[Merged] Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper [Archive] - Page 3

jay howard

11th February 2010, 02:59 PM

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.

There most certainly is an established chain of custody. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the chain of custody other than people here don't like the conclusions of the paper. But, as mentioned by smarter people than me, incredulity is a poor foundation for argument.

If anyone had real evidence to explain why the chain of custody is not "good enough" then they would have posted it already. So far, the only thing people have brought up is the amount of time it was held. Apparently, someone cooked up some nano-particles and made them magnetic so the investigators would find them with a magnet.

Put it this way, if there were a group of academics out there who where falsifying information for the purpose of indicting high-level politicos, they would be tried and convicted of treason. Full stop.

Four. The samples are a mixture of dust from various sources, including unintentional contamination from environmental dust sources.

Right. I just decided that was so ridiculous we wouldn't need to include it. Apparently not. Apparently it's more likely to you that 4 different samples were contaminated with the SAME material, and they all ended up in Jones' hands. And I'm the one with the crazy theory.

The problem, for you, is that you are trying to evangelise.

That's rich.

Putting people on ignore is, for you, as much of a failure as people putting you on ignore.

Your opinion is noted.

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.

You accuse me of evangelizing and then tout this debate as a popularity contest? The contents of the WTC dust don't care about the status quo. Strange explosive material was found in the dust that ignited at 430C and formed molten iron and silicon-based spheres. That doesn't change. Nothing you say can make that reality disappear. And the implications of that material are clear to the world.

Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans. The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion. There is no other explanation.

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.

So, you do or do not believe this? You say you don't, however, you follow up your shallow disbelief with the same argument that's been flagged for being pure propaganda: they planted it... AND it's benign.

Have you worked out the ramifications of your "quadruple contamination" conspiracy theory?

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.

Why don't you just read the paper? It clearly demonstrates that this stuff ignites at about 430C and gets hot enough to reduce iron oxide to molten iron and produce silicon spheres.

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.

So because a little chip weighing less than a gram didn't destroy their machinery, they can't be right? That's your argument? Wow, the attempts at refutation here are getting weaker and weaker, to put it mildly. Face it, this paper isn't perfect, but it's absolutely clear that these are not samples of paint or corrosion protective material. This stuff is incendiary and is crystal clear evidence of foul play.

.

16.5

11th February 2010, 03:27 PM

“There most certainly is an established chain of custody. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the chain of custody other than people here don't like the conclusions of the paper. But, as mentioned by smarter people than me, incredulity is a poor foundation for argument.”

Huh, anonymous people send to person with obvious motive and a penchant for dishonesty a bag of “dust’ from locations unknown. That is a chain of custody?

Same person with obvious motive and a penchant for dishonesty and now a bag of “dust’ from locations unknown refuses to send sample to independent lab. Instead sends sample to truther buddy in Europe who reports that he cannot duplicate Jones’ results.

Makes ya go: Hmmmm.

Sam.I.Am

11th February 2010, 03:39 PM

If anyone had real evidence to explain why the chain of custody is not "good enough" then they would have posted it already.

Not good enough. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5130/Chain-Custody.html)

Proof of a chain of custody is required when the evidence that is sought to be introduced at trial is not unique or where the relevance of the evidence depends on its analysis after seizure. A proper chain of custody requires three types of testimony: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant's blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time it is presented in court; and (3) testimony by each person who has had possession that the particular piece of evidence remained in substantially the same condition from the moment one person took possession until the moment that person released the evidence into the custody of another (for example, testimony that the evidence was stored in a secure location where no one but the person in custody had access to it).

We don't know who collected it or what the collection method was. We don't know who stored it or where and how it was stored. This dust and any evidence that came from it would get thrown out of a court of law.

T.A.M.

11th February 2010, 04:08 PM

jaydeehess

11th February 2010, 04:33 PM

Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans. The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion. There is no other explanation.

So, you aren't evangelizing?

I'm into this conversation late but is there a paper trail establishing the chain of custody of the materials and how/where they were stored? If not then there is NOT an established chain of custody, plain and simple. Taking someone's word that they had it stored properly and for how long is simply not good enough for a real scientific paper.

I can make microspheres in my basement with the hand driven grinder I have there. In fact it was a 'neat' thing for my brother and I when we were 9/10 years old to use that very grinder wheel and touch steel nails to it to watch the sparks fly.

In that case Jay, we had raised the temperature of small particles of steel by adding energy(heat) to them such that they were molten.
A 9 year old had the muscle power to cause iron microspheres to be produced Jay!

Now the dust was collected from an area where thousands of tons of steel had bashed and scraped against itself and a large amount of concrete. It was in a very large city where there are multiple possible sources of such microspheres and the paper does not make any effort to eliminate the possibility of other sources. It is from an area in which very quickly following the collapses all manner of saws, grinders and high temperature torches were utilised which would seem to make it unusual if there were no iron microspheres.

You then attempt to sell this as evidence towards an "air tight conclusion"?

I have seen better arguements for creationism.

A W Smith

11th February 2010, 09:47 PM

Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans. The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion. There is no other explanation.
You have failed to support this Edited for civility (Moderated thread.)

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.

.

So because a little chip weighing less than a gram didn't destroy their machinery, they can't be right? That's your argument? Wow, the attempts at refutation here are getting weaker and weaker, to put it mildly. Face it, this paper isn't perfect, but it's absolutely clear that these are not samples of paint or corrosion protective material. This stuff is incendiary and is crystal clear evidence of foul play.

You tripped up Jay, See the holding in red? You contradict yourself. You assert that whatever caused your micro-spheres HAD to encounter temps of 1538 degrees C, Then claim it didn't need to reach that temperature in Jones "laboratory". You also breezed right past post 499 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5603805&postcount=499)where i show you what else can commonly cause micro-spheres, Do you see the quote attributed to Apolo20? That's Frank Greening, And he agrees there are many common sources of micro-spheres. Take it up with him and get back to us.

ElMondoHummus

11th February 2010, 10:10 PM

You accuse me of evangelizing and then tout this debate as a popularity contest? The contents of the WTC dust don't care about the status quo. Strange explosive material was found in the dust that ignited at 430C and formed molten iron and silicon-based spheres. That doesn't change. Nothing you say can make that reality disappear. And the implications of that material are clear to the world.

Therein lies your problem: You've fallen for an act of fraud. Willingly so. We've amply demonstrated that the material is in fact not suspicious (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4644553#post4644553), nor "thermitic (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694)". We've even gone so far as to demonstrate that Jones own data contradicts the notion that the material is "thermitic" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5116741#post5116741); more than once, in fact (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5098665#post5098665). On top of that, I've demonstrated that even if it was what you allege, it failed to work (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5590547#post5590547). Your problem is that you are actively ignoring all this in a futile desire to make stick a false, well disproven conspiracy proposal that doesn't even contain internal consistency, much less provide enough impetus to make the rational segment of society want to revisit the events of 9/11.

The reality is that it was not explosive material, did not evolve iron spheres via a thermite reaction, and did not demonstrate any characteristics of an iron oxide - aluminum redox reaction. Instead, the material when ignited exhibited characteristics of something other than "thermitic material" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694). You've been shown this; the links and quotes have been provided repeatedly (heck, this last link is a repeat of one just a single paragraph above... maybe one of these days you'll actually read it). It's your own failure that you refuse to accept the reality the evidence leads to.

Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans. The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion. There is no other explanation.

Funny you should say this now, when just a page or two ago, you said:
...I've said several times I do not know how this stuff was used.
You don't know how it was used... yet you posit that it was used to bring down the twin towers. Thermite affects steel through high temperatures, you accuse the government of killing 3000 citizens, yet you try to strike a "just asking questions" pose when you said "I do not know how this stuff was used". Edited for civility. (Moderated thread) You try to project a demeanor of honest inquisition, but in reality you were driving towards an agenda. You believed that you knew how it was used, but you try to claim that you don't, that you're merely following where the evidence supposedly leads.

Edited for civility. (Moderated thread)

But you know, in a funny way, you are right about one thing: You truly don't know how "thermitic material" can be used. "Can", not "was", because it wasn't. We've demonstrated that conclusively; see links above, plus read the first pages of this thread. You truly don't know how such material can be used, you can't even properly identify from the evidence what the material is, and instead you parrot conclusions that are unsupported and in fact actively contradicted by the data itself. So you lied, but you revealed a truth in doing so: You revealed that you know no more than what the conspiracy leaders tell you to believe. You reveal that by hewing strongly to their disproven arguments, even when shown what the contradictions and refuations are. Very cultish of you. Very brainwashed.

You were willing to leap to conspiratorial conclusions in spite of evidence contradicting your fantasy, and you continue to try to build from a base of refuted arguments. You've lept from "I do not know how this stuff was used" to "Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans. The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion" when the Harrit paper doesn't identify these "forces", doesn't identify any links between the material Jones was given and the government, and did not ever show you "how this stuff was used". You leap. With no evidence or reason to. What about the 430oC ignition point tells you that the government was involved? What about the evolution of spheroids tells you that these shadowy forces put the material there? You see, even if we pretend that the material is indeed suspicious, you still have nothing but leaps of faith about how it got there. And yet you argue this anyway? You think we're stupid enough to buy this argument?

You see, this is why I call people like you "conspiracy fantasists". You don't have a theory, you have a disproven narrative. You spin a fiction. A Fantasy. A fantasy that centralizes around a fictional conspiracy. And you try to peddle it as truth. You ignore so much evidence in order to do this, subtract so much context to make your questions appear to have validity that no one can evaluate the questions honestly as ones about 9/11, and bend so much truth to present those questions as honestly arrived at that the pose amounts to a lie. The questions are not honest ones. The points are at best misinterpretations, at worst open lies. And you conspiracy peddlers? Well, now... "impotent" is the kindest word I can come up with, seeing as how you supposedly have evidence of some grand conspiracy involving the murder of 3000 US citizens, yet all you can do is serial post mistaken point after mistaken point on some internet discussion board. That says a lot about you conspiracy fantasists. And none of it is good. None of it at all.

TruthersLie

11th February 2010, 10:57 PM

There most certainly is an established chain of custody. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the chain of custody other than people here don't like the conclusions of the paper. But, as mentioned by smarter people than me, incredulity is a poor foundation for argument.

If anyone had real evidence to explain why the chain of custody is not "good enough" then they would have posted it already.

Edited for civility. (Moderated thread)

So far, the only thing people have brought up is the amount of time it was held. Apparently, someone cooked up some nano-particles and made them magnetic so the investigators would find them with a magnet.

Since the person who "found" these particles is a known fraud, the "paper" is riddled with methodological errors, no proof that they are "cooked up some nano particles" and NO ONE ELSE HAS FOUND THIS SUBSTANCE... I really don't know what it is, and more to the point neither does anyone else.

Put it this way, if there were a group of academics out there who where falsifying information for the purpose of indicting high-level politicos, they would be tried and convicted of treason. Full stop.

Your ignorance of US law is just as bad as your ignorance of the basic experimental design. "if there were such a group" they wouldn't be tried and convicted for treason. Sorry. Again argument from ignorance. AT best they would be tried for LIBEL and SLANDER, be disbarred from their profession and forced to pay restitution.

The accusation of individuals in high level politics of misdoing, murder etc are NOT TREASON. Full stop.

Right. I just decided that was so ridiculous we wouldn't need to include it. Apparently not. Apparently it's more likely to you that 4 different samples were contaminated with the SAME material, and they all ended up in Jones' hands. And I'm the one with the crazy theory.

So how do you nano engineer something to tailor its properties, yet when these samples aer tested you have 4 VASTLY DIFFERENT reactions between them? Don't you nano engineer something to make sure it reacts the same way every time? (yet more proof that it isn't something nano engineered)

You accuse me of evangelizing and then tout this debate as a popularity contest? The contents of the WTC dust don't care about the status quo.

You are right, the contents of the dust doesn't care about anything. It is dust.

Strange explosive material

You use a word there that doesn't mean what you think it means... "explosive" You should look that up. Combustible.. ok. explosive? hasn't been proven. try again.

Again and again, where is the methodology which eliminate ANY OTHER THING which would combust?

was found in the dust that ignited at 430C and formed molten iron and silicon-based spheres.

Again back to those methodological errors you are ignoring.
it ignited at 430 c in an oxygen rich atmosphere. Lots of things will ignite at that temperature.. including dried paint. oops.

That doesn't change. Nothing you say can make that reality disappear. And the implications of that material are clear to the world.

The outright implicaitons are that harrit, jones, et al are extremely outside of their fields of education and experience. The rest of those implications are that they do shoddy science and that you don't have a clue as to basic scientific principles.

Did you have other implications?

Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans. The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion. There is no other explanation.

Conclusions that are not supported by this "paper." The lack of evidence, the horrendous methodological errors, the necessicity of publishing in a vanity journal and even JONES backing from the nanothermite claim (now he claims it was used in fuses for conventional explosives) all destroy this BS claim. You should get on the mailing list to make sure you have the new twoof talking points.

Why don't you just read the paper? It clearly demonstrates that this stuff ignites at about 430C and gets hot enough to reduce iron oxide to molten iron and produce silicon spheres.

I have read this "paper" numerous times. And I can't get beyond the 20 methodological errors... and that isn't counting the outrageous conclusions or the vanity journal publication.

Face it, this paper isn't perfect, but it's absolutely clear that these are not samples of paint or corrosion protective material.

Ummm "this paper isn't perfect" is an extreme understatement. This "paper" is riddled with methodological errors which completely and utterly invalidate ANY findings or conclusions of this "paper."

File it in the circular bin and start over.

This paper didn't rule out paint or corrosion protective materials. How could they? They used a bad control and didn't make any attempt to get proper control.

We have NO idea what they found and more importantly neither do they.

This stuff is incendiary and is crystal clear evidence of foul play.

Ummm... NO. This stuff combusts in an oxygen rich environment. There are literally thousands of things which do so. NONE of them were eliminated. How can you possibly make any claims as to what something is when you don't eliminate anything? Huh?

Dave Rogers

12th February 2010, 02:32 AM

There most certainly is an established chain of custody. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the chain of custody other than people here don't like the conclusions of the paper.

You've had this explained to you many times, and decided to ignore the explanation.

Put it this way, if there were a group of academics out there who where falsifying information for the purpose of indicting high-level politicos, they would be tried and convicted of treason. Full stop.

Why? Nobody cares what they're doing. Since they have no relevance, why bother?

You accuse me of evangelizing and then tout this debate as a popularity contest? The contents of the WTC dust don't care about the status quo. Strange explosive material was found in the dust that ignited at 430C and formed molten iron and silicon-based spheres. That doesn't change. Nothing you say can make that reality disappear. And the implications of that material are clear to the world.

It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. You're seeking to convince the world that reality is something other than what they believe it to be. Taking your ball and going home is a failure. You have to keep arguing, or concede. And, no, no explosive material was found in the dust, no molten iron was observed, and the spheres are not iron, they're iron-rich. Reality is not what you want it to be.

Why don't you just read the paper? It clearly demonstrates that this stuff ignites at about 430C and gets hot enough to reduce iron oxide to molten iron and produce silicon spheres.

No, it doesn't. It simply pretends to demonstrate that.

So because a little chip weighing less than a gram didn't destroy their machinery, they can't be right? That's your argument? Wow, the attempts at refutation here are getting weaker and weaker, to put it mildly.

Just because you choose not to understand the argument, that doesn't invalidate it. Let's break it down into premises and conclusions.

(P1) An experiment demonstrates that heating a substance claimed to be found in the WTC to 430ºC causes that substance to combust.
(P2) This combustion produces iron-rich microspheres in microscopic regions, without producing sufficiently high temperatures to melt iron over macroscopic regions.
(P3) Iron-rich microspheres cannot be produced without the creation of sufficiently high temperatures to melt iron over macroscopic regions.
(C) Therefore, macroscopic regions of the WTC were exposed to temperatures sufficiently high to melt iron.

Either you can see that premise 2 contradicts premise 3, or you're blinded by your own idealogy, or you're incapable of understanding a line of reasoning.

Dave

aggle-rithm

12th February 2010, 06:34 AM

DeSelby

12th February 2010, 06:40 AM

First post. Longtime lurker.

It has been said many times already but bears repeating that these authors were already fully signed up to the inside jobby job theory from early days post 911.
Therefore, their objectivity and reliability is questionable to say the least. Any reasonable person would therefore expect THEM to go the extra mile to establish the chain of custody for the dust samples, to conduct independent tests to verify their findings etc
Assuming of course that the exercise was not just to impress those already committed to the inside jobby job theory but rather to raise the issue with their peers (well Jones' and Harrit's anyway) in the relevant scientific disciplines.

One small mystery for me is this. Jones et all claimed that when he/they saw the collapses on television it was obvious to him/them that these were the result of some kind of demolition.
Why on earth did he/they wait years to be given some dust samples, surely, if he/they is/are genuine, he/they would have headed straight to ground zero, volunteered for the clean up, and gathered a wealth of 'incriminating' evidence ?

jay howard

12th February 2010, 11:37 AM

Not good enough. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5130/Chain-Custody.html)

We don't know who collected it or what the collection method was. We don't know who stored it or where and how it was stored. This dust and any evidence that came from it would get thrown out of a court of law.

All we have is evidence and probability.

To write the results off as contamination of 4 different samples with the same material is wildly less probable than the probability of that material simply being in the dust.

If you want to claim the samples were seeded by the Harrit/Farrer/Jones crew, that's nice but there isn't any good reason to accept that over the acquisition process they claim.

Do you think it's more reasonable to accept that the samples are contaminated because they appear to have explosive chips in them? or would you be all up in arms about the samples even if they found nothing suspicious?

.

aggle-rithm

12th February 2010, 11:43 AM

Any reasonable person would therefore expect THEM to go the extra mile to establish the chain of custody for the dust samples, to conduct independent tests to verify their findings etc

Jones seems to have established a second career preaching to the choir. He only has to convince his followers, who are easily convinced of things they already believe without question.

One small mystery for me is this. Jones et all claimed that when he/they saw the collapses on television it was obvious to him/them that these were the result of some kind of demolition.

Unfortunately, the truthiness movement is full of small mysteries.

jay howard

12th February 2010, 11:47 AM

Absolutely clear? based on what? That is our whole point, and you haven't refuted it in the slightest.

Sure. Don't let the inability of MEK to reduce aluminosilicates to elemental Al and a Si compound get in the way of your disbelief. Nor the production of iron and silicon-based microspheres from an intimately mixed material found in the WTC dust that ignites at 430C.

Strong claims require strong evidence. And it has been presented for free for anyone to attempt to refute. And the best attempts here have fallen far short of refutation. You have imparted your doubt with utmost clarity, however, that is in no way equivalent to a refutation.

You are no scientist, nor do you seem to believe in the scientific method. After all of these posts you resort, unfortunately as expected, to the same old truther lines and MO. Well I wish you had declared the idiocy above well before now...

Welcome to ignore jay.

TAM:boggled:

Why are "debunkers" unable to put someone on ignore without announcing it to that person? If you really want to ignore someone, just ignore them. No need for a ceremony.

.

pgimeno

12th February 2010, 04:06 PM

To write the results off as contamination of 4 different samples with the same material is wildly less probable than the probability of that material simply being in the dust.

I don't remember anyone claim that samples 1-4 are contaminated, and there's no proof of free aluminium in them. Unoxidized aluminium was only present in the MEK-soaked chip, which is of a different nature, so there's no basis to affirm that the material in samples 1-4 is 'thermitic' or 'explosive'.

A W Smith

12th February 2010, 07:11 PM

All we have is evidence and probability.
No you do not, You have evidence of something that cannot possibly be thermite or an incendiary sufficient to damage steel
To write the results off as contamination of 4 different samples with the same material is wildly less probable than the probability of that material simply being in the dust.
Yet, you claim to have four random samples that you "coincidentally" claim are evidence of an incendiary.
If you want to claim the samples were seeded by the Harrit/Farrer/Jones crew, that's nice but there isn't any good reason to accept that over the acquisition process they claim.
His refusal to release those samples for independent impartial analysis shows there is a problem he would rather not have revealed to the public.
Do you think it's more reasonable to accept that the samples are contaminated because they appear to have explosive chips in them? or would you be all up in arms about the samples even if they found nothing suspicious?
.They do not appear to have explosive chips in them. Let us know if the chips combust in an inert atmosphere. Mkay?

jay howard

14th February 2010, 01:25 AM

Therein lies your problem: You've fallen for an act of fraud. Willingly so. We've amply demonstrated that the material is in fact not suspicious (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4644553#post4644553), nor "thermitic (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694)". We've even gone so far as to demonstrate that Jones own data contradicts the notion that the material is "thermitic" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5116741#post5116741); more than once, in fact (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5098665#post5098665). On top of that, I've demonstrated that even if it was what you allege, it failed to work (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5590547#post5590547). Your problem is that you are actively ignoring all this in a futile desire to make stick a false, well disproven conspiracy proposal that doesn't even
contain internal consistency, much less provide enough impetus to make the rational segment of society want to revisit the events of 9/11.

The reality is that it was not explosive material, did not evolve iron spheres via a thermite reaction, and did not demonstrate any characteristics of an iron oxide - aluminum redox reaction.

Except the production of iron and silicate microspheres. Can you think of another exothermic reaction that can do this? Does it matter to the existence of the evidence what you call this material? It doesn't make the evidence go away.

Instead, the material when ignited exhibited characteristics of something other than "thermitic material" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694).

Like paint? Really? You have absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. If you can show me some paint from the towers that ignites at 430C and creates iron and silicate spheres, I will concede that I've been TOTALLY MISTAKEN by this whole "inside job" thing.

I'm not holding my breath.

Funny you should say this now, when just a page or two ago, you said:

You don't know how it was used... yet you posit that it was used to bring down the twin towers.

Let me clarify my position for you: This material is incendiary. It shouldn't be in the dust. It is proof positive that someone put explosive material in the towers. How was this stuff used? I still don't know. Was it used in conjunction with something else? Was any of the material used to take down the buildings "conventional" or was it all highly tailored and unusual? I don't know that either.

Has the material disappeared yet? Not yet?

Thermite affects steel through high temperatures, you accuse the government of killing 3000 citizens, yet you try to strike a "just asking questions" pose when you said "I do not know how this stuff was used". Edited for civility. (Moderated thread) You try to project a demeanor of honest inquisition, but in reality you were driving towards an agenda. You believed that you knew how it was used, but you try to claim that you don't, that you're merely following where the evidence supposedly leads.

Yes. My agenda.

My "agenda" is to read and understand the evidence. It clearly shows an unusual and highly energetic material with a low ignition point in the WTC dust. Unless you think it's more probable that the HFJ crew contaminated the dust themselves and tried to push this off as "real science" in a journal that everyone on the planet has free access to...

It is disingenuous, at least, to accuse me of having an "agenda" when there is no way I'm making any money or somehow becoming influential in any way whatsoever by following the trail of evidence. The insinuation that I have anything to gain from this is laughable in light of the amount of money that is contingent on keeping people in fear.

Who makes more money (by any standard): various 911 groups combined with all the media sales on the subject, OR any individual security contract (from a vast multitude) awarded as a result of the catastrophe from which all of this sprang?

(Hint: all the profits from all the 911 book/dvd/convention sales combined are a drop in the bucket compared to the individual profits made by military contractors.)

If you doubt this at all, at all, you should be put in D-hall by your teacher for being irresponsibly gullible.

Edited for civility. (Moderated thread)

But you know, in a funny way, you are right about one thing: You truly don't know how "thermitic material" can be used. "Can", not "was", because it wasn't. We've demonstrated that conclusively; see links above, plus read the first pages of this thread. You truly don't know how such material can be used, you can't even properly identify from the evidence what the material is, and instead you parrot conclusions that are unsupported and in fact actively contradicted by the data itself. So you lied...

