medical labs that analyzed the dust for toxins/teratogens. I am sure if you inform them you are a scientists in France who wishes to conduct some independent tests on the dust, some of them would be willing. Have the samples sent to an unnamed post office box, or have them sent to someone you trust.

Otherwise, I suspect you will never eliminate your suspicions of tampering.

TAM:)

Sometime ago one of my colleagues contacted repeatedly the USGS just asking for the raw data from the mass spectrometer (because this could be useful to search for isotopic anomalies, expected in case the enigmatic "cold fusion" physics took place somehow). No answer! If they were not ready to send data electronically , why should i hope they will send us dust samples? May be our english was too approximative and the demand did not sound serious enough. Why dont you try to contact them .. if you are more diplomatic than we are they will hopefully say they can send me this dust, and i'm of course ready to receive and analyze it.

Best

Fred

[henryco]

Thinking about it, there is a third posibility: intermediaries (the sender themelves ?) checked for the presence of the red/gray chips in my samples and doing this , removed the most interesting material (the more magnetic part) probably thinking that i would be able to find other chips in the remaining dust . They were probably not aware that the genuine
red/gray chips are actually quite rare, most of the chips not being the chips of interest...

[T.A.M.]

Sometime ago one of my colleagues contacted repeatedly the USGS just asking for the raw data from the mass spectrometer (because this could be useful to search for isotopic anomalies, expected in case the enigmatic "cold fusion" physics took place somehow). No answer! If they were not ready to send data electronically , why should i hope they will send us dust samples? May be our english was too approximative and the demand did not sound serious enough. Why dont you try to contact them .. if you are more diplomatic than we are they will hopefully say they can send me this dust, and i'm of course ready to receive and analyze it.

Best

Fred

Well I am not saying they will be one of them, but that aside, do not forget that there data, their analysis, is what is worth something to them, not the samples themselves...so they may be more willing to part with a few grams of dust, compared to sending you their copyrighted data...just a thought.

I guess I am suggesting a shotgun approach to all the possible lab sources you can find, and see who agrees to send you samples.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Thinking about it, there is a third posibility: intermediaries (the sender themelves ?) checked for the presence of the red/gray chips in my samples and doing this , removed the most interesting material (the more magnetic part) probably thinking that i would be able to find other chips in the remaining dust . They were probably not aware that the genuine
red/gray chips are actually quite rare, most of the chips not being the chips of interest...

I was under the impression (perhaps falsely) that the red/gray chips were quite common in the samples that Jones etc... had.

Getting portions of unanalyzed, untouched dust samples would solve the problem...good luck with that.

TAM:)

[Jackanory]

Thinking about it, there is a third posibility: intermediaries (the sender themelves ?) checked for the presence of the red/gray chips in my samples and doing this , removed the most interesting material (the more magnetic part) probably thinking that i would be able to find other chips in the remaining dust . They were probably not aware that the genuine
red/gray chips are actually quite rare, most of the chips not being the chips of interest...

Doesnt it appear odd that the only samples in existence that are said to be abundant with evidence of 'thermite' are held by the very person claiming 'thermite'. He sourced them, analysed them, writes a paper on them yet nobody else on the planet can do the same. That material would be worth more than all the diamonds on the planet its so rare. Yet here we are, having been hooked, going into scientific analysis of a red/grey substance supposedly coming from the steel of the WTC and nobody else can find any?

Why oh why are the logical and intelligent members of this or any other forum even discussing it?

[tsig]

Doesnt it appear odd that the only samples in existence that are said to be abundant with evidence of 'thermite' are held by the very person claiming 'thermite'. He sourced them, analysed them, writes a paper on them yet nobody else on the planet can do the same. That material would be worth more than all the diamonds on the planet its so rare. Yet here we are, having been hooked, going into scientific analysis of a red/grey substance supposedly coming from the steel of the WTC and nobody else can find any?

Why oh why are the logical and intelligent members of this or any other forum even discussing it?

A well told lie seems to trump any number of facts.

[T.A.M.]

Doesnt it appear odd that the only samples in existence that are said to be abundant with evidence of 'thermite' are held by the very person claiming 'thermite'. He sourced them, analysed them, writes a paper on them yet nobody else on the planet can do the same. That material would be worth more than all the diamonds on the planet its so rare. Yet here we are, having been hooked, going into scientific analysis of a red/grey substance supposedly coming from the steel of the WTC and nobody else can find any?

Why oh why are the logical and intelligent members of this or any other forum even discussing it?

Well just to be clear, Fred-Henry does claim to have found ONE red/grey chip in his samples originally, but he cannot find any now, If I am reading his explanations correctly.

TAM:)

[metamars]

Details here: http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

On Wednesday, May 20th 2009, more than 7 years after the 9/11-attacks, alternative perspectives penetrate the Nowegian State Broadcasting Corporation NRK, for the first time, in the program ‘Her og Nå’ (’Here and Now’ -ed.) on NRK Radio P1.

Three Norwegian scientists has publicly attempted to discredit the University of Copenhagen’s findings in a recent scientific paper covering an extensive analysis of dust from the attacks on Manhattan in 2001. The Norwegians do not express direct support for the Bush/Cheney-conspiracy theory about Usama bin Laden.

A reply from co-author Steven E. Jones is already in place right here1 and currently awaiting response.

[Leviath]

Three Norwegian scientists has publicly attempted to discredit the University of Copenhagen’s findings in a recent scientific paper covering an extensive analysis of dust from the attacks on Manhattan in 2001. The Norwegians do not express direct support for the Bush/Cheney-conspiracy theory about Usama bin Laden.


Distortion of facts. The three professors didn't try to discredit anything. I'm norwegian and have listened to the interviews. They were asked to give their opinion on this spesific paper and they gave the opinion it was weak and not in any way conclusive.
And they weren't asked about Bush/Cheney/Laden, so of course they didn't give support of any "official conspiracy".

I have studied at the institute where Grande and Einarsrud are employed, even taken courses that Grande taught. These people are real experts in inorganic chemistry and nano-materials. They analyse and synthesize these compounds on a daily basis and educate master- and PhD-students on relevant subjects. If they say the paper is weak I'm almost tempted to pull an "argument from authority".

They're asking for replications and further analysis before concluding, just like any sane scientist would do.

[T.A.M.]

Distortion of facts. The three professors didn't try to discredit anything. I'm norwegian and have listened to the interviews. They were asked to give their opinion on this spesific paper and they gave the opinion it was weak and not in any way conclusive.
And they weren't asked about Bush/Cheney/Laden, so of course they didn't give support of any "official conspiracy".

I have studied at the institute where Grande and Einarsrud are employed, even taken courses that Grande taught. These people are real experts in inorganic chemistry and nano-materials. They analyse and synthesize these compounds on a daily basis and educate master- and PhD-students on relevant subjects. If they say the paper is weak I'm almost tempted to pull an "argument from authority".

They're asking for replications and further analysis before concluding, just like any sane scientist would do.

Bingo.

Now maybe the smart thing for Fred Henry (or others looking for HONEST results) to do, would be to get in touch with these scientists, and provide them with samples.

I am guessing you won't see Jones or Harrit jumping at the chance...

A theory/theorist that works best in the shadows, will always avoid the sunlight.

TAM:)

[henryco]

I am guessing you won't see Jones or Harrit jumping at the chance...
A theory/theorist that works best in the shadows, will always avoid the sunlight.

TAM:)

This is your way or thinking, not mine!

[T.A.M.]

This is your way or thinking, not mine!

Well I was not speaking of you. My way of thinking is Jones has had YEARS to have other truly independent labs verify his results. If his results were so earth shattering, so conclusive, so damning, he should have sent his samples to hundreds of labs, build a huge base of comparative results, and then (A) he would have got it published in a real peer reviewed journal, and (B) he would have garnished support from the scientific community.

IMO, he has not done so, because he knows when the sunlight of honest science and repeatability are placed on his results, on his samples, he will fail, and he will lose forever, his pet "thermite" theory.

Whether that is your opinion or not...not my call.

I am hoping that like Dr. F. Greening Fred/Henri, you will put the science above agenda, paranoia, or discontent with authority or the govt of the USA.

TAM:)

[JAStewart]

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I seldom follow CT's anymore because its nothing new.

Someone presented the above link on a local forum I participate on and I thought that I'd share it. I don't know anything about it, or if it has been challenged here.

Good to see y'all again.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, it's been dealt with here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4607894#post4607894) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017).

ETA: And yes, it's nothing really "new" in that it ceases to address the fact that thermite is contradicted by existing evidence. All this Bentham paper ends up being is an in-depth analysis of the supposed "thermite chips" Jones claims were discovered in the dust. The links above deal with that analysis.

ETA #2: Link to Sunstealer's first post going into detail on his criticisms of the Bentham paper's assertions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694 The second of the above linked threads goes into more depth on that.

[KDLarsen]

Bentham is a fraud and that paper is rubbish.

More in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

.. and the follow-up thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

ETA: Bugger, ElMondo beat me to it ;)

[dtugg]

This has been discussed here many times. Basically, Bentham isn't a legitimate journal. They will publish anything so long as they are payed $800. Somebody even got a paper consisting of nonsensical gibberish generated by a computer approved for publication.

The editor the one the garbage thermite paper was published in quit over the whole thing. Apparently she wasn't even aware of paper before it was published.

[Longfellow]

I believe Bentham is a vanity journal where all one has to do is pay the requisite amount to get published.

It is not, strictly speaking, a peer-reviewed journal.

Scholarly Kitchen (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/) proved that and there is also a closed thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293) here at JREF concerning Bentham.

ETA: Boy am I slow. . .need more coffee.

[JAStewart]

Alright cheers.

I'm sure it will not satisfy the resident loon on the forums but its there for everyone else to read too.

Thanks.

[johnny karate]

Yeah, Bentham has pretty much been established as a joke in the scientific community. Of course, this hasn't stopped the Truth Movement from crowing about their "peer-reviewed" paper. And I'm certain it never will.

[ElMondoHummus]

Regardless of the authority or legitimacy of Bentham as a publication - judgements I fully agree with, by the way - I think it's better to point out that the work itself is flawed, as Sunstealer so excellently demonstrates. Many of us in those threads pointed out problems that have nothing to do with the publication house in question.

While I fully agree that Bentham is a vanity publication, that in and of itself does not mean that something published by them is false. It merely means that the publication has sloppy controls and an interest in not looking at material too closely, since they're being paid by the author of a paper to publish it. That injects doubt, but does not address the actual veracity of a paper published through them. But other critiques in the above linked threads do address that. Which is why I'm composing this terribly didactic post: We should be noting that the paper inherently is flawed, not merely that it's published in a vanity journal, and demonstrate what is flawed about it. That's why I pointed to Sunstealer's post.

[/stuffy pedanticism]

[Dave Rogers]

[/stuffy pedanticism]

You mis-spelled "pedantry".

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Internet sites agree (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedanticism); it's a word too! (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedanticism?src=tbr&o=100082&l=dis) :D





:eek: Granted, one of those links says the definition of "pedanticism" is "pedantry", but hey! It still lists it! I win I win I win!!! ;)

[16.5]

Regardless of the authority or legitimacy of Bentham as a publication - judgements I fully agree with, by the way - I think it's better to point out that the work itself is flawed, as Sunstealer so excellently demonstrates. Many of us in those threads pointed out problems that have nothing to do with the publication house in question.

While I fully agree that Bentham is a vanity publication, that in and of itself does not mean that something published by them is false. It merely means that the publication has sloppy controls and an interest in not looking at material too closely, since they're being paid by the author of a paper to publish it. That injects doubt, but does not address the actual veracity of a paper published through them. But other critiques in the above linked threads do address that. Which is why I'm composing this terribly didactic post: We should be noting that the paper inherently is flawed, not merely that it's published in a vanity journal, and demonstrate what is flawed about it. That's why I pointed to Sunstealer's post.

[/stuffy pedanticism]

well far be it for me to disagree, but pointing out that Bentham is a farking unbelievable joke of a farking farce is directly relevant to claims that the journal is "peer-reviewed" as the title of the post suggests.

I say prove it Jones ya freaking hack.

[Pantaz]

From Nature, 15 June 2009: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090615/full/news.2009.571.html
Editor will quit over hoax paper

Computer-generated manuscript accepted for publication in open-access journal.

The editor-in-chief of a journal is to resign after claiming that the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing, accepted a hoax article for publication without his knowledge.

The fake, computer-generated manuscript was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal by Philip Davis, a graduate student in communication sciences at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at The New England Journal of Medicine.

[240-185]

It seems that henryco sunk under the Kool-Aid:

La nanothermite serait donc essentiellement un leurre! Il est dailleurs évident que la nanothermite ne pouvait expliquer la destruction explosive des tours, seulement éventuellement l'initiation d'un effondrement d'apparance naturelle en ayant fragilisé (en les chauffant plus efficacement que les incendies) les structures d'Acier.

Quelle serait donc la technologie à maintenir secrête et qui aurait justifié toute cette mise en scène de publication scientifique faisant état de découverte de particules de nanothermite !? Je suis maintenant convaincu qu'il s'agit d'une physique mal comprise, celle de la fusion froide...

Roughly translated to:

So, the nanothermite would essentially be a trap! It's obvious that the nanothermite could explain the explosive destruction of the towers, only perhaps the initiation of a collapse apparently natural, while weakening (by heating more efficiently than fires) the steel structures.

What would be that technology to keep secret and would have justified all that comedy of scientific publication mentioning nanothermite particles!? I'm now convinced that it's misunderstood Physics, the COLD FUSION one

Source, pimped by Google Translations (http://translate.google.fr/translate?prev=hp&hl=fr&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darksideofgravity.com%2F11%2520 Septembre%25202001.html&sl=fr&tl=en&history_state0=)

[padragan]

Distortion of facts. The three professors didn't try to discredit anything. I'm norwegian and have listened to the interviews. They were asked to give their opinion on this spesific paper and they gave the opinion it was weak and not in any way conclusive.
And they weren't asked about Bush/Cheney/Laden, so of course they didn't give support of any "official conspiracy".

I have studied at the institute where Grande and Einarsrud are employed, even taken courses that Grande taught. These people are real experts in inorganic chemistry and nano-materials. They analyse and synthesize these compounds on a daily basis and educate master- and PhD-students on relevant subjects. If they say the paper is weak I'm almost tempted to pull an "argument from authority".

They're asking for replications and further analysis before concluding, just like any sane scientist would do.

Sorry to revive a thread that's a month old, but is the statements of the norwegian scientists available somewhere? I'm currently discussing this with a twoofer who claim the norwegians said Jones and Harrit produced good work that followed good scientific methods. Not exactly the impression you get after reading the above post of Leviath, so I would love to read or hear it for myself (since I'm swedish it would be no problem listening to audio clips).

Anyone that can help?

[alienentity]

Sorry to revive a thread that's a month old, but is the statements of the norwegian scientists available somewhere? I'm currently discussing this with a twoofer who claim the norwegians said Jones and Harrit produced good work that followed good scientific methods. Not exactly the impression you get after reading the above post of Leviath, so I would love to read or hear it for myself (since I'm swedish it would be no problem listening to audio clips).

Anyone that can help?

Here's the link to the radio show, plus if you scroll down there's a dialogue between Prof. Nilson and STeven Jones.



http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

And this is a link to the thread about Frederic Henry-Couannier

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151009

hope this helps

AE

[Jono]

Here's the link to the radio show, plus if you scroll down there's a dialogue between Prof. Nilson and STeven Jones.



http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/


Heh:
Prof Nilsen: The formation of iron-rich spheres

"Again the experimental work seems to be of adequate quality. I see no reason to doubt the formation of iron-rich spheres. I miss a comment on what is happening to the gray layer, but that seems to be of minor importance. The effect on heating the organic binder in air seems not to be considered. The conclusion that heating a material containing intimately mixed particles of aluminum and iron oxide give rice to a thermitic reaction (Fe2O3 + Al → Al2O3 + Fe) is not unreasonable."

Prof Jones: "Thank you… we do say in the paper: “One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic.”

Ahum...

[henryco]

Hello,

See my www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

i'm currently translating a french pdf i have describing the analyses and conclusions,... available tomorrow.

Not my preferred interpretation but it' s still possible that these red-red chips are of normal thermite in a gel which would expain why they did not ignite up to 900°C

I was asked to send one of those red-red chips to Steven group. I replied of course i would be glad to do so and would appreciate to receive a red/gray chip in turn ... i was told that they would feel better about the exchange if i
accepted to publish my results in a referee review instead of Jref. I cannot loose my time trying to convince a referee paid to make me loose my time so i decided to stop my communications with this group.

Best

Fred

[henryco]

Hello,

See my www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

i'm currently translating a french pdf i have describing the analyses and conclusions,... available tomorrow.

Not my preferred interpretation but it' s still possible that these red-red chips are of normal thermite in a gel which would expain why they did not ignite up to 900°C

I was asked to send one of those red-red chips to Steven group. I replied of course i would be glad to do so and would appreciate to receive a red/gray chip in turn ... i was told that they would feel better about the exchange if i
accepted to publish my results in a referee review instead of Jref. I cannot loose my time trying to convince a referee paid to make me loose my time so i decided to stop my communications with this group.

Best

Fred

The translation is ready: find it here

www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

best

Fred

[T.A.M.]

Thanks Fred;

As I have said before, the only way to rid yourself of this "confusion" or "potential deception" around reproducing nano-thermite results, is to obtain samples of the WTC dust, with the following stipulations,

1. Must be obtained independently of Jones and his associates
2. Must not be ANONYMOUSLY submitted.
3. Must have a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
4. Must eliminate other potential sources of the red-grey chips when analyzed.

Ultimately if you go into it thinking someone is purposely trying to obfuscate your results by tampering, then you could say the same could happen regardless of the methods used, and the procedure followed.

Who is to say that the person who submits the samples to you has not tampered with the dust in the first place?

TAM:)

[metamars]

The translation is ready: find it here

www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

best

Fred

This link doesn't work:

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Nouvelles/NewPhys.html

[pteridine]

The DSC of the chips in an inert atmosphere is still the key experiment. Two of Jones' samples in the Bentham paper showed about 1.5 to 2 times the theoretical energy per unit mass of the thermite reaction. Jones, et al., invoke partial combustion of the binder in air as the energetic difference but this has not yet led to the obvious experiment.

My suspicion is that Jones and crew are stalling on the DSC because the exotherm at 440*C was due entirely to combustion and they don't want to admit it. Recently, I heard that they were now complaining of a deficiency of sample material. I think that this is the first step in an unfortunate shortage of true sample. No samples to analyze will prevent the truth [paint] from coming out and forever beatify the dedicated, heroic scientists after the men in black steal all their red chips. No other red chips will be valid samples, of course, because they were obviously planted by the reptilian-led, Zionist-Illuminati-Bilderberg NWO that owns the main stream media that the sheeple believe....etc.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, you're correct. Conspiracy addicts were suckered into Jones's claims that either 1. The "nano" nature of nanothermite is what allowed for more energy release because it's tunable (which is a stupid argument; as you noted, the release was still in excess of what a thermite redox can produce), or 2. The "sol-gel" matrix provided the excess energy. Which of course raises the question of why thermite would be needed to begin with, if the medium that holds it can contribute far more energy to the reaction.

Yeah. Old hat. The energetics Jones put forth is pretty much pseudoscience for suckers.

[Dave Rogers]

Recently, I heard that they were now complaining of a deficiency of sample material. I think that this is the first step in an unfortunate shortage of true sample.

That, alone, is more or less fatal to the thermite hypothesis, if you think about it. For the hypothesis to have any credibility at all, this stuff would have to be highly abundant in the WTC dust.

Dave

[jay howard]

The ways this topic is treated demonstrate well the unscientific habits that debunkers here participate in. Why? If the material Harrit, Farrer, Jones, et. al. found is so much nonsense, then why can't it just be handled head-on, without resorting to pretended lacks of understanding, circumstantial ad hominems, and distractions?

You don't like the journal it's published in? Fine. You don't like other things the authors have written? So what? None of that changes what they found.

The little actual scientific debate of the merits of the research say basically that the chips were paint—DESPITE the fact that paint (especially in the WTC towers) could withstand temperatures of at least 800C. The thermitic chips in the WTC dust IGNITED at about 430C. Not only did they ignite, they formed iron microspheres. Imagine that.

Does primer ignite at 430C? Can you show me a sample somewhere, anywhere, that ignites at 430C when dry? Much less a sample that produces metallic iron when ignited? We all know it doesn’t exist. What would be the point? To make a REALLY unsafe primer that ignites at a very achievable office fire temperatures and proceeds to increase BEYOND the melting point of iron? Yea. Give that one to the sales department.

Another standard response to this will no doubt be the uncontrollable urge to turn this into a debate over HOW the thermitic material could possibly have ended up in the towers. Now, that’s not a bad line of inquiry in itself IF it weren’t intended solely to be used as a means to reduce the premise to an absurdity and thus, dismiss it.

I'd love to know how and why it's in the dust. But suggesting that because someone doesn't know exactly how it was used, we can therefore dismiss their scientific findings, is poor reasoning at best.

[Dog Town]

Not this AGAIN!
Really?

[jay howard]

Can anyone back up the claim that the chips were just paint?


.

[A W Smith]

Can anyone back up the claim that the chips were just paint?


.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

[jay howard]

Yea, I read that. Kaolinite has both Al and Si, however, they are bound. Are you suggesting that MEK caused a reaction that unbound the Al from the Si?


.

[Dog Town]

I'd love to know how and why it's in the dust.

Aluminum, and iron?

[Thunder]

I like how the OP begins. Its literally like the continuation of a paragraph from a 6 month old thread.

Truthers are funny. They make me giggle.

[jay howard]

So the very scientific, skeptical "debunkers" accept without any question that soaking something in MEK can actually separate aluminum silicates into elemental Al and a silicon compound? Seriously? This kind of non-reasoning counts as "skepticism" here at JREF?

Anyone want to buy some spoon bending DVD's? You can do it too! Only $17.99 plus shipping. Results may vary, and by "vary" i mean they may not happen at all, at all.


.

[A W Smith]

Yea, I read that. Kaolinite has both Al and Si, however, they are bound. Are you suggesting that MEK caused a reaction that unbound the Al from the Si?


.

no free aluminum
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4658782&postcount=150


from this thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[Dog Town]

no free aluminum
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4658782&postcount=150


Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark!

[jay howard]

There was indeed elemental Al found in the samples. They didn't soak all the samples in MEK. Nor did they ignite all the samples. The sample that was soaked in MEK demonstrated that the Al migrated during the soaking period and the Si did not. They were not bound.

[Reactor drone]

Jay might be on to something here.I just set fire to a piece of steel wool with an ordinary lighter and small blobs of red hot metal were formed.

Why would anybody make a skyscraper out of a material that ignites at such a low temperature.This conspiracy must go back to the construction !!.


;)

[TruthersLie]

The ways this topic is treated demonstrate well the unscientific habits that debunkers here participate in.


Hey pot, it is the kettle... you are black. A truther talking about "unscientific habits" is rather ironic.

Over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." Those errors invalidate ALL of the findings and conclusions of said "paper." That isn't even going into the pay to publish vanity journal which is Bentham.

Try again, with some REAL science.


Why? If the material Harrit, Farrer, Jones, et. al. found is so much nonsense, then why can't it just be handled head-on, without resorting to pretended lacks of understanding, circumstantial ad hominems, and distractions?


Again let me repeat. Over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." It completely invalidates any findings or conclusions drawn. That is science. Try again.


You don't like the journal it's published in? Fine.


You are using a word that you do not understand. It isn't a journal. It is a vanity press, a pay to publish press. It wasn't peer reviewed, it wasn't sent to any type of REAL JOURNAL. Try again


You don't like other things the authors have written? So what?


What else have these authors written that has passed peer review in ANY real journal? Huh?


None of that changes what they found.


What did they find? With over 20 methodological errors in this "paper" it invalidates any findings or conclusions. Very simple. What paints did they use for a control? It isn't mentioned in the paper. We find out later it was BYU stadium paint by a DIFFERENT MANUFACTURER, a DIFFERENT COLOR. So the control is crap. Why was it tested in an oxygen rich envrionment? Thermite burns in a vaccuum. Those are freshman college experimental errors.


The little actual scientific debate of the merits of the research say basically that the chips were paint—DESPITE the fact that paint (especially in the WTC towers) could withstand temperatures of at least 800C.


let me repeat myself. Over 20 major methodological errors completely invalidates any findings or conclusions drawn from this "paper."

Why won't you all submit your samples to an independent lab? Can't afford the $100?

The thermitic chips in the WTC dust IGNITED at about 430C. Not only did they ignite, they formed iron microspheres. Imagine that.