That's a bold accusation. If you want to call me a liar you'd better have some real substance behind that. I don't have, nor have ever claimed to have a complete theory about what happened. Not having a complete theory is not equivalent to lying. You need to retract that or back it up.

...but you revealed a truth in doing so: You revealed that you know no more than what the conspiracy leaders tell you to believe. You reveal that by hewing strongly to their disproven arguments, even when shown what the contradictions and refuations are.

What are those? That you don't accept the chain of custody or you think MEK can chemically alter aluminosilicates? Or that it's kaolinite? Do you have a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates your claims? Or is a photo comparison strong enough evidence for you?

Very cultish of you. Very brainwashed.

Everyone else's magic is black magic.

You've lept from "I do not know how this stuff was used" to "Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans.[//quot The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion" when the Harrit paper doesn't identify these "forces", doesn't identify any links between the material Jones was given and the government, and did not ever show you "how this stuff was used". You leap. With no evidence or reason to.

I make a leap. And it has much corroborative evidence, but don't get distracted. If you want to have a discussion about the totality of evidence, start a new thread. The strength of that theory rests largely with the HFJ paper. That's the strongest evidence there is, and it's very strong. And the best arguments against it here hold no water whatsoever as has been pointed out time and again in the last couple of pages.

What about the 430oC ignition point tells you that the government was involved? What about the evolution of spheroids tells you that these shadowy forces put the material there? You see, even if we pretend that the material is indeed suspicious, you still have nothing but leaps of faith about how it got there. And yet you argue this
anyway? You think we're stupid enough to buy this argument?

I'm not here to convince you. I have no misconceptions that you'll change your mind about anything, but it's very illuminating to the spectators how the argument progresses. The people who resort to lashing out and who get personal generally do so out of desperation.

You ignore so much evidence in order to do this, subtract so much context...

Project much?

...to make your questions appear to have validity that no one can evaluate the questions honestly as ones about 9/11,

What? I make my "questions appear to have validity that no one can evaluate the questions honestly as ones about 911?" What does that even mean?

...and bend so much truth to present those questions as honestly arrived at that the pose amounts to a lie. The questions are not honest ones. The points are at best misinterpretations, at worst open lies.

Again with the lies. The only thing I can make out is you're calling me a liar. What does "the pose amounts to a lie" mean anyway? Would you like to say I'm asking loaded questions? Can you back anything up?

And you conspiracy peddlers? Well, now... "impotent" is the kindest word I can come up with, seeing as how you supposedly have evidence of some grand conspiracy involving the murder of 3000 US citizens, yet all you can do is serial post mistaken point after mistaken point on some internet
discussion board. That says a lot about you conspiracy fantasists. And none of it is good. None of it at all.

Let me know when you're done throwing a tantrum.

.

jay howard

14th February 2010, 01:37 AM

I don't remember anyone claim that samples 1-4 are contaminated, and there's no proof of free aluminium in them. Unoxidized aluminium was only present in the MEK-soaked chip, which is of a different nature, so there's no basis to affirm that the material in samples 1-4 is 'thermitic' or 'explosive'.

So, are you proposing that there is [i]another[/] substance in the dust that was also magnetically separated and is composed of red/gray layers?

pgimeno

15th February 2010, 07:20 AM

So, are you proposing that there is [i]another[/] substance in the dust that was also magnetically separated and is composed of red/gray layers?

I am affirming that there was. See fig. 31.

Dave Rogers

15th February 2010, 09:11 AM

Except the production of iron and silicate microspheres. Can you think of another exothermic reaction that can do this?

Burning coal is one. Look up fly ash.

Dave

TruthersLie

15th February 2010, 09:50 AM

All we have is evidence and probability.

To write the results off as contamination of 4 different samples with the same material is wildly less probable than the probability of that material simply being in the dust.

Are you really going to show a full lack of understanding of probability and the scientific method? Really?

<facepalm>

We already know there are over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." That alone invalidates ANY of their findings, conclusions or data.

But you decide to shift away from that (you keep on shifting) and now you try to bring in probablity?

Great.

What is the probability that of ALL the labs which have examined the dust, the only one to find anything is a group of "scientists" who are way outside of their specialities, education and knowledge base?

What is that probability that those labs would be wrong? Huh? Hmmm?

Your failing to understand research methods, experimental design and now probability.

Thank you for playing.

If you want to claim the samples were seeded by the Harrit/Farrer/Jones crew, that's nice but there isn't any good reason to accept that over the acquisition process they claim.

I actually don't say that. I say that they are wrong about what they are. I'm saying that with the craptacular "science" they have tried to pass off, it is impossible to claim with a straight face that it is anything. Why do you keep trying?

Do you think it's more reasonable to accept that the samples are contaminated because they appear to have explosive chips in them? or would you be all up in arms about the samples even if they found nothing suspicious?

I just wonder why NO ONE ELSE (you know real experts) have found this, or thought it wasn't paint.

So we have a "paper" with over 20 methodological errors, a group of "researchers" who are outside of their area of expertise and education who have a known bias and they don't use independent labs for analysis... wowsers. Call the press!!!!

jay howard

15th February 2010, 11:01 AM

Burning coal is one. Look up fly ash.

Dave

That doesn't help make sense of the ignition products of the red/gray chips. Are you suggesting they are made of coal?

.

Jono

15th February 2010, 12:49 PM

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jones get some samples used from Janette MacKinlay (another 9/11 Truth Movement member) who had put some dust found in her apartment(debris-dust that reportedly got there) and mailed it to him... nine days after 9/11??
If this is true and Jones used, in part, samples thereof, it had to have been exposed to possible influx and contamination during those nine days.
Furthermore, Janette's boyfried was a sculptor who reportedly used welding tools and metals in his artistic sculpturing.
How do we know none of the samples in the dust collected came from his stuff?

jay howard

15th February 2010, 02:05 PM

I am affirming that there was. See fig. 31.

So the 2nd material was also magnetically separated from the dust, was composed of a red/gray layered compound, but was unlike the other chips (how you could know this is unclear) because it demonstrated the presence of elemental Al after the MEK soak. And you maintain that claim based on the claim that you've identified a 3rd kind of material from a photograph, which was also magnetically separated from the dust, but instead of being a red/gray chip, it's a red/gray/red chip. That's your best argument?

Do you know what kind of shreds a "truther" would be ripped to if he came here with that kind of an argument? You've got to do better than that.

pgimeno

15th February 2010, 04:00 PM

So the 2nd material was also magnetically separated from the dust, was composed of a red/gray layered compound, but was unlike the other chips (how you could know this is unclear) because it demonstrated the presence of elemental Al after the MEK soak. And you maintain that claim based on the claim that you've identified a 3rd kind of material from a photograph, which was also magnetically separated from the dust, but instead of being a red/gray chip, it's a red/gray/red chip. That's your best argument?

My argument, which you apparently ignored, is in message #466 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5588737#post5588737) with a correction in message #468 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5589397#post5589397).

jay howard

15th February 2010, 04:26 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jones get some samples used from Janette MacKinlay (another 9/11 Truth Movement member) who had put some dust found in her apartment(debris-dust that reportedly got there) and mailed it to him... nine days after 9/11??
If this is true and Jones used, in part, samples thereof, it had to have been exposed to possible influx and contamination during those nine days.
Furthermore, Janette's boyfried was a sculptor who reportedly used welding tools and metals in his artistic sculpturing.
How do we know none of the samples in the dust collected came from his stuff?

If it's from welding materials from Mckinley's apt, how did it get in the other 3 samples? One of them was collected 10 minutes after the collapse of building 1.

Your criticism holds no water the moment the material is found in another sample--unless you want to claim that the HFJ guys are making all this up. Is that your next claim?

.

jay howard

15th February 2010, 04:57 PM

My argument, which you apparently ignored, is in message #466 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5588737#post5588737) with a correction in message #468 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5589397#post5589397).

Your incredulity is noted.

.

TruthersLie

15th February 2010, 07:42 PM

That doesn't help make sense of the ignition products of the red/gray chips. Are you suggesting they are made of coal?

.

Sure it does.

The ignition process of the red/gray chips is unknown. Because it was tested in an OXYGEN RICH ENVIRONMENT, you have something that burns in the presence of air.

Wow... Just like COAL.

Unless they have tested it in an INERT environment... did they do that while I wasn't looking?

So unless you have some form of a test in an inert environment, you have no proof that it is an exothermic reaction. What you do have is something burning in AIR. Doh!

TruthersLie

15th February 2010, 07:45 PM

Dave Rogers

16th February 2010, 03:24 AM

That doesn't help make sense of the ignition products of the red/gray chips. Are you suggesting they are made of coal?

No, I was answering your question. The point is, though, that truthers have created a mystic air of voodoo about the presence of iron-rich microspheres in the combustion products and the WTC dust, to give the deliberately misleading impression that such things can only possibly be created by a thermite reaction. In fact, this is a complete, deliberate and carefully calculated lie, and iron-rich microspheres are a fairly common product of mundane and commonplace combustion reactions.

Dave

T.A.M.

16th February 2010, 05:16 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jones get some samples used from Janette MacKinlay (another 9/11 Truth Movement member) who had put some dust found in her apartment(debris-dust that reportedly got there) and mailed it to him... nine days after 9/11??
If this is true and Jones used, in part, samples thereof, it had to have been exposed to possible influx and contamination during those nine days.
Furthermore, Janette's boyfried was a sculptor who reportedly used welding tools and metals in his artistic sculpturing.
How do we know none of the samples in the dust collected came from his stuff?

Exactly. Hence my (and others) point that without a reliable and known chain of custody, the samples and hence the whole paper are useless. Prime example.

Of course Jay will make the argument that the same chips showed up in all 4 samples and that makes intentional contamination/fabrication unlikely. He is correct, in the sense that it makes such unlikely by the separate entities that supplied the samples, but beyond that...who knows.

TAM:)

Jono

16th February 2010, 06:00 AM

If it's from welding materials from Mckinley's apt, how did it get in the other 3 samples? One of them was collected 10 minutes after the collapse of building 1.

Your criticism holds no water the moment the material is found in another sample--unless you want to claim that the HFJ guys are making all this up. Is that your next claim?

Well let's not run with the absolutes like so. First of all, the criticism implied for, if it is as Jones said quite some time ago, concerning the samples from Mckinley's apartment, the samples (plural) collected thereof? Did he use several samples thereof (he took many samples from the apartment)? Did they put the samples together?
In any case, that/those samples should be identified and automatically excluded. You can't possibly disagree with that can you?

And which sample was the one collected 10 minutes after the collapse?
I assume you are referring to Delessio who just stood still while he got consumed by the dust clouds of the North Tower, swept his hand on and over the railing and then went straight his friend with the dust in his hand, where they put it in a plastic bag and later send it to Jones??

McKinley's sample, according to Jones, was sample nr:1.
Delessio's was nr:2. Intermont's (collected from Hudson Street by him) was number 3 and Stephen White's (from his own apartment) got to be number 4.

Furthermore, it's not clear that the dust samples weren't partly affected by potential compounds from within the WTC's, like transistors, generators, batteries in smitherines potentially gone through explosive pressure/events et al. If it was in the dust that blew from the collapses, any given pre-mid-post construction material could very well have been present in the mix of the dust now couldn't it? Actually, it would expectadly be mixed therein.
Not to mention other potential sources of contamination at the scene from where the people collected these samples. As with McKinley, I just happend to find out that she shared apartment with a welder/sculptor.

Add this with what I've told you before, the least given explaination is that the very different samples being "nano-thermite", let alone one of them.
Use Occam's Razor on that one.

aggle-rithm

16th February 2010, 06:26 AM

Your criticism holds no water the moment the material is found in another sample--unless you want to claim that the HFJ guys are making all this up. Is that your next claim?

.

If they were true frauds, then yes, they would just make stuff up. However, I think it is more likely they are self-deluded, so they follow the path that all self-deluded scientists do: Sloppy methodology and confirmation bias. That's a potent combination that can lead to whatever results you want, while creating the impression that you're a real scientist.

pgimeno

16th February 2010, 07:14 AM

tsig

16th February 2010, 08:29 AM

That doesn't help make sense of the ignition products of the red/gray chips. Are you suggesting they are made of coal?

.

The chips were paint from the BYU football stadium.

T.A.M.

16th February 2010, 11:38 AM

Here is a simple question. These samples were all collected in 2001. Now, unless they were stored in a severely dehumidified environment, would not the effects of corrosion set in over the course of the 5-6 years that followed, before Jones evaluated them?

TAM:)

ElMondoHummus

16th February 2010, 11:57 AM

Except the production of iron and silicate microspheres. Can you think of another exothermic reaction that can do this? Does it matter to the existence of the evidence what you call this material? It doesn't make the evidence go away.

You cannot prove the spheres weren't present beforehand. This is the extent of his Jones's observation:

The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips prior to DSC-heating...

And that's it. But the problem is, his own evidence seems to suggest otherwise; Figure 3 of his paper shows spherules that remain uncharacterized. And those images are from uncombusted chips. Huh... wonder why Jones failed to characterize those :rolleyes:.

No imagry, no proof, nothing but assertion... which you swallow uncritically.

Even if you presume the spheres were produced by the combustion, you cannot conclude they were produced by thermite. Temperature is off, and so are the energy density figures Jones himself gives in that paper. They're off by quite a bit. You're operating on faith, not established fact.

Like paint? Really? You have absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. If you can show me some paint from the towers that ignites at 430C and creates iron and silicate spheres, I will concede that I've been TOTALLY MISTAKEN by this whole "inside job" thing.

You are totally mistaken about this "whole ''inside job"" thing. We've demonstrated that.

Maybe the material is paint. Maybe it's some other sort of coating. Who cares? The point is that the material when ignited exhibited characteristics of something other than "thermitic material": It did not reach the temperatures necessary for thermite. It did not reach temperatures necessary for the melting of steel. If you presume that some sort of reaction besides pure combustion occurred, you don't get elemental iron, you get an iron-silicate spheroid. That is all from Jones's own data. How do you claim that it is "thermitic material" with those characteristics?

Read the link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694). Sunsetaler matches both morphology and X-EDS spectra with kaolinite. You've yet to muster an argument against this.

Let me clarify my position for you: This material is incendiary. It shouldn't be in the dust. It is proof positive that someone put explosive material in the towers. How was this stuff used? I still don't know. Was it used in conjunction with something else? Was any of the material used to take down the buildings "conventional" or was it all highly tailored and unusual? I don't know that either.

Material combusting and being "incendiary" are two different things. Paper combusts, but no one considers it an "incendiary" except in the most loose sense of being susceptible to burning. The fact that it burned in the calorimeter test doesn't mean anything in regards to it being an "incendiary". You can burn pig fat. In conjunction with other observations you may have something, but that's the problem: Those other observations have been demonstrated to be incorrect as well.

The material is not incendiary. It can burn, but that's not it's primary purpose. And given the presence of characteristics indicating paint - such as the undeniable presence of kaolin - then it should indeed be present.

Ps: You're not only failing to appreciate the difference between an "incendiary" and an "explosive" in your paragraph here, but you are also positing a specific about how the material was used. See below...

Has the material disappeared yet? Not yet?

No one's saying "the material is not there". The message you're missing is that it is not "thermitic". You're claiming it's something suspicious by mistakenly attributing incendiary and "thermitic" characteristics to it, despite the errors we've shown you in doing so.

Yes. My agenda.

My "agenda" is to read and understand the evidence.

You failed.

It clearly shows an unusual and highly energetic material with a low ignition point in the WTC dust. Unless you think it's more probable that the HFJ crew contaminated the dust themselves and tried to push this off as "real science" in a journal that everyone on the planet has free access to...

Highly energetic material with a low ignition point covers many materials. Given that the morphology of the material on a microscopic level matches kaoline, the spectroscopy shows that the aluminum is in fact not unbound, and that you and Jones only claims and cannot prove that the spheres were indeed caused by the combustion, "thermitic material" is the last thing you should consider including, and is the first thing that the evidence dictates be excluded.

It is disingenuous, at least, to accuse me of having an "agenda" when there is no way I'm making any money or somehow becoming influential in any way whatsoever by following the trail of evidence. The insinuation that I have anything to gain from this is laughable in light of the amount of money that is contingent on keeping people in fear.

Who makes more money (by any standard): various 911 groups combined with all the media sales on the subject, OR any individual security contract (from a vast multitude) awarded as a result of the catastrophe from which all of this sprang?
(Hint: all the profits from all the 911 book/dvd/convention sales combined are a drop in the bucket compared to the individual profits made by military contractors.)

What's more disingenuous? What I wrote, or your attempt to define "agenda" as only being financially driven? I'm not the one commiting the fallacy of false choice by restricting the definition. Money has nothing to do with it. Lots of people push agendas for zero financial gain; you're a prime example. You're parroting Jones's work uncritically, and you are blatantly ignoring the contradictions and errors that have been pointed out to you.

On top of that, military contractors make billions regardless of whether the towers fell or not. I don't recall the recent "Star Wars" laser platform being dependent on the narrative of 9/11 (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=358808), nor the next generation of fighter aircraft (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/03fighter.html). Yet Jones and Gage only make their comparative pennies by pushing the lie. Does the magnitude of the difference change the fact that only one of them has any interest in continuing the conspiracy fantasy?

If you doubt this at all, at all, you should be put in D-hall by your teacher for being irresponsibly gullible.

From a guy who parrots disproven research without critically thinking about it, that's rich.

That's a bold accusation. If you want to call me a liar you'd better have some real substance behind that. I don't have, nor have ever claimed to have a complete theory about what happened. Not having a complete theory is not equivalent to lying. You need to retract that or back it up.

I did provide real substance. It has already been backed up. Here are your own words:
Forces within our own government are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans. The HFJ paper makes this an air-tight conclusion. There is no other explanation.
...I've said several times I do not know how this stuff was used.
You bend over backwards to argue the presence of a material that melts steel and has been cited by advocates of the "controlled demolition" narrative, but yet you profess to "not know how this stuff was used."? And in the very same post call it an "explosive"? :rolleyes: That's a 5-year-old's attempt at sophistry. You're citing the work of a person - Jones - on record as having claimed that thermite was used in the destruction of the Twin Towers, and you are advocating that he is correct in proposing that "thermitic material" was present. Furthermore, you characterize an incendiary as an explosive, further demonstrating what you believe the material was used for. When you say that you "do not know how this stuff was used", what fiction do you think you're passing on us? Unless you think that explosives have some purpose other than to explode, you come right out and say how you think it was used. See above.

There's your lie right there. QED. You claim the presence of an incendiary material in a tower in the same context of accusing the US government of killing citizens in a collapse of a tower, and you cite evidence from a known advocate of the "controlled demolitions" proposal. No one's so dumb as to not see through that. Drop the pose; you're transparent as glass.

What are those? That you don't accept the chain of custody or you think MEK can chemically alter aluminosilicates? Or that it's kaolinite? Do you have a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates your claims? Or is a photo comparison strong enough evidence for you?

You want a photo comparison?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658

And what are the other contradictions? To start with: There's the proposition that something suspicious was planted in the towers; there wasn't. And not a bit of the Jones paper speaks towards that. Also: There's the analysis of the very data Jones and Harrit provides demonstrating that there is kaolin present and that the aluminum was bound. I've given you two direct links to posts discussing that above; you can search for the rest on your own. And that right there by itself negates Jones's and Harrit's conclusions; what MEK did to one single chip out of the sample does not change the results of the spectroscopy of the rest of the chips.

Furthermore, Jones chips are not all identical (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4687860#post4687860), and have shown characteristics indicating they are in fact different materials. You cannot combine characteristics of the butanone-soaked chip to inform conclusions about the XEDS-scoped chips; Jones and his cohorts certainly never gave us any SEM photos of the soaked sample, or any reason to believe that it in fact carried the same characteristics as the others. You cannot presume the soaked and the spectroscopically examined chips are linked when you provide no proof that they are, and that's the error Jones commits. Add that to what Sunstealer observed, and you have an open error.

To continue, there's that Jones et. al.'s conclusions deriving from the energy densities preclude the whole notion of "thermitic material". They've commited a serious abuse of logic by positing the existence of contradictory data as conformation. Read here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4636838#post4636838). The enthalpy of reaction of thermite dictates an absolute limit, and that is the chemical bond energy. Their experiments gave figures that wildly exceeded these. And no, that is not proof of "super thermite"; enthalpy of reaction for iron oxide - aluminum redox reactions is set by nature. When you go beyond that, you're no longer talking anything thermite based. Energy density eliminates anything "thermitic" from the argument. Either that, or if you are desperate to salvage the argument, then you say that the "sol-gel" was what burned. Given that sol gels tend to be composed of hydrocarbons, then yes, you can claim that the figures do indeed encompass that. But then, you're also admitting that you don't have a thermite redox occurring, which begs the question of why those figures are cited to begin with. Either way, the energy density figures given either negates the argument or proves that the calorimeter data is unapplicable.

I can go on... or I can do what I've done before, and that's to tell you to read the first pages of this very thread as well as the parent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694). Why you show zero interest in doing this, I don't understand.

I make a leap. And it has much corroborative evidence, but don't get distracted. If you want to have a discussion about the totality of evidence, start a new thread. The strength of that theory rests largely with the HFJ paper. That's the strongest evidence there is, and it's very strong. And the best arguments against it here hold no water whatsoever as has been pointed out time and again in the last couple of pages.

Yes, you made a leap, no it wasn't warranted, and I don't need to start a new thread to point out that the totality of the evidence negates anything you draw from Jones's paper. Pointing out that thermite obviously had no effect on critical steel pieces is pointing out that Jones's conclusions are incorrect. The best arguments sunk the paper you're trying to defend a long time ago.

I'm not here to convince you. I have no misconceptions that you'll change your mind about anything, but it's very illuminating to the spectators how the argument progresses. The people who resort to lashing out and who get personal generally do so out of desperation.

Then don't lash out. Instead:

Confront Sunstealers' posts regarding the identification of kaolin and bound aluminum. No, the butanone soak doesn't cut it; that's only one chip, not the spectroscoped ones, and furthermore can have a range of explanations. I gave a possible one above.
Stop dodging the methodological errors. It's worth noting that one other resident truther tried to put it in front of other members in the Science forum who were unfamiliar with 9/11 conspiracy fantasy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140426), and errors in methodology was the second problem identified (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4626818#post4626818), after the choice of publishers.
Confront the lack of melting on critical steel pieces. You dodged it by claiming that it "wasn't your theory" or somesuch. Irrelevant. Damage to the steel components is the logical conclusion of your theory. You openly point towards it when you cite "thermitic material". The problem is, you cannot collapse the towers without somehow damaging the steel. And Bazant's calculations also limit which steel components are to be damaged (the ones in the collapse initiation zone, since nothing stops the collapse once it starts). Those components were recovered and documented. They show no signs of "thermite" or explosives being used. This is inescapable. If you do not confront this, you are not confronting 9/11.
Deal with the energy errors. I pointed that out above.

You ignore so much evidence in order to do this, subtract so much context...

Project much?

Described accurately. You're the one trying to dodge context by blowing off the methodological errors. You're the one trying to subtract context and ignore evidence by refusing to confront the lack of molten steel from the collapse initiation zones. That's a description of you.

Again with the lies. The only thing I can make out is you're calling me a liar. What does "the pose amounts to a lie" mean anyway? Would you like to say I'm asking loaded questions? Can you back anything up?

Your pose is that you ignore evidence. Your pose is further that the only conclusions that are valid are yours. Yes, your pose is a component of a compound lie about 9/11. Ergo, that makes you a liar. Again: We've demonstrated that the material was not "thermitic". See above. We've demonstrated that it's characteristics contradict thermite. See above. We've demonstrated that there are huge flaws in the study. See above. All this you ignore in order to push an agenda that this is honest research with a proper conclusion. You may be fooling yourself into thinking it's the truth, but no research with such fundamental flaws can remotely approach being the truth except by accident.