AGain and again. Let me use little words. If you do bad science, you can't use it. Over 20 methodological errors in this "paper" completely invalidate their findings and conclusions. Try again


Does primer ignite at 430C? Can you show me a sample somewhere, anywhere, that ignites at 430C when dry?

I honestly don't know. But you are already making a massive methodological error. We are not talking about unreacted primer paint at 430 C. We are talking about paint chips which were baked in the fires after the collapse, possibly having been in and on fire. So you cannot compare unreacted primer paint with it. Try again.

It would help if you took even a basic science course... and experimental methods course would be better.


Much less a sample that produces metallic iron when ignited?


Oh back to the "iron rich microspheres?" Really? ROFLMAO.

We all know it doesn’t exist. What would be the point? To make a REALLY unsafe primer that ignites at a very achievable office fire temperatures and proceeds to increase BEYOND the melting point of iron?


What was the hindenberg painted in? Oops.
What does the paint chips match? Oh the composition of the primer paint. Doh.


Another standard response to this will no doubt be the uncontrollable urge to turn this into a debate over HOW the thermitic material could possibly have ended up in the towers. Now, that’s not a bad line of inquiry in itself IF it weren’t intended solely to be used as a means to reduce the premise to an absurdity and thus, dismiss it.


Not at all. First you need to prove it was thermitic materials, which you have completely FAILED to do. Why can't you do SIMPLE science? Yet again, over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." Try again. This time with 1. a real journal. 2. with real science. 3. maybe with people who are not working WAY outside of their fields. Better yet, send the samples to a truely INDEPENDENT LAB for analysis. It is like $100. Too much for you all?


I'd love to know how and why it's in the dust. But suggesting that because someone doesn't know exactly how it was used, we can therefore dismiss their scientific findings, is poor reasoning at best.

No. Not even getting that far. So far you all have failed to do competent science, and you are trying to pass of pseudo science to illiterate truthers... It won't pass muster here.

So go back and do real science. Then come back and lets talk. But don't bring up craptacular fail like this.

[jay howard]

Jay might be on to something here.I just set fire to a piece of steel wool with an ordinary lighter and small blobs of red hot metal were formed.

Why would anybody make a skyscraper out of a material that ignites at such a low temperature.This conspiracy must go back to the construction !!.


;)

So you have some primer that ignites at 800F and produces molten iron? Wow! Sounds like you've got a really valuable lawsuit on your hands!


.

[R.Mackey]

no free aluminum
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4658782&postcount=150


from this thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

Exactly. There's no evidence of free (elemental) aluminum.

The reason the aluminum is in flat hexagonal plates is because that is a crystalline form of aluminum oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_oxide), found in many, many, many minerals. Including those used in paint.

No elemental aluminum, no thermite, nano- or otherwise.

Please join me in ignoring Truthers. They've demonstrated that they either will not or cannot learn, and I don't know which is sadder.

[beachnut]

So the very scientific, skeptical "debunkers" accept without any question that soaking something in MEK can actually separate aluminum silicates into elemental Al and a silicon compound? Seriously? This kind of non-reasoning counts as "skepticism" here at JREF?

Anyone want to buy some spoon bending DVD's? You can do it too! Only $17.99 plus shipping. Results may vary, and by "vary" i mean they may not happen at all, at all.


.Thermite used to bring down the WTC is insanity. Is 911 Truth insane?

The red gray chips are fraud to support delusion from failed scientists who have paranoid nut case conspiracy theories; to prove me wrong get published in a real journal and expose your scenario; 99.99 percent of all scientists will pronounce your ideas on 911 as delusions; good for you.

What does not burn at 450 degrees?

Why would you use thermite when fuel has more energy, 10 TIMES more! lol

So paint does not burn? Where do you get this super paint?

What temp does paint burn at, and what are the products? Paper please;

When is your paper being published in a real journal?

[A W Smith]

Jay howard, you have been registered here since 2007. Yet while quickly browsing through all nine pages in the thread I linked to there is not a single post by you in that thread which started in April of 2009. Why not? Will you be posting in that or shall i ask the moderation team to merge this new thread with the one that has all the information in it you request? Or were you hoping we would forget that thread?

here it is again, just so YOU don't forget
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[Edx]

We are not talking about unreacted primer paint at 430 C. We are talking about paint chips which were baked in the fires after the collapse, possibly having been in and on fire. So you cannot compare unreacted primer paint with it. Try again..

I thought they said some woman collected it off her window or some guy found it on a railing or something far away from the collapse zone?

[jay howard]

What paints did they use for a control? It isn't mentioned in the paper. We find out later it was BYU stadium paint by a DIFFERENT MANUFACTURER, a DIFFERENT COLOR. So the control is crap. Why was it tested in an oxygen rich envrionment? Thermite burns in a vaccuum. Those are freshman college experimental errors.

So you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?


I honestly don't know.

That's refreshing. Really. We shouldn't be afraid to say it when it applies. I will do my best not to be afraid of not knowing either.

But you are already making a massive methodological error. We are not talking about unreacted primer paint at 430 C. We are talking about paint chips which were baked in the fires after the collapse, possibly having been in and on fire. So you cannot compare unreacted primer paint with it. Try again.

So you think the cracked paint they used to determine temperatures reached on the columns would react the same way? That'd be a good test in my opinion. If they did in fact dissolve or react like the paint in the test, would that be enough for you to believe that the authors did in fact find thermitic materials?


What was the hindenberg painted in? Oops.

Are you saying the Hindenberg was composed of material more like that in the WTC towers than primer from a stadium built in the last 20 years? Is that what they learned ya in your science classes?

Is that reasoning #SUCCESS?



.

[jay howard]

Jay howard, you have been registered here since 2007. Yet while quickly browsing through all nine pages in the thread I linked to there is not a single post by you in that thread which started in April of 2009. Why not? Will you be posting in that or shall i ask the moderation team to merge this new thread with the one that has all the information in it you request? Or were you hoping we would forget that thread?

here it is again, just so YOU don't forget
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

Started a new job. No time for beating my head against the wall at the time.



.

[A W Smith]

Started a new job. No time for beating my head against the wall at the time.



.

Oh, so you have not read it yet? Well now that you're unemployed, time to get crackin!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[TruthersLie]

So you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?

Bad science. What is it with you using bad science?

if your control is crap, your experiment is crap.

Again and again. I'll spell it out slowly and see if you get it this time.
if
you
use
bad
methodology
then
you
can't
use
the
results

Is that slow enough for you? Over 20 methodological ERRORS in this "paper." That completely invalidates ANY and ALL findings and conclusions. Try again, with a REAL paper.


That's refreshing. Really. We shouldn't be afraid to say it when it applies. I will do my best not to be afraid of not knowing either.

blah blah blah. Provide REAL science. Not crap. None of the findings are useful in a crap paper. Try again.


So you think the cracked paint they used to determine temperatures reached on the columns would react the same way? That'd be a good test in my opinion. If they did in fact dissolve or react like the paint in the test, would that be enough for you to believe that the authors did in fact find thermitic materials?


Are you blind? Do you have a reading impediment? OR is it just a lack of understanding on basic scientific method? Have you ever taken an experimental design course? If you can produce a REAL peer reviewed journal in which you don't have 20 methodological errors which invalidate any findings or conclusions, I'd love to read it. Unfortunately you are pointing to pseudo scientific claptrap designed to fool the scientifically illiterate. And you fell for it.


Are you saying the Hindenberg was composed of material more like that in the WTC towers than primer from a stadium built in the last 20 years? Is that what they learned ya in your science classes?


Lets see... it was a paint which reacted just like thermite... wow. But hey, engineers never make mistakes right? They never have things just go "oops, I didn't think of that."

How can you compare a stadium paint (which is a different manufacturer, different color, and different composition) to your sample? YOU CAN'T. It is a bad control. Bad control = bad science.

[jay howard]

Exactly. There's no evidence of free (elemental) aluminum.

The reason the aluminum is in flat hexagonal plates is because that is a crystalline form of aluminum oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_oxide), found in many, many, many minerals. Including those used in paint.

No elemental aluminum, no thermite, nano- or otherwise.

Please join me in ignoring Truthers. They've demonstrated that they either will not or cannot learn, and I don't know which is sadder.


Ryan, if you would like to have a real discussion about this, then we need to agree about basic premises.

Unless you found something wrong with the XEDS analysis of the post-MEK chip, then there is no way to claim that elemental Al was NOT found.


The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. pg. 18 (my emphasis)

What have they done wrong that they cannot make this claim?


.
.

[R.Mackey]

I don't want to have a real discussion about this. I already had one. Your side didn't understand it, and further discussion is futile. Your nonsense reply above only bolsters this impression. That's why I am Ignoring you.

I'm breaking cover just this once to clear that up for you, but that's it. Don't bother replying to me again, not here, not ever.

[TruthersLie]

Ryan, if you would like to have a real discussion about this, then we need to agree about basic premises.

Unless you found something wrong with the XEDS analysis of the post-MEK chip, then there is no way to claim that elemental Al was NOT found.


pg. 18 (my emphasis)

What have they done wrong that they cannot make this claim?


.
.

YOu have already been linked to Sunstealers excellent debunking of this bs claim. Try to read for comprehension.

AGain and again. The simple answer is that there are over 20 methodological ERRORS in this "paper." As such, none of the findings or conclusions are valid. The entire "paper" is crap. So why don't you start over, with a new paper from scratch and do the science. It should only take a few months. You've had the time. Try again.

[jay howard]

Is that a yes or a no: you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?



How can you compare a stadium paint (which is a different manufacturer, different color, and different composition) to your sample? YOU CAN'T. It is a bad control. Bad control = bad science.


Right. But you can compare the Hindenberg and there's no problem there, huh?

[jay howard]

I don't want to have a real discussion about this. I already had one. Your side didn't understand it, and further discussion is futile. Your nonsense reply above only bolsters this impression. That's why I am Ignoring you.

I'm breaking cover just this once to clear that up for you, but that's it. Don't bother replying to me again, not here, not ever.



Why do you always announce that you're going to ignore someone. Just ignore me, please.


.

[jay howard]

YOu have already been linked to Sunstealers excellent debunking of this bs claim. Try to read for comprehension.

AGain and again. The simple answer is that there are over 20 methodological ERRORS in this "paper." As such, none of the findings or conclusions are valid. The entire "paper" is crap. So why don't you start over, with a new paper from scratch and do the science. It should only take a few months. You've had the time. Try again.



So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper you've never read.


.

[TruthersLie]

Reading for comprehension is not your strong suit eh?

Is that a yes or a no: you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?


that is a "do the science right and we can have this discussion." If you use a bad control, you invalidate all of your findings.

what part of that do you NOT understand? is it the, if? you? use? a? bad? control? you? invalidate? all? of? your? findings?

What part of that is soooo hard that you must try to dodge around and try to make this pseudo scientific claptrap somewhat legitimate? It isn't and we both know it.


Right. But you can compare the Hindenberg and there's no problem there, huh?

Go back and read where the hindenberg comment comes from. Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? It is called the law of unintended consequences.... Look it up and try to read for comprehension.

[A W Smith]

So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper I've never read.


.

here ya go
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[TruthersLie]

So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper you've never read.


.

I've read the "paper" repeatedly. And I keep getting tripped up on those 20 methodological errors which completely invalidate any findings.

What part of that do you not understand?

Do it again and remove those methodological errors, and we can talk. Why do you insist on dodging those methodological errors?

[A W Smith]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4628585&postcount=86
Why the Silicon and any other element (except O)? Engineered aluminium nanoparticles are 99% pure (commercial pure) so why do we have all the junk in it? Secondly that EDS and the SEM photos clearly show that the platelets are comprised of an aluminosilicate. Can't be anything else. They try to get around this by soaking a completely different sample in MEK and say they found "elemental Al" but they don't show any detailed SEM images of the red layer for that chip. So where are the Al particles? They just aren't there. Their own data shows that.

[Scott Sommers]

It goes completely unsaid in all of this there is an entire thermite research community in the United States and the World. Strangely, there is not only a failure to consult them, there existance in this debate has gone completely ignored. There are entire journals dedicated to related matters, such as the journal
Combustion Science and Technology (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00102202.asp)
Combustion Theory and Modelling (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13647830.asp)
These are a Francis & Taylor journals and are very high status. Publication in such a venue would not be questioned.

From a purely academic point of view, if I were Steven Jones or any of his lackies, I would submit a paper to the kind of conferences where research on thermite is discussed. I can suggest some names, if jay howard finds this helpful.

I can list many more journals and conferences that are far more appropriate venues to settle this problem than the James Randi Forum which has no status whatsoever as a scientific venue. In fact, I would go so far as to say that discussion about this are a complete waste of time and show that the people involved are not really interested in an answer. Of course that is the case for the regular crowd who post here only a hobby. If Dr. Jones and his crew believe this is a serious topic they should take the discussion elsewhere, otherwise an observer would be left to conclude that for them it is also only a hobby.

[Dave Rogers]

Can anyone back up the claim that the chips were just paint?

Since nobody can back up the claim that they were nanothermite, since it's been shown that they couldn't have had any significant effect if they had been nanothermite, and since the simple fact that they ignited at 430ºC is irrefutable proof that they cannot have remained unignited by the fires in the regions where the collapse initiated, asking for proof they were paint is the logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". It doesn't really matter what they were; they cannot possibly have played any significant part in the collapses of the Twin Towers, therefore they are irrelevant to any discussion of the causes of those collapses.

Dave

[Cuddles]

Threads merged.

[jay howard]

I've read the "paper" repeatedly. And I keep getting tripped up on those 20 methodological errors which completely invalidate any findings.

What part of that do you not understand?

Do it again and remove those methodological errors, and we can talk. Why do you insist on dodging those methodological errors?

It's not that im ignoring you, it's that your claim that because there are errors you can dismiss all the findings in the paper, does not follow.

It's a good point that they didn't use the same paint as was in the towers. As I asked above, do you think the paint from the towers would NOT dissolve or become soft? Does the XEDS analysis care if they used a poor control paint in the MEK soak? Do the x-rays somehow know it's poor methodology and therefore refuse to produce accurate spectrum data?

Did you find something wrong with the acquisition or analysis of the spectrum data?


.

[jay howard]

It goes completely unsaid in all of this there is an entire thermite research community in the United States and the World. Strangely, there is not only a failure to consult them, there existance in this debate has gone completely ignored. There are entire journals dedicated to related matters, such as the journal
Combustion Science and Technology (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00102202.asp)
Combustion Theory and Modelling (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13647830.asp)
These are a Francis & Taylor journals and are very high status. Publication in such a venue would not be questioned.

From a purely academic point of view, if I were Steven Jones or any of his lackies, I would submit a paper to the kind of conferences where research on thermite is discussed. I can suggest some names, if jay howard finds this helpful.

I can list many more journals and conferences that are far more appropriate venues to settle this problem than the James Randi Forum which has no status whatsoever as a scientific venue. In fact, I would go so far as to say that discussion about this are a complete waste of time and show that the people involved are not really interested in an answer. Of course that is the case for the regular crowd who post here only a hobby. If Dr. Jones and his crew believe this is a serious topic they should take the discussion elsewhere, otherwise an observer would be left to conclude that for them it is also only a hobby.

If you don't want to have this discussion, then by all means, don't have it. But encouraging others [i]not[/n] to have it because we're not experts in nano-energetic materials is ridiculous and pointless.

I find it amusing that this sub-forum has become a lightening rod for debunkers, yet suddenly the topic is no longer appropriate for JREF because we lack expertise? There's certainly a lot of bull that passes for science on both sides of this debate, however, Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et. al. have written this paper in an accessible way. If you think their paper contains unfounded conclusions, then this is your chance to demonstrate that.


.

[jay howard]

Since nobody can back up the claim that they were nanothermite, since it's been shown that they couldn't have had any significant effect if they had been nanothermite, and since the simple fact that they ignited at 430ºC is irrefutable proof that they cannot have remained unignited by the fires in the regions where the collapse initiated, asking for proof they were paint is the logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". It doesn't really matter what they were; they cannot possibly have played any significant part in the collapses of the Twin Towers, therefore they are irrelevant to any discussion of the causes of those collapses.

Dave

This is another attempt to say that since no one can explain how it was used, we can dismiss it.

What's interesting about this attempt this line of reasoning is that we all agree the WTC fell because of arson. No one here can meaningfully say that wasn't a case of arson. The only debate is the sources of energy involved.

Now that some very unusual highly energetic material was found, why should anyone interested not want to look into it?

What could be gained from not looking into it?

Why would someone even entertain that idea?

I don't know how the stuff was used. The authors of the paper don't know how it was used. That doesn't make it go away.


.

[T.A.M.]

Let me see, we have the following,

Buildings full of painted columns etc...collapses into huge pile. Thousands of people witness the jet airliners strike the buildings an hour or so prior to collapse. Years later, samples of alleged dust from GZ are submitted to the authors with a weak chain of custody record, at best, for analysis.

Now what do you think should be the focus of such an analysis?

(A) an unbias, scientific analysis of the dust contents, with ALL POSSIBLE contents ruled in or out,

OR

(B) a hunt for thermite?

You wanna talk unscientific, truther "scientists" wrote the book on that.

Funny how numerous other studies and analysis of the WTC dust have been done, and paint is mentioned as a component in many of them, yet never a mention of "thermite" or some "exothermic explosive/incidiary" or the like. Funny that.

TAM;)

[pgimeno]

Ryan, if you would like to have a real discussion about this, then we need to agree about basic premises.

Unless you found something wrong with the XEDS analysis of the post-MEK chip, then there is no way to claim that elemental Al was NOT found.


pg. 18 (my emphasis)

What have they done wrong that they cannot make this claim?


.
.
See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4682006&postcount=188

In short:

Given that we don't know anything about this chip prior to it's soaking in MEK then i don't know why it's in the paper.

[aggle-rithm]

So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper you've never read.


.

Even if you are somehow correct, and the paint chips are indeed thermite, you still have no convergence of evidence. All you have is a curiosity that doesn't fit into any coherent theory.

Unless you'd like to offer one. No? I didn't think so.

[T.A.M.]

Even if you are somehow correct, and the paint chips are indeed thermite, you still have no convergence of evidence. All you have is a curiosity that doesn't fit into any coherent theory.

Unless you'd like to offer one. No? I didn't think so.

According to Jones himself, the Thermite was most likely just used in the detonation fuses for more traditional explosives (See several threads on this suggestion he made on another forum as provided by email exchanges between Jones and Dr. Frank Greening about 1 year ago).

That said, given their obsession verging on insanity with this issue, given the investment in what little reputation the authors have in this, I would not doubt for a moment that they are capable not only of MANIPULATING the data, but actually FORGING/MANUFACTURING data to suite their hypothesis. At the very least the authors are guilty of (A) poor science, and (B) Severe (near blinding) bias.

TAM:)

[Alferd_Packer]

So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper you've never read.


.



OK, back up a bit here.

I'm not going to dig back through this thread, so humor me here.

are you stating that this:

The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.

proves that there was elemental aluminum because MEK can not disolve aluminosilicates?

[jay howard]

OK, back up a bit here.

I'm not going to dig back through this thread, so humor me here.

are you stating that this:



proves that there was elemental aluminum because MEK can not disolve aluminosilicates?

No. I'm saying MEK cannot cause the Al in aluminosilicates to unbind from the Si. Are you saying it can?


.

[Alferd_Packer]

No. I'm saying MEK cannot cause the Al in aluminosilicates to unbind from the Si. Are you saying it can?


.

what proof do you have that the AL was not bound to the Si?

[jay howard]

According to Jones himself, the Thermite was most likely just used in the detonation fuses for more traditional explosives (See several threads on this suggestion he made on another forum as provided by email exchanges between Jones and Dr. Frank Greening about 1 year ago).

That said, given their obsession verging on insanity with this issue, given the investment in what little reputation the authors have in this, I would not doubt for a moment that they are capable not only of MANIPULATING the data, but actually FORGING/MANUFACTURING data to suite their hypothesis. At the very least the authors are guilty of (A) poor science, and (B) Severe (near blinding) bias.

TAM:)


O.k. So because they don't have a coherent theory about how the stuff was used, then you feel good about consigning it to the wacko bin and moving on. That's nice but irrelevant to the actual material at hand.

If you just want to say they made up the data, that's your prerogative. But if you accept that they actually found the stuff in the dust, then it must be dealt with.

It's ironic that you would go so far in your defense of the official theory as to claim a fairly complex conspiracy has been brewing by the Jones crew. They had to seed their dust (at first) with iron-based microspheres, then years later invest a considerable amount of money into making an as-yet unheard of explosive material that, surprise surprise, produces iron microspheres when ignited!

Are they also complicit in seeding the RJ Lee samples with iron-based microspheres as well as the USGS samples?

Or can we simply cut Plato's beard here and say they did indeed find some strange material in the dust samples? It's most certainly more believable that these academics found the stuff they claim to have found.

Again, I don't claim to know how this stuff was used in the towers, but don't you think it deserves a good examination?

Or maybe you're just claiming that their analysis of the material is faulty--not that they designed and seeded it in the dust samples. If so, where did they fall off the tracks?



.

[jay howard]

Let me see, we have the following,

Buildings full of painted columns etc...collapses into huge pile. Thousands of people witness the jet airliners strike the buildings an hour or so prior to collapse. Years later, samples of alleged dust from GZ are submitted to the authors with a weak chain of custody record, at best, for analysis.

Now what do you think should be the focus of such an analysis?

(A) an unbias, scientific analysis of the dust contents, with ALL POSSIBLE contents ruled in or out,

OR

(B) a hunt for thermite?

You wanna talk unscientific, truther "scientists" wrote the book on that.

Funny how numerous other studies and analysis of the WTC dust have been done, and paint is mentioned as a component in many of them, yet never a mention of "thermite" or some "exothermic explosive/incidiary" or the like. Funny that.

TAM;)

Again, you can relegate the entire paper to the dustbin, however, your implication is that Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et. al. are participating in a fairly complex lie without much promise of fame or fortune just so they can make enemies out of the most powerful people in the country. Is that realistic? Am I taking you out of context?

If your hesitation is based on methodology, please expand on that.


.

[jay howard]

what proof do you have that the AL was not bound to the Si?

The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. P. 18

My emphasis

[16.5]

Or maybe you're just claiming that their analysis of the material is faulty--not that they designed and seeded it in the dust samples. If so, where did they fall off the tracks?
.

Well their truther buddy tested it and found nothing.

But more to the point their analysis of the material was not just faulty, it was a complete joke. Hey lets compare the sample with whatever old paint sample we have sitting around here in Utah. Lets also burn the sample in the air! Hey, lets do some science!

Hey, lets claim that the results which prove that it cannot be thermite means that it is some kind of super thermite! And rather than invest the time it takes to properly obtain “super thermite,” why don't some of you folks try to get some under false pretences?

Look out world, here comes science!

[aggle-rithm]

Hey, lets claim that the results which prove that it cannot be thermite means that it is some kind of super thermite! And rather than invest the time it takes to properly obtain “super thermite,” why don't some of you folks try to get some under false pretences?

Look out world, here comes science!

And don't forget that the thermite is necessary because there were no explosions heard, except that even Jones had to admit that there couldn't have been enough thermite to bring the buildings down, so it was used as a detonater for conventional explosives, which weren't heard, but that's OK, because there was thermite, which is necessary because....

It helps if you don't think about it too much.

[DGM]

But more to the point their analysis of the material was not just faulty, it was a complete joke. Hey lets compare the sample with whatever old paint sample we have sitting around here in Utah. Lets also burn the sample in the air! Hey, lets do some science!



Did Jones and company ever try to ignite it in an inert gas environment. I know there was talk of this. Seems to me this would be test number one for this type of stuff.

Jay Howard. do you know?

[T.A.M.]

O.k. So because they don't have a coherent theory about how the stuff was used, then you feel good about consigning it to the wacko bin and moving on. That's nice but irrelevant to the actual material at hand.

This has been discussed to death both in this thread, and others on this forum, as well as other forums on the net. I am far from the only one to declare their science poor.


If you just want to say they made up the data, that's your prerogative. But if you accept that they actually found the stuff in the dust, then it must be dealt with.

We have taken that approach here, assuming that they did find red and red grey chips of "something" in the dust. As I said above, it has been discussed here to the nth degree.


It's ironic that you would go so far in your defense of the official theory as to claim a fairly complex conspiracy has been brewing by the Jones crew. They had to seed their dust (at first) with iron-based microspheres, then years later invest a considerable amount of money into making an as-yet unheard of explosive material that, surprise surprise, produces iron microspheres when ignited!