You cannot claim to be working towards truth when you blatantly ignore truth.
[/quote]

Let me know when you're done throwing a tantrum.

This isn't a tantrum. This is a lecture. It would be a conversation if you had demonstrated any ability to put aside your arrogance and recognize where your failures of comprehension are, but unfortunately, your rejection of fact and reality has forced this to be a one-way talk. I've provided links to what the refutations to your arguments are, and at all times you have failed to pay attention to them. You refuse to recognize truth. At some point, the lecture will turn into laughter at the extent of your oblivion. But feel free to keep on mistaking what you read. Let me know when you're ready to confront your inability to understand the flaws of the paper and the outright errors committed in the reasearch. At that point, maybe you'll be ready to conduct a productive conversation. But until then, all you're doing is pitching a snow job.

Reread the first few pages of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017), and the one that spawned it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293). You are in bad need of information.

jay howard

23rd February 2010, 12:24 PM

You cannot prove the spheres weren't present beforehand. This is the extent of his Jones's observation:

And that's it. But the problem is, his own evidence seems to suggest otherwise; Figure 3 of his paper shows spherules that remain uncharacterized. And those images are from uncombusted chips. Huh... wonder why Jones failed to characterize those :rolleyes:.

No imagry, no proof, nothing but assertion... which you swallow uncritically.

Even if you presume the spheres were produced by the combustion, you cannot conclude they were produced by thermite. Temperature is off, and so are the energy density figures Jones himself gives in that paper. They're off by quite a bit. You're operating on faith, not established fact.

So despite their claims that the combustion of the chips produced iron and silicate spheres, you don't believe it. So what? When did incredulity become a solid foundation for making claims on JREF?

You are totally mistaken about this "whole ''inside job"" thing. We've demonstrated that.

The ONLY thing you've demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt is your disbelief. Do you have any scientific papers that demonstrate that the chips are not in the dust? Or that they're kaolinite? Or that they do NOT produce iron and silicate spheres when combusted? No. You have nothing but a refusal to accept their findings. Congratulations.

Maybe the material is paint. Maybe it's some other sort of coating. Who cares?

Um... You care. Sunstealer cares. I care. Pretty much everyone who has the slightest interest in the question of 911 involving non-muslims does.

The chances of it being some sort of esoteric rust prevention coating are extremely small. That fact, along with its other demonstrated properties (low ignition temp accompanied by a high-energy exothermic reaction, producing iron and silicon-based microspheres) make it difficult to deny that another energy source may have been available in the towers the day they fell.

The point is that the material when ignited exhibited characteristics of something other than "thermitic material": It did not reach the temperatures necessary for thermite. It did not reach temperatures necessary for the melting of steel. If you presume that some sort of reaction besides pure combustion occurred, you don't get elemental iron, you get an iron-silicate spheroid. That is all from Jones's own data. How do you claim that it is "thermitic material" with those characteristics?

How many times can this be said? It doesn't matter what you want to call it, given it's properties, it points to another energy source in the towers. How is it you can deny that the by-products from the commercial thermite matched closely to the by-products from the red-gray chips? Again, it's just your incredulity, and it's weak.

Read the link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694). Sunsetaler matches both morphology and X-EDS spectra with kaolinite. You've yet to muster an argument against this.

It's got a similar structure to kaolinite from those SE photos. Check. It's got similar chemical make-up. Check. Does kaolinite combust at 430C? Not even close. At what temp does the Si separate from the Al? Above 925C according to Wikipedia. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolinite) So, you can stop linking to Sunstealer's posts already. I read them before I posted anything about this. We can categorically rule out kaolinite as the substance in the red/gray chips because it's not combustable at 430C.

That is, unless you are proposing that the hydrocarbon matrix is responsible for heating the kaolinite above that temp sufficiently to cause the reduction to SiO2 AND reducing Fe2O3 into elemental Fe. Is that what you're claiming? That's in the realm of possibility--in the same sense that it's possible for all the oxygen in the room to suddenly shift to one side. Not likely.

But that's all you have to hang on to with the kaolinite argument: extremely low probabilities in the face of an alternate energy source in the towers. This is exactly where the whole idea of "skeptics" at JREF becomes inverted. You must accept unfathomably low probabilities that have yet to even be corroborated in order to deny the evidence that there was another energy source in the towers.

#SKEPTICFAIL

beachnut

23rd February 2010, 12:45 PM

Does kaolinite combust at 430C?
#SKEPTICFAIL
Paper does with more energy.
Paint does with almost the same energy as the super-nano-thermite.

From the paper: If it was thermite, all the energies would be the same, they are not. Why not?

jay howard

23rd February 2010, 01:00 PM

The material is not incendiary. It can burn, but that's not it's primary purpose.

Really? You've determined it's primary purpose? Was it paint? Paint that ignites at 430! Wow! That's great work, detective.

And given the presence of characteristics indicating paint - such as the undeniable presence of kaolin - then it should indeed be present.

It doesn't matter how much you want this stuff to be kaolinite. It doesn't change according to our will. Show me some dry paint that shares the same characteristics as this material and I'll renounce the whole "inside job" thing. Again, you can't. Because it doesn't exist. If it did, someone would've pointed it out by now.

Ps: You're not only failing to appreciate the difference between an "incendiary" and an "explosive" in your paragraph here, but you are also positing a specific about how the material was used.

Irrelevant. I've said it about 6 times in this thread already: I don't know how this material was used. You can ignore that and reinterpret that to mean something I didn't say, however, it doesn't change the fact that this material shouldn't be in the towers.

No one's saying "the material is not there".

Have you read anything T.A.M. wrote?

The message you're missing is that it is not "thermitic".

You make knowledge claims here on the wrong side of the evidence. The evidence demonstrates that there is indeed elemental Al and Fe2O3 present. It also produced by-product that is very similar to commercial thermite by-product as well as the microspheres in the WTC dust.

It's interesting that there are about 5 or 6 different theories about the sources of the microspheres--(my fav still being that it's boiled blood!)--yet, when presented with corroborative evidence on top of corroborative evidence, that their is strong reason to suspect that they have suspicious origins, the best anyone can do is deny the evidence.

Highly energetic material with a low ignition point covers many materials.

And of those, how many take the form of little red/gray chips? And of those, how many ignite at 430C and produce an intense exothermic reaction? Yea, none. It's not possible to hang on to any other materials as contenders when all the properties are factored in--that is, unless you want to simply deny evidence. Do you have any scientific papers that contradict the findings in the HFJ paper? No.

What's more disingenuous? What I wrote, or your attempt to define "agenda" as only being financially driven? I'm not the one commiting the fallacy of false choice by restricting the definition. Money has nothing to do with it.

So, you have absolutely no way to even formulate what my "agenda" is, but you are absolutely certain I have one. Very uncritical of you.

On top of that, military contractors make billions regardless of whether the towers fell or not. I don't recall the recent "Star Wars" laser platform being dependent on the narrative of 9/11 (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=358808), nor the next generation of fighter aircraft (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/03fighter.html). Yet Jones and Gage only make their comparative pennies by pushing the lie. Does the magnitude of the difference change the fact that only one of them has any interest in continuing the conspiracy fantasy?

my emphasis

We are in the process of disambiguating who is involved in "conspiracy fantasy." The more science is done, the more it appears that there is indeed a strong urge to keep the conspiracy fantasy that boiling blood can produce iron microspheres or that kaolinite will combust at 430C or that iron microspheres must have been present all along in the red/gray chips.

TruthersLie

23rd February 2010, 01:06 PM

So despite their claims that the combustion of the chips produced iron and silicate spheres, you don't believe it. So what? When did incredulity become a solid foundation for making claims on JREF?

It would help if they provided PROOF that they combusted. I"m sorry, but jones et al do not get a pass.

Their science is shoddy. Plain and simple. They haven't had any good controls and there are over 20 major methodological errors in this "paper." Throw it out and start over.

The ONLY thing you've demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt is your disbelief. Do you have any scientific papers that demonstrate that the chips are not in the dust? Or that they're kaolinite? Or that they do NOT produce iron and silicate spheres when combusted? No. You have nothing but a refusal to accept their findings. Congratulations.

no, No, NO, NO. Bad truther. The burden of proof is on you, jones and others. They haven't provided proof, it hasn't passed peer review, and it hasn't appeared in any journal, nor in any convention.

Why can't you do that?

and yes. I do refuse to accept their findings. What part of 20 methodological errors INVALIDATES their findings and conclusions do you not understand?

Is it the
I? N? V? A? L? I? D? A? T? E? or the S? that you do not understand?

The chances of it being some sort of esoteric rust prevention coating are extremely small.

then prove it. do a REAL paper with REAL controls done by REAL scientists, passing REAL peer review and appearing in a REAL journal.

That fact, along with its other demonstrated properties (low ignition temp accompanied by a high-energy exothermic reaction, producing iron and silicon-based microspheres) make it difficult to deny that another energy source may have been available in the towers the day they fell.

No it doesn't. They have not eliminated ANY of the other possiblities, and by failing to test in an inert environment, they have failed to even open the door that it is exothermic in anyways.

How many times can this be said? It doesn't matter what you want to call it, given it's properties, it points to another energy source in the towers.

How many times can this be said? IF YOU HAVE MAJOR METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN YOUR PAPER, YOU CAN'T USE THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS OR EVEN THE DATA.

How is it you can deny that the by-products from the commercial thermite matched closely to the by-products from the red-gray chips? Again, it's just your incredulity, and it's weak.

because they match much closer to kaolinite. Because unless you can ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBLE OTHER SOURCES, you cannot CLAIM it is something. And this "paper" fails to do that.

It's got a similar structure to kaolinite from those SE photos. Check. It's got similar chemical make-up. Check. Does kaolinite combust at 430C? Not even close. At what temp does the Si separate from the Al? Above 925C according to Wikipedia. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolinite) So, you can stop linking to Sunstealer's posts already. I read them before I posted anything about this. We can categorically rule out kaolinite as the substance in the red/gray chips because it's not combustable at 430C.

No you cannot. Due to the METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS you cannot use teh findings, conclusions or even the raw data.

And considering that this is in the dust, it has been cooked, cured, and then allowed to dry out over 5 years. That does change things... you know... like ignition points, chemical bonds etc...

scrap this crap and do it over.

But that's all you have to hang on to with the kaolinite argument: extremely low probabilities in the face of an alternate energy source in the towers. This is exactly where the whole idea of "skeptics" at JREF becomes inverted. You must accept unfathomably low probabilities that have yet to even be corroborated in order to deny the evidence that there was another energy source in the towers.

#SKEPTICFAIL

You have the FAIL part right. Now then, why don't you go and take a simple experimental design course, maybe some basic chemistry courses and a research methods course. Then you can find the 20 major methodological errors and UNDERSTAND why you can't use their findings, conclusions or even their data because they ********** IT UP that badly.

try again.

jay howard

23rd February 2010, 01:47 PM

You bend over backwards to argue the presence of a material that melts steel and has been cited by advocates of the "controlled demolition" narrative, but yet you profess to "not know how this stuff was used."? And in the very same post call it an "explosive"? :rolleyes: That's a 5-year-old's attempt at sophistry. You're citing the work of a person - Jones - on record as having claimed that thermite was used in the destruction of the Twin Towers, and you are advocating that he is correct in proposing that "thermitic material" was present. Furthermore, you characterize an incendiary as an explosive, further demonstrating what you believe the material was used for. When you say that you "do not know how this stuff was used", what fiction do you think you're passing on us? Unless you think that explosives have some purpose other than to explode, you come right out and say how you think it was used. See above.

Nice rant. I admit, I'm not expert in explosives. But it doesn't take a genius or a specialist to see that if you find a strange, abundant energy source in the dust whose by-products are also abundant in the dust, there might be reason to look further. Am I using those words incorrectly? That may be true. Given that the origins and properties of the material in question are still being analyzed by experts, it's unclear whether it's explosive or incendiary or both, however, it is undeniably an unusual and abundant energy source that shouldn't be in the WTC dust. And no amount of doubt will change that.

There's your lie right there. QED. You claim the presence of an incendiary material in a tower in the same context of accusing the US government of killing citizens in a collapse of a tower, and you cite evidence from a known advocate of the "controlled demolitions" proposal. No one's so dumb as to not see through that. Drop the pose; you're transparent as glass.

Quit trying to take attention away from your poor attempts at denying the evidence.

You want a photo comparison?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658

Wow. Picture comparisons. It reminds me of the DEW folks who keep pointing to grainy pics of dust clouds as "proof" of cosmic ray guns.

And what are the other contradictions? To start with: There's the proposition that something suspicious was planted in the towers; there wasn't.

We haven't determined that there wasn't. That's what this conversation is about.

And not a bit of the Jones paper speaks towards that.

Except the entire thing.

Also: There's the analysis of the very data Jones and Harrit provides demonstrating that there is kaolin present and that the aluminum was bound.

Repeating it doesn't make it any closer to true.

I've given you two direct links to posts discussing that above; you can search for the rest on your own. And that right there by itself negates Jones's and Harrit's conclusions...

Keep repeating it, maybe the laws of physics will change.

...what MEK did to one single chip out of the sample does not change the results of the spectroscopy of the rest of the chips.

Nor does it rule out the existence of elemental Al in the rest of the chips. That is the conclusion you would like to draw, isn't it? But demonstrating that elemental Al is in one chip does not make it less likely that the other chips also contain elemental Al. Welcome to the world of inductive reasoning.

jay howard

23rd February 2010, 02:04 PM

Confront the lack of melting on critical steel pieces. You dodged it by claiming that it "wasn't your theory" or somesuch. Irrelevant.

How much of the steel was examined? 1 PERCENT!! You don't disagree. And we should make sweeping knowledge claims about the other 99% in your opinion? That's being "critical?" "Skeptical?" I don't think you're really a "skeptic."

This isn't a tantrum. This is a lecture. It would be a conversation if you had demonstrated any ability to put aside your arrogance and recognize where your failures of comprehension are, but unfortunately, your rejection of fact and reality has forced this to be a one-way talk. I've provided links to what the refutations to your arguments are, and at all times you have failed to pay attention to them. You refuse to recognize truth. At some point, the lecture will turn into laughter at the extent of your oblivion. But feel free to keep on mistaking what you read. Let me know when you're ready to confront your inability to understand the flaws of the paper and the outright errors committed in the reasearch. At that point, maybe you'll be ready to conduct a productive conversation. But until then, all you're doing is pitching a snow job.

That whole paragraph basically says "I know you are but what am I?" Thanks for the "lecture."

DGM

23rd February 2010, 03:50 PM

How much of the steel was examined? 1 PERCENT!!

Could you source this claim that only 1% of the steel was examined? It's my understanding that all was available at Freshkills but only 1% was saved after examining it. Maybe I understand you wrong.

ElMondoHummus

23rd February 2010, 03:59 PM

So despite their claims that the combustion of the chips produced iron and silicate spheres, you don't believe it. So what? When did incredulity become a solid foundation for making claims on JREF?

Incredulity nothing. I told you they didn't prove it, and furthermore cited a photo where spheres were visible in a sample prior to combustion. Furthermore, you ignore all the other posts demonstrating 1. A lack of examination establishing that the DSC'd chips were indeed the same composition as the ones subjected to spectroscopy, and 2. A lack of proof that the spheres weren't there beforehand. Again, you are the one swallowing that uncritically. I cited a photo, I refered to what Jones and his cohorts wrote.

The ONLY thing you've demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt is your disbelief. Do you have any scientific papers that demonstrate that the chips are not in the dust? Or that they're kaolinite? Or that they do NOT produce iron and silicate spheres when combusted? No. You have nothing but a refusal to accept their findings. Congratulations.

Pfff... what we've all shown are the paper's failings. The problem here is that you refuse to accept that they have not only failed to demonstrate the presence of "thermitic material", but in fact contradicted it with their findings, namely the spectroscopic image Sunstealer used to demonstrate the presence of bound aluminum, as well as the totally contraindicative energy densities.

Their own data contradicts their claims. You simply refuse to accept that.

Um... You care. Sunstealer cares. I care. Pretty much everyone who has the slightest interest in the question of 911 involving non-muslims does.

Nice attempt to dodge. What I was pointing out was that whatever the material was, it couldn't have been "thermitic material" because the data contradicts that.

The chances of it being some sort of esoteric rust prevention coating are extremely small.

You provide no support for this claim, and it is also contradicted by what we've been saying for what, 4 pages now. Whether it was paint, some sort of standard (why esoteric? So you can make your argument feel stronger?) rust prevention coating, or whatnot, the facts remain:
Bound aluminum
Kaolin identified
End of story. What matters is that the possibility of it being "thermitic material" has been eliminated. And by Jones's and Harrit's own data too. That's why we call their research sloppy: Their data contradicts their conclusions. And only suckers like you don't see that.

That fact, along with its other demonstrated properties (low ignition temp accompanied by a high-energy exothermic reaction, producing iron and silicon-based microspheres) make it difficult to deny that another energy source may have been available in the towers the day they fell.

How? Bazant has demonstrated that once the towers began their collapse, there was more than enough energy available to sever the floor connections and collapse all the way to the ground. No other energy source would even be needed.

Furthermore, you keep on thinking the properties discovered in the experiments only apply to thermite. No. The "high-energy exothermic reaction" they claim was from a thermite reaction completely misses the energy-density boat: It is impossible for thermite to cause energy densities greater than the limit imposed by thermite's enthalpy of reaction. Combine that with the fact that they burnt a chip alleged to be paint (and therefore rife with hydrocarbons) in an oxygen environment, and you have enough to conclude that their "high-energy exothermic reaction" (as if there's any such thing as an endothermic combustion :rolleyes:) was the hydrocarbon aspect of the chip (the stuff Jones handwaves as "sol gel") burning. Combine all that with the lack of proof behind their claim of microspheres not being present beforehand, and an image in their own paper showing spheres of some nature afterwards, and what more do we need? You are the one swallowing their party line uncritically. You are the one refusing to think your way through this.

How many times can this be said? It doesn't matter what you want to call it, given it's properties, it points to another energy source in the towers. How is it you can deny that the by-products from the commercial thermite matched closely to the by-products from the red-gray chips? Again, it's just your incredulity, and it's weak.

How many times can this be said: The aluminum was bound. The kaolin was present. It doesn't matter what you want to call it, given it's properties, it points to the hydrocarbons burning. How is it that you can deny the contradictory energy density well beyond thermite's enthalpy of reaction?

And no, the "by-products from the commercial thermite" did not match the by-products from the red-gray chips. Reread the paper. Aside from the microspheres which were not proven to have been there beforehand, name any other byproduct of his burning of the chips.

It's got a similar structure to kaolinite from those SE photos. Check. It's got similar chemical make-up. Check. Does kaolinite combust at 430C? Not even close. At what temp does the Si separate from the Al? Above 925C according to Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolinite) So, you can stop linking to Sunstealer's posts already. I read them before I posted anything about this. We can categorically rule out kaolinite as the substance in the red/gray chips because it's not combustable at 430C.

Who said it was the kaolin that burnt? Jones himself tries to dodge the energy problems away by citing the burning of what he mistakenly thinks is the sol-gel. His own data shows the presence of carbon and oxygen, and EDX spectroscopy does not show hydrogen (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385202&postcount=77). The point? Jones's own data shows the presence of hydrocarbons. That was what burnt! No one ever tried to claim it was the kaolin that combusted!

You rule it out based on a mistake in logic. Kaolin is most certainly not ruled out, given that the combustible component of the chips was never alleged to have been kaolin to begin with, and given that other characteristics match it perfectly.

That is, unless you are proposing that the hydrocarbon matrix is responsible for heating the kaolinite above that temp sufficiently to cause the reduction to SiO2 AND reducing Fe2O3 into elemental Fe. Is that what you're claiming? That's in the realm of possibility--in the same sense that it's possible for all the oxygen in the room to suddenly shift to one side. Not likely.

Yes, the hydrocarbons is the only thing left that could have burned. And no, again: Look at figure 3 in his paper; spheres present in one sample before combustion. Also: Find the section where Jones/Harrit prove - not merely assert, but prove - that the spheres were not present to begin with. You cannot claim that the spheres were created during the combustion, and in fact need to explain the photo indicating that they were present beforehand.

The bottom line is that you cannot back up the claim of microsphere generation during the combustion with their data. Those researchers merely claim it, they do not demonstrate it. And one of their own pieces of data argues against it.

You want to disprove that? Convince Jones and Harrit to replicate their findings, but in an anaerobic environment. Their findings regarding energies are meaningless when they provide a means for the hydrocarbons to burn.

But that's all you have to hang on to with the kaolinite argument: extremely low probabilities in the face of an alternate energy source in the towers.

Wrong. See above. Double check Sunstealer's post as well (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658), and yes, I will continue to link them. Your attempts at refutation do not negate what he has demonstrated, and your argument still fails on what he has shown.

This is exactly where the whole idea of "skeptics" at JREF becomes inverted. You must accept unfathomably low probabilities that have yet to even be corroborated in order to deny the evidence that there was another energy source in the towers.

#SKEPTICFAIL

This is exactly where the whole idea of "thermitic material" in your thesis fails. You must accept unsupported allegations, weak pattern matching (re: Temperatures), and overlook outright contradictions (re: energy densities above 3.9 kj/g, spectroscopy demonstrating bound aluminum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658) (Hey, look! Another Sunstealer post that negates your claim!)) in order to forward your claim that there was some other energy source in the towers.

#TRUTHERFAIL

Until you confront the lack of proof that the spheres weren't present beforehand and address the fact that a photo shows spheres prior to combustion, you will get nowhere. Until you confront the fact that kaolin was demonstrated to be present, and understand that your counterargument fails due to the mistaken belief that it was the kaolin that combusted, you will get nowhere. Until you confront the fact that their own energy densities exceeded 3.9 kj/g, thus contraindicating thermite, you will get nowhere.

To date, you've gotten nowhere. Time for you to give up the fantasy.

T.A.M.

23rd February 2010, 07:10 PM

There is a simple solution, but Jones et al would not dare engage in it, because it would expose their sham...

1. Provide the names etc... of the suppliers of the original samples Jones used.
2. Have a truly independent lab collect those samples, and collect samples from other sources with well known, reliable chains of custody.
3. Have said lab conduct appropriate studies to determine if their is any evidence of exotic explosives/incindiaries in the dust, and if so, in which samples.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

TAM:)

jay howard

24th February 2010, 04:55 PM

How? Bazant has demonstrated that once the towers began their collapse, there was more than enough energy available to sever the floor connections and collapse all the way to the ground. No other energy source would even be needed.

Furthermore, you keep on thinking the properties discovered in the experiments only apply to thermite. No. The "high-energy exothermic reaction" they claim was from a thermite reaction completely misses the energy-density boat: It is impossible for thermite to cause energy densities greater than the limit imposed by thermite's enthalpy of reaction.

Is it possible for hydrocarbons at those amounts (i.e. less than a gram) to reduce Iron (iii) Oxide to elemental Fe?

(hint: no way) If you don't believe me, try roasting some rust with a bic lighter and see if it turns to Fe before it runs out of gas.

Conclusion: something other than hydrocarbon material is heating the contents enough to cause high-temperature reactions thereby producing elemental Fe and silicate spheres. You want to call it something other than "thermitic?" Be my guest.

Combine that with the fact that they burnt a chip alleged to be paint (and therefore rife with hydrocarbons) in an oxygen environment...

The only ones alleging it's paint are here. The authors of the paper make a very good case that it cannot be paint. For the 3rd or 4th time, if you can show me some dried paint that exhibits the same characteristics when heated, I will bow out of this entire stream of thought. Not holding my breath.