1. I do not DEFEND the "official theory". I have not had ANYONE present me with any worthy evidence that contradicts it, including Jones et al, so I believe what most people (many smarter then you and I) in the world believe, and what I have been presented with mountains of evidence for...that which most normal people call "what happened on 9/11", but what you feel COMPELLED to call the "official theory", which clearly is done to try to bring it down, way down, to an equal playing field with the ridiculous CTs that eminate from the truth movement.

2. Once again, the presence of the iron microspheres has been done on this forum MANY TIMES, and many non-conspiratorial reasons can explain them. Search and read, find issues, and bring the issues, not the entire ridiculous theory.


Are they also complicit in seeding the RJ Lee samples with iron-based microspheres as well as the USGS samples?

Where did I say they "Seeded" anything, I said it would not surprise me to find out that they manipulated or fabricated DATA. I said nothing directly related to the samples themselves in that regard, although others could have easily done so prior to giving Jones the sample, given the chain of custody issue.


Or can we simply cut Plato's beard here and say they did indeed find some strange material in the dust samples? It's most certainly more believable that these academics found the stuff they claim to have found.

You can cut my beard for all I care. Amazing is it not, that of all the samples taken from the WTC, and all the analysis done, ONLY THEIRS considers the contents of the dust, red chips or not, to be "strange" or "devious". Amazing indeed. Geniuses they are.


Again, I don't claim to know how this stuff was used in the towers, but don't you think it deserves a good examination?

I think that there has been a huge amount of "good examination" done on the contents of WTC dust, and NONE OF THOSE EXAMINATIONS found "thermite", but a number of them found PAINT within the dust. Amazing.


Or maybe you're just claiming that their analysis of the material is faulty--not that they designed and seeded it in the dust samples. If so, where did they fall off the tracks?

Well now there is something.

Perhaps it was their failure to obtain the exact paints used in the WTC, paint them on steel columns, leave them or age them for corrosion and other natural effects, then super heat them, then take chips and compare those to their "mystery" chips. Given that is MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE as a source of their chips, would that not seem like the most scientific thing to do? the most intellectually HONEST thing to do?

Perhaps it was their almost negligible attempt to eliminate anything else as the source of their chips, but rather, spend most of their time and investigation TRY TO PROVE the chips WERE THERMITE.

Perhaps it was their failure to insure any kind of reasonable CHAIN OF CUSTODY. Perhaps you can ask henryco here on this forum, while his subsequent investigations of dust samples failed to produce the Jones results...

So much wrong with the paper, with the investigation. I am but a laymen with this stuff, and even I can see the faults within it. Sunstealer and Mackey can and have torn it to shreds.

You are not bringing anything new to the table, so what is there to address?

TAM:)

[pgimeno]

what proof do you have that the AL was not bound to the Si?
The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.


P. 18

My emphasis
Look at figure 7. Pay attention to the relative heights of Al and Si, and note that they are fairly comparable to O.

Now see figure 14. Does it look like the same thing at all?

The MEK-soaked chip was from a completely different nature to the rest. There's no characterization of the chips. They are all different, except maybe samples 1-4 in the beginning which seem of the same nature. The conclusions don't follow from the data. There's no in-depth analysis of the MEK-soaked chip. In figure 10 the Al appears bound to the Si and the O. The platelets they form correspond to kaolinite, as some people have shown repeatedly here.

In all, the only proof that the Al is not bound to the Si appears in a chip not thoroughly analyzed nor cleaned whose nature we don't know. They shouldn't extrapolate the conclusion that Al is not bound to Si to the other chips. By their logic, in figure 15 the O is bound to the Si and the Fe is free, so there's silicon oxide but no iron oxide, thus no thermite.

Just another sloppiness of many. Happens when you have decided a conclusion and are blind to indications that point in a different direction. That's the best conclusion about the paper when presuming good faith, something that coming from some of the signers of the paper is a bit too forced.

[Scott Sommers]

If you don't want to have this discussion, then by all means, don't have it. But encouraging others [i]not[/n] to have it because we're not experts in nano-energetic materials is ridiculous and pointless.

I find it amusing that this sub-forum has become a lightening rod for debunkers, yet suddenly the topic is no longer appropriate for JREF because we lack expertise? There's certainly a lot of bull that passes for science on both sides of this debate, however, Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et. al. have written this paper in an accessible way. If you think their paper contains unfounded conclusions, then this is your chance to demonstrate that.
.

I'm pointing out that no one can or should take this claim seriously. It is not a scientific claim. No one with any scientific expertise with thermite has ever commented on it. It holds the same status as claims about Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster - maybe less. As such, you can make whatever statement you want about the implications of thermite at the WTC, but it's about as meaningful as making claims about human evolution based on the existance of the Sasquatch. This may be fun, but it has no bearing at all on science or politics.

[TruthersLie]

It's not that im ignoring you, it's that your claim that because there are errors you can dismiss all the findings in the paper, does not follow.


It fully follows. When you use BAD sampling, BAD controls, and have over 20 methodological errors, can you in all honesty state that you can take any of their findings or conclusions at face value? Of course not.

In a "paper" riddled with methodological errors like this one, how can you honestly with a straight face try to take ANY of their conclusions at face value? If they botch it that badly, what is to say they didn't botch other parts or fudge the data? Absolutely NOTHING.

In papers riddled with methodological errors, the best thing, the ONLY thing to do is scrap the paper and do it again.


It's a good point that they didn't use the same paint as was in the towers. As I asked above, do you think the paint from the towers would NOT dissolve or become soft? Does the XEDS analysis care if they used a poor control paint in the MEK soak? Do the x-rays somehow know it's poor methodology and therefore refuse to produce accurate spectrum data?


Again and again you want to try to equate this piss poor scientifically invalid "paper" with real science. Do it again. Get it done at independent labs or do it right. But realize that this is a craptacular fail and stop trying to use it for the basis of any argument. Go back to school and take just one decent experimental design course. Try again.


Did you find something wrong with the acquisition or analysis of the spectrum data?
.

Again and again. With bad controls, bad samples, and over 20 methodological errors you cannot draw ANY conclusions from this "paper." What part of that is sooooo difficult to understand?

This isn't a "Yes the science is crap, but look at page 2 they say this..." because the first part invalidates the rest.

[TruthersLie]

There's certainly a lot of bull that passes for science on both sides of this debate, however, Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et. al. have written this paper in an accessible way. If you think their paper contains unfounded conclusions, then this is your chance to demonstrate that.


.

that has already been demonstrated. Over 20 methodological errors invalidates the "paper."

The lack of publishing it in anything beyond a vanity pay to publish journal invalidates the "paper."

the fact that ALL of them are WAY OUTSIDE of their fields of expertise also brings up serious questions about their science.

TRY AGAIN. Sunstealer has already demolished this "paper."

[TruthersLie]

This is another attempt to say that since no one can explain how it was used, we can dismiss it.

What's interesting about this attempt this line of reasoning is that we all agree the WTC fell because of arson. No one here can meaningfully say that wasn't a case of arson. The only debate is the sources of energy involved.


You might want to look up the word ARSON. It was an act of terrorism. You know... those HUGE JETS striking the building may have had something to do with it.


Now that some very unusual highly energetic material was found, why should anyone interested not want to look into it?


What was found? Provide me with a single peer reviewed engineering/thermitic or other journal article which documents any "unusual highly energetic material" which was found.

Oh, you are talking about the same boat load of fail we have already been discussing.

AGain, let me repeat. This "paper" which you seem to want to tout is riddled with methodological errors. As such, any and all conclusions and findings are in doubt. It is bad science. Try again, this time actually do the science and eliminate the methodological errors. Once you have done that (and it has passed real peer review) come on back and I'd love to discuss it with you.


What could be gained from not looking into it?

Why would someone even entertain that idea?

I don't know how the stuff was used. The authors of the paper don't know how it was used. That doesn't make it go away.

You keep using that word. Do you know what it means? "Paper" I mean. What you keep touting isn't a scientific "paper." It is psuedo science that is riddled with methodological errors. Try again.

[TruthersLie]

O.k. So because they don't have a coherent theory about how the stuff was used, then you feel good about consigning it to the wacko bin and moving on. That's nice but irrelevant to the actual material at hand.


It is NOT irrelevant to the actual material at hand. The actual material at hand has been shown in numerous REAL peer reviewed scientific papers to be paint.

It is only in a pay to publish vanity journal, with people working WAY OUTSIDE OF THEIR FIELDS with 20 methodological errors that you have anyone claiming that there is "nanothermite" there.

So fix the errors, get the "paper" validly and truely peer reviewed and published, then it will become a paper with validity.


If you just want to say they made up the data, that's your prerogative.


I call into question ALL of their data, ALL of their findings and ALL of their conclusions. How can you NOT? You have over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." One or two I can understand, as none of the authors of this "paper" are materials scientists. I can understand a few minor errors because they are working outside of their field of expertise and education. But 20 of them, some of them MASSIVELY GLARING errors? REally? That is like having a high school student produce a "paper" disproving relativity.

With the errors and the level of the errors, I cannot in any honesty take ANYTHING they have written with ANY type of reliability, validity or scientific honesty.

But if you accept that they actually found the stuff in the dust, then it must be dealt with.


Wishful thinking, and an "What if" atttitude. FIRST you must show that the materials you claim are there are in fact there. In this "paper" with 20 methodological errors you cannot show that.

Why won't truthers send their materials off to truely independent labs? Huh?

Why has S. Jones changed his story from super nanothermite cutting columns to now being used for fuses for conventional explosives (which are disproven as there is NO evidence for it?)


It's ironic that you would go so far in your defense of the official theory as to claim a fairly complex conspiracy has been brewing by the Jones crew.


1. what official theory? Which governmental agency has told the complete story of 9/11? I don't know of one. Who is part of this "official theory?"
2. This isn't a "complex conspiracy" for jones and crew. They are known truthers who have confirmation bias. It is rather simple.


They had to seed their dust (at first) with iron-based microspheres, then years later invest a considerable amount of money into making an as-yet unheard of explosive material that, surprise surprise, produces iron microspheres when ignited!

<facepalm>
BAck to the iron microspheres? Really? Truely? Are you that desperate? ROFLMAO.


Are they also complicit in seeding the RJ Lee samples with iron-based microspheres as well as the USGS samples?


Since you bring up RJ LEE (which is a derail btw) can you explain how RJ Lee was expecting to find these microspheres? They state directly that they were expected by products of the collapse. Does RJ Lee know it was CD? Did they know it was "nanothermite?"


Or can we simply cut Plato's beard here and say they did indeed find some strange material in the dust samples?


I do not know what they "found." I do know that they used bad science. Will you admit that this "paper" is riddled with methodologial errors? Yes or no?


It's most certainly more believable that these academics found the stuff they claim to have found.

So really your entire argument comes down to personal ignorance and personal incredulity? Is that correct?

These "academics" are working outside of their field of expertise. Yes or no?
These "academics" are working outside of their field of educaiton. Yes or no?
These "academics" created a "paper" which is filled with psuedo science and methodological errors. Yes or no?


Again, I don't claim to know how this stuff was used in the towers, but don't you think it deserves a good examination?


Neither you nor I can claim to know what this "stuff" was. That would be because this "paper" is riddled with methodological errors which call into question all of their findings and conclusions.

again and again, why won't you truthers send some of your "evidence" to any state of the art lab with a check for $100 to find out what the samples are?

Heck, PM me and I'll pay for it myself.


Or maybe you're just claiming that their analysis of the material is faulty--not that they designed and seeded it in the dust samples. If so, where did they fall off the tracks?


As has been pointed out REPEATEDLY. They have over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." Try to keep up.

I have given you three simple ones. Three easy ones. See if you can find the other 17.

[Scott Sommers]

My point is that they're not academic papers. They have the same status as blog posts. This doesn't necessarily mean they represent bad research, but in their current state, no one can possibly know.

We can all have fun here on JREF talking about what we think, but don't pretend for a second this has any bearing on science. If these papers continue to be ignored by politicans and policy makers, it's because Jones and his crew refuse to have them reviewed by legitimate experts. Sure it's all fun and games, but that's my point - who could possibly take it seriously? It seems not even Dr. Jones and our 911 Truth friends.

[tfk]

Can anyone back up the claim that the chips were just paint?


You don't understand how this whole process works.

Nobody in the entire world is required to back up the claim that the chips are just paint. Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et al, ARE required to back up their claim that they are thermite. Or nanothermite. Or Sooooperthermite.

I have just completed my hair-brained analysis and concluded that they are "Unicorn dandruff". (Has as much reality as nanothermite to FHJ etc.)

Are the world's serious scientists now required to drop their serious work & jump to reanalyze dust samples? Are they required to debunk my paper? Or do they just go on doing serious work?


O.k. So because they don't have a coherent theory about how the stuff was used, then you feel good about consigning it to the wacko bin and moving on.
...

Or maybe you're just claiming that their analysis of the material is faulty--not that they designed and seeded it in the dust samples. If so, where did they fall off the tracks?


Yes, their analysis is completely faulty. I'm not even a chemist, and I know FOR CERTAIN that their analysis is amateurish & faulty.

Because none of them have ever done this specific analysis before. Which, by definition, makes them amateurs at this analysis.

As a result, their analysis is completely inconclusive. They report SUGGESTIONS of a substance that they've NEVER SEEN.

Here's their primary screw-up.

THINK ABOUT IT: why would they try to invent their own tests, when arson investigators - REAL experts - are often called upon to determine whether or not thermite has been used in a fire?

Is there a DEFINITIVE test for thermite? Not aluminum-oxide & iron. But thermite, pre & post ignition.

I found out in about 1/2 hour that the answer is "Yes". There is a test, X-ray diffraction test, that can be done at contract chem labs around the country that will tell you FOR CERTAIN whether this stuff is the COMPOUND thermite, or just some compound that includes iron, aluminum & oxygen, etc.

The test cost about $130 ea. if you prepare your own samples (i.e., grind them into powder). Or about $170 ea if the lab does it for you.

And you are allegedly looking for a specific compound that was used for a specific task: "blowing up" or compromising the columns of the towers. You don't go searching in "dust" that was spread all over Manhattan. Your chances of finding the tiny amounts (compared to the millions of tons of rubble) are absurdly small. You go to the SOURCE: the ends of the columns that are still stored at JFK.

[Of course, there is nothing that looks anything like a thermite cut on any of those beams. Or - from detailed photos available today - on any beam that was in the rubble pile. But don't let that annoying little fact slow down the stupid.]

You could test 50 samples from many columns, at 2 independent labs, for less than $20K. And in about 30 days.

And when you are done, you have a definitive, conclusive answer. Rather than a pile of amateur innuendo.

How's that for "falling off the tracks"?

Tom

[jay howard]

Look at figure 7. Pay attention to the relative heights of Al and Si, and note that they are fairly comparable to O.

Now see figure 14. Does it look like the same thing at all?

The MEK-soaked chip was from a completely different nature to the rest. There's no characterization of the chips. They are all different, except maybe samples 1-4 in the beginning which seem of the same nature.

So, except samples 1, 2, 3, and 4, all the samples are different... Did you read this paper? Did you even skim it? In that time did you notice that there are only 4 samples of dust? Did you see the corresponding XEDS spectrum data that show the similarities in elemental composition by weight? Then the corresponding SE and BSE images to compare the morphology?

Please explain on what grounds you make the claim that all the chips are different? Or why you think the MEK soaked chip is different--other than the red layer expands during the 55 hour soak.

The conclusions don't follow from the data. There's no in-depth analysis of the MEK-soaked chip.

Except the pre-soak XEDS spectrogram in fig. 14, the before/after SE image in fig. 12, the BSE and XEDS maps of the chip post-soak in fig. 15, and the spectrograms of the particular element-rich areas in figs. 16, 17 and 18, and accompanying analysis demonstrating the presence of elemental Al as well as Fe2O3. Except that, you're right.

In figure 10 the Al appears bound to the Si and the O. The platelets they form correspond to kaolinite, as some people have shown repeatedly here.

So, are you claiming that MEK produces a chemical reaction that releases the Al from the Si? Or are you claiming that since the MEK-soaked chip definitely had elemental Al in it, that it must therefore be different from the other samples?

In all, the only proof that the Al is not bound to the Si appears in a chip not thoroughly analyzed nor cleaned whose nature we don't know. They shouldn't extrapolate the conclusion that Al is not bound to Si to the other chips. By their logic, in figure 15 the O is bound to the Si and the Fe is free, so there's silicon oxide but no iron oxide, thus no thermite.

How do you get that from their logic? The XEDS data from silicon-rich areas show more Si than O (fig. 16). It's certainly not SiO2. What are you claiming it is?

Just another sloppiness of many. Happens when you have decided a conclusion and are blind to indications that point in a different direction.

Hello Mr. Pot... Have you met Mr. Kettle?


.

[jay howard]

And don't forget that the thermite is necessary because there were no explosions heard, except that even Jones had to admit that there couldn't have been enough thermite to bring the buildings down, so it was used as a detonater for conventional explosives, which weren't heard, but that's OK, because there was thermite, which is necessary because....

It helps if you don't think about it too much.



It may be best to keep your claims of "no explosions heard" to another thread as they are neither true nor relevant to the substances in question as examined in the Harrit/Farrer/Jones paper.

Do you want to discuss the paper or do you want to speculate about logistical concerns? Either way, the substance in question does not go away.


.

[jay howard]

Did Jones and company ever try to ignite it in an inert gas environment. I know there was talk of this. Seems to me this would be test number one for this type of stuff.

Jay Howard. do you know?

Nope, I sure don't.


.

[jay howard]

Well now there is something.

Perhaps it was their failure to obtain the exact paints used in the WTC, paint them on steel columns, leave them or age them for corrosion and other natural effects, then super heat them, then take chips and compare those to their "mystery" chips. Given that is MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE as a source of their chips, would that not seem like the most scientific thing to do? the most intellectually HONEST thing to do?

Fair enough. So if this comparison showed conclusively that the red/gray chips were indeed different from the paint chips, would that be enough to concede that whatever these chips were, they were not likely paint chips?

Perhaps it was their almost negligible attempt to eliminate anything else as the source of their chips, but rather, spend most of their time and investigation TRY TO PROVE the chips WERE THERMITE.

Does matter to the spectroscopy instrument what conclusion they were looking for? Does it matter to the calorimeter? Like I said earlier, if you think they are simply making stuff up, then there is certainly no need to talk further. However, if you think they aren't lying, and the analysis in the paper is indeed about these questionable chips in the dust, then the question remains: why is it unacceptable? Why is their analysis unscientific?

Sure, I agree they should have tried to examine known paint chips from the WTC wreckage, and they should have soaked that paint, among others, in the MEK for comparison. However, it is unclear to me how that consideration can invalidate XEDS spectrograms or maps or the DSC data.

Perhaps it was their failure to insure any kind of reasonable CHAIN OF CUSTODY. Perhaps you can ask henryco here on this forum, while his subsequent investigations of dust samples failed to produce the Jones results...

They go into a fair amount of detail regarding when, where, how and who gathered the samples. They even excluded a sample because the holder did not agree to have his/her name released for verification. What then, is the issue with the chain of custody of the samples?

So much wrong with the paper, with the investigation. I am but a laymen with this stuff, and even I can see the faults within it. Sunstealer and Mackey can and have torn it to shreds.

You are not bringing anything new to the table, so what is there to address?

TAM:)

I have yet to read a coherent reason for dismissing the data in the paper. Yes, I've read Sunstealer's analysis. SS must dismiss the data gathered from the MEK-soaked chip in order to claim that the material is in a kaolinite matrix. That is, unless SS is claiming that the MEK caused a reaction by which the Al became unbound, elemental Al. Is that how you read his analysis?


.

[jay howard]

I'm pointing out that no one can or should take this claim seriously. It is not a scientific claim. No one with any scientific expertise with thermite has ever commented on it. It holds the same status as claims about Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster - maybe less.

What is your definition (not just example) of a "scientific claim"? The standard one is something like this: "a scientific claim is a testable claim." Which is exactly why claims about sasquatch and Directed Energy Weapons are not scientific.

If a person makes a claim that nuclear weapons brought down the WTC towers, then one can test that claim by doing some analysis on the background radiation levels. Hence, that is a scientific claim. It is an incorrect scientific claim. And it is unmistakeably demonstrated to be wrong with some fairly simple tests.

What's interesting about this paper is that it makes somewhat risky predictions about the substance at hand. For the material in question to be considered "thermitic" it should have a couple of very well known properties and contents. The researchers demonstrate that it contains Fe2O3, elemental Al and it is highly energetic at unexpectedly low temperatures.

What's more interesting and unexpected is that the reaction results in iron and silicon-based microspheres. This adds weight to the earlier work done by Jones and corroborated by RJ Lee and the USGS on the iron-based microspheres which everyone here thought was pointless at the time. (Some here even tried to rationalize the existence of the microspheres as heat-reduced blood!)

Theories that make trivial predictions are trivial theories: i.e., "you will breath in the next 4 minutes." However, theories that make risky predictions, i.e., "there should be explosive residues in the WTC dust," are much more powerful theories.


.

[jay howard]

It fully follows. When you use BAD sampling, BAD controls, and have over 20 methodological errors, can you in all honesty state that you can take any of their findings or conclusions at face value? Of course not.

In a "paper" riddled with methodological errors like this one, how can you honestly with a straight face try to take ANY of their conclusions at face value? If they botch it that badly, what is to say they didn't botch other parts or fudge the data? Absolutely NOTHING.

In papers riddled with methodological errors, the best thing, the ONLY thing to do is scrap the paper and do it again.



Again and again you want to try to equate this piss poor scientifically invalid "paper" with real science. Do it again. Get it done at independent labs or do it right. But realize that this is a craptacular fail and stop trying to use it for the basis of any argument. Go back to school and take just one decent experimental design course. Try again.



Again and again. With bad controls, bad samples, and over 20 methodological errors you cannot draw ANY conclusions from this "paper." What part of that is sooooo difficult to understand?

This isn't a "Yes the science is crap, but look at page 2 they say this..." because the first part invalidates the rest.

Right. 20 methodological errors. But you never answered my question: Does the XEDS analysis care if they used a poor control paint in the MEK soak? Do the x-rays somehow know it's poor methodology and therefore refuse to produce accurate spectrum data?



.

[aggle-rithm]

It may be best to keep your claims of "no explosions heard" to another thread as they are neither true nor relevant to the substances in question as examined in the Harrit/Farrer/Jones paper.



Oh, they're relevant all right.

What you here are two sides, one of which has what you call the "Official Theory", which is in fact the ONLY theory about what happened on 9/11. On the other side you've got what we call in the software development business a "Big Ball of Mud".

This ragtag collection of misfit hypotheses, of which Jones' "theory" about thermite is one, is made of of ideas that have zero utility in the real world. That is, they don't explain anything about anything...they just provide the hope that, if true, they will somehow point to the "official theory" (the ONLY theory, remember) as being somehow wrong, and by default, the nonsensical jumble of null-hypotheses being correct.

This reveals the themite story, and the Silverstein insurance scam story, and the NORAD stand-down story, and all the other idiotic truther notions to be products of a bass-ackward process in which the fervant hope that the US government is somehow responsible comes first, and whatever cognitive process truthers use comes second.

So, yeah, they're relevant. And true, too.

[16.5]

What is your definition (not just example) of a "scientific claim"? The standard one is something like this: "a scientific claim is a testable claim." Which is exactly why claims about sasquatch and Directed Energy Weapons are not scientific.

If a person makes a claim that nuclear weapons brought down the WTC towers, then one can test that claim by doing some analysis on the background radiation levels. Hence, that is a scientific claim. It is an incorrect scientific claim. And it is unmistakeably demonstrated to be wrong with some fairly simple tests.

What's interesting about this paper is that it makes somewhat risky predictions about the substance at hand. For the material in question to be considered "thermitic" it should have a couple of very well known properties and contents. The researchers demonstrate that it contains Fe2O3, elemental Al and it is highly energetic at unexpectedly low temperatures.

What's more interesting and unexpected is that the reaction results in iron and silicon-based microspheres. This adds weight to the earlier work done by Jones and corroborated by RJ Lee and the USGS on the iron-based microspheres which everyone here thought was pointless at the time. (Some here even tried to rationalize the existence of the microspheres as heat-reduced blood!)

Theories that make trivial predictions are trivial theories: i.e., "you will breath in the next 4 minutes." However, theories that make risky predictions, i.e., "there should be explosive residues in the WTC dust," are much more powerful theories..

"it is highly energetic at unexpectedly low temperatures." Did you pull that out of Jones cold fusion paper, because it makes about enough sense here as it did there.

You yourself said "For the material in question to be considered "thermitic" it should have a couple of very well known properties and contents." One of those properties is that it should not release more energy than thermite could theoretically release. And Jonesy and the boys proved that it did so. Science conclusion: Not thermite. Jones conclusion: super magic thermite. What a joke.

And I’ll ask you to keep your comments about what you think is "relevant" to yourself, sport. Last time I checked, I posted this thread, and you can be damn sure that I think Jones backing off his claim of the amount and use of the "super thermite" is relevant.

[jay howard]

In all, the only proof that the Al is not bound to the Si appears in a chip not thoroughly analyzed nor cleaned whose nature we don't know. They shouldn't extrapolate the conclusion that Al is not bound to Si to the other chips. By their logic, in figure 15 the O is bound to the Si and the Fe is free, so there's silicon oxide but no iron oxide, thus no thermite.
How do you get that from their logic? The XEDS data from silicon-rich areas show more Si than O (fig. 16). It's certainly not SiO2. What are you claiming it is?

I should clarify that it is possible that the matrix in question (the post-MEK soaked chip) does contain SiO2, as the XEDS maps are qualitative in nature. The Fe and O maps also overlap considerably. Without doubt, and more importantly, there is elemental Al in the post-MEK sample, and unless someone is speculating that the MEK caused a reaction whereby the Al separated from the Si. If not, then there is no reason to doubt the existence of elemental Al in the other samples.

.

[jay howard]

Oh, they're relevant all right.

What you here are two sides, one of which has what you call the "Official Theory", which is in fact the ONLY theory about what happened on 9/11. On the other side you've got what we call in the software development business a "Big Ball of Mud".

This ragtag collection of misfit hypotheses, of which Jones' "theory" about thermite is one, is made of of ideas that have zero utility in the real world. That is, they don't explain anything about anything...they just provide the hope that, if true, they will somehow point to the "official theory" (the ONLY theory, remember) as being somehow wrong, and by default, the nonsensical jumble of null-hypotheses being correct.

This reveals the themite story, and the Silverstein insurance scam story, and the NORAD stand-down story, and all the other idiotic truther notions to be products of a bass-ackward process in which the fervant hope that the US government is somehow responsible comes first, and whatever cognitive process truthers use comes second.

So, yeah, they're relevant. And true, too.


Well, that sounds like a real interesting conversation, but it's not what this thread is about--at least not what I'm going to entertain. So have fun.


.

[Newtons Bit]

I was wondering where jay howard went...

[pgimeno]

So, except samples 1, 2, 3, and 4, all the samples are different... Did you read this paper? Did you even skim it? In that time did you notice that there are only 4 samples of dust? Did you see the corresponding XEDS spectrum data that show the similarities in elemental composition by weight? Then the corresponding SE and BSE images to compare the morphology?

Please explain on what grounds you make the claim that all the chips are different? Or why you think the MEK soaked chip is different--other than the red layer expands during the 55 hour soak.

The MEK-soaked chip is not one of samples 1, 2, 3 or 4:

The chip that was used for this experiment was extracted from dust sample 2 and is shown in the images below.

The pre-soaking XEDS spectrum in figure 14 shows different elements to the ones found in fig 7 and in different proportions. They claim surface contamination from the chip because they didn't cut it, but that doesn't explain all of the elements found, plus they can't reach proper conclusions with a dirty chip, plus they don't show the contamination.

The chip in figure 31 is different too. Sunstealer made a classification of the data in the paper here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4687714&postcount=221 - I recommend you to read and understand it. A couple excerpts:

How many people realise that there are atleast 10 samples discussed in the paper? Many of these samples are different in character.


Red layer MEK chip ≠ a, b, c, d.

We know that the MEK chip was looked at in the SEM. We know the composition of the red layer is vastly different. So why are we not shown a detailed SEM image that shows that this red layer is exactly the same as for chips a,b,c,d? They claim contamination, but provide no proof of contamination. This is not professional. We could easily rule out Tnemec paint as the source because this MEK chip would not contain talc or ZnCrO4. We are not shown a detailed SEM image of this MEK chip's red layer, instead they claim it to be the same and wave anything else away as contamination. That's unprofessional. Show us the contamination with a SEM image.



Except the pre-soak XEDS spectrogram in fig. 14, the before/after SE image in fig. 12, the BSE and XEDS maps of the chip post-soak in fig. 15, and the spectrograms of the particular element-rich areas in figs. 16, 17 and 18, and accompanying analysis demonstrating the presence of elemental Al as well as Fe2O3. Except that, you're right.

Sorry, I meant *prior* to the MEK soaking: something that proves that the chip is similar to those previously analyzed. There's just the SE images in fig. 12 and the XEDS spectrum in figure 14. No serious reason to think they are the same thing, notably given fig 14 vs fig 7. The lack of a previous characterization of all the samples used is a serious issue.

As for the Fe2O3, they claim:

Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK solvent (Fig. 15), and in Fig. (18) an abundance of oxygen is found relative to iron.

Yet figure 15 shows no apparent correlation between Fe and O as compared to e.g. Si and O. Even Al and O are more correlated in figure 15 than Fe and O. That makes one wonder if figure 18 has been cherry-picked.

So, are you claiming that MEK produces a chemical reaction that releases the Al from the Si? Or are you claiming that since the MEK-soaked chip definitely had elemental Al in it, that it must therefore be different from the other samples?

I am claiming that the chip taken for MEK soaking can perfectly come from a different source and they don't prove it comes from the same source. Fig. 31 proves that there are chips of a very different nature among their samples, so the lack of prior in-depth examination of the MEK-soaked chip or even the failure to use one of the samples 1-4 for MEK soaking is sloppy at best. The XEDS spectrum of that chip has clear differences to those in samples 1-4, pointing to a strong difference in nature.

How do you get that from their logic? The XEDS data from silicon-rich areas show more Si than O (fig. 16). It's certainly not SiO2. What are you claiming it is?

I'm not sure what it IS, probably a compound with silicon and oxygen or other oxidized compounds not shown and free silicon, you can't really tell with so little data. I care what it is NOT though. That's definitely not iron oxide. Definitely not the same as in chips 1-4. Sunstealer in that post points that there is some hint of zinc chromate in the XEDS spectrum, which could explain a significant part of the oxygen. Too many possibilities to enumerate them all with that little data.

[carlitos]

jay, instead of taking your ball and going home again, why don't you reply to tfk's rather substantive post? :)

[tfk]

Gee Jay,

I'm feeling neglected.

You answered everyone else except me.

Any reason for that?

Tom

[Scott Sommers]

What is your definition (not just example) of a "scientific claim"? The standard one is something like this: "a scientific claim is a testable claim." Which is exactly why claims about sasquatch and Directed Energy Weapons are not scientific.

If a person makes a claim that nuclear weapons brought down the WTC towers, then one can test that claim by doing some analysis on the background radiation levels. Hence, that is a scientific claim. It is an incorrect scientific claim. And it is unmistakeably demonstrated to be wrong with some fairly simple tests.

What's interesting about this paper is that it makes somewhat risky predictions about the substance at hand. For the material in question to be considered "thermitic" it should have a couple of very well known properties and contents. The researchers demonstrate that it contains Fe2O3, elemental Al and it is highly energetic at unexpectedly low temperatures.

What's more interesting and unexpected is that the reaction results in iron and silicon-based microspheres. This adds weight to the earlier work done by Jones and corroborated by RJ Lee and the USGS on the iron-based microspheres which everyone here thought was pointless at the time. (Some here even tried to rationalize the existence of the microspheres as heat-reduced blood!)

Theories that make trivial predictions are trivial theories: i.e., "you will breath in the next 4 minutes." However, theories that make risky predictions, i.e., "there should be explosive residues in the WTC dust," are much more powerful theories.
.

I suggest you read a little bit more widely about the nature of science. For example, the definition for science that you present is the one proposed by Karl Popper and while widely used and probably necessary for any 'scientific' claims, is hardly a sufficient definition. If this is the sufficient definition for science you're working from, I can understand why you come across as confused. A more important aspect of science in our case is whether or not you expect to be taken seriously. I guess neither you nor any making claims of thermite at the WTC care about this.

You're right. There's probably not much more we can talk about. Good luck with your hobby.

[TruthersLie]

Right. 20 methodological errors. But you never answered my question: Does the XEDS analysis care if they used a poor control paint in the MEK soak? Do the x-rays somehow know it's poor methodology and therefore refuse to produce accurate spectrum data?
.

Right.

Thank you for agreeing that there are 20 methodologial errors in this "paper."

Now with REAL science, you scrap the JUNK and start again.

Your question is attempting to argue the details of a FLAWED "PAPER." As such any answer is not valid.

Start OVER. Throw the JUNK in the circular bin and do REAL science.

The POOR methodology combined with people who are OUTSIDE of their area of expertise and education call into question ALL of their tests. Try again.

My theory that MOTHRA did it has just as much science backing it up and superduper clean your room make your lunch nanothermite.

[ElMondoHummus]

I should clarify that it is possible that the matrix in question (the post-MEK soaked chip) does contain SiO2, as the XEDS maps are qualitative in nature. The Fe and O maps also overlap considerably. Without doubt, and more importantly, there is elemental Al in the post-MEK sample, and unless someone is speculating that the MEK caused a reaction whereby the Al separated from the Si. If not, then there is no reason to doubt the existence of elemental Al in the other samples.

.

What does any of this matter? Ignoring the fact that Jones and Harrit's methodologies are so sloppy that they do not support their conclusions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), and ignoring the fact that they were not able to get mainstream journal publication, what does any of what you're pointing out matter? The fact remains that, even if they were correct, even if thermite was indeed at Ground Zero, it had no effect. How do we know this? NCSTAR 1-3C. It contains an inventory and description of the recovered steel. Take a look at core column # 603 (C-80) from WTC 1. It was identified as having been within the zone where the collapse initiated; it spanned from the 92nd to the 95th floor. There are even pictures of it on page 201. Find the thermite induced melting on that column. It was in the collapse initiation zone, after all. Ditto column 605 (HH): It, too was from within the collapse initiation zone, it too is photographed. Find the melting. How about column 801 (C-88a) from WTC-2's collapse initiation zone? These are failed columns that were key to the collapses because they were the ones in the areas where the collapses started. And none of them show any signs of thermite use on them.

And that's just the core columns. Other steel structural pieces were recovered.

So tell me: Why am I supposed to believe that thermite was actually used when recovered failed columns show no signs of their use? Those columns were involved in the start of the collapse, yet all they show are signs of mechanical forcing, not incendiary-caused melting. So what do the point issues of the Jones and Harrit paper matter when it's patently obvious that the actual structural elements they were supposedly used on show no signs of thermite melting whatsoever? Even if we conceded the ridiculous position that thermite was indeed present, it quite obviously had zero effect, because the first columns that failed in the towers collapses do not show signs of thermite melting at all. Your points about Jones, Harrit, et. al. are nothing more than miniscule issues about those researchers writings; they had zero impact on how the towers actually collapsed.

[T.A.M.]

Jay;

in the end, you seem to be claiming that while we have validly pointed out MANY flaws within the paper, from a scientific pov, from a methods pov, that the essence of the paper is the collection of Spectroscopy outputs and calorimeter outputs.

The problem is those outputs are completely useless with such poor science and scientific method surrounding them. Without a proper chain of custody, detailing where the samples were, how they were handled/stored, and by who for every step of the way, the samples are useless, as they could have been tampered with and/or spoiled.

Without a thorough attempt to rule out other sources of the chips, many of which are MORE LIKELY sources of said chips, they have clearly shown (A) their lack of respect for, and (B) their lack of desire for, the scientific method, and forensic investigation in general.

Without providing their samples, with a valid and thorough account of chain of custody, to an independent (truly independent, not their associates, not someone they discussed the topic with online, and not with someone who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR IN THE DUST) lab for analysis, their results are NOT REPEATABLE, which throws out the window yet another fundamental of scientific research.

SO you see, those spectroscopy outputs you find so fascinating, are useless without the rest. I could provide you with similar spectroscopy outputs and you would never know where I got them, or how, or anything else about them, yet they would be JUST AS INTERESTING standing on their own, if I simply said, I GOT THEM FROM A SAMPLE OF WTC dust.

Sorry, but I am gonna have to go with the dozens of other WTC dust Analysis that found fiber, gypsum, organics, and paint, but NO THERMITE, done by professional labs unaffiliated with each other, and without agenda.

oh and by the way, IIRC, one of the reasons why Jones eventually had to admit that the only way his "thermite chips" theory was plausible was if the thermite was used as FUSES for conventional explosives, is because Dr. Greening, Mackey, and others, proved to him that it would require over 100 layers of his alleged spray on thermite (based on the thickness of the "exothermic layer" of his chips) to bring the steel to a temperature anywhere close to softening it.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

What is your definition (not just example) of a "scientific claim"? The standard one is something like this: "a scientific claim is a testable claim." Which is exactly why claims about sasquatch and Directed Energy Weapons are not scientific.

Just to clarify: for a testable claim to exist, there must first be a claim. Harrit and Jones have not articulated a coherent claim that makes even superficial sense. They have not proposed a realistic mechanism by which a very thin coating of thermite on structural members could produce a failure corresponding to the observations made of the collapses of the Twin Towers; in fact, it seems they cannot even agree on the fundamentals of the claim.

And, to return to the original premise of the more recent part of this thread, it's irrelevant to the validity of Harrit et al's conclusions whether the material is paint. What it is not, is a substance which could withstand the temperatures produced by the jet fuel deflagration and contents fire, and then produce the observed failures of the Twin Towers. The authors' own data makes this quite clear. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the cause of the collapses.

Dave

[Leviath]

The thermitic chips in the WTC dust IGNITED at about 430C.

No, something ignited at about 430 oC.

For the millionth time, since the experiement was executed in an atmosphere with oxygen present this is in no way an indication of thermite. Thermite can react in absence of oxygen and if Jones et al were loooking for thermite they should have done it in a nitrogen- or argon-atmosphere. Perhaps an honest mistake, but a stupid one and it clearly shows that the authors are incompetent at this kind of analysis.

Another thing that has not been mentioned often is that they used a heating rate that is way too fast. 10 oC/min is a rate you use when you are dealing with samples of known material and in circumstances where you use it as a quality control and don't have time for a slower rate.
When dealing with an unknown compound you should probably go as low as 0.5 oC/min.
When the heating rate is too fast the result may be that the recorded ignition temperature is too high.

But don't take my word for it. Contact R&D Carbon in Switzerland and ask them why they sell their air-reactivity apparatuses (basically specialized calorimeters) with two different heating rates pre-programmed (10 oC/min and 0.5 oC/min.)
http://www.rd-carbon.com/contact.html

[aggle-rithm]

Well, that sounds like a real interesting conversation, but it's not what this thread is about--at least not what I'm going to entertain. So have fun.


.

If you don't see the relevance, then obviously I haven't made myself clear. Fair enough.

The posts that YOU have made in this thread are an attempt to prove the presence of thermite at the WTC on 9/11. Correct?

What I'm saying is that even if you have proven this (you haven't), it amounts to precisely nothing.

That's because you have no idea how to get from "thermite was there" to "inside job".

Supposing you proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that magic lollipops were present on 9/11. What does that mean?

You have no idea. You have no theory about what happened on 9/11.

If you proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that thermite was present on 9/11, what does that mean?

You have no idea. YOU HAVE NO THEORY ABOUT 9/11.

Neither you nor the brightest minds in the truth movement, towering intellects such as Jones and Fetzer and Griffin, have been able to come up with a coherent narrative that is consistent with the "mountain of evidence" they claim to have produced.

Is it clear now?

[jay howard]

"it is highly energetic at unexpectedly low temperatures." Did you pull that out of Jones cold fusion paper, because it makes about enough sense here as it did there.

You yourself said "For the material in question to be considered "thermitic" it should have a couple of very well known properties and contents." One of those properties is that it should not release more energy than thermite could theoretically release. And Jonesy and the boys proved that it did so. Science conclusion: Not thermite. Jones conclusion: super magic thermite. What a joke.

And I’ll ask you to keep your comments about what you think is "relevant" to yourself, sport. Last time I checked, I posted this thread, and you can be damn sure that I think Jones backing off his claim of the amount and use of the "super thermite" is relevant.


So Harrit/Farrer/Jones have come across a material that is undoubtedly highly energetic and which is undergoing a kind of aluminothermic reaction, but because it's more energetic than typical thermite, they are thus refuted.

It's too explosive to be thermite.

Therefore there's no need to look any further. We can discard their research as pointless and "conspiratorial."

Just want to make sure I'm following you.



.

[16.5]

So Harrit/Farrer/Jones have come across a material that is undoubtedly highly energetic and which is undergoing a kind of aluminothermic reaction, but because it's more energetic than typical thermite, they are thus refuted.

It's too explosive to be thermite.

Therefore there's no need to look any further. We can discard their research as pointless and "conspiratorial."

Just want to make sure I'm following you..

well obviously not, what in god's name are you talking about "explosive"?" And what are you talking about "highly energetic"? Do you have the first clue? Highly energetic compared to the theoretical maximum for any kind of thermite? Hell yes. Highly energetic compared to a cookie? Hell no.

Your heroes have let you down and you don't even know it.

[TruthersLie]

So Harrit/Farrer/Jones have come across a material that is undoubtedly highly energetic and which is undergoing a kind of aluminothermic reaction, but because it's more energetic than typical thermite, they are thus refuted.

Ummm no. They have NOT come across a material that is "undoubtely highly energetic..." We don't know what they came across as their paper is riddled with so many errors in methodology that it is impossible to determine what it is.

Though it is rather amusing that you keep pointing to their reactions, which have 4 different reaction levels, from below thermite to above thermite... For something "nano engineered" it really is all over the *********** scale.


It's too explosive to be thermite.


So is paper, chocolate and gasoline.


Therefore there's no need to look any further. We can discard their research as pointless and "conspiratorial."


not at all. We can disgard their "research" because their methodologies are crap which invalidates any and all of their findings and conclusions. IT is called basic science mate, look it up. Maybe take a class or two.

[Jono]

So, are you claiming that MEK produces a chemical reaction that releases the Al from the Si? Or are you claiming that since the MEK-soaked chip definitely had elemental Al in it, that it must therefore be different from the other samples?


Hmm, well if we assume kaolinite then the binding inbetween the two tends to be quite weak, perhaps the reaction was a dissolution of sorts? Just wondering.

Edit: You might find this relevant to read, perhaps; a critical analysis of Jones paper on the active material:
*Active Thermitic Material" Claimed in Ground Zero Dust May Not Be Thermitic At All (http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html)

[BigAl]

So Harrit/Farrer/Jones have come across a material that is undoubtedly highly energetic and which is undergoing a kind of aluminothermic reaction, but because it's more energetic than typical thermite, they are thus refuted.

It's too explosive to be thermite.

Therefore there's no need to look any further. We can discard their research as pointless and "conspiratorial."
.

Harrit/Farrer/Jones are welcome to search further. Let them test the energy of their sample in an oxygen-free atmosphere. If the sample doesn't burn, it isn't thermite.

Why don't they do this test and report the results?

[aggle-rithm]

Hmm, well if we assume kaolinite then the binding inbetween the two tends to be quite weak, perhaps the reaction was a dissolution of sorts? Just wondering.

Edit: You might find this relevant to read, perhaps; a critical analysis of Jones paper on the active material:
*Active Thermitic Material" Claimed in Ground Zero Dust May Not Be Thermitic At All (http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html)

Jones and Co. get taken to school here. Which is good, because the schools they originally went to have evidently failed them.

[jay howard]

What does any of this matter? Ignoring the fact that Jones and Harrit's methodologies are so sloppy that they do not support their conclusions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), and ignoring the fact that they were not able to get mainstream journal publication, what does any of what you're pointing out matter? The fact remains that, even if they were correct, even if thermite was indeed at Ground Zero, it had no effect. How do we know this? NCSTAR 1-3C. It contains an inventory and description of the recovered steel. Take a look at core column # 603 (C-80) from WTC 1. It was identified as having been within the zone where the collapse initiated; it spanned from the 92nd to the 95th floor. There are even pictures of it on page 201. Find the thermite induced melting on that column. It was in the collapse initiation zone, after all. Ditto column 605 (HH): It, too was from within the collapse initiation zone, it too is photographed. Find the melting. How about column 801 (C-88a) from WTC-2's collapse initiation zone? These are failed columns that were key to the collapses because they were the ones in the areas where the collapses started. And none of them show any signs of thermite use on them.

And that's just the core columns. Other steel structural pieces were recovered.

So tell me: Why am I supposed to believe that thermite was actually used when recovered failed columns show no signs of their use? Those columns were involved in the start of the collapse, yet all they show are signs of mechanical forcing, not incendiary-caused melting. So what do the point issues of the Jones and Harrit paper matter when it's patently obvious that the actual structural elements they were supposedly used on show no signs of thermite melting whatsoever? Even if we conceded the ridiculous position that thermite was indeed present, it quite obviously had zero effect, because the first columns that failed in the towers collapses do not show signs of thermite melting at all. Your points about Jones, Harrit, et. al. are nothing more than miniscule issues about those researchers writings; they had zero impact on how the towers actually collapsed.



It's premature at minimum to insist that unexploded aluminothermic material found in the WTC dust had "zero impact on how the towers actually collapsed." At least you've come to terms with the existence of the material. That's a first step.


.

[jay howard]

No, something ignited at about 430 oC.


Fine. Something ignited about 430C. Do you feel alright about ignoring the data now?


.

[jay howard]

You don't understand how this whole process works.

Nobody in the entire world is required to back up the claim that the chips are just paint. Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et al, ARE required to back up their claim that they are thermite. Or nanothermite. Or Sooooperthermite.

Their paper demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that they have identified a highly energetic material in the WTC dust. They claim it is thermitic--as opposed to calling it thermite. Do you understand why they make that distinction? If you don't, then your entire line of reasoning is misplaced.


.

[jay howard]

The MEK-soaked chip is not one of samples 1, 2, 3 or 4:

So you're claiming that it's more likely they pulled several different materials from the WTC dust that were 1. magnetic, 2. layered red/gray and 3. showed very similar elemental compositions?

I admit, it's possible, but not likely. But that doesn't increase the reaction temperature of the chips in the DSC. Nor does it make the iron-based and silicon-based microspheres vanish. Even if you want to claim that the MEK chip is not the same as the others, there is clearly a highly energetic reaction taking place by which molten iron and silicon are being produced.

The problem with your analysis is that you must ignore the corroboration of data (that an aluminothermic reaction is taking place) by denying that the components of aluminothermic material are present. Your analysis does more to obfuscate the problem than it does to "set the record straight."

We can all agree the HFJ team went into this looking for something suspicious. But unless you think they manufactured and seeded this material in the dust, then there's no denying they found something suspicious.

It matters not a wit to the instruments what their intentions were. Unless you think they are wholesale lying, there is no way around the fact that they found unexploded ordinance in the WTC dust. If you think they're just totally making up evidence, then there's no need to discuss this any further. Go and make a case for that conspiracy. Then write a paper about it and get it published.

The pre-soaking XEDS spectrum in figure 14 shows different elements to the ones found in fig 7 and in different proportions. They claim surface contamination from the chip because they didn't cut it, but that doesn't explain all of the elements found, plus they can't reach proper conclusions with a dirty chip, plus they don't show the contamination.

The XEDS graph DOES show the contamination.

The chip in figure 31 is different too. Sunstealer made a classification of the data in the paper here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4687714&postcount=221 - I recommend you to read and understand it. A couple excerpts:

Yea, I read that too. All that does is point to the hypothesis that these materials were originally layered. Big deal. Does nothing to invalidate their conclusions.



As for the Fe2O3, they claim:


Yet figure 15 shows no apparent correlation between Fe and O as compared to e.g. Si and O. Even Al and O are more correlated in figure 15 than Fe and O. That makes one wonder if figure 18 has been cherry-picked.

If you think they are manipulating the data, then there's no point having this discussion. You still can't dismiss their conclusions based on your feeling about their methods. And they go to lengths to avoid being accused of doing anything tricky. For instance, they took a known source of Fe2O3 and tested its elemental composition for comparison to their calculations in the determination of the presence of Fe2O3 in the sample: To check the quantification method, tests were performed with the known chemical, iron (III) oxide, and the elemental quantification was found to yield consistent and repeatable results for iron and oxygen. In particular we made eight 50- second measurements on Fe2O3 samples and found consistency for iron (± 6.2%, 1 sigma) and for oxygen (± 3.4%, 1 sigma) with the O/Fe ratio consistently near 1.5 as expected. pg. 19



That's definitely not iron oxide.