How many times can this be said: The aluminum was bound. The kaolin was present.

Are you claiming to know this from the XEDS graphs? I hope you're aware that XEDS can't give chemical compositions. A photo comparison and XEDS cannot "demonstrate" the presence of a particular chemical species. You're not the only one around here that wants to speak in a condescending manner, yet it appears you have little grasp on how to make sense of the available data or even have much of a grasp on basic chemistry.

Given that the MEK-soaked chip positively demonstrated the existence of elemental Al, your response is that it must be yet another unidentified material from the red/gray chips...

Sure. Because lots of paint has elemental aluminum in it, yea? And has red/gray layers? Yea? That's better than knowing everything you've been lead by the nose to believe by the very people you've put your trust in has all been a giant, blatant lie.

Who said it was the kaolin that burnt? Jones himself tries to dodge the energy problems away by citing the burning of what he mistakenly thinks is the sol-gel. His own data shows the presence of carbon and oxygen, and EDX spectroscopy does not show hydrogen (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385202&postcount=77).

Here's a clue: since H has only one proton, it's too light for XEDS to show--at least at the keV's they ran the electron beam at.

The point? Jones's own data shows the presence of hydrocarbons. That was what burnt! No one ever tried to claim it was the kaolin that combusted!

That's what happens when you pretend that the original substance was kaolinite to begin with--it's OBVIOUSLY absurd. How then, do you account for Si-based microspheres as a by-product? Or would you like to propose that those too were in the matrix before they combusted?

Do you NOW believe Si spheres were also already there since it's the only way you can dismiss this evidence? Or do you just want to say they're lying about everything? That they sprinkled the Fe and Si based spheres in the ashes of the chips and then "analyzed" them?

But there's another issue that we need to clarify: the Fe microspheres produced from the combustion of the chips. Are you saying they were present in the chips before combustion? Are you denying that Sunstealer agrees with the existence of faceted Fe particles in the matrix? Or just that they weren't reduced to Fe?

Why is it difficult to imagine that since these chips appear to be pieces that did not completely combust that they would therefore have partially combusted by-product on the edges of them? That certainly doesn't seem far fetched if those substances are the natural by-products and we're looking at partially-combusted specimens.

Really, you're just better off claiming they've lied about everything. Or you think 9 scientists would agree to "cherry pick" analyses that would clearly not further anyone's career.

This is the point at which claims to the contrary are WAY more ridiculous than just accepting the science in front of us. No one said the truth would be pretty.

pgimeno

25th February 2010, 03:50 AM

The evidence demonstrates that there is indeed elemental Al and Fe2O3 present.

There's no evidence in the paper for what you're claiming there is. There's a clearly false statement about what Fig. 15 indicates with respect to the Fe and O. There's also information hiding because in the MEK chip the XEDS spectrum prior to the soaking shows a lot of elements present, but the XEDS maps for these elements are not shown. There are clearly large areas for which no element of those for which we have the maps appears at all:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Al+Si+O+Fe+C.jpg

So there's no proof that the Al is not bound to anything else, because we are being hidden some of the elements present in the MEK chip.

Also, there's a lot of unoxidized Fe, something totally inconsistent with any kind of 'thermitic' material (or are you claiming that the MEK solvent separates the oxygen from the Fe?) Yellow=Fe without O, Brown=Fe with O

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Fe-O-Si.jpg

Unless you address these points, you should stop claiming that the material is 'thermitic' because the 'proof' you're using is bogus. You have failed to address any of these points so far, and have dismissed them as being 'incredulity', which they aren't.

Given that the MEK-soaked chip positively demonstrated the existence of elemental Al, [...]

No it didn't. The MEK chip is shown by its spectrum to be substantially different to the rest, yet they dismiss the many extra elements as 'contamination' without proof. They show the XEDS map of Al but they don't prove it was not bound to anything else because they lack lots of elements. That's not a positive demonstration AT ALL.

You're taking the paper as if it were wirtten by unbiased people with expertise in the field who used a proper methodology, publishing it in a reputed journal passing a decent review process. None of these assumptions holds and thus there is no reason to take any authority from that paper, so it doesn't have any more weight than Sunstealer's arguments, which you're dismissing merely on the basis of the same incredulity you're accusing others to have, despite his expertise in a field where none of the authors were authorities, and neither are you, who are using your arrogance to dismiss his proof.

There's no 'extraordinary proof' in the paper that matches the extraordinary claims. On the contrary, the proof presented by them contradicts their claims.

funk de fino

25th February 2010, 06:05 AM

How much of the steel was examined? 1 PERCENT!! You don't disagree.

That is a bold faced lie.

page 8, assertion 6.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

jay howard

25th February 2010, 07:20 AM

There's no evidence in the paper for what you're claiming there is. There's a clearly false statement about what Fig. 15 indicates with respect to the Fe and O. There's also information hiding because in the MEK chip the XEDS spectrum prior to the soaking shows a lot of elements present, but the XEDS maps for these elements are not shown. There are clearly large areas for which no element of those for which we have the maps appears at all:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Al+Si+O+Fe+C.jpg

So there's no proof that the Al is not bound to anything else, because we are being hidden some of the elements present in the MEK chip.

Also, there's a lot of unoxidized Fe, something totally inconsistent with any kind of 'thermitic' material (or are you claiming that the MEK solvent separates the oxygen from the Fe?) Yellow=Fe without O, Brown=Fe with O

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Fe-O-Si.jpg

Unless you address these points, you should stop claiming that the material is 'thermitic' because the 'proof' you're using is bogus. You have failed to address any of these points so far, and have dismissed them as being 'incredulity', which they aren't.

No it didn't. The MEK chip is shown by its spectrum to be substantially different to the rest, yet they dismiss the many extra elements as 'contamination' without proof. They show the XEDS map of Al but they don't prove it was not bound to anything else because they lack lots of elements. That's not a positive demonstration AT ALL.

You're taking the paper as if it were wirtten by unbiased people with expertise in the field who used a proper methodology, publishing it in a reputed journal passing a decent review process. None of these assumptions holds and thus there is no reason to take any authority from that paper, so it doesn't have any more weight than Sunstealer's arguments, which you're dismissing merely on the basis of the same incredulity you're accusing others to have, despite his expertise in a field where none of the authors were authorities, and neither are you, who are using your arrogance to dismiss his proof.

There's no 'extraordinary proof' in the paper that matches the extraordinary claims. On the contrary, the proof presented by them contradicts their claims.

So you're no longer claiming that the MEK-soaked chip was a different substance, but they are simply altering their data to make it appear as though there's elemental Al in it? O.k. Does this mean you still think the material is some kind of paint or corrosion protection? What do you think the chances are you could find some, dry it, bake it, run some tests on it and get a paper published with results that confirm your theory?

And even if you want to say there's elemental Fe in the matrix, it's clearly not in microsphere form until after combustion of the chips. How do you account for that?

newton3376

25th February 2010, 09:24 AM

So we have a "paper" with over 20 methodological errors, a group of "researchers" who are outside of their area of expertise and education who have a known bias and they don't use independent labs for analysis... wowsers. Call the press!!!!

I'm aware of several of the errors having read through the paper several times and looking at some of the threads on this issue....

Is there a consolidated list of the 20 errors somewhere?

pgimeno

25th February 2010, 10:13 AM

So you're no longer claiming that the MEK-soaked chip was a different substance, but they are simply altering their data to make it appear as though there's elemental Al in it?

No, I am claiming that because it's a different substance, they obtain wrong conclusions unrelated to the previous chips they analyze. I can't see any proof about elemental Al in their data despite their claims. I have insisted that we lack XEDS maps of other elements present, so there's no proof that the Al is free. For example there could be aluminium sulfide, but since we're not shown the XEDS map for S that the XEDS spectrum shows, we'd never know.

O.k. Does this mean you still think the material is some kind of paint or corrosion protection? What do you think the chances are you could find some, dry it, bake it, run some tests on it and get a paper published with results that confirm your theory?

I'm not claiming they dried and baked it. I'm saying the chips were probably in the dust. Remember the chips were separated with a magnet, so at least Fe was almost guaranteed. Many different things of very different nature can be attracted to a magnet, then selected for 'red-gray nature' of some kind, and that's where Sunstealer's table of chips comes handy in distinguishing them. Remember fig. 31, it's totally different from anything else and it's just part of what the magnet attracted.

And even if you want to say there's elemental Fe in the matrix, it's clearly not in microsphere form until after combustion of the chips. How do you account for that?

You get my claims wrong every time. I haven't claimed there's elemental Fe; I insist that we lack XEDS maps of other elements present, so the Fe might not be free; for example there might be iron sulfide, but since we're not shown the XEDS map for S we'd never know. I have claimed instead that there's a lot of unoxidized Fe. I haven't seen any microspheres whatsoever in the MEK chip, and I haven't seen any indication that it was ever put through DSC so the claim that it would have produced microspheres is all yours, even if you've been shown by others in this thread that the microspheres in the other chips were already there. Can you prove your claim with respect to this, totally different MEK chip?

And can you now please explain how figure 15 shows that...

Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK solvent

(p.19)?

Carsten from Denmark

25th February 2010, 10:15 AM

Repeat of post found here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5656883#post5656883)

The Almond

25th February 2010, 10:23 AM

Are you claiming to know this from the XEDS graphs? I hope you're aware that XEDS can't give chemical compositions. Let's be clear here: XEDS done with a solid state X-ray detector gives elemental compositional information. It does not give bonding information or information about elements below atomic number 3 (Li). A photo comparison and XEDS cannot demonstrat the presence of a particular chemical species. It also can't demonstrate the absence of a particular species. Remember that XEDS is a surface analysis technique. Looking at samples other than 1 micron cubes requires the admission that X-rays generated deeper than a few microns into the sample are absorbed by the matrix, and thus, not detected. It is impossible to say, for a bulk sample, that the composition of the surface is homogeneous throughout, given the composition of the surface. Given that the MEK-soaked chip positively demonstrated the existence of elemental Al, your response is that it must be yet another unidentified material from the red/gray chips I've been seeing this a lot, so let's take the opportunity to correct an enormous misconception about Jones's analysis. In the Figure 17 spectrum, supposedly taken from the "high aluminum" region of the red chip, Jones claims that a "conventional" quantification routine showed an abundance of aluminum, beyond which the attachment to oxygen would predict. From this, Jones draws the wildly inaccurate conclusion that elemental aluminum must be present. First, the quantification routine Jones is using is known as standardless quant. In order to quantify (that is, derive the elemental composition from net peak intensities acquired in the spectrum) the spectrum, you need to make 3 fundamental assumptions about the sample: 1) The sample is homogeneous and isotropic in all 3 dimensions 2) All of the possible elements present will produce non-confounding, measurable X-rays. 3) The sample is flat, conducting and measured at high, constant vacuum. Looking at the first assumption, we know that the chip is not homogeneous. The XEDS images prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at the second assumption, we have to understand that quantitative XEDS requires an awful lot of a priori knowledge about the sample. Analyzing a pure glass sample, for instance, does require the assumption that there is no hydrogen or lithium present (lack of helium is usually assumed), or that it is present in extremely well known forms, such as water or lithium tetraborate. Now looking at the 3rd assumption, we clearly don't have a polished sample. So what? Well, X-rays need to travel in a straight line path to the detector. Lighter elements whose ionization cross section is only a few hundred nanometers (such as aluminum and oxygen) are heavily influenced by morphological changes in the sample. Why are we looking at these assumptions? Because they influence the accuracy of the numbers reported by the quantification routine, and none of them are true of the sample Jones is analyzing. When incorrectly assumed to be true, the three assumptions combined will often give spurious and nonsensical results. That's exactly what's happened here. And, perhaps more egregiously, Jones doesn't question the validity of the results because they support his predetermined conclusion. The issues are further compounded by the fact that such quantification routines always normalize to 100%, meaning that the values, which may have been correct before normalization, now only represent an idealized specimen. This idea that "elemental aluminum" exists is specious at best, given the evidence, and more likely to be unprovable. It may be true, but the data presented are not sufficient to support this conclusion. Here's a clue: since H has only one proton, it's too light for XEDS to show--at least at the keV's they ran the electron beam at. For your own edification, electrons produce X-rays, not protons. Hydrogen does not have sufficient energy levels to allow photoelectric absorption or inner shell ionization in the commonly defined X-ray range. That's what happens when you pretend that the original substance was kaolinite to begin with--it's OBVIOUSLY absurd. How then, do you account for Si-based microspheres as a by-product? Or would you like to propose that those too were in the matrix before they combusted? This is an entirely valid conclusion, given the evidence presented. The heterogeneous particles may have been concealing Si spheres (which are ubiquitous in dust and ash). The process of soaking and ashing may have simply brought them to the surface. Again, you're operating under the wildly inaccurate assumption that the XEDS techniques employed here tell you about anything more than the first micron of the surface. The chips analyzed are quite sizeable, and the Si K-alpha X-rays at 1.74 keV are only traveling through perhaps 1 micron of material. That means the matrix beyond the ionization cross section is largely invisible to this technique. Do you NOW believe Si spheres were also already there since it's the only way you can dismiss this evidence? Though I don't want to make the answer for my fellow JREFers, I think we agree that the answer is: There is no way to eliminate this possible confounding variable from the experimental matrix. Therefore, the conclusion is questionable. But there's another issue that we need to clarify: the Fe microspheres produced from the combustion of the chips. Are you saying they were present in the chips before combustion? Yes, a thousand times, yes. Iron, iron microspheres, iron bearing minerals, iron oxides, iron hydroxides, iron squiddiliddilidoos and others are all ubiquitous in nature. Their presence signifies nothing. Really, you're just better off claiming they've lied about everything. Or you think 9 scientists would agree to cherry pick; analyses that would clearly not further anyone's career. It is not unheard of that scientists would lie and misrepresent data in order to further their careers. It's also not unheard of to simply be ignorant and draw inaccurate, nonsensical conclusions from data.

pgimeno

25th February 2010, 10:32 AM

Small correction to the previous post for accuracy:

you've been shown by others in this thread that the some microspheres in the other chips were already there.

TruthersLie

25th February 2010, 01:22 PM

I'm aware of several of the errors having read through the paper several times and looking at some of the threads on this issue....

Is there a consolidated list of the 20 errors somewhere?

Unfortunately I have not consolidated the list.

So no. I know that there are about 20 and if you want to find them, start with the original thread that this on was split from (all 60+ pages) and now all 15+ pages here.

Sorry.

Off the top of my head I can think of 2 or 3 of the main ones.
1. the issue with the control (which is huge and takes 3 or for of the 20 methodological errors). That would be a. the lack of telling us what the control was b. using a control that is in NO way similar to the paint or rust proofing that was in the towers. C. using paint from the byu stadium (different color, different manufacturer, etc...)
2. The lack of testing any of the combustion experiments in an inert environment.
3. the lack of removing "contamination" for which they handwave away differences.
4. the lack of testing any "nanothermite" for comparision

and there are lots more...When I read the main thread, I came up with 20.. but I don't have the comprehensive list.

but notice that Jay had completely decided to ignore all of the methodological errors as he can't explain ANY of them away... so it doesn't really matter for this discussion.

jay howard

25th February 2010, 02:44 PM

Also, there's a lot of unoxidized Fe, something totally inconsistent with any kind of 'thermitic' material (or are you claiming that the MEK solvent separates the oxygen from the Fe?) Yellow=Fe without O, Brown=Fe with O

As you well know, the O is bound up with more than just the Fe. We know for a fact that the red matrix is a hydrocarbon, the silicon is likely bound as well and the Fe2O3--which is not really a controversial position. So there's plenty of O that doesn't overlap the Fe. Keep in mind these maps are qualitative in nature--they can show groupings of elements, but to expect isomorphic overlap on an atomic scale is unrealistic. They may have adjusted the intensities of the maps to highlight the areas of greatest concentrations to make clear that there were indeed areas with Si but not Al. The XEDS spectrographs then verify that the Al exists independently of Si AND that Fe does NOT exist without a corresponding O peak that is greater than the Fe peaks.

The Fe2O3 is what was identified as the faceted, relatively dense particles about 100 nm in diameter. It's also, (not controversially), what likely gives the substance its red appearance. Even the people who want to claim it's paint agree that there's Fe2O3 in there.

This argument is a non-starter.

The Almond

25th February 2010, 05:07 PM

Are you claiming to know this from the XEDS graphs? I hope you're aware that XEDS can't give chemical compositions.

X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy provides elemental compositional information, but not information about bonding. X-ray Diffraction and X-ray Wavelength Dispersive Spectroscopy can provide such information, in addition to a variety of incident ion techniques.

A photo comparison and XEDS cannot "demonstrate" the presence of a particular chemical species.

It also can't demonstrate the absence of a particular compound. Remember that XEDS is a surface technique. The compositional information comes only from the first few microns at most, and in the case of oxygen and aluminum X-rays, the first few hundred nanometers. The particles and substances in question here are tens of microns thick, with matrix composition and heterogeneity which are largely invisible to the technique.

Given that the MEK-soaked chip positively demonstrated the existence of elemental Al, your response is that it must be yet another unidentified material from the red/gray chips...

Ok, you've been claiming this a lot, but there is no evidence to support Jones's assertion that there is too much aluminum in the spectrum than can be accounted for by bonding to oxygen. It should be noted that Jones bases his conclusion on the "common" quantification routine. The routine he's referring to is known as standardless quant, and it requires 3 assumptions to be true about the sample.
1) The sample must be flat, conductive and measured at vacuum.
2) The matrix must be completely visible (to the incident radiation), and be free from confounding radiation.
3) The sample must be homogeneous and isotropic in all 3 dimensions.

Why are we considering these assumptions? Because none of them are true of the chip in question. The chip is large, heterogeneous, rough and may contain hydrogen, lithium and beryllium. It fails all three fundamental assumptions. So, when Jones hits the "Quant" button, his results, in addition to being skewed by normalization to 100%, are significantly affected by topology, sample composition and a large, unknown matrix. What's sad is that Jones doesn't question the results because they fit his predetermined conclusion.

There are no conclusions that can be drawn from the quantification routine. It's making assumptions about the sample that aren't true and spitting out numbers. There may be elemental aluminum in the sample, but there is not sufficient data to draw that conclusion. It's far more likely that the numbers the routine spits out are just wrong.

Here's a clue: since H has only one proton, it's too light for XEDS to show--at least at the keV's they ran the electron beam at.

Hydrogen doesn't have the energy levels necessary to produce electromagnetic radiation in the IUPAC defined X-ray region. And it's electrons that produce X-rays, not protons.

That's what happens when you pretend that the original substance was kaolinite to begin with--it's OBVIOUSLY absurd. How then, do you account for Si-based microspheres as a by-product? Or would you like to propose that those too were in the matrix before they combusted?

The Si microspheres are not necessarily a by-product. In coal, silica, alumina and iron oxide are all present to begin with, the burning process simply concentrates them as products that are not easily burned.

What's further, the Si may be present in layers below the first few microns of the sample. If you'll remember, XEDS is a surface technique, and the bulk composition of the sample, which may have 100 different compounds in a dozen layers, has not been determined.

Do you NOW believe Si spheres were also already there since it's the only way you can dismiss this evidence? Or do you just want to say they're lying about everything? That they sprinkled the Fe and Si based spheres in the ashes of the chips and then "analyzed" them?

But there's another issue that we need to clarify: the Fe microspheres produced from the combustion of the chips. Are you saying they were present in the chips before combustion? Are you denying that Sunstealer agrees with the existence of faceted Fe particles in the matrix? Or just that they weren't reduced to Fe?

Please, try to understand this: Silica, alumina, iron, iron oxide, iron hydroxide, mica, and kaolinite are all UBIQUITOUS. They exist everywhere on earth. They exist on the ocean floor, in the walls of your house, on the top of Mount Everest. Every place you look, every ash sample, every dust sample will have these same elements. They are ubiquitous. They are everywhere. There are no conclusions that can be drawn from their presence if the source material is dust. None.

Really, you're just better off claiming they've lied about everything. Or you think 9 scientists would agree to "cherry pick" analyses that would clearly not further anyone's career.

I would never ascribe to malice what can be subscribed to ignorance. Jones's analysis is exactly what I'd expect from a person who had a cursory understanding of XEDS and complete ignorance of statistics, particle analysis, forensic investigation and basic experimental design. It's just wrong, and there's nothing beyond that.

jay howard

26th February 2010, 12:46 PM

X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy provides elemental compositional information, but not information about bonding. X-ray Diffraction and X-ray Wavelength Dispersive Spectroscopy can provide such information, in addition to a variety of incident ion techniques.

You're absolutely right on that. Poor word choice on my part: XEDS does indeed give elemental composition but cannot directly delineate chemical configurations.

It also can't demonstrate the absence of a particular compound. Remember that XEDS is a surface technique. The compositional information comes only from the first few microns at most, and in the case of oxygen and aluminum X-rays, the first few hundred nanometers. The particles and substances in question here are tens of microns thick, with matrix composition and heterogeneity which are largely invisible to the technique.

True. And if XEDS was the only analytical technique done, then it would be difficult to make knowledge claims about the composition of the material. But when a multitude of technical analyses corroborate a theory about the composition, it becomes difficult to deny the claims.

Ok, you've been claiming this a lot, but there is no evidence to support Jones's assertion that there is too much aluminum in the spectrum than can be accounted for by bonding to oxygen. It should be noted that Jones bases his conclusion on the "common" quantification routine. The routine he's referring to is known as standardless quant, and it requires 3 assumptions to be true about the sample.
1) The sample must be flat, conductive and measured at vacuum.
2) The matrix must be completely visible (to the incident radiation), and be free from confounding radiation.
3) The sample must be homogeneous and isotropic in all 3 dimensions.

Why are we considering these assumptions? Because none of them are true of the chip in question. The chip is large, heterogeneous, rough and may contain hydrogen, lithium and beryllium. It fails all three fundamental assumptions. So, when Jones hits the "Quant" button, his results, in addition to being skewed by normalization to 100%, are significantly affected by topology, sample composition and a large, unknown matrix. What's sad is that Jones doesn't question the results because they fit his predetermined conclusion.

This is yet another attempt to simply dismiss their technical data. And again, if they were only doing XEDS on the sample, I would have to agree, however, that's clearly not the case. Why is it so difficult to understand the notion of "corroborative data/evidence?" I don't think you have a hard time with the concept, which makes your entire case for throwing out the technical analysis seem purely obstructionist.

And it's not just the technical data that corroborates the theory that this material is thermitic. The fact that it produces iron and silicate microspheres upon combustion is difficult to dismiss as "normal" or "expected" if we were talking about dried paint or concrete components.

There may be elemental aluminum in the sample, but there is not sufficient data to draw that conclusion. It's far more likely that the numbers the routine spits out are just wrong.

In a composite material that is uniformly mixed at the nanometer scale, it's not a stretch of logic to say that a positively identified element exists throughout the sample. The Al was physically separated by the MEK, a section demonstrated beyond any doubt that elemental Al exists, the material exhibits a highly energetic reaction that cannot be accounted for solely by the hydrocarbon matrix, and it produces elemental iron and silicate microspheres as a by-product.

There is copious corroborative overlap to make the case that elemental Al exists and that this material is indeed thermitic. If the only available data was the XEDS spectragraphs, then it would be epistemologically careless to jump to the conclusion that this material was suspicious, however, as in any scientific theory, it is the confirmation of various tests that give the theory a solid foundation.

As for the XEDS data by themselves, if XEDS showed no Al peak greater than the O peak at any given point, then you would be on solid ground to claim there was no elemental Al. But they did indeed find Al peaks greater than O peaks and without Si peaks. That by itself doesn't rule out the possibility of other Al molecules, but Al2Si2O5(OH)4 is most certainly ruled out.