How are you making this determination? Because of the XEDS maps of fig. 15? The Fe and O portions are not isomorphic, but there is unarguably overlap between the two. Why are you then discounting the XEDS graphs that accompany the maps? They need only show the existence of some Fe2O3 to claim the sample contains it. Same with elemental Al, which they do. What's the problem?



.

[jay howard]

Jay;

in the end, you seem to be claiming that while we have validly pointed out MANY flaws within the paper, from a scientific pov, from a methods pov, that the essence of the paper is the collection of Spectroscopy outputs and calorimeter outputs.

I think its a valid criticism that they didn't test known paint chips from the WTC wreckage. Beyond that, the data they collect is quite solid. The consideration of a better control paint for the MEK soak does not militate against their conclusions because there is so much corroboration of data that the only way to dismiss the entirety is to accuse them of pure data fabrication.

It's extremely difficult to make a lie (or even faulty data collection) work on a forensic investigation when so many different methods are brought to bear on the samples--unless you think they totally made the data up.

The problem is those outputs are completely useless with such poor science and scientific method surrounding them. Without a proper chain of custody, detailing where the samples were, how they were handled/stored, and by who for every step of the way, the samples are useless, as they could have been tampered with and/or spoiled.

Again, what exactly is wrong with the chain of custody?

Without a thorough attempt to rule out other sources of the chips, many of which are MORE LIKELY sources of said chips, they have clearly shown (A) their lack of respect for, and (B) their lack of desire for, the scientific method, and forensic investigation in general.

Without providing their samples, with a valid and thorough account of chain of custody, to an independent (truly independent, not their associates, not someone they discussed the topic with online, and not with someone who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR IN THE DUST) lab for analysis, their results are NOT REPEATABLE, which throws out the window yet another fundamental of scientific research.

So you think it's more likely that 4 people known publicly to have some dust samples all had them contaminated with the same, highly energetic substance? You seem to be tip toeing around these accusations without actually making them, but if they ever get verbalized, they sound instantly ridiculous.

The probability of what you appear to be implying is far less than there actually being this strange material in the samples. Amazing claims require amazing evidence--this goes in all directions.

SO you see, those spectroscopy outputs you find so fascinating, are useless without the rest. I could provide you with similar spectroscopy outputs and you would never know where I got them, or how, or anything else about them, yet they would be JUST AS INTERESTING standing on their own, if I simply said, I GOT THEM FROM A SAMPLE OF WTC dust.

If you gave the names of the people who collected them, times, and locations, then I would be hard pressed to doubt them. Seeing as how the authors provide all this info, what room is there to doubt? Is there reason to doubt other than the results of the analysis?

Sorry, but I am gonna have to go with the dozens of other WTC dust Analysis that found fiber, gypsum, organics, and paint, but NO THERMITE, done by professional labs unaffiliated with each other, and without agenda.

And if they don't look for something, they're definitely not going to find it.

oh and by the way, IIRC, one of the reasons why Jones eventually had to admit that the only way his "thermite chips" theory was plausible was if the thermite was used as FUSES for conventional explosives, is because Dr. Greening, Mackey, and others, proved to him that it would require over 100 layers of his alleged spray on thermite (based on the thickness of the "exothermic layer" of his chips) to bring the steel to a temperature anywhere close to softening it.

TAM:)


I care not how it was used. I'm still trying to understand how the results of this research can be in doubt. But it is telling that the common defense for finding unreacted explosive material is to point out that it couldn't have brought down the towers anyway.


.

[Dave Rogers]

So Harrit/Farrer/Jones have come across a material that is undoubtedly highly energetic and which is undergoing a kind of aluminothermic reaction, but because it's more energetic than typical thermite, they are thus refuted.

It's too explosive to be thermite.

Therefore there's no need to look any further. We can discard their research as pointless and "conspiratorial."

Just want to make sure I'm following you.

No, you're not following.

Harrit, Farrer and Jones have found a material that produces a similar amount of energy, when burned in oxygen, to a typical mixture of hydrocarbons and inert material. It produces more energy than the theoretical maximum energy that can possibly be produced by a thermite reaction; however, thermite actually produces a relatively small amount of energy compared to - for example - paper or wood (see appendix). This is extremely well known to science.

Since the reaction observed produces more energy than thermite, we can be absolutely, 100% certain that at least some of the energy is being produced by simple combustion of hydrocarbons in atmospheric oxygen. Since Harrit et al did their experiments in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, there is no way we can be certain that any of the energy came from a thermite reaction, and it is perfectly plausible that none of it did, as there is ample theoretical energy content in hydrocarbons to account for all the measured energy release. Therefore, Harrit et al have not in fact proven that any aluminothermic reaction is taking place. We can therefore dismiss their claim to have done so as unfounded speculation; the evidence does not support it.

Your comment that 'it's too explosive to be thermite' is a curious piece of hyperbole; if you honestly believe that to be our position, then you are working under the handicap of a very basic misunderstanding of the definition of the word 'explosive'. A high energy density is not the signature of an explosive; most high explosives have, again, a lower energy density than burning paper. The signature of an explosive is rapid release of evolved gases. By this definition, no variety of thermite is explosive at all, because the thermite reaction does not release any gases. Therefore, it's perfectly possible for something to be 'too explosive to be thermite'; if it's explosive at all, it isn't thermite. However, this is not the argument we are making.

Finally, we do not dismiss Harrit, Farrer and Jones's research as 'conspiratorial'. We dismiss it because its methodology is fatally flawed and its results do not support the conclusions the authors draw from them. This is not a dismissal on grounds of motivation, or of the intrinsic value of studying the subject matter, as you suggest, but on the grounds that it is a shockingly incompetent piece of work.

Dave

Appendix: A few useful energy densities (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density):

Thermite 4.0MJ/kg
Nitroglycerin 6.38MJ/kg
Wood 18Mj/kg
Jet A aviation fuel 42.8MJ/kg

These assume the presence of sufficient oxygen for full combustion, where necessary (i.e. the experimental conditions used by Harrit, Farrer and Jones).

[Dave Rogers]

It matters not a wit to the instruments what their intentions were. Unless you think they are wholesale lying, there is no way around the fact that they found unexploded ordinance in the WTC dust. If you think they're just totally making up evidence, then there's no need to discuss this any further. Go and make a case for that conspiracy. Then write a paper about it and get it published.

As has been explained in detail many, many times on this thread, the bolded sentence is simply wrong. Harrit et al found a combustible substance in the WTC dust, which released somewhat less energy on combustion than an equal quantity of paper but somewhat more than an equal quantity of thermite. It has nothing in common with any form of explosive ordnance, so it's utterly fatuous to describe it as 'unexploded ordinance'; since it doesn't conform to any known ordnance of any sort, it's also factually incorrect. And, finally, Harrit et al are stating conclusions that their data does not support; so, while nobody's accusing them of faking their results, we're pointing out that they do not mean what you (and they) pretend they mean.

I care not how it was used. I'm still trying to understand how the results of this research can be in doubt. But it is telling that the common defense for finding unreacted explosive material is to point out that it couldn't have brought down the towers anyway.

The fact that you can't understand something is hardly a refutation of it. I, personally, find it difficult to understand how anyone, having seen the refutations of Harrit et al's reasoning, can fail to understand that at the very least there is a solid case against it, unless that person is deliberately deluding themself. But it is telling, in reply, that not only was there no unreacted explosive material found, but that the authors cannot even begin to construct the bare bones of a scenario in which the material they have found is in any way significant.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

I think its a valid criticism that they didn't test known paint chips from the WTC wreckage. Beyond that, the data they collect is quite solid. The consideration of a better control paint for the MEK soak does not militate against their conclusions because there is so much corroboration of data that the only way to dismiss the entirety is to accuse them of pure data fabrication.

It's extremely difficult to make a lie (or even faulty data collection) work on a forensic investigation when so many different methods are brought to bear on the samples--unless you think they totally made the data up.


Ignoring or refusing to eliminate WTC paint/primer + corrosion as a source, is like observing a white liquid spilled near the fridge, and refusing to determine if it was milk, but rather declaring it was propofol. You have admitted it was a valid criticism, which is a start, but I would say it is an error, an INTENTIONAL ONE, that is of such significance as to render the rest of the study essentially useless.


Again, what exactly is wrong with the chain of custody?


It has been a while since I read the paper, but IIRC, they solicited the samples through an open request from the public.

They obtained said samples from people YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. So we don't know (A) How it was stored for those years leading up to them getting the sample, (B) was it ever taken out and played with. Did the people open up their little bag of dust and play with/contaminate it?

The details on the COLLECTION of said material, in the first place, is INCOMPLETE. He gives some detail for some samples, and no detail on others.

As well, you are getting samples from anonymous people, whose motives you may or may not know. I mean the list of problems with the Chain of Custody goes on and on...it was FAR, FAR, FAR, from a proper forensic collection and storage of material for analysis.


So you think it's more likely that 4 people known publicly to have some dust samples all had them contaminated with the same, highly energetic substance? You seem to be tip toeing around these accusations without actually making them, but if they ever get verbalized, they sound instantly ridiculous.

I am not tiptoeing around anything. You asked me about problems with the chain of custody. You can insinuate what ever you like. I am a clinician and scientist, and we are discussing methodological errors with their analysis/paper. You wanna start talking what I think these lunatic truthers are CAPABLE of, well that is another thread.

However, you are tiptoeing (or ignoring) the fundamental flaw that this group of "scientists" has refused to provide their samples to a truly independent lab for analysis, and hence have no unbias means of repeatability.


The probability of what you appear to be implying is far less than there actually being this strange material in the samples. Amazing claims require amazing evidence--this goes in all directions.

As I said, I am not implying anything...I am merely showing how the flaws in the chain of custody allow for such things, and that is why a proper chain of custody is essential.


If you gave the names of the people who collected them, times, and locations, then I would be hard pressed to doubt them. Seeing as how the authors provide all this info, what room is there to doubt? Is there reason to doubt other than the results of the analysis.

And if they don't look for something, they're definitely not going to find it.


Yes, that is true, but you take the facts, the existing evidence, and then you try to do an honest scientific analysis, not a witch hunt or goose chase. If you find a material that fits your hypothesis, then you are REQUIRED to eliminate other possible sources before you declare a positive conclusion. S. Jones, while bias and a true paranoiac, is not dumb, and he knows this...HE CHOSE NOT TO!!!!

TAM:)

[carlitos]

Hi jay howard. You appear to be ignoring Tom's post here, so I'm quoting it for you. If you could respond, that would be super. Thanks. :) You don't understand how this whole process works.

Nobody in the entire world is required to back up the claim that the chips are just paint. Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et al, ARE required to back up their claim that they are thermite. Or nanothermite. Or Sooooperthermite.

I have just completed my hair-brained analysis and concluded that they are "Unicorn dandruff". (Has as much reality as nanothermite to FHJ etc.)

Are the world's serious scientists now required to drop their serious work & jump to reanalyze dust samples? Are they required to debunk my paper? Or do they just go on doing serious work?



Yes, their analysis is completely faulty. I'm not even a chemist, and I know FOR CERTAIN that their analysis is amateurish & faulty.

Because none of them have ever done this specific analysis before. Which, by definition, makes them amateurs at this analysis.

As a result, their analysis is completely inconclusive. They report SUGGESTIONS of a substance that they've NEVER SEEN.

Here's their primary screw-up.

THINK ABOUT IT: why would they try to invent their own tests, when arson investigators - REAL experts - are often called upon to determine whether or not thermite has been used in a fire?

Is there a DEFINITIVE test for thermite? Not aluminum-oxide & iron. But thermite, pre & post ignition.

I found out in about 1/2 hour that the answer is "Yes". There is a test, X-ray diffraction test, that can be done at contract chem labs around the country that will tell you FOR CERTAIN whether this stuff is the COMPOUND thermite, or just some compound that includes iron, aluminum & oxygen, etc.

The test cost about $130 ea. if you prepare your own samples (i.e., grind them into powder). Or about $170 ea if the lab does it for you.

And you are allegedly looking for a specific compound that was used for a specific task: "blowing up" or compromising the columns of the towers. You don't go searching in "dust" that was spread all over Manhattan. Your chances of finding the tiny amounts (compared to the millions of tons of rubble) are absurdly small. You go to the SOURCE: the ends of the columns that are still stored at JFK.

[Of course, there is nothing that looks anything like a thermite cut on any of those beams. Or - from detailed photos available today - on any beam that was in the rubble pile. But don't let that annoying little fact slow down the stupid.]

You could test 50 samples from many columns, at 2 independent labs, for less than $20K. And in about 30 days.

And when you are done, you have a definitive, conclusive answer. Rather than a pile of amateur innuendo.

How's that for "falling off the tracks"?

Tom

[TruthersLie]

So you're claiming that it's more likely they pulled several different materials from the WTC dust that were 1. magnetic, 2. layered red/gray and 3. showed very similar elemental compositions?


I am saying that with ovre 20 methodological errors it is impossible to say what they pulled from the wtc dust.


<snip>Nor does it make the iron-based and silicon-based microspheres vanish.


Please show me how nanothermite can make iron based or silicon based mircrosphere. How do groups like RJ Lee EXPECT TO FIND microspheres in the fire? Were they in on it? Why would they expect to find them?

But lets move on to another issue with the microspheres (which is off topic and shows your ignorance... but hey who am I to argue). Lets go back to basic experimental design and research methods. YOu cannot make a claim about ANYTHING until you have ELIMINATED what it cannot be. We know that iron microspheres are in fly ash, in concrete, in gypsum, and could have been created during the recovery period when they were using thermic lances.

Can you eliminate ANY of those for the creation of the microspheres? Yes or no? If not, then you cant' make any claims about them from thermite. Oopsie.


Even if you want to claim that the MEK chip is not the same as the others, there is clearly a highly energetic reaction taking place by which molten iron and silicon are being produced.


Highly energetic? It is all over the place in the 4 samples tested. How does a nano engineered substance have such wildly and vastly different reactions? That by itself shows it wasn't nano engineered.

Highly energetic compared to what? Paper, chocolate, wool and gasoline all have higher energy densities. That is highly energetic.

So far with the 20 major methodological errors it is impossible to say what this is... it could be (and probably is) dried out paint which is combusting in an oxygen rich envrionment. (one of those massive methodological errors). Throw out the junk and get some REAL science done.


The problem with your analysis is that you must ignore the corroboration of data (that an aluminothermic reaction is taking place) by denying that the components of aluminothermic material are present.


From the paper, we have NO PROOF of an aluminothermic reaction occuring. You want to prove it once and for all? Do the test again in an intert atmosphere (HUGE methodological error). Once you do that and can show it having an aluminothermic reaction, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. Until then, this is a craptacular pile o fail.


<snip>
We can all agree the HFJ team went into this looking for something suspicious. But unless you think they manufactured and seeded this material in the dust, then there's no denying they found something suspicious.


Not at all. Do you know what confirmation bias is? They don't have to manufacture or seed anything... they just have to use enough methodological errors to allow them to "find" what they want to find. You know, what they actually did.


It matters not a wit to the instruments what their intentions were.


Haven't you ever heard that old Mark Twain quote about "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics?" It is applicable here.

If you have a experiment riddled with methodolocial errors, yoru test, findings and conclusions are not valid. It is crap. STart over.


Unless you think they are wholesale lying, there is no way around the fact that they found unexploded ordinance in the WTC dust.

False choice fallacy. It isn't one or the other. It is somethng much more basic and embarassing for them. They didn't do the work right, and made massive errors.

We don't know WHAT they found in the dust because of all the errors in the methodology. AGain and again, Why won't you all send any samples to truely independent labs? Why are truthers SOOOOOO afraid of independent analysis? (other than realizing that they are full of crap)


If you think they're just totally making up evidence, then there's no need to discuss this any further. Go and make a case for that conspiracy. Then write a paper about it and get it published.

YOu can recommend a very basic journal who will publish any vanity or regular crap... Bentham.

Of course, if it were me, I'd put it in a great psychology or experimental design journal discussing common misconceptions and misunderstandings of exprimental design among conspiracy theorists. But I don't feel like taking the time for something so trivial.


If you think they are manipulating the data, then there's no point having this discussion. You still can't dismiss their conclusions based on your feeling about their methods.


ROFLMAO. Yes you can. It isn't a "feeling about their methods." It is empirical evidence that they have a "paper" riddled with methodological errors.

here is a simple challenge to you. Call up your local university, ask to speak to whoever teaches research methods or experimental design. Now that you have done that (which you won't) then ask them a simple question. "There is someone who is trying to argue about the validity of a journal article. They keep pointing to the findings and conclusions. But there are a minimum of 10 major methodological errors in the paper. Can you take any of the findings, conclusions or experiments as being valid or accurate?"

See what they tell you. (I teach research methods, experimental design and education classes for a living.)


And they go to lengths to avoid being accused of doing anything tricky. For instance, they took a known source of Fe2O3 and tested its elemental composition for comparison to their calculations in the determination of the presence of Fe2O3 in the sample: pg. 19


Umm no they don't. They purposefully did the test in an oxygen rich environment and hand wave that away. They purposefully distort the spectographs so they look similar to thermite (even though they don't). They purposefully ignore or do the science in a faulty manner.

[TruthersLie]

It's premature at minimum to insist that unexploded aluminothermic material found in the WTC dust had "zero impact on how the towers actually collapsed." At least you've come to terms with the existence of the material. That's a first step.


.

It is premature at minimum to insist that the materials recovered in the dust from the WTC collapse is thermitic. That would be due to the 20 methodological errors, the inability to replicate the findings by anyone, the inability to send off the materials for independent lab testing etc...

As for what the hypothetical nanothermite can do, using the energy density and the known properties of steel, yes it is very easy to determine the amount of layers necessary (as Dr. Greening has done).

At lesat you've need to come to terms with the truely horrendous pile o' fail that you keep trying to flog here.

[ElMondoHummus]

It's premature at minimum to insist that unexploded aluminothermic material found in the WTC dust had "zero impact on how the towers actually collapsed." At least you've come to terms with the existence of the material. That's a first step.

Negative. The preponderance of the evidence very clearly demonstrates that the columns were not severed by any means other than impact force, not incendiaries. Which is my whole point: You are the one ignoring evidence when you refuse to come to terms with the existence of verified evidence. And when you attempt to offer poorly supported research who's conclusion has been very strongly and well refuted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), then you are the one who is not approaching the issue logically or scientifically.

Harrit and Jones drew erroneous conclusions. But as I said, even if they had been accurate, and had found thermite, then it had no effect. The state of the recovered steel very, very clearly shows zero signs of melting from thermite (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5582783#post5582783).

You need to acknowledge the evidence (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Damage%20and%20Failure%20Modes.pdf). The evidence shows that even if thermite was present, it failed to function. You need to come to terms with that.

_______

And for the record: Why do you presume that I've "come to terms with the existence of the material"? Did you even read my post? I am very clearly on record as saying that the Jones, Harrit, et. al. is a shoddy work (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293) that not only failed to support (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4584286#post4584286) its conclusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293&page=10), but actually contradicts it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5116741#post5116741). What I am confronting is the fantasy that you conspiracy peddlers continue to push despite the fact that it has been refuted.

[16.5]

Their paper demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that they have identified a highly energetic material in the WTC dust. They claim it is thermitic--as opposed to calling it thermite. Do you understand why they make that distinction? If you don't, then your entire line of reasoning is misplaced.
.

I remain baffled at your inability to see that whatever they claimed to have found was not highly energetic compared to a freaking potato chip.

Ah but they have covered themselves by calling it "thermitic.' Well my kids were eating something last night after practice, and I swept up the crumbs before bed. They were much more highly energetic compared to what the idiots found! As the crumbs were clearly not thermite, or super thermite, I am simply going to call them "Unobtainiumtic" in the off chance that they are in fact remains of whatever planet Jones came from.

[The Almond]

The ways this topic is treated demonstrate well the unscientific habits that debunkers here participate in. Why? If the material Harrit, Farrer, Jones, et. al. found is so much nonsense, then why can't it just be handled head-on, without resorting to pretended lacks of understanding, circumstantial ad hominems, and distractions?

You don't like the journal it's published in? Fine. You don't like other things the authors have written? So what? None of that changes what they found.

Jay, you seem to be operating on an unestablished assumption. You assume that what they found is significant. What's been pointed out in this thread, and in others, is that the significance of the data is irrevocably coupled to the adherence to scientific principles and procedures. Random sampling, error modeling, appropriate methodology, control of variables, appropriate experimental design and others are the foundation for scientific inquiry. In the Harrit paper, they are all absent. They did nothing right. They wasted their time gathering data whose significance cannot be established.

You also seem to think that it is the job of the debunker to prove Jones's conclusions false. That's not how science works. In appropriate scientific methodology, it is up to the researcher to identify and control confounding variables in the experiment. When someone points out that some variable will affect the system that has not been accounted for, you throw out the data and try again. The significance of the data cannot be established if uncontrolled variables exist. It is up to the researcher to show that all of the variables are accounted for, and it is not the job of the reviewer or the critic to prove that the variables will affect the results.

We're criticizing the place where it is published because we know Jones wasn't interested in reviewing his results. A reviewer for Analytical Chemistry, Nature, Science, Geochemica Acta, or any other major journal would have pointed out the flaws in the research. Jones would have had the opportunity to redo the experiments or refine the conclusions and then resubmit the paper. This back and forth process is essential to the scientific method. Now why would Jones be so interested in circumventing it?

But let's look at the big question: What can be established about the collapse of the twin towers using a directed, non-random sampling of compositional, thermal, and morphological properties of particles collected from 4 locations?

Nothing.

Harrit and Jones are looking in the wrong place, using the wrong tools, and don't have access to the material necessary to establish their predetermined conclusion. They're using DSC in a reducing environment, and finding that carbonaceous materials combust at around 430 C. They're using XEDS to determine the composition of heterogeneous particles using fundamental parameters derived from bulk, homogeneous specimens. They're sampling the composition of a handful of particles from a series that contains billions upon billions upon billions of particles. Those samples were collected from a total sample size of trillions upon trillions upon trillions. No conclusions can be made based on the results. Or, at least none that wouldn't wind up being a joke at the statistician's Christmas party.

The little actual scientific debate of the merits of the research say basically that the chips were paint—DESPITE the fact that paint (especially in the WTC towers) could withstand temperatures of at least 800C.

False. Some of the paint could withstand temperatures of 800 C. What Jones has is a sample from a plume of ash, construction materials, organic char and unburned material. That material could have come from anywhere, and could have originally been attached to anything. Nothing from the data provided could be used to establish that the so called "paint chips" must have been from the WTC.

The thermitic chips in the WTC dust IGNITED at about 430C.

Something ignited at 430 C. There is no way to tell precisely what ignited.

Not only did they ignite, they formed iron microspheres. Imagine that.

Iron microspheres are common in all ashes and dusts. Frank Greening and I have pointed this out to Jones numerous times. The fact that Jones once again found iron in dust is incredibly uninteresting. It has no significance.

Does primer ignite at 430C? Can you show me a sample somewhere, anywhere, that ignites at 430C when dry?

False choice. Something ignited at 430 C, it did not have to be primer. There is no way, given the data provided, to show what ignited.

Much less a sample that produces metallic iron when ignited?

It produces nothing. The iron was present in the sample before it was ignited.

We all know it doesn’t exist.

That hasn't been established. It is up to Harrit et al to show that this is the case.

What would be the point? To make a REALLY unsafe primer that ignites at a very achievable office fire temperatures and proceeds to increase BEYOND the melting point of iron? Yea. Give that one to the sales department.

Nothing in the Harrit paper proves that the fire required iron melting temperatures to produce the ash.

Another standard response to this will no doubt be the uncontrollable urge to turn this into a debate over HOW the thermitic material could possibly have ended up in the towers. Now, that’s not a bad line of inquiry in itself IF it weren’t intended solely to be used as a means to reduce the premise to an absurdity and thus, dismiss it.

You're right. Nothing whatsoever in the paper could lead anyone to believe that there was unexploded thermite anywhere.

I'd love to know how and why it's in the dust.

You would first need to establish what is in the dust of a normal building. Then you would need to establish what is in the ash from a large multi-storey building fire. Then, you can establish, to some known level of statistical uncertainty, what baseline levels of iron, aluminum, silicon, etc, are in the non-altered dust. After that, you can build a time machine, collect a dust sample in a variety of randomly chosen, yet clean areas on 9/11, and then do a comparative study on the elemental and morphological distributions of the sample. If the difference of the mean values, according to standard hypothesis testing models, is shown to be above 95%, then you will know that something was different. And you'll know how different it was.