Given the SE microscopy showed a finely mixed, heterogeneous composition, it's a safe bet that surface composition of a freshly broken piece is indicative of the matrix throughout. So although you are correct that XEDS is only a surface analysis technique, when combined with BSE, SE, and various experiments on the material, the HFJ crew are making well-founded claims.

The Si microspheres are not necessarily a by-product. In coal, silica, alumina and iron oxide are all present to begin with, the burning process simply concentrates them as products that are not easily burned.

That's nice but irrelevant to the samples in question. This material is clearly not coal, nor concrete, nor paint. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever indicating that the microspheres observed upon combustion were present in the uncombusted material. To assume the researchers chose to ignore them is to engage in calling them all "liars." If that's your professional analysis, then write a paper exposing them.

That's really the best argument against the paper: just call them liars and be done with it. There's no way they missed finding iron and silica microspheres in the material. They must be lying, right? Would you be willing to put your professional credentials next to that claim in a scientific publication?

Please, try to understand this: Silica, alumina, iron, iron oxide, iron hydroxide, mica, and kaolinite are all UBIQUITOUS. They exist everywhere on earth.

Are uniformly sized nanometer scale iron oxide particles ubiquitous in nature? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Is particulate elemental Al ubiquitous in nature? You know full well it's not. Are these materials found mixed together in any normal building materials? Nope.

And I'm not saying anything controversial here. Yes, the towers were made of a lot of aluminum and steel, but no amount of building destruction is going to accidentally form this material in question. It would be like trying to build a computer by putting a bunch of computer parts in your front seat then crashing into a wall at 70 mph. The real world doesn't work like that.

Again, you understand exactly what I'm saying. It is purely obstructionist to suggest that because the elemental components of this material are present, we should not be surprised at this particular combination of them. WRONG. This material cannot be explained away by citing the ubiquitous nature of the various elemental constituents.

Don't believe me? Mix up some C, H, N and O in a bag, shake it, warm it, and VIOLA! you're a DAD! Right? No, no human will form, despite the fact that those are our primary elemental components.

Your arguments are vacuous in the face of the plentiful corroborative data, and your attempts to conjure iron and silicate spheres in the material before combustion hinge entirely on evidence that doesn't exist. Pure argument from ignorance.

The Almond

1st March 2010, 07:43 AM

True. And if XEDS was the only analytical technique done, then it would be difficult to make knowledge claims about the composition of the material. But when a multitude of technical analyses corroborate a theory about the composition, it becomes difficult to deny the claims.

XEDS was the only technique done which provides elemental compositional information. Secondary electron imaging provides information about topology of the sample, and backscattered electron imaging provides information about the average atomic number of the sample. DSC is not a compositional technique.

This is yet another attempt to simply dismiss their technical data. And again, if they were only doing XEDS on the sample, I would have to agree, however, that's clearly not the case. Why is it so difficult to understand the notion of corroborative data/evidence? I don't think you have a hard time with the concept, which makes your entire case for throwing out the technical analysis seem purely obstructionist.
This is not dismissing technical data. It is dismissing meaningless data by pointing out precisely why it is meaningless. If you want to discuss the technical merits of my criticism, I would welcome it. This hand waving only proves that you have not understood my criticism.

And it's not just the technical data that corroborates the theory that this material is thermitic. The fact that it produces iron and silicate microspheres upon combustion is difficult to dismiss as "normal" or "expected" if we were talking about dried paint or concrete components.
There is no evidence that the reaction produces microspheres. There is evidence that the spheres exist after the reaction, but there is no evidence which ELIMINATES their presence beforehand. What I'm telling you is, if the source material is dust, iron oxide, silica and alumina spheres will have already contaminated the sample. The ashing process simply concentrates them.

In a composite material that is uniformly mixed at the nanometer scale,
There is no evidence to support this conclusion. The sample is heterogeneous. The X-ray images prove that they are heterogeneous.

it's not a stretch of logic to say that a positively identified element exists throughout the sample.
Yes, it is. It is a wildly illogical, completely unreasonable assumption to make without proof. There is no proof that the samples are homogeneous, isotropic, flat and conductive.

The Al was physically separated by the MEK
Incorrect. The quantification routine failed to correctly determine the oxygen concentration. Jones has assumed that this failure somehow supports the conclusion that elemental aluminum exists. He is wrong.

, a section demonstrated beyond any doubt that elemental Al exists,
This is your opinion. It has no bearing on this debate.

the material exhibits a highly energetic reaction that cannot be accounted for solely by the hydrocarbon matrix, and it produces elemental iron and silicate microspheres as a by-product.
This reaction was done in a reducing atmosphere. The results are meaningless in the presence of carbonaceous material.

There is copious corroborative overlap to make the case that elemental Al exists and that this material is indeed thermitic.
There is no evidence of elemental aluminum in the sample. The quantification routine is wrong. The results are meaningless.

If the only available data was the XEDS spectragraphs, then it would be epistemologically careless to jump to the conclusion that this material was suspicious, however, as in any scientific theory, it is the confirmation of various tests that give the theory a solid foundation.
Please tell me what you think the other data tell you about the spatially resolved elemental composition of the sample.

As for the XEDS data by themselves, if XEDS showed no Al peak greater than the O peak at any given point, then you would be on solid ground to claim there was no elemental Al. But they did indeed find Al peaks greater than O peaks and without Si peaks. That by itself doesn't rule out the possibility of other Al molecules, but Al2Si2O5(OH)4 is most certainly ruled out.
Please try to understand this: Quantification of XEDS spectra is not simply a matter of which peak is higher. To produce compositional information from spectral data, you need to account for morphology, topology, matrix, radiation and atomic number effects. These equations are not simple, and the results are often difficult to interpret.

Jones interpreted his data incorrectly. He used the wrong tool, got the wrong answer, but it supported his conclusion, so he went with it. Jones is wrong.

Given the SE microscopy showed a finely mixed, heterogeneous composition, it's a safe bet that surface composition of a freshly broken piece is indicative of the matrix throughout.
Incorrect. It is not an assumption that any reasonable researcher would make.

So although you are correct that XEDS is only a surface analysis technique, when combined with BSE, SE, and various experiments on the material, the HFJ crew are making well-founded claims.
Secondary electrons come only from the first 100 nanometers of the sample or less, and backscattered electrons come from approximately the same region as the X-rays. They are all surface techniques. They are all ONLY surface techniques.

That's nice but irrelevant to the samples in question. This material is clearly not coal, nor concrete, nor paint.
My point is that you could do X-ray analysis on coal and find no alumina or silica, but once you burned the coal, the alumina and silica would appear. It's not because burning coal produces these compounds, but rather, since you're removing the matrix, the non-combustible parts will concentrate.

These samples were coated in, in contact with and generally in the presence of dust, concrete and ash.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever indicating that the microspheres observed upon combustion were present in the uncombusted material.
The material was coated in, in contact with, and generally in the presence of dust, concrete and ash. These microspheres are common in all of these compounds. What's more important is that Jones has no proof that the microspheres were absent.

To assume the researchers chose to ignore them is to engage in calling them all "liars." If that's your professional analysis, then write a paper exposing them.
Writing a paper would be a complete waste of time, especially since the vast majority of Jones's paper is simply an exercise in ignorance. I would never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to ignorance.

That's really the best argument against the paper: just call them liars and be done with it.
Your summary of my argument seems to indicate that you do not understand my objections. I have no evidence that Jones is lying, because no one has ever demonstrated his competence as a researcher to me. He is uninformed, uneducated and ignorant of many of the salient points of X-ray spectrometry, DSC, statistical analysis, particle sampling, forensics, microscopy, chemistry, and materials science.

My objections could be summarized this way: Jones is using the wrong techniques on the wrong samples, ignoring the conventions of research, experimental design, statistical relevance and microscopy in support of a pre-determined conclusion which stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of opposing, statistically relevant data and scientific research. His conclusions are inaccurate, his methods are nonsensical, and he's wasting time pointing at ash and calling it thermite.

There's no way they missed finding iron and silica microspheres in the material.
Yes, they did. They are incompetent. Their paper stinks of incompetence.

They must be lying, right? Would you be willing to put your professional credentials next to that claim in a scientific publication?
Only if Jones manages to get his work published in a relevant scientific publication. I would suggest Analytical Chemistry, Science, Nature, Physical Review Letters, Nano Environmental Health and Science, Nature Methods or Journal of the American Ceramic Society.

Are uniformly sized nanometer scale iron oxide particles ubiquitous in nature?
1) There is no evidence that the particles in question are uniformly sized.
2) There is no evidence that they're all nanometer sized
3) Iron oxide particles of all sizes are ubiquitous in nature. They are the product of 1,000,000 forest fires and volcanic ash eruptions that have existed for the last 3 billion years on earth. Their ashes have been carried by the wind, the waves and even the birds across the entirety of the earth.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. Is particulate elemental Al ubiquitous in nature? You know full well it's not. Are these materials found mixed together in any normal building materials? Nope.
There is no evidence for elemental aluminum.

[...]
Your arguments are vacuous in the face of the plentiful corroborative data, and your attempts to conjure iron and silicate spheres in the material before combustion hinge entirely on evidence that doesn't exist. Pure argument from ignorance.Shall we keep our debate the the scientific merits of the paper, or shall we engage in endless polemics?

jay howard

4th March 2010, 03:12 PM

XEDS was the only technique done which provides elemental compositional information. Secondary electron imaging provides information about topology of the sample, and backscattered electron imaging provides information about the average atomic number of the sample. DSC is not a compositional technique.

This is not dismissing technical data. It is dismissing meaningless data by pointing out precisely why it is meaningless. If you want to discuss the technical merits of my criticism, I would welcome it. This hand waving only proves that you have not understood my criticism.

Who's hand waving data away? How is it you can look at the BSE images in figure 8 and say they do NOT demonstrate the presence of relatively dense, faceted particles that are nearly uniformly 100 nm? Or dismiss the relevance of finding the same morphology in all the samples?

Do you want to say this is paint? Concrete residues? Corrosion protection? You know it's not any of these. This material was manufactured--it didn't just form in the wreckage--you can at least agree with that, yea?

As for the rest of your argument, it boils down to a simple argument from incredulity, no matter what fancy dress you like to package it in. You must deny the relevance of the similarities in the material from the various samples. You must deny even the uncontroversial points such as the faceted particles are Fe2O3. You must dismiss the repeatable XEDS data (as if they could mimic Al peaks somehow). You must claim the existence of iron and silicon microspheres in the samples before combustion. You must completely ignore the MEK soaked chip and all the corresponding XEDS maps and graphs. And then you must deny that the red color is from Fe2O3.

I must say, you at least appear to agree that the implications of this material are massive to make so many claims of incredulity.

There is no evidence that the reaction produces microspheres. There is evidence that the spheres exist after the reaction, but there is no evidence which ELIMINATES their presence beforehand. What I'm telling you is, if the source material is dust, iron oxide, silica and alumina spheres will have already contaminated the sample. The ashing process simply concentrates them.

And here you have no problem whatsoever invoking a pure argument from ignorance to support this claim. You have no evidence to suggest the spheres were present before combustion, yet you deny the findings of the paper based on the fact that they are NOT found before combustion and they ARE found after combustion.

This is similar to denying the presence of elemental Al despite the fact that it was determined to be found in the MEK soaked chip. You may want to dispute the results, however, you cannot make a positive claim that elemental Al does NOT exist based on the fact that XEDS data confirmed its presence.

This is basic logic. You cannot make positive claims based on a lack of evidence. If you throw the evidence out (for whatever reasons) then you must still tangle with the possibility of the original claim. You've just reduced the debate to a question of verification.

There is no evidence to support this conclusion. The sample is heterogeneous. The X-ray images prove that they are heterogeneous.

That's why I'm calling it a "composite" material. This is a non-argument. They broke several samples to create an uncontaminated surface and found the same structures inside ALL of them. It is exceedingly less likely that they accidentally broke all the samples in precisely the right places to make it appear that they all shared the same morphology than that they simply shared the same morphology.

Again, the implications of these findings are such that incredulity knows no bounds. You'd rather accept astronomically minuscule probabilities over the much more likely, but psychologically dissonant probability that this substance is evidence of murder by forces within our own system.

Yes, it is. It is a wildly illogical, completely unreasonable assumption to make without proof. There is no proof that the samples are homogeneous, isotropic, flat and conductive.

There is ample evidence to support the theory that materials found on the surface of a freshly broken piece exist throughout the material. What would you need to convince you of this? Should the sample be ground into powder before performing XEDS on it? Why is breaking it and sampling the clean surface NOT a good indication of the contents? Is there ANY evidence that the material is not uniformly mixed?

Incorrect. The quantification routine failed to correctly determine the oxygen concentration. Jones has assumed that this failure somehow supports the conclusion that elemental aluminum exists. He is wrong.

You can confirm his analysis of the XEDS graphs by looking at the XEDS maps. Some of the Al is likely oxidized, however, some of it clearly is NOT. If it was all oxidized, the Al would be indistinguishable from the O. This is unmistakably NOT the case. Any argument to the contrary is essentially an accusation of data fabrication. If that's your ultimate defense, then why even bother giving criteria for a proper XEDS acquisition?

This is your opinion. It has no bearing on this debate.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. Is it your opinion that the XEDS maps showed little overlap between the Si and the Al? Irrelevant. The fact is the XEDS maps showed little overlap between the Si and Al.

My point is that you could do X-ray analysis on coal and find no alumina or silica, but once you burned the coal, the alumina and silica would appear. It's not because burning coal produces these compounds, but rather, since you're removing the matrix, the non-combustible parts will concentrate.

This is a completely unfounded ad hoc theory that is just thrown out there in a desperate attempt to avoid piecing together the well-corroborated data that the chips in question produced iron and silica based microspheres when combusted. It is antirational and hinges on evidence you do not have in regard to the test chips.

Even if Jones is motivated to a particular conclusion, there is no way he would be able to produce such copious corroborative data AND get all 8 other scientists to agree to such a controversial interpretation of the data unless it was well founded.

What's more important is that Jones has no proof that the microspheres were absent.

So therefore they must have been present, right?

Writing a paper would be a complete waste of time, especially since the vast majority of Jones's paper is simply an exercise in ignorance. I would never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to ignorance.

Right. Of course it is.

1) There is no evidence that the particles in question are uniformly sized.
2) There is no evidence that they're all nanometer sized
3) Iron oxide particles of all sizes are ubiquitous in nature.

This is the tell: you have to completely ignore the BSE images in figure 8 and the SE image in figure 9 in order to say this. If you were actually attempting to evaluate this info scientifically/skeptically, there would be no reason to deny the existence of these relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles in these images.

You would also be hard pressed to deny their rarity in anything other than highly manufactured materials--IF you were actually trying to be a legitimate skeptic of the HJF paper. But you're not. You're just a cheerleader for a particular political view. If you were doing science, I wouldn't have to point out how strange it would be to find iron oxide in this particular configuration with this particular regularity. It simply doesn't happen like that accidentally in a composite material that is combustible at 430C and also just happens to be in the wreckage of the major catastrophe of our time.

There is no way to deny this. But that won't stop you from denying it. It is the least controversial bit of evidence from this whole study, and it's backed up by a number of analytical techniques, and it is likely the reason the red material has its color, yet you cannot even admit that it exists for fear it will topple your pile of denial. But in denying that bit of uncontroversial data, you expose yourself as a political voice, not a scientific one. You aren't interested in the data under any circumstances--if it isn't the kind of data that supports the theory you oppose--despite what you may claim. Your denial of the evidence for Fe2O3 makes that clear.

.

The Almond

5th March 2010, 11:14 AM

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?

I'm responding for the last time with this post from earlier in the thread. You requested that we find something wrong with the EDS analysis. The following things are wrong with the microanalysis of the sample:
1) Quantitative analysis was done on a rough, heterogeneous sample without requisite standards.
2) The provenance of the samples was not established by appropriate, random sampling and statistical analysis.
3) The techniques used to analyze the composition of the particles were surface only techniques, and the results are capable of being skewed by material below the surface.
4) The source material for the samples is dust and ash, and the materials, morphology and composition of everything analyzed within the sample is consistent with dust and ash.
5) The chips analyzed were entirely consistent with the morphology, composition, color and size of already established and analyzed building materials in the WTC.

These 5 errors call into question the conclusion that the material is nano-thermite. Without addressing these problems, the authors don't have a leg to stand on. That's all. Please return when you have something substantive to add to the debate, or when their paper is published in Analytical Chemistry.

jay howard

7th March 2010, 08:41 PM

I'm responding for the last time with this post from earlier in the thread. You requested that we find something wrong with the EDS analysis. The following things are wrong with the microanalysis of the sample:
1) Quantitative analysis was done on a rough, heterogeneous sample without requisite standards.
2) The provenance of the samples was not established by appropriate, random sampling and statistical analysis.
3) The techniques used to analyze the composition of the particles were surface only techniques, and the results are capable of being skewed by material below the surface.
4) The source material for the samples is dust and ash, and the materials, morphology and composition of everything analyzed within the sample is consistent with dust and ash.

Ultimately, this is a simple argument from incredulity. What's the likelihood of accidentally producing aluminum peaks? Without knowing that, all skepticism of the graphs/maps doesn't mean much. What's the chance of that happening 4 times from 4 different samples? Likely? Not likely? Unless they are trying to fabricate the data (in which case, you're just accusing them of lying), what are the actual chances of getting 4 replicable results from 4 different samples that all coincide?

That's the value of corroborative data. If you did it just once, it would be more difficult to claim, but they've done multiple tests on multiple samples. The likelihood of reproducing the results 4 samples x 4 results is extremely low.

5) The chips analyzed were entirely consistent with the morphology, composition, color and size of already established and analyzed building materials in the WTC.

What materials? Please explain what materials you refer to that combust at 430C and leave a residue of iron and silicate microspheres (whether they are condensed dust or reaction by-products). I await a fair rationalization.

.

pgimeno

8th March 2010, 01:52 AM

As you well know, the O is bound up with more than just the Fe. We know for a fact that the red matrix is a hydrocarbon, the silicon is likely bound as well and the Fe2O3--which is not really a controversial position. So there's plenty of O that doesn't overlap the Fe.

You're failing to address my argument, which was the opposite despite your effort to take it the wrong way: in figure 15, there's plenty of Fe that doesn't overlap the O, so that's unoxidized Fe.

The XEDS spectrographs then verify that the Al exists independently of Si AND that Fe does NOT exist without a corresponding O peak that is greater than the Fe peaks.

That may be true for samples 1-4 and figure 10, which you can take as reference for comparison. Figure 15 shows otherwise, proving that either the MEK solvent magically separated the Fe and the O, or that that chip is a totally different material which contains unoxidized Fe. You're welcome to offer an alternative explanation and why it wasn't addressed by the analysts.

And you're still failing to explain how this sentence follows from the data presented:

Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK solvent (Fig. 15)

(p.19). Since you seem to be confusing that every so often, let me explain that I'm not claiming they have fabricated the data here, I'm just claiming that the data leads to a different conclusion to the stated one, namely that the assertion that there's a significant amount of iron oxide IN THAT SAMPLE does not hold. You can claim things about improbability of it being different materials, but that's incredulity. I'm referring ONLY to the data, namely Fig. 15.

You can confirm his analysis of the XEDS graphs by looking at the XEDS maps. Some of the Al is likely oxidized, however, some of it clearly is NOT. If it was all oxidized, the Al would be indistinguishable from the O. This is unmistakably NOT the case. Any argument to the contrary is essentially an accusation of data fabrication.

Why are you failing to apply that exact same reasoning to the Fe vs O in fig. 15?

The Fe2O3 is what was identified as the faceted, relatively dense particles about 100 nm in diameter. It's also, (not controversially), what likely gives the substance its red appearance. Even the people who want to claim it's paint agree that there's Fe2O3 in there.

I agree there's Fe2O3 in samples 1-4. I don't agree there's (substantial amounts of) Fe2O3 in the MEK-soaked chip. I proved that we lack the XEDS maps for elements dominating vast zones in the sample, so we can't know what was the Fe bound to in that chip, and the same goes for the Al. Here's the proof, now explain the dark/black areas:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/MEK-chip-XEDS-map-Al+Si+O+Fe+C.jpg

jay howard

8th March 2010, 07:45 AM

You're failing to address my argument, which was the opposite despite your effort to take it the wrong way: in figure 15, there's plenty of Fe that doesn't overlap the O, so that's unoxidized Fe.

That may be true for samples 1-4 and figure 10, which you can take as reference for comparison. Figure 15 shows otherwise, proving that either the MEK solvent magically separated the Fe and the O, or that that chip is a totally different material which contains unoxidized Fe. You're welcome to offer an alternative explanation and why it wasn't addressed by the analysts.

And you're still failing to explain how this sentence follows from the data presented:

Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK solvent (Fig. 15)

(p.19). Since you seem to be confusing that every so often, let me explain that I'm not claiming they have fabricated the data here, I'm just claiming that the data leads to a different conclusion to the stated one, namely that the assertion that there's a significant amount of iron oxide IN THAT SAMPLE does not hold. You can claim things about improbability of it being different materials, but that's incredulity. I'm referring ONLY to the data, namely Fig. 15.

Why are you failing to apply that exact same reasoning to the Fe vs O in fig. 15?

I agree there's Fe2O3 in samples 1-4. I don't agree there's (substantial amounts of) Fe2O3 in the MEK-soaked chip. I proved that we lack the XEDS maps for elements dominating vast zones in the sample, so we can't know what was the Fe bound to in that chip, and the same goes for the Al. Here's the proof, now explain the dark/black areas:

Some of it is most definitely H. As I said earlier in response to this, they likely used a filter or just reduced the intensities to demonstrate separation and concentration of certain components. The matrix material is most definitely a hydrocarbon, so there should be C and O throughout all the maps. Would you rationalize that the MEK caused the hydrocarbon matrix to break down chemically? An insignificant percentage may indeed have broken down, however, we should still expect to see C and O throughout the entire sample. But we don't. Why not? Because they are using XEDS as a qualitative technique to demonstrate relative concentrations of various elements.

If you want to postulate the existence of elemental Fe, be my guest. I don't see how that gets you any closer to dismissing the significance of this material, but it's not inconceivable that it exists. Did the elemental Al disappear yet?

As I tried to explain to Almond, if you had only the XEDS maps, or only the BSE images or only the DSC data, then it would be difficult to make claims as to the composition of the material or its properties. However, it is the corroborative nature of this data, that is, the confirmation of multiple tests that provides firm ground on which to make claims about the material. They are not making their case based on any ONE piece of data.

.

henryco

8th March 2010, 03:44 PM

There is evidence that the iron microspheres are present after reaction
AND there is ALSO evidence that the microspheres were NOT present before reaction.

The Microspheres are indeed huge in Jones photographs : some have almost half the size of the red chip they originated from so the idea that the spheres were already there somehow hidden inside the chip is simply ridiculous.
So please look at the photos again and stop this endless debate.

T.A.M.

8th March 2010, 06:39 PM

TruthersLie

8th March 2010, 07:36 PM

There is NO debate.

That is the funny part.

With over 20 methodological errors, you cannot take anything from this "paper."

As almond has pointed out with 5 errors in the EDS data collection.

It is crap. File it in the circular bin and start over.

What is so hard to understand about that?

pteridine

8th March 2010, 10:21 PM

Jones is trying to force a conclusion because he wants something that will get him noticed. His fans are non-scientists because they do not realize that the paper has no substance. I will not bother discussing the Jones team lack of a competent chemist when selecting MEK as a solvent for cured paint, the use of an unknown fresh paint to compare it to, a conductivity test [have meter = do test], or the inconsistent analyses of the EDAX data, but will get to the heart of it. Spheres or no spheres and oxy torches notwithstanding, he has yet to show thermitic reaction.
He claims thermitic reaction and compares his DSC with one published using an authentic sample from LLNL. The known sample was run in air, but Jones has no idea that he should run the sample under an inert atmosphere to prove thermite and eliminate combustion of the binder material. The DSC traces are quite different in shape, duration, and onset temperature, not a good sign for a nano-thermite. He also does not eliminate combustion.
This can be seen in his energetics calculations. Two of his highly engineered samples, those same deadly samples where he estimated ten tons lay unreacted in the dust [not a compelling argument for quality control], showed significantly more energy than the other two samples. As we consider figure 30, we see that the range of energy per unit mass of these samples varies over a factor of about four. We also see that chips 3 and 4 significantly exceed the theoretical value of thermite. So what must be doing this? Combustion of paint binder is most likely.
Jones suggests that he has found a super-thermite with an energetic binder. Consider the energy per unit mass for HMX as an example of an “energetic binder.” HMX is an extremely energetic material. It is not present in the paint chips but is a good example of an energetic material. Now, compare its energy to chips 3 and 4. It is slightly less than the energy for chip 4 and much less than the energy for chip 3. If something as energetic as HMX were used as the binder for the purported nanothermite, and half the mass of the chip was binder, the maximum theoretical energy output would be about 4.7kJ, still well below chips 3 and 4. The paint is putting out more energy per unit mass than super-thermite, HMX, TNT, TATB or any possible mixtures of them. The ONLY way that much energy per unit mass can come out of the chips is through combustion. Candle wax has about ten times the energy of thermite. Jones and crew can hand wave and obfuscate all they want, they can’t ignore the math and their own data.
Now we come to the rationale. Thin layers of thermite will only warm the steel. Burning paint would do better. Jones then suggests that it is fuse material; super-nano-thermite fuse material. He asks us to believe that he has discovered ten tons of paint-on fuse that didn't burn. What didn't it set off? There must be thousands of tons of active ordinance left in the debris.

Alternatively, given the skills of his team, he has simultaneously discovered red paint and celebrity, of sorts.

Dave Rogers

9th March 2010, 01:13 AM

There is evidence that the iron microspheres are present after reaction
AND there is ALSO evidence that the microspheres were NOT present before reaction.

There's also ample evidence that iron-rich microspheres are a commonplace product of normal combustion, and that a thermite reaction is not a necessary condition for their formation.

Dave

ElMondoHummus

9th March 2010, 04:20 AM

AND there is ALSO evidence that the microspheres were NOT present before reaction.

Yet, in the SEM and BSE images in Fig (3) show a pair of uncharacterized spheroids in the lower left corner and another pair up along the right side of the image. This was a sample that, according to the authors was removed via magnet and was never even subject to a DSC test.

Were they iron spheriods? I have no idea; Harrit and Jones never characterized them. But again: They were extracted by magnet and did not undergo combustion. Now, you tell us what they were.

henryco

9th March 2010, 11:12 AM

There's also ample evidence that iron-rich microspheres are a commonplace product of normal combustion, and that a thermite reaction is not a necessary condition for their formation.

Dave

Not combustion of an isolated micrometer particle that produces such a huge iron microsphere! so either you trust the authors when they say that they obtained these photographs on an isolated chip after heating at less than 500°c in their DSC and this alone is hard evidence or you dont trust them... i.e you suggest that they have completely invented these results and that is a major accusation...

This is why my approach was to tried to reproduce this single simple observation because in principle it only requires a small kiln and a magnet so anybody having some dust could check this at home.
I admit i did not succeed to obtain this reaction but its possible that all my chips in my sample was already reacted because even before heating them i could notice a myriad of small iron microspheres at their surface.
Thus, though i could not trigger the reaction myself, i consider that all these microspheres at the surface is a strong indication that these were involved in a high energy process, whatever it is.

F H-C

TruthersLie

9th March 2010, 01:50 PM

aggle-rithm

9th March 2010, 02:22 PM

Thus, though i could not trigger the reaction myself, i consider that all these microspheres at the surface is a strong indication that these were involved in a high energy process, whatever it is.

F H-C

The videos of airliners crashing into the buildings are are also strong indications of a high energy process.

T.A.M.

9th March 2010, 06:20 PM

This is my point. All along the big key, the alleged undebunkable point in that entire paper, despite its poor construction, poor form, poor adherence to scientific approach and protocol, has been this alleged production of iron microspheres simply by heating the chips to a certain temperature.

Yet Hency has a sample of the alleged dust and the alleged thermite, and yet can he produce said iron microspheres via the same process? No. If you ask me Henry, it is very weak, to say that the reason for this is that "all of your chips had already reacted". Seriously, does the scientist in you say that that is the most likely reason? really?

TAM:)

henryco

9th March 2010, 10:45 PM

or they were there in the gypsum, or the fly ash from the concrete... or from the construction of the towers, or from the recovery period.

FHC, can you eliminate ANY of those possible sources of the microspheres?

Of course. The known abundance of iron in the dust is 2%. If you select iron with a magnet in the dust you find that 10% of it is in the form of iron (almost pure) microspheres. Hence these microspheres represent at least 0.2% in weight of the dust. This is HUGE: more than 100 tons of melted and pulverized iron (as indicated by the micron size) per tower. Many of them show the signature Aluminum+ Iron.

Thus i dont know where it comes from but the idea that this is fly ash from a normal fire (i mean not a fire in a métall furnace that can concentrate the heat) is simply ridiculous.

A crash plane is not a high density of energy (energy released per unit volume) process

F H-C

TruthersLie

10th March 2010, 02:13 AM

Henri.

Fly ash is not from a normal fire. It is used in making gypsum and concrete. It isn't "ash from a normal fire."

http://www.flyash.info/2005/200fan.pdf
http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/cfa51.htm
http://igs.indiana.edu/Geology/coalOilGas/flyAshProperties/index.cfm

So back to my question.

Can you ELIMINATE ANY OTHER SOURCE for these microspheres? yes or no?

As for your statement
A crash plane is not a high density of energy (energy released per unit volume) process

I just have this
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg

You are right... there is no high density of energy released... just a minimum of 1200 lbs of TNT being released... that isn't anythihg...

Dave Rogers

10th March 2010, 04:37 AM

Not combustion of an isolated micrometer particle that produces such a huge iron microsphere! so either you trust the authors when they say that they obtained these photographs on an isolated chip after heating at less than 500°c in their DSC and this alone is hard evidence or you dont trust them... i.e you suggest that they have completely invented these results and that is a major accusation...

To be honest, I think they're a bunch of lying, stinking weasels who would frame their own grandmothers if they thought it would make them look clever. However, that's beside the point. Are you suggesting that the microsphere produced was much bigger than the material that reacted to produce it? If not, then you need to work on expressing concepts more clearly. If so, then you need to look into the law of conservation of mass-energy.

I think it's possible that some substance in the chip reacted with atmospheric oxygen and produced a spherical particle with a significant iron content. I think it's even possible that some combination of chemicals in the debris may have reacted in some thermite-like reaction. I think it completely impossible that the reaction observed by Harrit et al was not primarily combustion in atmospheric oxygen, and neither can anyone else who is rational and possessed of at least minimal expertise. And I think it completely impossible that any such reaction was in any way even a partial cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers, with the same dependent clause.

Dave

sheeplesnshills

10th March 2010, 06:10 AM

[QUOTE=pteridine;5698855]Jones is trying to force a conclusion because he wants something that will get him noticed. His fans are non-scientists because they do not realize that the paper has no substance. I will not bother discussing the Jones team lack of a competent chemist when selecting MEK as a solvent for cured paint,

Just finished reading right through this thread to see if anyone else had posted about something interesting I found. It took a few days but it appears no one has.

The use of MEK struck me as curious as if the particle were thermite then why treat them with anything other than perhaps a quick wash before testing to see if they were indeed thermitic so I did a little google searching for "MEK" and "Thermite" and came across a very illuminating Patent here:

www(dot)freepatentsonline(dot)com/3890166(dot)html

Sorry not enough posts yet to post the URL, basically its US patent 3890166

scroll down the page a bit and you can download a pdf of the actual patent and the text is online too

The patent is outlining methods for "activating" aluminium, ie make it more reactive, for use in Thermite and claim 14 specifically mentions, and first on their list is, MEK.
Now its possible Jones et al did not know of this work and inadvertently used MEK on the samples which merely makes them grossly incompetent. A less generous view would be that they deliberately used MEK on the sample so that any aluminium in them would react more vigorously.

Jones et al were not testing for thermitic material........they were making it.

aggle-rithm

10th March 2010, 06:24 AM

Of course. The known abundance of iron in the dust is 2%. If you select iron with a magnet in the dust you find that 10% of it is in the form of iron (almost pure) microspheres. Hence these microspheres represent at least 0.2% in weight of the dust. This is HUGE: more than 100 tons of melted and pulverized iron (as indicated by the micron size) per tower. Many of them show the signature Aluminum+ Iron.

Thus i dont know where it comes from but the idea that this is fly ash from a normal fire (i mean not a fire in a métall furnace that can concentrate the heat) is simply ridiculous.

A crash plane is not a high density of energy (energy released per unit volume) process

F H-C

Just to get the proper perspective, what do you think happened on 9/11?

jay howard

10th March 2010, 09:14 AM

Alternatively, given the skills of his team, he has simultaneously discovered red paint and celebrity, of sorts.

Still waiting to see if anyone can produce some paint that has the same properties as the red chip material.

The substance of your post rehashes much of what we've already discussed: you don't agree with the methods of the HJF crew, therefore you reject their findings. Or, you think they're just liars in search of temporary fame. Fine. That may be psychologically satisfying, but it doesn't make the significance of this substance disappear. It doesn't make this substance turn into paint or corrosion protection. Calling someone a "liar" is sometimes justified. Sometimes they are simply lying. But when the accused can produce multiple corroborative tests of multiple samples of material, especially when this material appears to be highly processed, accusations of mendacity are nothing more than arguments from incredulity.

Is that now a good argument?

.

sheeplesnshills

10th March 2010, 09:36 AM

"Still waiting to see if anyone can produce some paint that has the same properties as the red chip material."

What properties other than burning in air? And why just paint?

That may be psychologically satisfying, but it doesn't make the significance of this substance disappear.

What significance?.........the tests are not scientifically valid so the results have zero significance

But when the accused can produce multiple corroborative tests of multiple samples of material, especially when this material appears to be highly processed

Since we neither have multiple valid tests and since paint (and a million other man made materials) is "highly processed" they are evidence of nothing.
Why won't they do proper testing?

Is that now a good argument?

no. they make extraordinary claims but provide no evidence (in legal or scientific terms) to back them up.

newton3376

10th March 2010, 09:37 AM

Still waiting to see if anyone can produce some paint that has the same properties as the red chip material.

Spare us.....

The red chips didnt have any magical properties....this has already been discussed at length in this (and other) threads...

Nothing about the red chips is out of the ordinary.

The substance of your post rehashes much of what we've already discussed: you don't agree with the methods of the HJF crew, therefore you reject their findings. Or, you think they're just liars in search of temporary fame. Fine. That may be psychologically satisfying, but it doesn't make the significance of this substance disappear. It doesn't make this substance turn into paint or corrosion protection. Calling someone a "liar" is sometimes justified. Sometimes they are simply lying. But when the accused can produce multiple corroborative tests of multiple samples of material, especially when this material appears to be highly processed, accusations of mendacity are nothing more than arguments from incredulity.

Their "mulitple corroborative" tests didnt corroborate anything.

They did several tests...some of which were handled very poorly...and found different materials.

There tests don't even prove what they are trying to prove....what was the point of the resistence test?

What paint sample did they use as a control?

Most of their evidence is too subjective to be useful and isn't thorough enough to be useful. This has all been discussed AT LENGTH in this thread and other threads.

This is why this paper gets NO NOTICE OR CONSIDERATION from the engineering and scientific community...we aren't impressed by the paper.

Try again.

Dave Rogers

10th March 2010, 10:04 AM

Still waiting to see if anyone can produce some paint that has the same properties as the red chip material.

Still waiting to see if anyone can produce a viable scenario in which it's possible to sever columns by heating them by 4ºC. Still waiting to see if anyone can produce a viable scenario in which it's possible to sever large structural columns in any way whatsoever using any variant whatsoever of thermite. Still waiting to see if any truthers can spot the contradiction between the assertions that split-second timing was needed to initiate and propagate the collapses, and that the columns were melted by a thermite reaction. Still waiting for any signs of critical self-analysis from any part of the truth movement.

Dave

TruthersLie

10th March 2010, 10:55 AM

Still waiting to see if anyone can produce some paint that has the same properties as the red chip material.

Why? I don't need to.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it is an interesting thingee in the dust.

AS far as sunstealer showed, it could be paint.

You (Jones, et al.) are the one making the claims, then they need to eliminate that it could be paint.

Which they haven't done.

From using a bad control
to testing in an oxygen rich environment
to using MEK which makes aluminum more reactive
through the list of 20 methdological errors.

Until you all can do real science, and get it in an real journal it is nothing more than a vanity paper.

The substance of your post rehashes much of what we've already discussed: you don't agree with the methods of the HJF crew, therefore you reject their findings.

It isn't that I don't agree with there methods. Their methodology is so ********** up it invalidates any findings.

it isn't about having different methods to get to the conclusions. Their methods are bad, so their findings, data and conclusions are invaliated.

What part of that do you not understand?

Or, you think they're just liars in search of temporary fame.

Not at all. I think they all have a serious form of confirmation bias which is skewing any and all tests into "da guvmint did it."

look at FHC. He had dust samples. He couldn't find any of these chips. Instead of saying the logical thing (maybe they aren't that representative, maybe my sample doesn't have them) he jumps to the possibility that his samples were tampered with BEFORE HE GOT THEM. Huh? Say what?

Fine. That may be psychologically satisfying, but it doesn't make the significance of this substance disappear.

It is psychologically satisfying watching people who are incompetend fail, and then try to pass off their results to ignorant individuals.

YOu still haven't shown what this substance is. It is much closer to K and paint than to thermite/nanothermite/godzilla poo.

It doesn't make this substance turn into paint or corrosion protection. Calling someone a "liar" is sometimes justified. Sometimes they are simply lying.

when you can show proper methodology that any exothermic reaction occured, great. I'll cheer you on. Until then you have nothing.

Send any samples to independent labs... is that soooo freaking hard?

But when the accused can produce multiple corroborative tests of multiple samples of material, especially when this material appears to be highly processed, accusations of mendacity are nothing more than arguments from incredulity.

when the accused produce multiple tests which have different energy densities, different results and are all over the place in ONE PAPER which has yet to be replicated, then it is bogus and junk.

aggle-rithm

10th March 2010, 11:25 AM

But when the accused can produce multiple corroborative tests of multiple samples of material, especially when this material appears to be highly processed, accusations of mendacity are nothing more than arguments from incredulity.

What you usually want is to replicate results independently, not simply have the original experimenters do the same thing again and say that the findings are "corroborated".

However, in this case, I don't think anyone will attempt to replicate the findings, because to do so would mean following the methodology described in the paper. If the methodology is flawed, then replicating the results doesn't necessarily mean anything.

You may argue that the methodology is sound, but let's allow the scientific community to decide that. We'll see how many reputable scientists think it's worth their time to attempt to replicate the results.

tsig

10th March 2010, 12:49 PM

[QUOTE]

Just finished reading right through this thread to see if anyone else had posted about something interesting I found. It took a few days but it appears no one has.

The use of MEK struck me as curious as if the particle were thermite then why treat them with anything other than perhaps a quick wash before testing to see if they were indeed thermitic so I did a little google searching for "MEK" and "Thermite" and came across a very illuminating Patent here:

www(dot)freepatentsonline(dot)com/3890166(dot)html

Sorry not enough posts yet to post the URL, basically its US patent 3890166

scroll down the page a bit and you can download a pdf of the actual patent and the text is online too

The patent is outlining methods for "activating" aluminium, ie make it more reactive, for use in Thermite and claim 14 specifically mentions, and first on their list is, MEK.
Now its possible Jones et al did not know of this work and inadvertently used MEK on the samples which merely makes them grossly incompetent. A less generous view would be that they deliberately used MEK on the sample so that any aluminium in them would react more vigorously.

Jones et al were not testing for thermitic material........they were making it.

I always wondered why the MEK.

jay howard

10th March 2010, 01:05 PM

What properties other than burning in air? And why just paint?

The SE microscopy clearly reveals fairly uniform nanoscale particles in a bi-layered matrix. When heated to 430C the material forms iron and silicate microspheres. That seems like an unusual property for a building material.

I cited paint because pteridine made reference to it. Include other building materials in the scope of other possible materials if you like. I don't think that will get you any closer to finding a match.

What significance?.........the tests are not scientifically valid so the results have zero significance

The significance that this material is NOT a normal building material. What is it? Why is it there? If it is indeed something normal and expected, why can't someone just say "hey, this dried _________ coating does the exact same thing as the red/gray chips..." and show a BSE image with the same morphology? If it's normal building material, this should be a piece of cake.

Since we neither have multiple valid tests and since paint (and a million other man made materials) is "highly processed" they are evidence of nothing.
Why won't they do proper testing?

What do you mean "valid"? By "highly processed" I mean that the red material is composed of relatively uniform nanoscale particles that have been finely mixed. Is paint composed of 100 nm iron oxide particles? Other building materials? Paint is processed, however, it doesn't need to be made in a lab.

Again, if you want to throw out all the evidence because it's not up to your standards, you must still contend with the original claim. Throwing out evidence doesn't refute the issue in question, it just puts it in the "unknown" category. But it doesn't make sense that you'd throw out the BSE images or the DSC data or the fact that iron and silicate microspheres were produced when the chips were heated or the comparative XEDS data and morphology of the samples.

Are you dismissing that data because you don't like the MEK soaking data or because you don't think the XEDS data was done under the right conditions? Do you know what the likelihood of accidentally producing Al peaks is? Are you postulating that the MEK soaked chip was another material entirely?

It would help tremendously if you told me what you DO believe about the chips in question as there are many ad hoc theories whose only purpose is to deny the reality of the material. Do you believe the 4 samples contain the same kind of material? Is the material composed of nanoscale particles? etc.

.

T.A.M.

10th March 2010, 01:17 PM

So outside of ALL of the other errors in method, analysis, and general approach, we now find out (if sheeplesnshills info is accurate and correctly interpreted) that they used a WASH that has been shown to make Aluminum MORE REACTIVE? Lord JHC.

TAM:)

The Almond

10th March 2010, 01:59 PM

Is paint composed of 100 nm iron oxide particles?

Yes. (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_oxide/)

Are you dismissing that data because you don't like the MEK soaking data or because you don't think the XEDS data was done under the right conditions?

The XEDS data were incorrectly processed, collected, analyzed and reported. See above for details.

Do you know what the likelihood of accidentally producing Al peaks is?

In the presence of bromine or thulium, the likelihood is 100%. Then again, the likelihood of incompetent researchers pushing the Quant button and misinterpreting the results is also 100%.
[/quote]

sheeplesnshills

10th March 2010, 02:36 PM

=jay howard;5705325]The SE microscopy clearly reveals fairly uniform nanoscale particles in a bi-layered matrix. When heated to 430C the material forms iron and silicate microspheres. That seems like an unusual property for a building material.

The paper does not show that it is an unusual property for a building material, they only test paint of unknown manuafacture. It might seem like an unusual property but they have not shown that it is.

I cited paint because pteridine made reference to it. Include other building materials in the scope of other possible materials if you like. I don't think that will get you any closer to finding a match.

Its not my paper, I don't have to find anything. Jones et al have to show that there is no match. They do not even try to do that.

The significance that this material is NOT a normal building material. What is it? Why is it there? If it is indeed something normal and expected, why can't someone just say "hey, this dried _________ coating does the exact same thing as the red/gray chips..." and show a BSE image with the same morphology? If it's normal building material, this should be a piece of cake.

Again, show that it is not a normal building material!

What do you mean "valid"? By "highly processed" I mean that the red material is composed of relatively uniform nanoscale particles that have been finely mixed. Is paint composed of 100 nm iron oxide particles? Other building materials? Paint is processed, however, it doesn't need to be made in a lab.

No evidence is presented that the material Jones claims to have found had to have been made in a lab either......

Again, if you want to throw out all the evidence because it's not up to your standards, you must still contend with the original claim. Throwing out evidence doesn't refute the issue in question, it just puts it in the "unknown" category. But it doesn't make sense that you'd throw out the BSE images or the DSC data or the fact that iron and silicate microspheres were produced when the chips were heated or the comparative XEDS data and morphology of the samples.

Without documented control samples the results are absolutely meaningless, doubly so because MEK is a documented activator of Al.

Are you dismissing that data because you don't like the MEK soaking data or because you don't think the XEDS data was done under the right conditions? Do you know what the likelihood of accidentally producing Al peaks is? Are you postulating that the MEK soaked chip was another material entirely?

I have no idea what it was and neither do Jones et al as they never bothered to find out and I don't think them soaking it in MEK was an accident.

It would help tremendously if you told me what you DO believe about the chips in question as there are many ad hoc theories whose only purpose is to deny the reality of the material. Do you believe the 4 samples contain the same kind of material? Is the material composed of nanoscale particles? etc.

How would that help? I have never seen or examined the chips and the Jones paper does not provide a reliable source of any data so I could make an informed guess. However if I HAD to hazard a guess I'd say its a chip of paint containing iron and AL oxides and possibly Al particles.

sheeplesnshills

10th March 2010, 02:40 PM

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3890166.html

hope it works now

jay howard

10th March 2010, 03:31 PM

Yes. (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_oxide/)

The only thing I've found about nano sized Fe2O3 particles from that link is quite interesting: Potential uses for nanosized (less than 0.1 micron or 100 nanometers) iron oxide particles include catalysts and ferrofluids. Uses for ferrofluids include computer disk drives and high-performance loud speakers; other applications are in biology and medicine, including nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (Vollath, 2008, p. 2, 5).

Were they manufacturing high-performance speakers or some other type of high-end manufacturing in the WTC buildings? That's your "case closed" argument?

The XEDS data were incorrectly processed, collected, analyzed and reported. See above for details.

In the presence of bromine or thulium, the likelihood is 100%. Then again, the likelihood of incompetent researchers pushing the Quant button and misinterpreting the results is also 100%.

Again, if you want to throw the evidence out, you haven't refuted anything. You've just reduced the debate to a question of verification. Do you think it's likely that the material contains bromine or thulium?

(Common uses for thulium: lasers and power for portable x-ray machines)
(Common uses for bromine: Gasoline antiknock mixtures, Fumigants, Poisons, Dyes, Photographic chemicals, Medicinals, Brominated vegetable oil)

Or is it more likely that the material simply contains Al?

.

alienentity

10th March 2010, 04:34 PM

This paper was published in April 2009 wasn't it?

Why is it that further tests have not been breathlessly published for the public? I would guess that the results have been disappointing, so the Jones boys are not going to push any further, except with their rhetoric.

I note that not even FH-C was able to reproduce the results given a valid sample of the dust. He seems to be enthusiastic about the theory, so there's no reason to suspect he isn't honest about his results.
This does not bode well for the nanothermite theory at all.

I'm tempted to think that it's fast becoming a dead issue in terms of real science. As it should.

sheeplesnshills

10th March 2010, 05:07 PM

Were they manufacturing high-performance speakers or some other type of high-end manufacturing in the WTC buildings? That's your "case closed" argument?

LOL, something can be present without there being a commercial use for it.

Again, if you want to throw the evidence out, you haven't refuted anything.

What evidence???? You have been repeatedly shown that NO evidence results from this paper. The errors in methodology negate all data derived.
Let them test the material again without errors and get the paper into a real peer reviewed journal then we can talk about evidence.