[jay howard]

Since many of the responses are repetitious, I want to respond to a few overarching considerations in a single post:

One of the problems with having this conversation is that there is a misunderstanding (pretended or real) that the substance we are talking about is "thermite." It is clearly not. It is "thermitic." That distinction is made specifically to keep these substances from being confused--which is happening all too often in regard to the HFJ paper. From Wikipedia: Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastable_intermolecular_composite

It cannot be emphasized enough that changing the size of the particles in aluminothermic reactions does indeed change the dynamics significantly. Because of the high cost and difficulty in manufacturing nano-sized elemental aluminum, these traces are anything but "conventional." The fact that they have been identified in the WTC dust signals the existence of a totally unaccounted energy source that can be highly tailored to a wide variety of applications.

What never seems to come up in terms of data fabrication or the supposed chain of custody issues is that if they were going to make something up, why not choose something more conventional? The fact that this substance, whatever it is, is NOT well understood leads only to more questions about it. If they wanted to fake it, they would have been much better off claiming conventional explosives. There are only a handful of labs in the US that can even produce elemental aluminum at these sizes.

Instead we see nanometer-sized iron, aluminum and silicon particles mixed very finely in a carbon-based matrix. The uniformity of these particles is startling, as most manufacturing processes on an industrial scale--paints, primers, corrosion protection coatings, etc., cannot afford to design these particles (most especially the aluminum) so precisely for use in products that do not require such specific size/mixture parameters. It would be an enormously wasteful endeavor to design paints or other common industrial coatings that don't require such fine particles. The mere prospect is laughable as there isn't a plant manager on the planet that would propose such an unnecessary move. It's not only a sure-fire way to get fired, it would ensure the company would eventually go out of business as well!

The fact that this material is NOT easily manufactured nor well understood should be a glaring red alarm to anyone who is not in complete denial. There is no good reason that this very unusual material should be found in regular construction material. And anyone who thinks this is some version of paint or an industrial coating is not paying much attention.

For those who doubt the chain of custody, there are roughly 2 possibilities: you must either believe:

1. that it is more probable that all 4 samples were contaminated with similarly strange material (!) or

2. that the HFJ research team unanimously decided to pull a fast one and attempted to implicate some other party in addition to (but separate from) the 19 hijackers as complicit in the murders of 3000 American citizens. (What purpose this last option would serve besides making the researchers very unpopular to the current power structure may be the deepest mystery of all.)

When combined with the extensive corroborative evidence of the strange exothermic properties of this material, its nanometer-sized particular makeup, comparative XEDS spectroscopy and comparative SE microscopy, both chain of custody options become significantly less probable than what the authors of the paper claim.

Since the only "evidence" of such a claim of contamination or misrepresentation of the samples is the doubt produced by the conclusions (which overwhelmingly implicate forces within the US power structure), then it should be pointed out that incredulity is a poor foundation for a claim against scientific evidence. Compared one-to-one, the science wins this one hands down. Claims to the contrary must bring more than just doubt to bear on this evidence.


.

[16.5]

Since many of the responses are repetitious, (long comment about how unusual the cookie crumbs are snipped)

WOW! Super post. It really sheds light on how ridiculous Jones' theory that super style nano-thermite matches were used to set off conventional explosives, huh?

The way you put it, that would be like using an atomic powered laser beam to light my grill this weekend. How stupid is that?

Great to see you finally come around.

[jay howard]

Negative. The preponderance of the evidence very clearly demonstrates that the columns were not severed by any means other than impact force, not incendiaries.

Which would be significant if they examined more than 1% of the steel. Seeing as how the vast majority of steel was whisked off to the Chinese recycling bin before an examination could even take place, no firm claims can be made on this subject. That is, unless you've somehow been exposed to a much larger sample size of the WTC steel than FEMA or NIST.

Which is my whole point: You are the one ignoring evidence when you refuse to come to terms with the existence of verified evidence. And when you attempt to offer poorly supported research who's conclusion has been very strongly and well refuted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), then you are the one who is not approaching the issue logically or scientifically.

The amount of times this tripe is linked to does not make it any stronger. Where have you seen a test that demonstrates that MEK can separate aluminosilicates into elemental Al and a Si compound? Nowhere? Me neither. Why do you assume the existence of a reaction for which you've never seen demonstrated somehow trumps detailed scientific analysis? That is the very definition of "pseudoscientific."


You need to acknowledge the evidence (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Damage%20and%20Failure%20Modes.pdf). The evidence shows that even if thermite was present, it failed to function. You need to come to terms with that.

The group response I gave earlier is exactly about the misunderstanding you (and others) keep hiding behind in order to avoid the conclusions of the HFJ paper. Namely, the substance they found is NOT thermite. It is "thermitic" meaning is has thermite-like properties but having a much lower ignition temperature and a wide range of burn rates and exothermic variables.

To claim "it's not thermite, therefore they're dumb" is a non-argument in this case. No one is claiming it's thermite except the "debunkers." This is not a conventional material by any stretch of the imagination.

_______

And for the record: Why do you presume that I've "come to terms with the existence of the material"? Did you even read my post? I am very clearly on record as saying that the Jones, Harrit, et. al. What I am confronting is the fantasy that you conspiracy peddlers continue to push despite the fact that it has been refuted.

It's real far from being refuted. Do you think that an examination of 1% of the steel is a "thorough investigation" by which you can make sweeping claims about the condition of the other 99%?

That's shoddy logic.

As I've said before, I don't know how this substance was used in the towers. All that can be said at this point is that it shouldn't be there. So, why is it there and who put it there?


.

[dtugg]

Just curious: jay, have you come up with an excuse as to why your heroes tested the substance in an oxygen rich environment rather than an inert one? The way I see it there are two possibilities: 1) They knew that it wouldn't ignite in an inert environment, thus they are stunning dishonest. Or. 2) They were unaware that it mattered, thus they are stunningly incompetent. Which is it?

[The Almond]

Since many of the responses are repetitious, I want to respond to a few overarching considerations in a single post:

One of the problems with having this conversation is that there is a misunderstanding (pretended or real) that the substance we are talking about is "thermite." It is clearly not. It is "thermitic." That distinction is made specifically to keep these substances from being confused--which is happening all too often in regard to the HFJ paper.

The use of the term "thermitic" is, at best, a strategy for obfuscation. Harrit et al are smart enough to know that proving there is thermite in the dust is far more complicated than proving that a material at-one-time may or may not have been part of a thermite reaction process whose definition changes every time Jones publishes a paper.

What never seems to come up in terms of data fabrication or the supposed chain of custody issues is that if they were going to make something up, why not choose something more conventional?


Because Jones is smart enough to know that conventional explosives go BOOM. Since 2003, he's been demanding that thermite or thermate or thermote or thermut was used because it is silent. Jones has been looking for evidence of thermite since 2003, and he's been looking at dust and calling it thermite since 2006.

The fact that this substance, whatever it is, is NOT well understood leads only to more questions about it.

Thermite is actually incredibly well understood. Its reaction, kinetics, thermodynamic properties, composition, chemistry, morphology, methods of production and limitations on use are extremely well understood and available on wikipedia. It's Jones who has made up a new material with "strange" and "unique" properties so that he can point to any material and say (with a straight face, oddly enough) that it's "thermitic." That's the type of intellectual dishonesty that we'd expect from a failed cold fusion wonk like Jones.

If they wanted to fake it, they would have been much better off claiming conventional explosives.

Conventional explosives go boom. There was no boom. That's why Jones needs thermite.

There are only a handful of labs in the US that can even produce elemental aluminum at these sizes.

So what? Has Harrit proved that the aluminum comes from those labs? Has he proved that all nano-elemental aluminum must be produced in a lab?

Instead we see nanometer-sized iron, aluminum and silicon particles mixed very finely in a carbon-based matrix.

What is that consistent with?

The uniformity of these particles is startling,

The sample size presented in the paper is insufficient to make this claim.

as most manufacturing processes on an industrial scale--paints, primers, corrosion protection coatings, etc., cannot afford to design these particles (most especially the aluminum) so precisely for use in products that do not require such specific size/mixture parameters.

This speculation is irrelevant.

It would be an enormously wasteful endeavor to design paints or other common industrial coatings that don't require such fine particles.

According to whom?

The mere prospect is laughable as there isn't a plant manager on the planet that would propose such an unnecessary move. It's not only a sure-fire way to get fired, it would ensure the company would eventually go out of business as well!

According to whom?

The fact that this material is NOT easily manufactured nor well understood should be a glaring red alarm to anyone who is not in complete denial.

It's only important to those who accept opinion over evidence.

There is no good reason that this very unusual material should be found in regular construction material. And anyone who thinks this is some version of paint or an industrial coating is not paying much attention.

Neither of these conclusions have evidence supporting them. The first is prefaced on an argument from ignorance, the second is an ad-hominem fallacy.

For those who doubt the chain of custody, there are roughly 2 possibilities: you must either believe:

False choice fallacy.

1. that it is more probable that all 4 samples were contaminated with similarly strange material (!) or

No one has shown that the material is strange or somehow inconsistent with the dust cloud formed by a building collapsing during a fire.

2. that the HFJ research team unanimously decided to pull a fast one and attempted to implicate some other party in addition to (but separate from) the 19 hijackers as complicit in the murders of 3000 American citizens. (What purpose this last option would serve besides making the researchers very unpopular to the current power structure may be the deepest mystery of all.)

It's an interesting appeal to motive fallacy, but if I were to assign motives to Jones, Harrit et al, I would have to say it's an ego issue. Jones put his scientific career out on a limb with cold fusion. But when scooped by Pons and Fleischman, he ended up playing the part of a footnote to history. Twenty years later, cold fusion has largely been discredited, and Jones is left without the spotlight and without recognition. By allying himself with the 9/11 conspiracy crowd, he's found a group of gullible, yet devoted fans who fawn over him at talks, pay for his travel and speak his name with reverence.

The reason he's interested in implicating another group is because that's what pays the bills.

When combined with the extensive corroborative evidence of the strange exothermic properties of this material,

None of the properties are strange. That is a fabrication of poor data and poor understanding.

its nanometer-sized particular makeup, comparative XEDS spectroscopy and comparative SE microscopy, both chain of custody options become significantly less probable than what the authors of the paper claim.

Chain of custody is not something that becomes irrelevant because the data may be interesting. As I pointed out earlier, the issue is significance. Without chain of custody, significance can't be established. Without significance, the compositional, morphological and thermodynamic data are irrelevant.

[T.A.M.]

Since many of the responses are repetitious, I want to respond to a few overarching considerations in a single post:

One of the problems with having this conversation is that there is a misunderstanding (pretended or real) that the substance we are talking about is "thermite." It is clearly not. It is "thermitic." That distinction is made specifically to keep these substances from being confused--which is happening all too often in regard to the HFJ paper. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastable_intermolecular_composite


Ok, lets say for a second that we forget all of the methodological errors made, forget the bad science, and the confirmation bias, and the chain of custody.

If we we forget all that, what they found was "energetic" material and the components of a thermite reaction. So now what? So with all of the bad science and horrible methodology aside, the next step would be to assess and eliminate all possible sources of such...did they do that? NOPE...but we are getting way off track, as it is all useless with their present data, due to the methodology trainwreck.


It cannot be emphasized enough that changing the size of the particles in aluminothermic reactions does indeed change the dynamics significantly. Because of the high cost and difficulty in manufacturing nano-sized elemental aluminum, these traces are anything but "conventional." The fact that they have been identified in the WTC dust signals the existence of a totally unaccounted energy source that can be highly tailored to a wide variety of applications.

Traces of almost anything can be expected, so why would traces of this be unexpected in the dust from a collapsed 110 storey skyscraper that was filled with probably bits of everything? You think the size of SOME of the TRACES of particles he found makes them stand out as man made ordinances??? really? Hydrogen is a fuel that can be tailored to a wide variety of applications.

[quote]
What never seems to come up in terms of data fabrication or the supposed chain of custody issues is that if they were going to make something up, why not choose something more conventional? The fact that this substance, whatever it is, is NOT well understood leads only to more questions about it. If they wanted to fake it, they would have been much better off claiming conventional explosives. There are only a handful of labs in the US that can even produce elemental aluminum at these sizes.

1. No one, except you, is suggesting anything here. Without a proper chain of custody, the forensic value, and possibly the scientific value (if samples were allowed to spoil, were exposed to elements, etc...) is EXTREMELY reduced.

2. Stop speculating about what they would or would not have fabricated here...why are you doing that? no one else is.


Instead we see nanometer-sized iron, aluminum and silicon particles mixed very finely in a carbon-based matrix. The uniformity of these particles is startling, as most manufacturing processes on an industrial scale--paints, primers, corrosion protection coatings, etc., cannot afford to design these particles (most especially the aluminum) so precisely for use in products that do not require such specific size/mixture parameters. It would be an enormously wasteful endeavor to design paints or other common industrial coatings that don't require such fine particles. The mere prospect is laughable as there isn't a plant manager on the planet that would propose such an unnecessary move. It's not only a sure-fire way to get fired, it would ensure the company would eventually go out of business as well!


1. How were they mixed "very finely". Do we only see nanometer particles? Who said those particles were Deliberately constructed at those sizes? Talk about going off on a speculative tangent based on erronious data.



The fact that this material is NOT easily manufactured nor well understood should be a glaring red alarm to anyone who is not in complete denial. There is no good reason that this very unusual material should be found in regular construction material. And anyone who thinks this is some version of paint or an industrial coating is not paying much attention.

ok, so let us assume (this is taking a leap, but you have been at least civil) that what they found was (A) synthetic, and (B) difficult to synthesize. If that is the case, does it not strike you as odd, no perhaps ALARMING, that (A) no one else, no other lab, found such material, or if they did, did not recognize these "alarming" features you describe, and (B) why with such explosive (no pun intended) evidence, so easy for anyone to see as "alarming", has Jones et al not provided their samples for multiple INDEPENDENT analysis by truly INDEPENDENT labs???


For those who doubt the chain of custody, there are roughly 2 possibilities: you must either believe:

1. that it is more probable that all 4 samples were contaminated with similarly strange material (!) or

2. that the HFJ research team unanimously decided to pull a fast one and attempted to implicate some other party in addition to (but separate from) the 19 hijackers as complicit in the murders of 3000 American citizens. (What purpose this last option would serve besides making the researchers very unpopular to the current power structure may be the deepest mystery of all.)

When combined with the extensive corroborative evidence of the strange exothermic properties of this material, its nanometer-sized particular makeup, comparative XEDS spectroscopy and comparative SE microscopy, both chain of custody options become significantly less probable than what the authors of the paper claim.

Since the only "evidence" of such a claim of contamination or misrepresentation of the samples is the doubt produced by the conclusions (which overwhelmingly implicate forces within the US power structure), then it should be pointed out that incredulity is a poor foundation for a claim against scientific evidence. Compared one-to-one, the science wins this one hands down. Claims to the contrary must bring more than just doubt to bear on this evidence.

.

The above is all speculative, and you are the only one doing this. We are merely saying that in scientific investigation, and even more so in a forensic investigation, CHAIN OF CUSTODY is paramount, and its absence (including a complete detail on storage and exposures) is KEY!!!

TAM:)

[pgimeno]

So you're claiming that it's more likely they pulled several different materials from the WTC dust that were 1. magnetic, 2. layered red/gray and 3. showed very similar elemental compositions?

I admit, it's possible, but not likely.

Ok, 'possible' is enough for now.

But that doesn't increase the reaction temperature of the chips in the DSC.

Only samples 1-4 were analyzed in DSC. If they had weld metal, it could be in a metastable state as described by NIST in NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D p.435, not to forget the problem of potential combustion in air without any 'thermitic reaction'. By the way, see also figure D-4 in page 442 for a potential source of chips 1-4, and compare to this illustration of unknown source, but associated with Jones et al's analysis in Gage's slide show: http://www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php?i=71&lores=1

Nor does it make the iron-based and silicon-based microspheres vanish. Even if you want to claim that the MEK chip is not the same as the others, there is clearly a highly energetic reaction taking place by which molten iron and silicon are being produced.

So? The gray layer is probably iron-rich itself (the magnet attracted it after all). I'm not sure, but isn't it conceivable that some of it melted during the combustion? I've been told that at these scales the properties of materials are quite different.

The problem with your analysis is that you must ignore the corroboration of data (that an aluminothermic reaction is taking place) by denying that the components of aluminothermic material are present. Your analysis does more to obfuscate the problem than it does to "set the record straight."

What?!

There is no proof of aluminothermic reaction at all.

There are the elements present in thermite, but hey, they are quite common and not everything burns like thermite. There's no proof that they are in a form that would ignite in the absence of oxygen just like thermite does. There's not enough iron oxide together with enough elemental aluminium or silicon anywhere. Most of the oxygen appears to be chemically bound to silicon in the MEK-soaked chip. Most of the aluminium appears to be bound to silicon in samples 1-4.

My analysis merely shows that Jones et al's analysis is a piece of crap that leads nowhere and jumps into conclusions that don't follow from what they have at hand. Just as everybody here has been showing repeatedly. The only obfuscation comes from the analysts' sloppy methods, and that assuming good faith, which I have a reason to doubt as I will show later.

It matters not a wit to the instruments what their intentions were.

Indeed. That's why I am analyzing the data and showing how the interpretation made by the analysts does not follow from it.

Unless you think they are wholesale lying, there is no way around the fact that they found unexploded ordinance in the WTC dust.

Finding a material that burns when heated does not make it ordnance.

The XEDS graph DOES show the contamination.

No, it shows the composition. It doesn't prove that it's contamination.


Yea, I read that too. All that does is point to the hypothesis that these materials were originally layered. Big deal. Does nothing to invalidate their conclusions.

That shows the difference in nature of the chips taken in consideration, casting doubts about the MEK chip and thus about their conclusions that chips 1-4 are not paint. Yes, big deal. The chips should have been categorized first. That's not done. We also have no clue about the composition of the chip that burns in fig. 22.



Yet figure 15 shows no apparent correlation between Fe and O as compared to e.g. Si and O. Even Al and O are more correlated in figure 15 than Fe and O. That makes one wonder if figure 18 has been cherry-picked.

If you think they are manipulating the data, then there's no point having this discussion. You still can't dismiss their conclusions based on your feeling about their methods.

It's not a mere 'feeling'. The first sentence in page 19 reads:

"Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK solvent (Fig. 15)"


That is blatantly false. Let's do some math. First, let's show the Fe layer minus the O layer, to see how much unoxidized Fe there is. Note that the subtraction operator I'm using in GIMP clamps at zero.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Fe-O.jpg

That alone would suffice as a rebuttal to that sentence. However, as I noted before, there's a strong correlation of O with Si. If the O is really chemically bound to the Si, as I suspect, the following image, showing the O minus the Si, shows how much O is left for everything else:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-O-Si.jpg

Granted, that's probably exaggerated because the Si probably obscures too much of the O, but since the Si is very localized, it gives us an overview of how much O there is that is not related to the Si.

Now let's see the [Fe-[O-Si]] (the [] denote clamping):


http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Fe-O-Si.jpg

So, what's the basis to assert that "[o]xygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron" according to Fig. 15?

Where's the thermite's source of oxygen, if Si is at best a combustible in thermite-like compounds?

Now, if we go to Fig. 18 we find all kinds of things in there, yet the last image shows very little Fe overlapping with O. Is there a reason to think that that XEDS spectrum has been cherry-picked, or not?

And that's not all. This is the addition of all of the elements shown:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Al+Si+O+Fe+C.jpg

What are the black areas? Why aren't we shown?


And they go to lengths to avoid being accused of doing anything tricky. For instance, they took a known source of Fe2O3 and tested its elemental composition for comparison to their calculations in the determination of the presence of Fe2O3 in the sample: pg. 19

I agree they try.


How are you making this determination? Because of the XEDS maps of fig. 15? The Fe and O portions are not isomorphic, but there is unarguably overlap between the two. Why are you then discounting the XEDS graphs that accompany the maps? They need only show the existence of some Fe2O3 to claim the sample contains it. Same with elemental Al, which they do. What's the problem?

The problem, as I've shown you, is that they don't claim there's 'some' Fe2O3, they claim Fe and O are 'very consistently' correlated, and that's clearly false.

I am not discounting the XEDS spectrums you mention, I am just saying that they don't prove what they are claimed to prove.

[beachnut]

... that the substance we are talking about is "thermite." It is clearly not. It is "thermitic." That distinction is made specifically to keep these substances from being confused--which is happening all too often in regard to the HFJ paper. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastable_intermolecular_composite

It cannot be emphasized enough that changing the size of the particles in aluminothermic reactions does indeed change the dynamics significantly. Because of the high cost and difficulty in manufacturing nano-sized elemental aluminum, these traces are anything but "conventional." The fact that they have been identified in the WTC dust signals the existence of a totally unaccounted energy source that can be highly tailored to a wide variety of applications.

...
The fact that this material is NOT easily manufactured nor well understood should be a glaring red alarm to anyone who is not in complete denial. There is no good reason that this very unusual material should be found in regular construction material. And anyone who thinks this is some version of paint or an industrial coating is not paying much attention.

For those who doubt the chain of custody, there are roughly 2 possibilities: you must either believe:

1. that it is more probable that all 4 samples were contaminated with similarly strange material (!) or
...
When combined with the extensive corroborative evidence of the strange exothermic properties of this material, its nanometer-sized particular makeup, comparative XEDS spectroscopy and comparative SE microscopy, both chain of custody options become significantly less probable than what the authors of the paper claim.
...

Changing the size of the thermite does not change the energy from the basic chemical reaction. Jones' paper shows the energy from the samples does not match thermite. The energy is also much less than the energy of office contents; paper has more energy. The jet fuel is ten times the heat energy of thermite, why would anyone need to load thermite material into the WTC and leave evidence; evidence never found by the way! The dust has Al and iron rust, both items are found all over the WTC and even in my own home. The fact is the Jones paper will never be found in a real scientific journal except to expose it as fraud; lucky for Jones and his fellow conspiracy theorists, scientist do not waste time exposing Jones' failed paper to embarrass him needlessly more than the obvious.

There is no good reason that this very unusual material should be found in regular construction material. Not true for two reasons. First the material is not some super nano-thermite. There is not proof the size had special processing past that of what would be found in an Etch A Sketch, paint, coatings, or other uses in objects found in offices. Second, the materials found in the samples are found in the WTC, there were zero evidence the materials sent to Jones from dust allegedly found in NYC have elements not found from stuff in the WTC. No evidence the dust was engineered past that that would be found at the WTC. Iron rust; found at the WTC. Aluminum and products of Al, all over the WTC, the cladding on the WTC is Al! Even paint contains the junk in Jones dust samples. No one has proved the dust samples are not from objects normally found in the WTC.

totally unaccounted energy source that can be highly tailored to a wide variety of applications. 10 times less energy than jet fuel? The thermite material is not a good energy source. Office contents have more heat energy. ... zero evidence of thermite damage to WTC steel and no termite products found in the WTC.

How can Jones support the thermite in the ceiling tile scenario with remote detonators?


Jones paper says - Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.
The truth? These particles are not very nano size, they are at the top edge of being nano. The fact is they are exactly like pigments; LOL big time; PIGMENTS!!!
In fact pigments can be more nano sized than the so called super thermite the paper tries to claim. Fe3O4 pigments with a particle diameter of 2 to 100 nm. The paper discovered pigment and proved it when the energy was not the same as thermite. Nano material for coatings is centuries old; There is no proof of the use of thermite to bring down the towers and the dust used by Jones in his paper published in a vanity journal is more like some coating on something in the WTC, even paper auto ignites near 430C, so does the dust; so?

All the facts are found easy on-line. Did Jones find paint pigments, or coating pigments?

[pgimeno]

I made a mistake when I said:

"Where's the thermite's source of oxygen, if Si is at best a combustible in thermite-like compounds?"

SiO2 can also be used as an oxidizer. Still, there's too little oxygen in my view. And we're not shown other elements also present in the sample which could also be bound to the Si and the O.

[ElMondoHummus]

Which would be significant if they examined more than 1% of the steel. Seeing as how the vast majority of steel was whisked off to the Chinese recycling bin before an examination could even take place, no firm claims can be made on this subject. That is, unless you've somehow been exposed to a much larger sample size of the WTC steel than FEMA or NIST.


They examined critical pieces of steel. Once again, the pieces I pointed out were from the collapse initiation zone. You insist that thermite might have been used, but you simultanously argue that it wasn't used to cause the collapse? Seriously? That's the argument you're making? Because if you posit that the steel I present is not significant, then you argue that thermite was not involved in the initiation of the collapse.

One more time: Those pieces of steel were taken from the parts of the buildings where the collapse was known to start. Even truther advocates like Tony Szamboti does not argue against this. And one more time: You concede my argument when you try to write off steel from the collapse initiation zone as "insignificant". You admit that thermite did not cause the collapse when you do this.


The amount of times this tripe is linked to does not make it any stronger. Where have you seen a test that demonstrates that MEK can separate aluminosilicates into elemental Al and a Si compound? Nowhere? Me neither. Why do you assume the existence of a reaction for which you've never seen demonstrated somehow trumps detailed scientific analysis? That is the very definition of "pseudoscientific."


What MEK has done to the paint chip is irrelevant when I noted that the very steel it was used on shows no sign of melting. Why you continually ignore this is beyond me.

You can argue that NIST only investigated 1% of the steel and you'd be correct. You can argue that the paint chips did not dissolve in MEK, and you'd be correct. What you miss is that it's all irrelevant. As mentioned above, steel recovered from the part of the building where the collapse started showed no signs of melting from thermite. None at all. None of your attempts to inject results from irrelevant experiments does not change this. Thermite was demonstrated to have not been involved in causing the collapse. Unless you can show the pieces I presented showed signs of thermite induced melting, then you automatically fail. You concede that the collapse started fine without thermite. And anything else you present is a dodge of that fact.


The group response I gave earlier is exactly about the misunderstanding you (and others) keep hiding behind in order to avoid the conclusions of the HFJ paper. Namely, the substance they found is NOT thermite. It is "thermitic" meaning is has thermite-like properties but having a much lower ignition temperature and a wide range of burn rates and exothermic variables.


And for the third time in this post alone: You have not demonstrated that it actually had an effect on the steel. See above. No effect on the steel where the collapse started. None.


To claim "it's not thermite, therefore they're dumb" is a non-argument in this case. No one is claiming it's thermite except the "debunkers." This is not a conventional material by any stretch of the imagination.


And I'm telling you that it's irrelevant what it is, because I've demonstrated that it had no effect. For the fourth time: Look at the images I pointed out, and tell me which of those columns were melted. If you cannot do that, you fail, since those columns are critical to the collapse due to their location. They are located where the collapse started. Plain and simple.

_______



It's real far from being refuted. Do you think that an examination of 1% of the steel is a "thorough investigation" by which you can make sweeping claims about the condition of the other 99%?


See above. You have completely dodged the argument. You have failed to demonstrate it's effect on the recovered steel.


That's shoddy logic.


I'm not the one ignoring evidence.


As I've said before, I don't know how this substance was used in the towers. All that can be said at this point is that it shouldn't be there. So, why is it there and who put it there?

No, the question is: Why are you truthers obsessiing over this when it is irrefutable that it was not used? For the fifth time: Those columns were where the collapse started. Are you saying that thermite was not involved in causing the towers to collapse? Because that is exactly what you argue if you continue to ignore the significance of columns in the collapse initiation zone showing zero signs of melting.

And as an aside: The substance was not "thermitic" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), or whatever term you want to slap on it. Kaolinite was demonstrated to be present. Gypsum as well. The presence of kaolinite and gypsum accounts for many of the spectroscopic and chemical properties Jones and Harrit noted. Read the link. In fact, you need to read the thread the linked post is from (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293). Heck, you also need to read the first few pages of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017); you seem to be ignoring much in your arguments that has already covered. The conclusion that Jones, Harrit, etc. have stated have been demonstrated to be incorrectly drawn. You cannot succeed in your argument without acknowledging what has already been demonstrated.

[jay howard]

They examined critical pieces of steel. Once again, the pieces I pointed out were from the collapse initiation zone. You insist that thermite might have been used, but you simultanously argue that it wasn't used to cause the collapse? Seriously? That's the argument you're making? Because if you posit that the steel I present is not significant, then you argue that thermite was not involved in the initiation of the collapse.

One more time: Those pieces of steel were taken from the parts of the buildings where the collapse was known to start. Even truther advocates like Tony Szamboti does not argue against this. And one more time: You concede my argument when you try to write off steel from the collapse initiation zone as "insignificant". You admit that thermite did not cause the collapse when you do this.



What MEK has done to the paint chip is irrelevant when I noted that the very steel it was used on shows no sign of melting. Why you continually ignore this is beyond me.

You can argue that NIST only investigated 1% of the steel and you'd be correct. You can argue that the paint chips did not dissolve in MEK, and you'd be correct. What you miss is that it's all irrelevant. As mentioned above, steel recovered from the part of the building where the collapse started showed no signs of melting from thermite. None at all. None of your attempts to inject results from irrelevant experiments does not change this. Thermite was demonstrated to have not been involved in causing the collapse. Unless you can show the pieces I presented showed signs of thermite induced melting, then you automatically fail. You concede that the collapse started fine without thermite. And anything else you present is a dodge of that fact.



And for the third time in this post alone: You have not demonstrated that it actually had an effect on the steel. See above. No effect on the steel where the collapse started. None.



And I'm telling you that it's irrelevant what it is, because I've demonstrated that it had no effect. For the fourth time: Look at the images I pointed out, and tell me which of those columns were melted. If you cannot do that, you fail, since those columns are critical to the collapse due to their location. They are located where the collapse started. Plain and simple.

_______




See above. You have completely dodged the argument. You have failed to demonstrate it's effect on the recovered steel.



I'm not the one ignoring evidence.



No, the question is: Why are you truthers obsessiing over this when it is irrefutable that it was not used? For the fifth time: Those columns were where the collapse started. Are you saying that thermite was not involved in causing the towers to collapse? Because that is exactly what you argue if you continue to ignore the significance of columns in the collapse initiation zone showing zero signs of melting.

And as an aside: The substance was not "thermitic" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), or whatever term you want to slap on it. Kaolinite was demonstrated to be present. Gypsum as well. The presence of kaolinite and gypsum accounts for many of the spectroscopic and chemical properties Jones and Harrit noted. Read the link. In fact, you need to read the thread the linked post is from (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293). Heck, you also need to read the first few pages of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017); you seem to be ignoring much in your arguments that has already covered. The conclusion that Jones, Harrit, etc. have stated have been demonstrated to be incorrectly drawn. You cannot succeed in your argument without acknowledging what has already been demonstrated.


Your entire counterargument rests on an argument I've never made. In fact, I've said several times I do not know how this stuff was used.

Finding an unreacted incendiary material in the dust should be reason enough to look further. Attempts to dismiss it as "irrelevant" because it cannot be immediately linked to the recovered 1% of steel is a piss poor reason to look the other way.

And there was indeed strangely corroded steel recovered and studied by the WPI people--as you well know. To categorically dismiss a relation between a thermitic incendiary material and steel that demonstrated "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting" would be negligent.

(FEMA/BPAT study, appendix C, pg. 1)

Did the thermitic material cause this? I don't know. Could it have? It's certainly possible. There may be reason to look further. Just maybe.


.

[aggle-rithm]

So it seems the issue is: IF the material examined by Jones & Co. was actually from GZ, and IF the "nano-sized" particles are indeed unusual, and IF the volitility of the substance did not require external oxygen...

Well, we can stop right there. A properly designed scientific experiment would eliminate all these IFs. Clearly, there was not enough expertise in Jones' "Dream Team" of scientists to accomplish that.

[T.A.M.]

So it seems the issue is: IF the material examined by Jones & Co. was actually from GZ, and IF the "nano-sized" particles are indeed unusual, and IF the volitility of the substance did not require external oxygen...

Well, we can stop right there. A properly designed scientific experiment would eliminate all these IFs. Clearly, there was not enough expertise in Jones' "Dream Team" of scientists to accomplish that.

Exactly. And beyond that, this was done by many other entities. There are numerous other studies of WTC dust. Seriously, if there was an "explosive incindiary" in the WTC dust in any significant amount (and Jones et al claims there was LOTS OF IT), do you not think at least one, if not more, of these other groups of scientists would have mentioned it? Or are the truthers SO DUMB as to think that the bits of "thermite" were simply ignored.

They were not IGNORED, because they were NOT THERE. You can spin it all you want. You either have to draw the conclusion that (A) Jones and his group of bias scientists warped their findings through manipulation and bad science, to fit their preconceived theories, or (B) that numerous other, independent groups of scientists with no similar agenda, simply missed this material...multiple times.

Come on jay, for the love of god.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Finding an unreacted incendiary material in the dust should be reason enough to look further.


Well, since none was found. There is no reason to look further.

[TruthersLie]

Your entire counterargument rests on an argument I've never made. In fact, I've said several times I do not know how this stuff was used.


You don't even know of any of "this stuff" was used. Bad methodology in the experiment and an inability to use independent labs which could tell you in 2 weeks EXACTLY what it is for $100. Why do you truthers insist on reinventing the wheel (and in a square shape too?)


Finding an unreacted incendiary material in the dust

stop right there. From this "paper" we have NO idea what was recovered in the dust. You have admitted it is riddled with methodological errors. Any paper or "paper" which is riddled with errors makes it impossible to take any of their findings, results or conclusions as valid.

throw out this junk and do it right.


should be reason enough to look further. Attempts to dismiss it as "irrelevant" because it cannot be immediately linked to the recovered 1% of steel is a piss poor reason to look the other way.


bad argument based on a bad starting point. You have demonstrated a full lack of understanding of any scientific principles. Hey what did that experimental design professor (or even a chemistry professor) tell you when you described trying to use a study riddled with methodological errors as the basis of your argument? I await that answer with baited breath (even though we both know you didn't and won't do what I suggested)


And there was indeed strangely corroded steel recovered and studied by the WPI people--as you well know. To categorically dismiss a relation between a thermitic incendiary material and steel that demonstrated "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting" would be negligent.


Ah more datamining and not reading for comprehension. 1. no "thermetic incendiary" will cause "high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting." Do you even know what that means? That isn't how "thermetic incendiaries" work. Lack of reading for comprehension. Try again.


(FEMA/BPAT study, appendix C, pg. 1)

Did the thermitic material cause this? I don't know. Could it have? It's certainly possible. There may be reason to look further. Just maybe.
.

again and again, what THERMITIC material? So far you have NO PROOF that there was ANY THERMETIC materials in the dust.

Ok, lets go over basic experimental design for dummies. REady?
First you start with a hypothesis (HA). HA= The dust is filled with thermite/thermitic materials/pixie dust/godzilla poo. Next you set up your NULL hypothesis (HO). The null hypothesis states that wht you are looking for is nothing more than chance. The easiest way to state your HO is to state it is NOT the HA. So in this case the HO is NOT thermite/thermic materials/pixie dust/ or godzilla poo.

Now that we have set up the HA and the HO, we must do EVERYTHING we can do to eliminate the HO, to REJECT the NULL. Not to PROVE the HA.

So in order to even make the claim that there is ANYTHING there, we first have to ELIMINATE EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLAINATION.

Have you done that? Can you eliminate paint? YEs or no? No we can't. Why? Because this "paper" is riddled with so many different errors, we don't even know what the control paint was. Oops. can you eliminate paint in anyway, shape or form? No you cannot.

Why can you not eliminate paint? Oh, because the methodology of this "paper" is so ********** up, that you can't eliminate something basic like paint. Oops.

Fine, lets ignore paint. (which you can't do. Since you can't eliminate it, you can't claim that it is "thermitic", but lets humor it). We ignore paint. Can you eliminate ANY OTHER POSSIBLE reason for this "material" to be in the dust? For example can you eliminate that it was planted in the dust?

What? You can't? Why not? Oh because you don't have a good chain of custody... damn... that is a whole other can of worms. Fine. Lets ignore the chain of custody (which you can't do. Since you can't eliminate it, you can't claim it is any thing, but lets humor it)

Can you eliminate that it is anything combusing in oxygen? (after all all forms of thermite/thermate/super duper inviso clean your room make your lunch nanothermite has its own oxygen and burns in a vacuum) What do you mean you can't eliminate any of that either? What? You did a test which doesn't show anything but something buringing in air?

Fine lets ignore that (which you can't because the mehtodology is ********** up so is any conclusions you wish to draw, but lets humor it)

Can you show that it reacts like any "thermitic" materials? (as you have pointed out, you use nanothermite to tailor the materials) As it would be nanosized particles, I'm sure that when it was burned it released nearly identical amounts of energy per unit of materials, right? OH wait... it didn't do that either? How does a tailor made explosive/incendiary have wildly different energy released during the test? If it is nanosized it is done so to keep things consistent.

Now we have gone over the basics of the hypothesis, the null hypothesis and then tried to eliminate the null hypothesis. Can we eliminate the null hypothesis? No we cannot. Therefore we cannot claim that what was found was "thermitic", nor can we claim it is pixie dust or godzilla poo. (I bet godzilla is glad to be found innocent there... it was MOTHRA damn it.)

Go back to school and take some simple experimental design courses and you will then see why with over 20 methodological errors, NOTHING in this "paper" is valid.

[Julio]

(FEMA/BPAT study, appendix C, pg. 1)

Did the thermitic material cause this? I don't know. Could it have? It's certainly possible. There may be reason to look further. Just maybe.
.

The main argument of Jones to propose thermate was that appendix from FEMA report. The original argument is that thermate did it. In fact, he has not retracted from that yet, AFAIK

If you agree with all the thermite stuff , you must also agree that the thermite did that to the columns.

[ElMondoHummus]

Finding an unreacted incendiary material in the dust should be reason enough to look further. Attempts to dismiss it as "irrelevant" because it cannot be immediately linked to the recovered 1% of steel is a piss poor reason to look the other way.

It's not that I linked it to only 1% of the steel. It's that I have demonstrated that "thermitic material" wasn't involved in causing the collapse to begin with. You can phrase it as "1%" all you want (which is hyperbole, BTW), but that ignores that these are columns who's condition clearly show how the collapse started. You ignore that with a glib "1%" statement; what matters is their significance, not their cumulative percentage. If you think "themitic material" was used, then it would have had to have been used on those columns. It would have had to have been those because they were the first to fail, and once the failures occurred, then Bazant and his colleagues established that the collapses would've progressed all the way to the ground. If the first columns to fail were not intentionally demolished, then the entire collapse is natural, not intentional demolition. Thermite use after the initiation of the collapse would not matter because the collapse would go all the way to completion once it started. Yet, "thermitic material" clearly was not the cause because those columns were clearly not severed via melting. It does not matter that you believe you "never made that argument", the fact remains is that you think "thermitic material" is involved somehow. What I am showing you is that if it was truly there - which it wasn't (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694) - then it didn't even have any effect. And you cannot refute that by saying "1%" over and over again like some parrot trained to repeat something without understanding its significance.

The only way you can counter this is to propose that the collapse started naturally, not via intentional demolitions, but would have arrested had not lower supports been severed. To do that, you have to refute Bazant and demonstrate that the collapse would have arrested, and only then is the fact that the studied core columns were untouoched by thermite become irrelevant. Unfortunately, you're not perceptive enough to make this argument. Your opponent has to make it for you, which speaks poorly about your level of knowledge regarding the event.

You cannot prove an argument when you do not know enough information to defend it properly. And that's what you're doing: You are failing to defend your argument properly because you are attempting to cite points that are not relevant. You are ignoring established knowledge and isolating your argument from all the context that actually establishes the boundaries of what could have been possible. You can continue to dodge all this all you want, but that doesn't help you establish your argument.

On top of all that: What Jones and Harrit "found" was not "thermitic" material. This has been established.

This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.

Quote:
An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.

Quote:
All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet.

Quote:
Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs.

We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf (http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf)

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=861

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes

Quote:
The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles

Quote:
By placing the beam on a cluster of plate-like particles, the spectrum in Fig. (11a) was generated. The spectrum in Fig. (11b) was acquired from a cluster of the smaller bright faceted grains. Again it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and Si whereas the bright faceted grains are rich in Fe. Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen

Quote:
The results indicate that the smaller particles with very bright BSE intensity are associated with the regions of high Fe and O. The plate-like particles with intermediate BSE intensity appear to be associated with the regions of high Al and Si. The O map (d) also indicates oxygen present, to a lesser degree, in the location of the Al and Si. However, it is inconclusive from these data whether the O is associated with Si or Al or both.

Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857


Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination

Quote:
The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.

Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=858

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?...pt=sci_arttext (http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S0327-07932007000200005&script=sci_arttext)

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

You cannot continue to assert the present of "thermitic material" when such material's presence has been contradicted. Again: Reread the first pages of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017). And read the parent thread that lead to this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293). You continue to argue points that have been refuted. You are behind us in your level of knowledge; all the counterarguments you've given are old hat, and were answered in that and this thread some time ago. Until you read the links we give you and confront what has already been established, then you get nowhere. You need to increase your level of knowledge before you proceed.

[ElMondoHummus]

And there was indeed strangely corroded steel recovered and studied by the WPI people--as you well know. To categorically dismiss a relation between a thermitic incendiary material and steel that demonstrated "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting" would be negligent.

(FEMA/BPAT study, appendix C, pg. 1)

Did the thermitic material cause this? I don't know. Could it have? It's certainly possible. There may be reason to look further. Just maybe.


No, "thermitic material" did not cause this. You "don't know" because you're ignoring evidence, as well as discussions we've had over this in the past. While looking for previous posts where eutectics were discussed, I stumbled across this one by Ryan Mackey addressed to you (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2835626&postcount=257). Odd that you cite the FEMA and WPI information, yet ignore what Ryan told you near the end of his post.

You act as though no one's ever looked into 9/11 before. You cite the WPI studies and ignore the fact that they were specifically conducted because of the observations FEMA noted in their Building Performance Study. You also conveniently seem to not remember that those Worchester researchers established the presence of a eutectic caused by sulfidation. Do you realize that the presence of that eutectic formation contradicts the whole notion of "thermitic material" being used? The maximum temperature that a eutectic can reach before it's destroyed must be above the melting point for the lowest melting-point "ingredient" in the mix (in this case, the iron sulfide), but at the same time must be below the temp for the item(s) that has(have) the highest melting point (in this case iron oxide). That presents an envelope of conditions that tell researchers what the minimum and maximum temperatures were. Do you realize that "thermitic materials" would exceed that? Do you realize that "thermitic material" would've destroyed the eutectic? Do you realize that those Worchester Polytechnic studies eliminate the possibility that the erosion Astaneh-Asl noted and FEMA recorded could have been caused by thermite?

Remedial reading on the subject:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1907756#post1907756
http://www.springerlink.com/index/W6M00UUHVN16TNU2.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/index/G5W603461R3078T3.pdf
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4159563#post4159563


"Thermitic material" (that's truther-speak for "A fantasy material that fits the properties necessary for me to propose a conspiracy") could not have caused that erosion. Once you study the properties of steel sulfidation and iron oxide-iron sulfide-steel eutectics, you will understand this. Unless you acknowledge that "thermitic materials" melt steel, and that the erosion very clearly was not molten steel but a chemical process, and that temperatures that melt steel would destroy eutectics, then you will continue to fail to understand the event.

[jay howard]

So it seems the issue is: IF the material examined by Jones & Co. was actually from GZ, and IF the "nano-sized" particles are indeed unusual, and IF the volitility of the substance did not require external oxygen...

Well, we can stop right there. A properly designed scientific experiment would eliminate all these IFs. Clearly, there was not enough expertise in Jones' "Dream Team" of scientists to accomplish that.

Exactly. And beyond that, this was done by many other entities. There are numerous other studies of WTC dust. Seriously, if there was an "explosive incindiary" in the WTC dust in any significant amount (and Jones et al claims there was LOTS OF IT), do you not think at least one, if not more, of these other groups of scientists would have mentioned it? Or are the truthers SO DUMB as to think that the bits of "thermite" were simply ignored.

They were not IGNORED, because they were NOT THERE. You can spin it all you want. You either have to draw the conclusion that (A) Jones and his group of bias scientists warped their findings through manipulation and bad science, to fit their preconceived theories, or (B) that numerous other, independent groups of scientists with no similar agenda, simply missed this material...multiple times.

Come on jay, for the love of god.

TAM:)

So your reason to dismiss this as not real is that you sincerely believe that the HFJ team made or found this material and are simply claiming they found it in the dust?

What evidence do you have that they did not find this material in the dust? If your only reason to doubt that is that you don't like the conclusions, that's not good enough.

When Jones was claiming the microspheres were evidence of thermite, everyone here was doubting that because they claimed there wasn't enough evidence to make that determination. Now here is strong corroborative evidence to support that claim and the best you can do is double down on your doubt without any supporting evidence.

If you don't think this stuff was in the dust, then just quit writing. There's nothing more to talk about.



.

[jay howard]

They examined critical pieces of steel. Once again, the pieces I pointed out were from the collapse initiation zone. You insist that thermite might have been used, but you simultanously argue that it wasn't used to cause the collapse?

This will surely not be the last time I need to spell this out, as no one here seems capable of reading this sentence: I don't know how the stuff was used. Do you understand me?

That is NOT equivalent to saying it wasn't used in the collapse of the buildings. Do you acknowledge that?

You are implying that if this material was used, then it was necessarily used in the collapse region and it was the only substance used. Neither of those necessarily follow. All the rest of your post I omitted is just a restatement of this basic misunderstanding (pretend or real) of what I'm saying. Until you understand what I'm saying, you're just arguing at cross-purposes.

We can't even start speculating about the possibilities of how this stuff was used until we can all agree that this stuff was in fact in the WTC dust.

Can we agree on that?


And as an aside: The substance was not "thermitic" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), or whatever term you want to slap on it. Kaolinite was demonstrated to be present.

Back with the kaolinite again... Kaolinite was never "demonstrated to be present." It was demonstrated that kaolinite has a similar morphology to the plate-like structures in the red part of the WTC dust chips. Until it has been demonstrated that MEK causes a chemical reaction in aluminosilicates that causes the aluminum to become unbound from the silicon, the only thing being demonstrated is an inability to understand basic chemistry.


.

[pgimeno]

Back with the kaolinite again... Kaolinite was never "demonstrated to be present." It was demonstrated that kaolinite has a similar morphology to the plate-like structures in the red part of the WTC dust chips. Until it has been demonstrated that MEK causes a chemical reaction in aluminosilicates that causes the aluminum to become unbound from the silicon, the only thing being demonstrated is an inability to understand basic chemistry.

Once again, the MEK chip was different to samples 1-4. Samples 1-4 were proved within a very ample confidence margin to have kaolinite. None of samples 1-4 was soaked in MEK, thus there's no proof that the Al was not chemically bound to the Si in the MEK chip. The MEK chip contained, at best, very little iron oxide, especially compared to samples 1-4, making hard to believe both that they are of the same nature and that they are made of thermite. Therefore, there's no basis to hold the conclusions of the article.

The burden of proof was on them to rule out kaolinite in these samples, given the likeliness for it. They neglected to do that, and instead chose to soak a different, claimed-to-be-contaminated chip in MEK, with a composition that is not similar to that of samples 1-4, without showing the claimed contamination. Given the extraordinary likeliness of kaolinite, it required extraordinary proof to prove it wrong and show the separation; instead, they dipped one finger and tasted another.

That just piles up on top of all that TruthersLie has already noted.

[TruthersLie]

So your reason to dismiss this as not real is that you sincerely believe that the HFJ team made or found this material and are simply claiming they found it in the dust?

again and again you just jump past the 20 methodological errors and then continue to try to argue the "evidence." That is SOMETHING YOU CAN'T DO. If the methodology is crap, then you cannot discuss the findings, results, experiments or the conclusions.

It has NOTHING to do with the idea that "this as no real" or that "the HFJ team made or found this material."

It is the basic backbones of science. If you don't have the methodology, you don't have a paper. Throw this crap in the bin and start over.


What evidence do you have that they did not find this material in the dust? If your only reason to doubt that is that you don't like the conclusions, that's not good enough.


Again and again. I don't know what they found (and neither do they) because they had crap methdology. You are starting with an assumption (you do know that it makes an ASS out of U and MPTION right?) that is not backed up by any science.


When Jones was claiming the microspheres were evidence of thermite, everyone here was doubting that because they claimed there wasn't enough evidence to make that determination.

Your lack of reading for comprehension is showing. When Jones was making the iron microspheres argument, people were asking him what ELSE MAKES/HAS microspheres in them. What else does? Come on twoof? Now can you eliminate ANY OF THOSE OTHER SOURCES OF MICROSPHERES? No. If you cannot eliminate them, then you cannot claim that the microsphres are from thermate, thermite, godzilla, pixie dust or anything else.

go back to school and take a simple experimental methods class. FAIL (yet again)


Now here is strong corroborative evidence to support that claim and the best you can do is double down on your doubt without any supporting evidence.

Where? Please point out any corroborative evidence. Pretty please with a cherry on top...... OHHHHHHH you mean this pile o fail that is the Bentham article. <snort> <snicker> <lol>

again and again. Lets repeat.
1. If the methodology is crap (and there are 20 methodological errors in this "paper"), then the "paper" is invalid and you cannot take anything from it in any seriousness.
2. Now you claim that there is something in the dust, but you cannot eliminate ANY of the possible other sources of this materials.