You've just reduced the debate to a question of verification.

Reduced? Verification is a critical part of the scientific method. If results cannot be verified then they are worthless.

Do you think it's likely that the material contains bromine or thulium?
Who cares if they contain unobtainium? They have no provenance and the experiments were incorrectly carried out so what they say they contained is completely meaningless. I could say that U235 was in the dust with equal validity.

Or is it more likely that the material simply contains Al?

It may well do in some form, which makes it crystal clear why they choose MEK to soak it in......

newton3376

10th March 2010, 05:20 PM

The only thing I've found about nano sized Fe2O3 particles from that link is quite interesting:

Were they manufacturing high-performance speakers or some other type of high-end manufacturing in the WTC buildings? That's your "case closed" argument?

Wait a second....I thought that any and all nano sized iron MUST be from molten iron via a thermite reaction?

And now you tell me that nano sized Fe2O3 is found in something ELSE?

Say it ain't so..........

Dave Rogers

11th March 2010, 02:13 AM

Were they manufacturing high-performance speakers or some other type of high-end manufacturing in the WTC buildings? That's your "case closed" argument?

Would you care to try a little harder to confuse the issue? I think one or two people may have failed to notice that you deliberately missed out "computer disc drives". But, hey, it was a 21st century office building; why would it have anything like that in it?

Dave

sheeplesnshills

11th March 2010, 06:24 AM

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3890166.html

I did some more reading of the patent. I am a mechanical engineer so its a little outside my field but even high school chemistry is enough to get an idea what is happening when you soak aluminium or perhaps even just Al oxide in MEK

The following examples are illustrative of the invention.

EXAMPLE 1

Two samples of atomized aluminum powder milled under substantially identical conditions in hexane, one in the presence of milling aid and the other not, were compared to illustrate the improved reactivity brought about by using milling aids according to the invention. The powder milled in the absence of a milling aid (here, methyl ethyl ketone) did not react immediately in 0.7N nitric acid but required several hours for penetration of the acid to the surfaces of the aluminum particles, the reaction even then being very difficult to detect, only a few bubbles of hydrogen being evolved. On the other hand, powder milled in hexane containing 0.0085 mole methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) per mole aluminum when immersed in distilled water, resulted in an immediate reaction between the water and the aluminum particles, visually observed in the generation of hydrogen bubbles at the surfaces. The powder milled in the presence of MEK also reacted vigorously in the 0.7N nitric acid. beginning immediately upon contact, thereby confirming the activity created by use of the milling aid, here methyl ethyl ketone.

It appears that when creating the aluminium powder (the patent is dated 1972 and the powder is created with a milling machine so this is not sooper dooper nano anything) that an oxide layer immediately forms on it even if the machining is done in hexane. The addition of MEK changes the oxide layer so that it no longer protects the aluminium as effectively thus allowing immediate reaction in acid or if ignited. That indicates the oxide layer itself has be made reactive by the MEK

In the Jones et al Paper, they soak the chips which are known to contain aluminium or aluminium oxides for 5 days which may activate the entire mass of oxide and remove any protection from any elemental Al. that may be present.

When the activated aluminium oxide is then burned in air the reaction would be much more vigorous than that of the an unsoaked example.

MEK would also have plenty of time to soak into any binder material used in the sample and as MEK is highly flammable this may also add to the reactivity of the sample is the time allowed the dry the material was insufficient to allow all MEK to evaporate.

I believe that, at the very least, the possibility of the above interaction of MEK with any sample chips renders any further tests null and void and they should be redone without any soaking in MEK. Further it is hard to see how Jones et al could have missed the above Patent during their Patent search (we know they carried out one as they found the much heralded Patents on Nano thermite.) If they then used MEK it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are either grossly incompetent or deliberately fraudulent.:boggled:

If I have made any errors in the above assessment please let me know.

jay howard

11th March 2010, 07:31 AM

Would you care to try a little harder to confuse the issue? I think one or two people may have failed to notice that you deliberately missed out "computer disc drives". But, hey, it was a 21st century office building; why would it have anything like that in it?

Dave

Dave, they mean that ferrofluids are used in the manufacture of computer disc drives. Are you trying to postulate that the red/gray chips are computer disc drive components?

The ad hoc attempts to make this evidence disappear are as continuous as they are weak.

T.A.M.

11th March 2010, 08:58 AM

At the very LEAST, the following should be done in a new paper, if they are to have any chance of having their results considered valid.

1. Well defined and complete chain of custody for all samples.
2. Comparative samples from other labs who conducted analysis, with said chain of custody.
3. Provision of samples to an independent lab for repeatability of tests performed and results obtained.
4. Tests to be performed in an O2 Free environment.
5. MEK to NOT BE USED as a wash.

Without the above, their results are null and void, as much as truthers may want to say otherwise.

TAM:)

sheeplesnshills

11th March 2010, 09:33 AM

jay howard;5708069]Dave, they mean that ferrofluids are used in the manufacture of computer disc drives. Are you trying to postulate that the red/gray chips are computer disc drive components?

Its more likely than thermite and could easily have been ruled out with some controls tests. Oh I forgot Jones did no control tests other than on paint scraped from the BYU stadium.

The ad hoc attempts to make this evidence disappear are as continuous as they are weak.

There is no evidence to make disappear. How do not grasp this? :confused:
Jones et al have shown themselves to have been either incompetent or fraudulent or both (do you still dispute that?) so any results they obtained are worthless as evidence.
The dust they have might be regarded as evidence if we can show a chain of custody for it (I think we need to go back to the original suppliers of that dust to get new samples that cannot have been tampered with by Jones at least), get samples from other known sources and have them independently tested and see what they find. Similar tests can then be done on likely controls such as WTC paints etc etc.

Then get the results published in a reputable peer reviewed journal and the and only then will we start to think you might have something.

jay howard

11th March 2010, 10:01 AM

If I have made any errors in the above assessment please let me know.

The primary error is in believing that the MEK soaked chip was heated in the DSC. This does not appear to be the case. Did you read this paper or are you getting all your info from the thread?

In theorizing an increase in reactivity of the Al in the chip, you are at least acknowledging the existence of elemental Al. That's a start. Or are you going to retract that now that you know the MEK chip wasn't ignited?

.

Dave Rogers

11th March 2010, 10:11 AM

Dave, they mean that ferrofluids are used in the manufacture of computer disc drives. Are you trying to postulate that the red/gray chips are computer disc drive components?

"Uses for ferrofluids include computer disk drives and high-performance loud speakers", was the original quote. If you think it means that ferrofluids are used as a piece of manufacturing machinery, or some intermediate reagent, or something similar, and are not present in the final product, a citation would be nice; however, I think it's fairly common knowledge that computer discs use magnetic iron oxide as the recording medium. Are you trying to postulate otherwise?

And, yes, it's a possibility that the red/grey chips are fragments of computer disc drives, but I suspect they're a little too abundant in the dust samples. However, there would certainly have been a lot of computers in the World Trade Centre in 2001.

Dave

Myriad

11th March 2010, 11:19 AM

I did some more reading of the patent. I am a mechanical engineer so its a little outside my field but even high school chemistry is enough to get an idea what is happening when you soak aluminium or perhaps even just Al oxide in MEK

It appears that when creating the aluminium powder (the patent is dated 1972 and the powder is created with a milling machine so this is not sooper dooper nano anything) that an oxide layer immediately forms on it even if the machining is done in hexane. The addition of MEK changes the oxide layer so that it no longer protects the aluminium as effectively thus allowing immediate reaction in acid or if ignited. That indicates the oxide layer itself has be made reactive by the MEK

In the Jones et al Paper, they soak the chips which are known to contain aluminium or aluminium oxides for 5 days which may activate the entire mass of oxide and remove any protection from any elemental Al. that may be present.

When the activated aluminium oxide is then burned in air the reaction would be much more vigorous than that of the an unsoaked example.

MEK would also have plenty of time to soak into any binder material used in the sample and as MEK is highly flammable this may also add to the reactivity of the sample is the time allowed the dry the material was insufficient to allow all MEK to evaporate.

I believe that, at the very least, the possibility of the above interaction of MEK with any sample chips renders any further tests null and void and they should be redone without any soaking in MEK. Further it is hard to see how Jones et al could have missed the above Patent during their Patent search (we know they carried out one as they found the much heralded Patents on Nano thermite.) If they then used MEK it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are either grossly incompetent or deliberately fraudulent.:boggled:

If I have made any errors in the above assessment please let me know.

I think you might be misinterpreting the source material a bit. It appears to be saying that the presence of MEK prevents or alters the formation of the normal oxide layer on freshly exposed surfaces (i.e. during milling). It does not appear to claim that exposure to MEK can remove or alter already existing oxide layers on surfaces already exposed to air.

In any event, nothing done to the aluminum oxide layer could increase the energy derivable from a thermite reaction beyond its stoichiometric maximum. And the calorimeter tests in air showed energy releases significantly above that. Which still means some other "highly energetic" reaction is occurring, most likely ordinary combustion of the organic binder material.

Respectfully,
Myriad

aggle-rithm

11th March 2010, 11:46 AM

The primary error is in believing that the MEK soaked chip was heated in the DSC. This does not appear to be the case. Did you read this paper or are you getting all your info from the thread?

In theorizing an increase in reactivity of the Al in the chip, you are at least acknowledging the existence of elemental Al. That's a start. Or are you going to retract that now that you know the MEK chip wasn't ignited?

.

This thread has been going for almost a year.

Even if you are completely vindicated, and it turns out that the paper represents a valid and well-designed experiment, that's one piece of the puzzle.

I calculate that, at the current rate, it will take you 1,000,000 years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

ElMondoHummus

11th March 2010, 11:48 AM

I did some more reading of the patent. I am a mechanical engineer so its a little outside my field but even high school chemistry is enough to get an idea what is happening when you soak aluminium or perhaps even just Al oxide in MEK

It appears that when creating the aluminium powder (the patent is dated 1972 and the powder is created with a milling machine so this is not sooper dooper nano anything) that an oxide layer immediately forms on it even if the machining is done in hexane. The addition of MEK changes the oxide layer so that it no longer protects the aluminium as effectively thus allowing immediate reaction in acid or if ignited. That indicates the oxide layer itself has be made reactive by the MEK

In the Jones et al Paper, they soak the chips which are known to contain aluminium or aluminium oxides for 5 days which may activate the entire mass of oxide and remove any protection from any elemental Al. that may be present.

When the activated aluminium oxide is then burned in air the reaction would be much more vigorous than that of the an unsoaked example.

MEK would also have plenty of time to soak into any binder material used in the sample and as MEK is highly flammable this may also add to the reactivity of the sample is the time allowed the dry the material was insufficient to allow all MEK to evaporate.

I believe that, at the very least, the possibility of the above interaction of MEK with any sample chips renders any further tests null and void and they should be redone without any soaking in MEK. Further it is hard to see how Jones et al could have missed the above Patent during their Patent search (we know they carried out one as they found the much heralded Patents on Nano thermite.) If they then used MEK it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are either grossly incompetent or deliberately fraudulent.:boggled:

If I have made any errors in the above assessment please let me know.

As I understand things, the butanone soaked chips were never combusted in the calorimeter; it was a different set of samples. This is one of the more nuanced critiques, and I confess, I missed it the first couple of spins I took around the paper; Sunstealer first suspected that here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4613250#post4613250), then made it his conclusion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658). He started from the observation that there's no continuity of characteristics between the various samples, then noticed that the other samples given the full gamut of spectroscopy and calorimeter testing were different. Given that, I don't think butanone would be the source of the combustion in the calorimeter. As Myriad said, the organic material is quite enough to explain what was observed.

sheeplesnshills

11th March 2010, 12:02 PM

jay howard;5708616]The primary error is in believing that the MEK soaked chip was heated in the DSC. This does not appear to be the case. Did you read this paper or are you getting all your info from the thread?

Of course I have read the paper. And I did make an error when I said 5 days soak in MEK it was in fact 55 hours. Mea Culpa.
However Jones makes no indication whether or not its the MEK soaked chips that he burns and that section is immediately after the part where he does examine the soaked chips so its not at all unreasonable to assume that it is.
If it was not then the paper need to be revised to clarify that point. Given Jones incompetence to that point I am not inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.

In theorizing an increase in reactivity of the Al in the chip, you are at least acknowledging the existence of elemental Al. That's a start. Or are you going to retract that now that you know the MEK chip wasn't ignited?

Where did I say that? I said it probably actifies the Al Oxides and any Al that may have been present. Jones did not prove the absence or presence of elemental Al he merely incorrectly infers it from the Oxygen levels. Since he fails to show that elemental AL is present let alone that its in sooperdooper nano form we do not now if it was there or not. Huge amounts of Al were used in the building (the cladding) so its not impossible that the chips were contaminated with Al. or that non nano particles were included in some paint finishes or other materials used.

We do not KNOW that a MEK chip was not ignited, Jones does not specify which chips he ignites. he merely says they were red/gray chips. We already have shown that we cannot rely on Jones methodology.

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C. The energy release
for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately
1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in
peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising,
since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal,
shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray
layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron
oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,
and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.

sheeplesnshills

11th March 2010, 12:14 PM

Myriad;5708861]I think you might be misinterpreting the source material a bit. It appears to be saying that the presence of MEK prevents or alters the formation of the normal oxide layer on freshly exposed surfaces (i.e. during milling). It does not appear to claim that exposure to MEK can remove or alter already existing oxide layers on surfaces already exposed to air.

I considered that possibility but the MEK does seem to do something other than simply prevent the oxide layer forming. The MEK would quickly evaporate and and preventative effect would disappear with the MEK.
however that does not appear to be the case as the MEK removes the effectiveness of the oxide layer allowing the Al underneath to react with acid or burn more vigorously. The Author does not speculate on the chemical process involved merely its effects.

In any event, nothing done to the aluminum oxide layer could increase the energy derivable from a thermite reaction beyond its stoichiometric maximum. And the calorimeter tests in air showed energy releases significantly above that. Which still means some other "highly energetic" reaction is occurring, most likely ordinary combustion of the organic binder material.

Indeed, but it could account for the supposed high rate of the reaction. No more energy is released but it is released at a higher rate and likely higher temp but for a shorter period.

sheeplesnshills

11th March 2010, 12:29 PM

lMondoHummus;5708963]As I understand things, the butanone soaked chips were never combusted in the calorimeter; it was a different set of samples.

Perhaps but since Jones does not say so or properly segregate the chips into organized set of samples we simply do not know. With chips in short supply he may simply have used the dried MEK chips in the Calorimeter.

Given that, I don't think butanone would be the source of the combustion in the calorimeter. As Myriad said, the organic material is quite enough to explain what was observed.

Agreed, the reaction already gives out too much energy but it was just a possibility I wanted to mention. If the chips were allowed to dry for two days as reported, little MEK might be left in them to add to the resultant energy.

jay howard

11th March 2010, 12:46 PM

It appears that we've entered the point of the debate where unofficial conspiracy skeptics are mad-googling anything that makes reference to nanoscale iron oxide and aluminium or some other aspect of the evidence or methods while introducing any theory--many of them mutually exclusive--in an attempt to diminish the evidence in this paper as unreal.

As a skeptic myself, I applaud the effort. It is indeed worthwhile to try to poke holes in this paper as much as possible. If the evidence is sturdy, it should be able to stand the scrutiny of a skeptical perspective.

But it doesn't help the effort (either to refute the findings in this paper or to bolster them) to be overzealous in this. What I mean is, citing a flood of papers simply because they mention something related to this subject only demonstrates a desperation to block out uncomfortable information. If a paper makes a relevant point about the material or the methods, then by all means, proceed. But data dumping is just a distraction from a real discussion.

The WTC towers may have indeed fallen because of the plane impacts and the ensuing fires. They may not have. There appears to be some incendiary/explosive material in the dust. Up until this paper came out, it was a given here on JREF that incredulity is a worthless stance. Likewise, it was a given that when multiple, contradictory ad hoc theories were postulated in an attempt to overcome objections, that was a pretty good indication (though not demonstrative proof) that they were grasping at straws to support a particular claim.

But that doesn't stop anyone from employing those methods when the evidence at hand appears to support the "inside job" theory. All I'm asking for is that before you cite a paper as a source of a relevant counterargument, read it and make sure it makes some kind of sense first.

.

T.A.M.

11th March 2010, 12:56 PM

jay howard

11th March 2010, 12:59 PM

"Uses for ferrofluids include computer disk drives and high-performance loud speakers", was the original quote. If you think it means that ferrofluids are used as a piece of manufacturing machinery, or some intermediate reagent, or something similar, and are not present in the final product, a citation would be nice; however, I think it's fairly common knowledge that computer discs use magnetic iron oxide as the recording medium. Are you trying to postulate otherwise?

And, yes, it's a possibility that the red/grey chips are fragments of computer disc drives, but I suspect they're a little too abundant in the dust samples. However, there would certainly have been a lot of computers in the World Trade Centre in 2001.

Dave

Yes, Dave. I'm well aware of using iron oxide as the active layer in memory devices. And I share your suspicions that the chips may be too abundant to be accounted for as computer components. Not only that, but they do not appear to be any kind of electronics component whatsoever.

At what point should one say "hhmmm... this stuff is a little bit strange. Maybe not evidence of an inside job, but strange nonetheless. We should investigate further."?

.

tsig

11th March 2010, 01:17 PM

I did some more reading of the patent. I am a mechanical engineer so its a little outside my field but even high school chemistry is enough to get an idea what is happening when you soak aluminium or perhaps even just Al oxide in MEK

It appears that when creating the aluminium powder (the patent is dated 1972 and the powder is created with a milling machine so this is not sooper dooper nano anything) that an oxide layer immediately forms on it even if the machining is done in hexane. The addition of MEK changes the oxide layer so that it no longer protects the aluminium as effectively thus allowing immediate reaction in acid or if ignited. That indicates the oxide layer itself has be made reactive by the MEK

In the Jones et al Paper, they soak the chips which are known to contain aluminium or aluminium oxides for 5 days which may activate the entire mass of oxide and remove any protection from any elemental Al. that may be present.

When the activated aluminium oxide is then burned in air the reaction would be much more vigorous than that of the an unsoaked example.

MEK would also have plenty of time to soak into any binder material used in the sample and as MEK is highly flammable this may also add to the reactivity of the sample is the time allowed the dry the material was insufficient to allow all MEK to evaporate.

I believe that, at the very least, the possibility of the above interaction of MEK with any sample chips renders any further tests null and void and they should be redone without any soaking in MEK. Further it is hard to see how Jones et al could have missed the above Patent during their Patent search (we know they carried out one as they found the much heralded Patents on Nano thermite.) If they then used MEK it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are either grossly incompetent or deliberately fraudulent.:boggled:

If I have made any errors in the above assessment please let me know.

So he proved that if you soak paint chips containing aluminum oxide in MEK for a week they will burn.

Jono

11th March 2010, 01:48 PM

If a paper makes a relevant point about the material or the methods, then by all means, proceed. But data dumping is just a distraction from a real discussion.

One of my replies to you noted on a relevant one.
Here's a summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

My first impression was that the alumina and silica bound, due to its rather weak binding, had in the given material experienced 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.

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)

sheeplesnshills

11th March 2010, 02:30 PM

But it doesn't help the effort (either to refute the findings in this paper or to bolster them) to be overzealous in this. What I mean is, citing a flood of papers simply because they mention something related to this subject only demonstrates a desperation to block out uncomfortable information. If a paper makes a relevant point about the material or the methods, then by all means, proceed. But data dumping is just a distraction from a real discussion.

I only googled two words to get that patent on MEK being used to help make thermite. Jones used it without any particularly good reason cited and I was curious why. And to complain about me doing it is by default also condemning Jones as he does exactly the same to get his info on Nano thermite. He has none of this material and has tested none. His only proof that it exists at all is in the Patents. Jones paper is the distraction not my or anyone else's refutation.

The WTC towers may have indeed fallen because of the plane impacts and the ensuing fires. They may not have. There appears to be some incendiary/explosive material in the dust.

What evidence other than the paper is there for that assertion?

But that doesn't stop anyone from employing those methods when the evidence at hand appears to support the "inside job" theory. All I'm asking for is that before you cite a paper as a source of a relevant counterargument, read it and make sure it makes some kind of sense first.
I did and I think it does. If nothing else it shows that Jones was further incompetent by not making clear which chips he was testing. If it was the MEK ones then he needs to go back and redo the tests as even the possibility of the MEK affecting any Al oxide or Elemental Al makes the results invalid...... and if it was not then he needs to clearly state that in the paper.

Forgive me if I seem a little harsh on Jones et al but they are making extraordinary claims based on this shoddy little paper and its long past the point he should retract what he said and either repeat the experiments in a proper scientific manner or quietly go away. Somehow I doubt he will do neither. The very fact that he does not just lends credence to the notion that his paper never was about the truth and solely as a vehicle for his self promotion. Thousands died on 911 and it triggered wars in which thousands more have died.....for him to be making money and living it up on all those corpses is sickening and now with the Pentagon gunman the lies are costing lifes as well.:mad:

sheeplesnshills

11th March 2010, 02:33 PM

So he proved that if you soak paint chips containing aluminum oxide in MEK for a week they will burn.

Not a week, just 55 hours :D

The Almond

11th March 2010, 03:20 PM

jay howard

11th March 2010, 04:04 PM

Jay I applaud your attempt (at least very recently) to maintain a sense of skeptic necessity around this paper. That said, if you are honest in this, you must, MUST admit that the numerous methodological errors in the study, combined with insufficient documentation (from a forensic pov) on chain of custody, and the inadequate testing in an O2 free environment, makes the results of the analysis (outside of a passing "hmmm that is interesting") unusable.

If anything, you should (if you truly believe they are ON TO SOMETHING) be leading the way in calling for them to fix all the errors, submit their samples for independent testing, and make the appropriate adjustments...so, are you???

TAM:)

That's appreciated. I get a little snippy like everyone else, but mostly try to keep it focused on the issue.

There are most certainly a couple of problems with the paper. I agree they should've used a more relevant paint sample for comparison. There are some here who dispute the XEDS data because they say it wasn't done in the right circumstances to rule out a misinterpretation of the peaks. This is certainly possible, however, it must be weighed against the probability of a false negative for these particular peaks and against the likelihood of producing iron and silicate spheres as a by-product.

As for the chain of custody, we've been through this before: these samples had to come from someone. These people have provided the samples gave their names for this paper. And like the other problems with the evidence, the morphological comparison appears to make any problems in the chain of custody moot because they show, by several methods, the same substance in all the samples.

Unless the HFJ crew is simply lying, the comparative analysis leaves little doubt that these chips were indeed found in the WTC dust.

And yes, I do believe they need to look further and harder and use different solvents and different paint samples for comparison. Dr. Jones said recently that they sent off samples to 3 labs for XRF analysis. One lab couldn't do it because the chips were too small but they're waiting on the other two. Dr. Farrer has apparently done TEM analysis on the iron particles and determined from the electron diffraction patterns that they are definitely Fe2O3. So this is a work in progress. They believe they are on to something significant. I believe this evidence is strong and getting stronger the more work is done on it. Time and effort will tell, but at this point, there is little reason NOT to look further and harder.

.

Carsten from Denmark

11th March 2010, 06:06 PM

In Denmark and the US flyash has been and is used as a filler in cement/concrete. In US for more than 50 years. In Denmark since 1978.
Up to 30% in the cement.
Varies in size from 1-20 micron
It contains all the elements Harrit has found.

Here is a SEM-image og flyash.
That should set you mind in gear.

The big question is: Did they use flyash as a filler in paint as the primer used on WTC in the 70's.?

Today they use it in paint.

The binder is resin and turbentine. 85 % of the turbentine evaporates in a few hours.