If you don't think this stuff was in the dust, then just quit writing. There's nothing more to talk about.
.
You have demonstrated that there isn't anything more to talk about. Now make that phone call I suggested and educate yourself.

[Dave Rogers]

We can't even start speculating about the possibilities of how this stuff was used until we can all agree that this stuff was in fact in the WTC dust.

Can we agree on that?

I would go one step further and say we can't start speculating whether the stuff was 'used' until we can all agree that it was in the WTC dust. You're assuming your conclusion by asking 'how this stuff was used'.

We can be certain about some aspects of how this stuff was not used. It was not used to initiate the collapse, as the collapse initiation took place in a region where temperatures were high enough for this stuff to have ignited long before initiation. It was not used for melting steel structural members, as the thickness of the material is too small to have given any significant temperature increase. It was not used for igniting explosives in connection with the collapses, as the collapses are known not to have been assisted by explosives. It seems to me that, on the basis of these fairly simple and irrefutable conclusions, we can exclude the possibility that this stuff had any role in the initiation or propagation of the collapses. And that, alone, renders its analysis more or less irrelevant to any study of the collapse mechanisms. It is simply too insignificant to have played an identifiable role.

And: No, we can't agree that it has even been proven to originate from the WTC. That's the whole point of the chain of custody argument. Harrit et al not only haven't proven anything, they haven't even reached the starting point for a proof.

Dave

[aggle-rithm]

So your reason to dismiss this as not real is that you sincerely believe that the HFJ team made or found this material and are simply claiming they found it in the dust?

What evidence do you have that they did not find this material in the dust? If your only reason to doubt that is that you don't like the conclusions, that's not good enough.


From Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (paraphrasing): If an idea depends on a chain of reasoning, then a single broken link in the chain invalidates it.

The chain of reasoning that led to the HFJ team's conclusions is FULL of broken links. It's not even worth trying to repair them all. If they want to be taken seriously in the scientific or academic communities, then they need to start over.

They will discover, of course, that there is nothing to find. As is usually the case when proper scientific methodology is applied to wooish ideas.

[T.A.M.]

So your reason to dismiss this as not real is that you sincerely believe that the HFJ team made or found this material and are simply claiming they found it in the dust?

What evidence do you have that they did not find this material in the dust? If your only reason to doubt that is that you don't like the conclusions, that's not good enough.

When Jones was claiming the microspheres were evidence of thermite, everyone here was doubting that because they claimed there wasn't enough evidence to make that determination. Now here is strong corroborative evidence to support that claim and the best you can do is double down on your doubt without any supporting evidence.

If you don't think this stuff was in the dust, then just quit writing. There's nothing more to talk about.



.

I believe they found something in the dust, but it is not what they think it is, or what they are claiming it is. I think that is why none of the other independent analysis found "exotic incidiaries" in the dust...there are none. What they found are paint chips +/- corrosion.

I also believe that their analysis, and approach in general, is so unscientific, so full of methodological errors, as to render their results null and void, as many many people here have already pointed out to you.

TAM:)

[TruthersLie]

Bump for J... because he keeps dodging around it and ignoring it.


Edit: You might find this relevant to read, perhaps; a critical analysis of Jones paper on the active material:
*Active Thermitic Material" Claimed in Ground Zero Dust May Not Be Thermitic At All (http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html)

[tfk]

Hey Jay,

I'm feeling neglected.

In your reply (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5584366#post5584366), you completely ignored every single point that I made. That's not very sporting of you.

Would you care to actually, you know, "address" my points ...?

BTW, with regard to your (shades of 2006) "iron microspheres"...

Ever heard of "fly ash"?

What is the probability that any tiny chunk of iron, if melted by any method at all, will coalesce into a sphere? What causes it to do that?

How much energy do you think that it takes to melt a (big hint here) MICROsphere of iron.

What sort of other processes do you think might get hot enough & have enough energy to melt a MICROsphere's worth of iron?

How hot do you think electrical arcs are? You know, the types that leap from DC motor armatures to brushes. From electrical contacts in, oh say, trains when they make & break contact to the power rails. Did you ever see the opening of that old cop series "NYPD Blue". With the drums & the trains?

Dr. Jones has asserted that iron microspheres in NYC was a big deal back in 2006 / 2007. Did you notice his checking Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc for "iron microspheres". Just to make sure that it was, in fact, a big deal? And not a common occurrence in a city.

I haven't heard him make that claim in about 2+ years. Any thoughts as to why that might be?


Tom

[Edx]

Dr. Jones has asserted that iron microspheres in NYC was a big deal back in 2006 / 2007. Did you notice his checking Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc for "iron microspheres". Just to make sure that it was, in fact, a big deal? And not a common occurrence in a city.

I haven't heard him make that claim in about 2+ years. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

I don't know about Jones but Gage still talks about it. In the recent debate with Ron Craig he made a big deal about it, for example

[ElMondoHummus]

This will surely not be the last time I need to spell this out, as no one here seems capable of reading this sentence: I don't know how the stuff was used. Do you understand me?


I understand you perfectly. What I'm saying is that you're wrong on multiple counts. It was not present.
It was not used.
Had it even been present, existing evidence proves it failed because it had zero effect on the steel.
You are the one having difficulties grasping concepts.


You are implying that if this material was used, then it was necessarily used in the collapse region and it was the only substance used. Neither of those necessarily follow.


Absolutely, postively wrong. Why do you think I invoked Bazant? It either was used to start the collapse, or its presence wouldn't have mattered at all. Why is that so? Again: Read Bazant's work.


All the rest of your post I omitted is just a restatement of this basic misunderstanding (pretend or real) of what I'm saying. Until you understand what I'm saying, you're just arguing at cross-purposes.

Whatever. At this point, you're refusing to even try to comprehend .
"Thermitic material" was not present.
Even if it were, it did not have any effect.
You have demonstrated that you intend to ignore logic and evidence.


We can't even start speculating about the possibilities of how this stuff was used until we can all agree that this stuff was in fact in the WTC dust.


I cannot agree to a falsehood, save for the sake of argument. Which I've been doing when I said that even if it were present, it failed. Regardless, no, we do not need to agree "that this stuff was in fact in the WTC dust", because it wasn't. You have failed to prove that point, and it has been refuted in the past. Read the refutation (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694), but this time for comprehension.


Can we agree on that


No. You have failed to support your argument. You refuse to accept evidence, and you refuse to draw the proper conclusions from the evidence that exists.


Back with the kaolinite again... Kaolinite was never "demonstrated to be present." It was demonstrated that kaolinite has a similar morphology to the plate-like structures in the red part of the WTC dust chips. Until it has been demonstrated that MEK causes a chemical reaction in aluminosilicates that causes the aluminum to become unbound from the silicon, the only thing being demonstrated is an inability to understand basic chemistry.

This in incorrect. First of all, the aluminum in the red layer was demonstrated to not be unbound (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4658782&postcount=150) in Jones's and Harrit's own spectroscopy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4659658&postcount=157). Any assertion that aluminum is not bound to the silicate is contradicted by the very evidence they present. Second of all, the morphology is that of kaolin. You're misstaking by saying that kaoline has "similar" morphology. No, it has the same.

Instead of parroting Jones's own claim that the aluminum migrated out from the red layer in elemental form, why don't you actually ask him to prove it? He merely asserts this; his paper doesn't establish this. As has been pointed out, the MEK soaked chip was not established to be the same composition as the DSC tested ones, which is a damning failure.

[Jono]

This in incorrect. First of all, the aluminum in the red layer was demonstrated to not be unbound (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4658782&postcount=150) in Jones's and Harrit's own spectroscopy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4659658&postcount=157). Any assertion that aluminum is not bound to the silicate is contradicted by the very evidence they present. Second of all, the morphology is that of kaolin. You're misstaking by saying that kaoline has "similar" morphology. No, it has the same.


Interesting. My first impression was that the alumina and silica bound, due to its rather weak binding, had in the given material experiences dissolution; e.g kaolin dissolution. It's perfectly conceivable that the material in question had experienced enough pressure prior to the 55-hour lay-in-solvent that parts might've dispersed.

[aggle-rithm]

What is the probability that any tiny chunk of iron, if melted by any method at all, will coalesce into a sphere? What causes it to do that?


That sounds like a good idea for an experiment: Scrape a piece of metal against a sidewalk so that sparks fly, then try to pick up tiny metal fragments with a magnet and examine the results under a microscope.

[jay howard]

How much energy do you think that it takes to melt a (big hint here) MICROsphere of iron.



Whatever melted them got to at least 1538C for some amount of time, and it did it enough that in a random dust sample collected and studied by the RJ Lee group, they composed 5.7% of the mass.

How did fire get that hot? We know they didn't. So it was electrical? The electrical system was blasting the steel members so hot it decarburated the steel and turned them into iron, aluminum and silica-based spheres? You've seen some evidence of this? That's a "better" theory?

No. It's not a better theory by any stretch of the imagination. It's grasping at straws in the face of the narrowing plausibility of the fire and wreckage-induced collapse theory.

.

[jay howard]

The first objection that should be dealt with is the issue of sample authenticity. Is this dust from the WTC wreckage? The scenario proposed is that the 4 samples were given to the research team via different channels originally for a different paper, from residents of NYC on or near 9/11/01.

If you don't buy this, then there is no point discussing this further. We really need to get past that first premise if there is to be any real discussion. These are the 3 basic positions at this point:

One. They planted the chips. (contamination)

Two. The substance is in the dust but benign and expected. (Kaolinite)

Three. The substance was planted AND it’s normal building material. (confused)

Those who take the contamination position have a difficult hill to climb with little more than some speculation. This is the time to show any evidence (beyond incredulity) for consideration of this stance or accept that the substance was in the dust and these samples are representative. Or opt into the world of ignore.

The Kaolinites would have us believe this is nothing more than a flammable industrial material painted on the columns that has been baked to a rusted surface, that ignites at 430C and forms iron and silicon-based microspheres during ignition. And just like the molten aluminum theory, if you can replicate those phenomena with some of the paint from the towers, you win. I go home with my tail between my legs. No conspiracy.

The confused apologist takes the unusual stance that the dust is BOTH benign AND planted. This is just a tell that you’re drive is to make this conversation end ASAP. It seems like you're heading off resistance from all directions, but in reality, the argument only demonstrates an unwillingness to talk about this subject at all--as in reality, the dust is either authentic or it's planted. It's either regular building material or it's not supposed to be there. If it's planted, then it better be damningly suspicious. If it's totally benign, then it definitely NOT planted.

It's not both planted AND JUST IN CASE I CAN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT WORK, it's also benign. So move your bowels or go on your way, because it can't be both when they are mutually exclusive.

How was this stuff used in the towers? That’s a good question. I don’t know. Did the evidence disappear yet? Nope. All the speculation in the world will not change the fact that these chips ignited at 430C and formed molten iron and silicate spheroids.



.

[aggle-rithm]

Those who take the contamination position have a difficult hill to climb with little more than some speculation. This is the time to show any evidence (beyond incredulity) for consideration of this stance or accept that the substance was in the dust and these samples are representative. Or opt into the world of ignore.

.

Are you kidding? The burden of proof is on the experimenter to show that a sample is genuine and uncontaminated. These experimenters were unable to do this.

Remember the meteorite found in Antarctica that showed possible signs of life on Mars? The problem was that there was no way to show that the meteorite hadn't been contaminated by terrestrial material. Do you think it is reasonable to conclude that the artifacts found in the sample were signs of Martian life unless someone else proved otherwise?

I'll give you a hint: It isn't. That's how science works.

[TruthersLie]

Whatever melted them got to at least 1538C for some amount of time, and it did it enough that in a random dust sample collected and studied by the RJ Lee group, they composed 5.7% of the mass.

How did fire get that hot? We know they didn't. So it was electrical? The electrical system was blasting the steel members so hot it decarburated the steel and turned them into iron, aluminum and silica-based spheres? You've seen some evidence of this? That's a "better" theory?

No. It's not a better theory by any stretch of the imagination. It's grasping at straws in the face of the narrowing plausibility of the fire and wreckage-induced collapse theory.

.

again and again and again...

Before you can make any claims about what was found, first you need to ELIMINATE EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSE. Here let me state it again.

Before you can make any claims about what was found, first you need to ELIMINATE EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSE. Here let me hilite it for you

Before you can make any claims about what was found, first you need to ELIMINATE EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSE.

Will that get through to you? Of course not.

<off topic> The RJ Lee samples were gathered 8 months and 13 months after the attack. WE HAVE NO IDEA when those microspheres got there.

Could they be there from the recovery period when they were using oxy torches and thermic lances to cut steel? (which would create microspheres) Yes.

Could they be there from any upgrades or changes during the ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION of the towers? Yes.

Could they be there from being released from Fly ASH? Yes.

Could they be from the gypsum and concrete? Yes.

Could they be from thermite/thermate/nanothermite? Yes. (except we know it wasn't because there is no evidence).

Now, since RJ Lee state explicitly that the microspheres were FULLY EXPECTED to be found, why? How would they expect to find them? Maybe you should ask them.

Can you ELIMINATE ANY OF THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES? What? Speak up. I can't hear you. Huh? No you can't.

try again
</off topic>

[ElMondoHummus]

Whatever melted them got to at least 1538C for some amount of time, and it did it enough that in a random dust sample collected and studied by the RJ Lee group, they composed 5.7% of the mass.

How did fire get that hot? We know they didn't. So it was electrical? The electrical system was blasting the steel members so hot it decarburated the steel and turned them into iron, aluminum and silica-based spheres? You've seen some evidence of this? That's a "better" theory?

No. It's not a better theory by any stretch of the imagination. It's grasping at straws in the face of the narrowing plausibility of the fire and wreckage-induced collapse theory.



It is a mistake to presume that the microspheres found in the RJ Lee survey were produced by the fire. That was nothing more than their working presumption, and recall that they made it before the NIST report came out and laid out what happened inside the towers prior to collapse. They were working with the same presumptions regarding the fires that were made in the initial FEMA report, and those have been shows through later research to have been incorrect.

There are multiple possible sources for the microspheres found in the RJ Lee survey that are mundane and far from conspiratorial. For example, if you presume they were there well before 9/11 - which is not only entirely possible, but quite likely, since nothing about their formation dictates that they were formed during 9/11 - then they could have easily come from welding during construction, or the fly ash ingredient of concrete - or both - and have been exposed by the collapses from areas in the buildings where they were previously contained (this explains the higher-than-background concentration RJ Lee noted). If you also keep in mind that, as Ryan Mackey pointed out (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4112121#post4112121), their survey was done 9 months after the towers fell, then suddenly you have another source that's not merely likely, but is impossible to ignore: Salvage operations.

Bottom line: You commit an error by presuming the spheres RJ Lee identified were created by the 9/11 events. You have no basis for that presumption.

Furthermore: The implications of the RJ Lee report have been discussed before. You apparently missed those threads. Here's a small sample:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89753
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89753&page=2
Invoking the RJ Lee report to support conspiratorial fantasies is a mistake. Those spheres have other sources. Your "thermitic material" is ruled out for other reasons, and could not have possibly been the generator of the spheres noted by the RJ Lee group.

How was this stuff used in the towers? That’s a good question. I don’t know. Did the evidence disappear yet? Nope. All the speculation in the world will not change the fact that these chips ignited at 430C and formed molten iron and silicate spheroids.

Too bad 430oC happened in far too small a sample to have any meaning: Temperatures generated at that level are not indicative of bulk properties (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4658782#post4658782). Too bad also that the spheres were shown in Jones and Harrit's own work to not be homogenous, which directly impacts the melting point argument (a compound will not exhibit the same characteristics of an element, and often, melting points are lowered. This is seen in many simple iron-other element compounds - take iron sulfide as an example: It has a lower melting point (~1194oC) than straight iron (1538oC) or various steels (~1510oC, depending on the carbon content and other elements present). But what brings the ultimate sadness is that the characteristics Jones's group describes match that of paint (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&page=3) and contradict that of thermite (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5114458#post5114458) (or whatever you want to call it... "thermitic material" or some such euphamism), yet folks like you insist on beating the square "thermitic material" peg in the round "it's anything but" hole.

Lots of these issues are covered in the first few pages of this very thread. You really should read them.

[T.A.M.]

Look Jay, you can BS all you want, but this is the way PROPER SCIENCE works.

1. You find substance A. You hypothesize what it might be based on tests done, you must then prove that the substance is what you hypothesize, and you do that by eliminating ALL OTHER REASONABLE POSSIBILITIES.

THEY have not done this, so they fail...plain and simple.

2. So the alleged chain of custody for ALL of the sample they used, is that they came from a common source 5 years later from the time that that source collected them for a different paper...thats it? That is suppose to be a good chain of custody? Perhaps for a grade 1 science paper, but not for a real world grown up paper, and CERTAINLY not for any type of forensic analysis. Now you can whine about how we are being unreasonable, or unfair, but that is THE WAY SCIENCE WORKS.

3. WHy don't you just be honest (you have shown glimmers of being of legitimate inquiry) and admit they did a piss poor, totally bias, totally unscientific JOB of it, and that they should start over.

DO YOU NOT FIND IT SUSPICIOUS that (A) they have not provided their samples for TRULY INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS, and (B) Those other analysis of WTC dust have not come up with any material they consider unexpected or out of the ordinary????

Your answer to this will truly tell me if you are being honest about your inquiry, or simply playing along, trying to convince people.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

The first objection that should be dealt with is the issue of sample authenticity. Is this dust from the WTC wreckage? The scenario proposed is that the 4 samples were given to the research team via different channels originally for a different paper, from residents of NYC on or near 9/11/01.

If you don't buy this, then there is no point discussing this further.

That, in fact, is the first problem. There is no established chain of custody to verify that the dust samples originated from the WTC debris. That, alone, renders any speculation on the further analysis moot.


These are the 3 basic positions at this point:

One. They planted the chips. (contamination)

Two. The substance is in the dust but benign and expected. (Kaolinite)

Three. The substance was planted AND it’s normal building material. (confused)

Four. The samples are a mixture of dust from various sources, including unintentional contamination from environmental dust sources.

Those who take the contamination position have a difficult hill to climb with little more than some speculation. This is the time to show any evidence (beyond incredulity) for consideration of this stance or accept that the substance was in the dust and these samples are representative. Or opt into the world of ignore.

The problem, for you, is that you are trying to evangelise. Putting people on ignore is, for you, as much of a failure as people putting you on ignore. By leaving the debate, you are conceding defeat, because if you simply claim that your point of view has not been disproven and no more then you are accepting the status quo, and the status quo is a general understanding that 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda and that the Twin Towers collapsed as a direct result of impact and fire damage. The burden of proof rests entirely on you.

The confused apologist takes the unusual stance that the dust is BOTH benign AND planted. This is just a tell that you’re drive is to make this conversation end ASAP. It seems like you're heading off resistance from all directions, but in reality, the argument only demonstrates an unwillingness to talk about this subject at all--as in reality, the dust is either authentic or it's planted. It's either regular building material or it's not supposed to be there. If it's planted, then it better be damningly suspicious. If it's totally benign, then it definitely NOT planted.

You're omitting the possibility that we think it was planted by somebody stupid. It's quite feasible - though, in fact, I don't think this is the case - that the dust samples were deliberately doctored to contain a substance that is nevertheless incapable of creating the effect the forger wanted to suggest, because the forger is too stupid to work out the ramifications of his own conspiracy theory.

How was this stuff used in the towers? That’s a good question. I don’t know. Did the evidence disappear yet? Nope. All the speculation in the world will not change the fact that these chips ignited at 430C and formed molten iron and silicate spheroids.

Thus demonstrating that (a) they would have been ignited by the jet fuel fires immediately following the impacts and could not therefore have been responsible for the collapses, and (b) either it is possible to form iron spheroids without producing temperatures high enough to melt steel over significant areas (assuming Dr. Harrit's equipment survived the experiments) or the spheroids are not, in fact, pure iron.

I suggest you consider that second point very, very carefully. Conspiracy theorists are using spheroids produced in a reaction that did not generate temperatures in excess of 1500ºC over macroscopic regions as proof that temperatures in excess of 1500ºC were produced over macroscopic regions. The fact that they were able to produce these spheres without destroying their own equipment is simple refutation of their claim.

Dave

[carlitos]

Whatever melted them got to at least 1538C for some amount of time, and it did it enough that in a random dust sample collected and studied by the RJ Lee group, they composed 5.7% of the mass.

How did fire get that hot? We know they didn't. So it was electrical? The electrical system was blasting the steel members so hot it decarburated the steel and turned them into iron, aluminum and silica-based spheres? You've seen some evidence of this? That's a "better" theory?

No. It's not a better theory by any stretch of the imagination. It's grasping at straws in the face of the narrowing plausibility of the fire and wreckage-induced collapse theory.

.
jay howard, do you think that what you wrote above answers this question that you quoted? Because it doesn't. The answer should be a number of joules. Please try again.


How much energy do you think that it takes to melt a (big hint here) MICROsphere of iron.


jay howard, please insert number of joules here __________________

[A W Smith]

Microspheres ??? Again??? Is it 2008 all over again? Have you been hibernating in a cave like a bear for 2 years Jay Howard? Time to get up to speed on what could have formed Microspheres.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114717

Brake pads on heavy equipment, especially cranes, and excavators produce micro spheres with silicon, Concrete cut off saws with Aluminum oxide and silicon binder do the same. Clutches and big truck brakes also. As well as some sand papers using silicon binders with aluminum oxide.
Iron fibers and Diatomaceous Earth are used in brake pads, on equipment and vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5042991/description.html

Until site contamination is resolved the work of Dr. Steven E Jones and the other Scholars on the micro spheres is garbage Pseudo Science.

They believe solely because micro spheres are present that they indicate high temperatures, that is a false leap based solely on assumption in conditions which are not and can never be controlled to rule out possible contamination from multiple sources.

The Micro spheres might even be from the renovation following the 1993 bombing from steel cutting and hauling or from equipment operations and steel and concrete cutting during the clean up in 2001.

The micro spheres are not important unless they point to a specific source that can not be mistaken for back ground contamination, from other sources.

I would like to see more evidence of work on the micro spheres, and samples provided, however I do not expect that from the Scholars for truth at this moment.

Many micro spheres are the result of abrasive Mechanical friction on steel and not the result of the fires, that was a false assumption, which I thought I should clear up.

I thought I read somewhere (not here) that diesel engine combustion produces a small amount of such, especially on less well maintained engines. Do you know anything about this? I'm unable to find much about it, but I haven't tried searching beyond the internet yet.

If that's correct - if - then sheer exposure from the number of buses, delivery trucks, etc. would be immense. But again, that's if.

Yes diesel engine exhaust does contain micro spheres, as well as the fluids contained in the engine contain them, from cavitational corrosion of the cylinder liners.

Car engines also can produce micro spheres there is no perfect system of lubrication as the piston rings wear in a car engine and carbon builds up it increases cylinder wear.
Cast steel engines and Cylinder liners are high silicon for greater hardness and less wear as well as greater heat dissipation.

The brakes on a car can though mechanical friction produce micro spheres if the car is traveling fast enough to reach the critical energy necessary when the brakes are applied.

Anything that cuts or brakes using iron and aluminum silicates or aluminum oxide and silicates, can form micro-spheres the greater the live load stopped by the breaking material the more micro-spheres produced.
Large overloaded trucks and Cranes would be a huge source of them.


There are certain characteristics of microspheres that would point to thermite as being the most likely source. So far Steven Jones has failed to provide X-ray spectra showing the characteristics I am refering to. (I will not say what these characteristics are - to keep Jones honest - but I have plenty of data to back-up my claim.)

Chainsaw and other posters are correct about the multiple sources of "iron-rich microspheres". They are myriad! I have also reviewed published data on airborne particulate for New York City going back to the 1970s and the years when the Twin Towers were under construction! The deposition rate for Fe onto NYC is about 400 mg/m^2/year. Jones needs to consider this dry deposition flux before he goes off claiming all sorts of things about his samples.

Until Jones is willing to provide a complete set of analytical data for a statistically significant set of WTC microspheres, he is not going to convince a jury of his peers of anything!

[Myriad]

Here is a photograph showing iron-rich microspheres being produced:

http://www.apparelsearch.com/News/Articles/Events/2008/August/GrinderGirl4.jpg
Can you spot the iron-rich microspheres in the photo? It's easier than you might think!

Where was Grinder Girl on 9/11/2001? We'll need a new investigation with subpoena power to find out!

Respectfully,
Myriad