I am not allowed to use URLs so

Google SEM flyash and then choose pictures.

Here is Harrits iron-rich spheres.

Carsten from Denmark

11th March 2010, 06:17 PM

Google SEM flyash then pictures

Here is Harrits iron-rich spheres.

Flyash is used as filler in cement/concrete and paint

Carsten from Denmark

11th March 2010, 06:52 PM

Does not exist outside a lab

Elemental Al exposed in air/oxygen forms a passivation layer in 100 picoseconds

Aluminium Oxide: melting point 2072 degrees C.

React at 430 deg. C.: No way!

It takes Magnesium to start a reaction.

Dave Rogers

12th March 2010, 02:29 AM

At what point should one say "hhmmm... this stuff is a little bit strange. Maybe not evidence of an inside job, but strange nonetheless. We should investigate further."?

At the point where either (a) there is at least the vaguest possibility that further investigation may lead to useful knowledge or (b) there is nothing else worth doing with one's time and money. At the moment, the status quo is that, among the vast miscellany of debris collected from the collapse of a large building with almost unimaginably diverse contents, someone has managed to isolate a trivially small amount of material whose precise identity appears to be in some minor doubt. Nobody has proposed, or been able despite considerable effort to propose, a hypothesis in which this material does not fall short by several orders of magnitude of being in any way significant to anything. There is, as you suggest, a threshold for taking a vague interest in any anomalies. The material identified falls so far short of this threshold that any serious scientist in a relevant field would be wasting their time doing anything beyond pointing out the appalling level of incompetence shown by the authors of the paper.

Dave

sheeplesnshills

12th March 2010, 06:02 AM

There are most certainly a couple of problems with the paper.

Admit it, there are many many problems with the paper.

I agree they should've used a more relevant paint sample for comparison.

They should have looked at multiple other possibilities, they only looked at one, the paint from the BYU LaVell Edwards Stadium. We don't even know the make of the paint in question or when it was applied.

There are some here who dispute the XEDS data because they say it wasn't done in the right circumstances to rule out a misinterpretation of the peaks. This is certainly possible, however, it must be weighed against the probability of a false negative for these particular peaks and against the likelihood of producing iron and silicate spheres as a by-product.

So either way it was inconclusive.

As for the chain of custody, we've been through this before: these samples had to come from someone. These people have provided the samples gave their names for this paper. And like the other problems with the evidence, the morphological comparison appears to make any problems in the chain of custody moot because they show, by several methods, the same substance in all the samples.

They all passed through Jones hands, a known 911 CTer so they have no provenance. he could have added anything he liked to them and nobody would know. He will not let anyone outside the Truthers have samples and will not have them independently tested. Jones testing for Thermite was like having a priest investigate child abuse in the RC Church.

Unless the HFJ crew is simply lying, the comparative analysis leaves little doubt that these chips were indeed found in the WTC dust.

Only Jones has to be lying as he did the testing and he had access to the samples. Most of the rest just put their names on the paper as they are unqualified to do anything else. The alternative is that thousands of people are lying about 911 and the death of thousands. Jones could just be lying to make money and a name for himself after a pathetic wasted career. Which do you consider more likely?

And yes, I do believe they need to look further and harder and use different solvents and different paint samples for comparison. Dr. Jones said recently that they sent off samples to 3 labs for XRF analysis. One lab couldn't do it because the chips were too small but they're waiting on the other two.

I'm not holding my breath :D

Dr. Farrer has apparently done TEM analysis on the iron particles and determined from the electron diffraction patterns that they are definitely Fe2O3.

ie rust :eek::jaw-dropp:rolleyes::boggled::eye-poppi:covereyes:shocked::yikes::gasp:

So this is a work in progress. They believe they are on to something significant. I believe this evidence is strong and getting stronger the more work is done on it. Time and effort will tell, but at this point, there is little reason NOT to look further and harder.

You are in complete denial! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE at all let alone strong evidence of anything other than gross incompetence and/or Fraud.

They should retract the paper (can you do that from a vanity journal?:)) and arrange for competent independent tests on samples of good provenance. Nothing else would be acceptable as proof in any court of law.

I'm not a betting man but I think its a fairly safe bet that they will never do that.

Carsten from Denmark

12th March 2010, 06:25 AM

TruthersLie

12th March 2010, 07:13 AM

Yes, Dave. I'm well aware of using iron oxide as the active layer in memory devices. And I share your suspicions that the chips may be too abundant to be accounted for as computer components. Not only that, but they do not appear to be any kind of electronics component whatsoever.

At what point should one say "hhmmm... this stuff is a little bit strange. Maybe not evidence of an inside job, but strange nonetheless. We should investigate further."?

.

good question.

AT what point should one say "hhmmmm.... this paper is riddled with methodological errors, has bad controls and makes wildly unfounded claims. Maybe we should throw it out and start over?"

Huh?

TruthersLie

12th March 2010, 07:25 AM

There are most certainly a couple of problems with the paper.
.

wow.

It only took you 10 pages and about 2 months to finally agree with this.

Now lets take it one step further.

Will you agree that this "paper" is riddled with methodological errors? Not differences in intepretation, but actual ERRORS. Yes or no?

So either you have answered
A. Yes
or
B. No.

If A then read
Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques
(WileyEastern,NewDelhi,1985).

Saravanavel P. Research Methodology
(KitabMa-hal,Allahabad,1987).

Both are excellent and show why you need proper methodology.

If B then please explain away the 20 methodological errors that have been pointed out in this thread and in the parent thread and explain how those are not "errors."

ElMondoHummus

12th March 2010, 07:38 AM

Elemental Al becomes Al2O3 instantly when exposed to air.
Soaking it in MEK-solution: Nothing happens, not even when heated.

So the italian is wrong when he says it can react more or less violent.

MEK (acetone) did not dissolve anything because the binder is resin and turpentine. (I think)

Resin (solid) is dissolved by alcohol:cool:

I hate to say this, but: MEK (otherwise known as butanone) is not acetone. They're both ketones, but acetone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone) is (CH3)2CO, whereas butanone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanone) is CH3C(O)CH2CH3.

On top of that, butanone does work as a solvent for some resins.

That said, I've always felt that the MEK "test" that led them to claim it wasn't paint was weak. Butanone is indeed a component of many paint removers, but it's hardly a universal one. I'd have to hit the search function to find that old post, but there's a whole class of paints that would not dissolve in butanone.

jay howard

12th March 2010, 10:08 AM

It is unfortunate that you see the debate that way. Please allow me to remind you what you said:

The answer to this rather asinine question is, yes. Your attempt to move the debate from the relevant to the irrelevant by not addressing my comments directly has not furthered your argument.

More importantly, iron oxide spheres are used in a variety of lubricants and coatings and they are a common component of a dozen different building materials, including concrete, fly ash and inks, paints, stains and dyes. The point is that you, along with Steven Jones and everyone else who believes this nonsense, seem to think that there's something amazing about finding iron oxide in dust and ash. The detritus of a flaming, collapsing building was blown into a residential area and collected haphazardly with no deference to cross contamination issues. The source material is dust and ash, the chips and question are far more likely to be a coating applied to the structural steel in the towers.

So you believe this material is paint or some coating? Then it shouldn't be very hard to track down this coating for comparison. Put your skepticism to a real test: find some paint/protective coating that when dried and and heated, will ignite at 430C and produce iron and silicate spheres.

Find some paint/coating that is composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles. Demonstrate this "condensing of dust" into iron and silicate microspheres that you spoke of earlier. If you're really sticking that out there as a plausible explanation, then this can be confirmed or falsified--not just taken as a given.

I take it as a given that in industrial furnaces, particles can liquefy and condense into microspheres, but it is most certainly NOT a given that this is common or expected for the WTC dust under relatively much cooler temperatures.

Again, if you're relying on that claim in order to posit that the microspheres observed after heating of the chips was NOT a product of the chips, then you should be able to produce something other than your word or making reference to fly ash to support that.

.

TruthersLie

12th March 2010, 01:07 PM

So you believe this material is paint or some coating? Then it shouldn't be very hard to track down this coating for comparison.

no, No, NO, NO. Bad truther. It is called Burden of proof. The common narrative says that 19 hijackers took over four jets and crashed three into buildings and a field in pennslyvania. The towers burned and collapsed, the burning towers damaged wtc7 and caused fires to start which ultimately led to wtc7's collapse.

Now, you are the one making the extraordinary claims of explosives, nanothermite, thermite, government conspiracies. YOu need to PROVE that what you claim is NOT paint, coating, disk drive parts.

In order to do that you need to ELIMINATE any possible other source. Have you done that? Nope. Try again.

Put your skepticism to a real test: find some paint/protective coating that when dried and and heated, will ignite at 430C and produce iron and silicate spheres.

Nope. Not my burden. Since this "paper" failed to have proper controls and is riddle with methodological errors, anything and everything in it is invalid. Please try again with proper methodology and controls.

Find some paint/coating that is composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles. Demonstrate this "condensing of dust" into iron and silicate microspheres that you spoke of earlier. If you're really sticking that out there as a plausible explanation, then this can be confirmed or falsified--not just taken as a given.

Not my job. I"m not making the extraordinary claims. So admit this is junk (I know how heavily you have invested in it... but it is crap. so hvae them scrap it and start over. Do it right)

I take it as a given that in industrial furnaces, particles can liquefy and condense into microspheres, but it is most certainly NOT a given that this is common or expected for the WTC dust under relatively much cooler temperatures.

Again, if you're relying on that claim in order to posit that the microspheres observed after heating of the chips was NOT a product of the chips, then you should be able to produce something other than your word or making reference to fly ash to support that.

.
blah blah blah.

What part of bad methodology invalidates any findings do you not understand?

sheeplesnshills

12th March 2010, 01:36 PM

Elemental Al becomes Al2O3 instantly when exposed to air.
Soaking it in MEK-solution: Nothing happens, not even when heated.

This patent says otherwise.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3890166.html

As stated I'm not a Chem Eng but the MEK did have a lasting affect on the milled Al. or the oxide coating that forms on it that just milling in Hexane did not.

So the italian is wrong when he says it can react more or less violent.

The Patent says otherwise.

MEK (acetone) did not dissolve anything because the binder is resin and turpentine. (I think)

Resin (solid) is dissolved by alcohol:cool:

The choice of trying only one solvent always struck me as strange and but perhaps it was just incompetence and chance that made that one choice MEK.

aggle-rithm

12th March 2010, 01:43 PM

There are most certainly a couple of problems with the paper. .

And do you know what the biggest problem is? The entire enterprise is an attempt to rationalize a pre-conceived belief. Personally, I see it as just another truther stalling tactic. If they can get people to focus long enough on this one piece of the puzzle, then they can (for a while, at least) make people forget that they only have ten ragged, bent, and broken pieces in a 1000-piece set.

Meanwhile the puzzle representing the so-called "official story" was completed eight years ago. It helps when you use actual pieces and not imaginary ones.

The Almond

12th March 2010, 02:58 PM

So you believe this material is paint or some coating?

My beliefs are irrelevant. I have correctly pointed out that there are insufficient data to eliminate any one of the hundreds (if not thousands) of paints, coatings, inks, stains, pigments, dyes or building materials present in the WTC on 9/11.

That's the problem with science. If you want to eliminate a confounding variable from the results, you have to show evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the critic.

Then it shouldn't be very hard to track down this coating for comparison. Put your skepticism to a real test: find some paint/protective coating that when dried and and heated, will ignite at 430C and produce iron and silicate spheres.

Done (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf)
See page 442. Look familiar? Read page 433. It identifies the paint applied to the steel beams as essentially a ceramic in an organic matrix. The pigment was iron oxide and other oxides added for color.
Case closed.

Find some paint/coating that is composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles.

McCrone Particle Atlas (http://www.mccroneatlas.com/viewer/index.asp?MODE=OVERVIEW&PARTICLE_ID=1111&F_SEARCH=Y&F_KEYWORD=Pigment&F_TYPE_ID=22)
Done.
Don't have access to the McCrone particle atlas? It costs about $600 per year, and is invaluable as a research tool for people serious about doing analysis of dust, ash and particles in general.

Dave Rogers

12th March 2010, 03:47 PM

The choice of trying only one solvent always struck me as strange and but perhaps it was just incompetence and chance that made that one choice MEK.

It's liquid model airplane glue. Maybe that was the only solvent they could find. It would be in keeping with the general level of competence displayed.

Dave

jay howard

15th March 2010, 12:56 PM

My beliefs are irrelevant. I have correctly pointed out that there are insufficient data to eliminate any one of the hundreds (if not thousands) of paints, coatings, inks, stains, pigments, dyes or building materials present in the WTC on 9/11.

You remember when you linked to the USGS Iron Oxide Pigments Statistics and Information as if it provided a definitive answer to the question "is paint composed of 100 nm iron oxide particles?" Your link was supposed to be the case closer--verifying for God and everyone that these particles were indeed, not unusual for building materials. But here's what the 2008 USGS Minerals Yearbook for Iron Oxide actually said: Potential uses for nanosized (less than 0.1 micron or 100 nanometers) iron oxide particles include catalysts and
ferrofluids. Uses for ferrofluids include computer disk drives and high-performance loud speakers; other applications are in biology and medicine, including nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (Vollath, 2008, p. 2, 5).

Not a word about construction materials or industrial paints or corrosion protection. And this is not surprising considering the difficulty involved in manufacturing uniform 100nm particles. When this is pointed out, Dave replies that "yes, it's a possibility that the red/grey chips are fragments of computer disc drives, but I suspect they're a little too abundant in the dust samples."

And a little too flammable too, I suspect. But I don't suppose the lack of substance behind your "certainty" will stop you from claiming it once again.

That's the problem with science. If you want to eliminate a confounding variable from the results, you have to show evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the critic.

True. And all we ever have is the evidence. And the evidence is clear that this material is NOT paint nor some industrial building material nor is it computer parts and we can pretty much rule out nuclear magnetic resonance imaging contrast.

So, if you are making the claim that this stuff is paint, YOU are now the one in the position to back that claim up with evidence. Let's see how that goes:

Done (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf)
See page 442. Look familiar? Read page 433. It identifies the paint applied to the steel beams as essentially a ceramic in an organic matrix. The pigment was iron oxide and other oxides added for color.
Case closed.

Really!? You don't accept mutually corroborative BSE, SE, photomicrograph images, XEDS graphs and corresponding maps, but you can look at a photograph of peeling paint, read a description and that's "case closed" for you?!

Your standards of evidence are, well... exceptional. And I mean that. You make strange and inconsistent exceptions as to what does and does not count as evidence.

McCrone Particle Atlas (http://www.mccroneatlas.com/viewer/index.asp?MODE=OVERVIEW&PARTICLE_ID=1111&F_SEARCH=Y&F_KEYWORD=Pigment&F_TYPE_ID=22)
Done.
Don't have access to the McCrone particle atlas? It costs about $600 per year, and is invaluable as a research tool for people serious about doing analysis of dust, ash and particles in general.

And again, you assume a "confident manner" by linking to something that makes reference to iron oxide particles used in pigments. Do you have some info that shows Fe2O3 particle sizes in paint pigments are 100nm? No, but that doesn't stop you from claiming certainty on that question.

Not only have you and everyone else failed to bring any evidence whatsoever to bear on the plausibility that this substance is some building material, the publication you cite references several uses of nanoscale iron oxide, none of which include any construction materials.

The SE image you cite in the McCrone Atlas has a 1 um reference bar at the bottom, so clearly, that doesn't even come close to the scale of iron oxide particles in the red/gray chips. And yet, you cite it as if it "finally shut down this silly conversation." It's just not necessary to get the particles so small and uniform in pigment applications.

Will you please read what you're citing before you link to it? Or do you just like to pretend you've "closed the case" on all this business?

.

sheeplesnshills

15th March 2010, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE=jay howard;5721043]You remember when you linked to the USGS Iron Oxide Pigments Statistics and Information as if it provided a definitive answer to the question "is paint composed of 100 nm iron oxide particles?" Your link was supposed to be the case closer--verifying for God and everyone that these particles were indeed, not unusual for building materials. But here's what the 2008 USGS Minerals Yearbook for Iron Oxide actually said:

Not a word about construction materials or industrial paints or corrosion protection. And this is not surprising considering the difficulty involved in manufacturing uniform 100nm particles. When this is pointed out, Dave replies that "yes, it's a possibility that the red/grey chips are fragments of computer disc drives, but I suspect they're a little too abundant in the dust samples."

Too abundant. We don't have reliable eviudence that they are there at all!
You are making the mistake again that Jones report can be used as evidence. It cannot. Period.

And a little too flammable too, I suspect. But I don't suppose the lack of substance behind your "certainty" will stop you from claiming it once again.

Again you are making the mistake that just beacuse somethinf does not have a commercial use that it would not be present. Fly ash contains the particals in question. Do you have evidence that they are not routinely that small

True. And all we ever have is the evidence. And the evidence is clear that this material is NOT paint nor some industrial building material nor is it computer parts and we can pretty much rule out nuclear magnetic resonance imaging contrast.

Again you do not have any evidence they exist at all!

So, if you are making the claim that this stuff is paint, YOU are now the one in the position to back that claim up with evidence. Let's see how that goes:

What stuff? Jones stuff has no provenance and his testing fails to meet any acceptable scientific standards. We know that the dust will contain vast quantities of paint because the WTC towers steel was painted, thats a given.

Your standards of evidence are, well... exceptional. And I mean that. You make strange and inconsistent exceptions as to what does and does not count as evidence.

And yours are extraordinarily loose.

Will you please read what you're citing before you link to it? Or do you just like to pretend you've "closed the case" on all this business?

You have no "case" to start with.

Dave Rogers

16th March 2010, 02:49 AM

And a little too flammable too, I suspect.

Your confirmation bias is showing. We're discussing the presence of a substance which is known to combust in a standard atmosphere at 430ºC, so we know the stuff is flammable. You can't reject candidates for the identity of a flammable substance because they're flammable.

And you also can't reject candidates because they're not used in construction, industrial paints or corrosion protection. Anything used in IT is likely to have been present in the towers in significant quantities, and you also have to consider anything else that might be present in an office building. We are not talking about large quantities of material here.

I think you're trying too hard to ignore any possibilities you don't like.

Dave

henryco

16th March 2010, 03:25 AM

To be honest, I think they're a bunch of lying, stinking weasels who would frame their own grandmothers if they thought it would make them look clever. However, that's beside the point. Are you suggesting that the microsphere produced was much bigger than the material that reacted to produce it? If not, then you need to work on expressing concepts more clearly.

When you put a chip in the DSC, it's because you have selected this chip in the iron rich dust with a needle as i did so many times. And you select it by inspecting the particles with a microscope. So each chip that you isolate and
put in you DSC has been inspected: this is obvious! A chip is always thin! so you can imagine there are very small microspheres embedded in the chip material, some of them visible at the surface, some others invisible , completely hidden in the chip but these must have a typical size smaller than the thickness of the chips.
I'have seen plenty of these very small microspheres, some of them even ejected from the chips at high temperature and it is impossible to make such mistake as to say for sure that these microspheres were produced by molten iron due to the reaction of the chips: at the very least there is no evidence for that. And this is why i do not say that my chips reacted.
But in case of the photographs shown by Jones and co there is absolutely no ambiguity because the diameter of the spheroid is huge compared to the thickness of the chip so you could not have missed them at microscopy inspection before putting them in the DSC .
So i'm sorry to repeat again that their evidence is very strong (and i can see no possibility to ignore this) that it is indeed a reaction that melted iron and produced the microspheres.

If so, then you need to look into the law of conservation of mass-energy.

I think it's possible that some substance in the chip reacted with atmospheric oxygen and produced a spherical particle with a significant iron content.

Impossible for a combustion with air oxygen of a micron sized particle to concentrate enough heat on it to melt iron.
indeed each volume V of combustible needs thousands V of air to react completely thus the heat is released in those thousands V of air instead of V of the chip: hence the density of energy is thousand times less than a thermitic reaction where all the reactives are together already inside the chip. Only the latter allows the concentration of the heat to melt iron!
ANother possibility is to accumulate heat in time and concentrate it in a given volume as in a coal burning furnace that produces fly ash where indeed iron can fuse (over 1500°C). But this is not the condition inside of a DSC if a microscopic particle burns : the energy does not accumulate but the dissipative effects are instead very fast in the surrounding air and the energy is not concentrated.

I think it's even possible that some combination of chemicals in the debris may have reacted in some thermite-like reaction.

In your dreams!! iron oxyde and Aluminum react in this way if Alu is elemental, and nanoparticles of elemental Alu dont exist in nature: Al is always oxydized in surface bery fast, and for a 40nm particle, this surface is very soon the whole particle itself exposed to oxygen of the air.

This is the only reason i see to really question the presence of a black ship among these truthers who may have falsified the data in order to decredibilize the whole study and i'm surprised that nobody has mentionned this issue here : how could elemental nanoAlu remain activate 7 years after 911: hardly possible without a very efficient coating according the studies i have read on the subject. Or storage in very dry and oxygen depleted conditions...

I think it completely impossible that the reaction observed by Harrit et al was not primarily combustion in atmospheric oxygen, and neither can anyone else who is rational and possessed of at least minimal expertise.

This is where you are completely wrong for the obvious reasons i have just recalled

And I think it completely impossible that any such reaction was in any way even a partial cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers, with the same dependent clause.
Dave

several millimeters of thermite could heat any column by hundreds of degrees because the reaction is fast : so there is not enough time for the heat to escape, and the reaction is fast just because it does not need a huge volume of air around like a combustion.

1200 lbs of TNT divided by the volume of the fireball in the plane crash is still a ridiculous energy density as compared to xhat is needed to melt iron.
please learn what a density is!

Again sorry but i cannot find any way to avoid a thermitic reaction just from the evidence of molten iron spheroid production as shown in their photographs. This is crucial and conclusive even if all the rest of the article were not conclusive. And this is why , when i couldnt obtain the same reaction my first conclusion had to be that it is my chips that deactivated by heat or humidity or aging...because the only other way out of this would be to accuse the authors of complete falsification of their data!

I admit i did not know that fly ash could be a large source of iron microspheres. But now i see another issue: a very significant fraction of these microspheres are essentially Fer + Al + O microspheres (i have checked this myself). Why so many of them have this signature ? And how this Al + O alloy could have formed ? you have to reach the Alumine fusion T which
is 2050°C when you burn your coal for that: significantly higher than 1500°C
to fuse iron. If not, a piece of alumina will remain at the surface of the iron liquid particle and you will not get a smooth spheroid.

Dave Rogers

16th March 2010, 06:00 AM

But in case of the photographs shown by Jones and co there is absolutely no ambiguity because the diameter of the spheroid is huge compared to the thickness of the chip so you could not have missed them at microscopy inspection before putting them in the DSC .
So i'm sorry to repeat again that their evidence is very strong (and i can see no possibility to ignore this) that it is indeed a reaction that melted iron and produced the microspheres.

The principal reason to ignore it is that you have tried and failed to replicate this specific result. What you're saying is that your samples, after reaction, contain microspheres that could have been present before reaction, and it's only Harrit et al's samples that contain microspheres that could not have. That's not a reason to believe Harrit et al's results, it's a reason to doubt them.

Impossible for a combustion with air oxygen of a micron sized particle to concentrate enough heat on it to melt iron.

And unnecessary. As you point out below, the microspheres are not pure iron, they contain oxygen. Have you quantified how much? Is there reason to suspect the presence of any free iron?

In your dreams!! iron oxyde and Aluminum react in this way if Alu is elemental, and nanoparticles of elemental Alu dont exist in nature: Al is always oxydized in surface bery fast, and for a 40nm particle, this surface is very soon the whole particle itself exposed to oxygen of the air

This is the only reason i see to really question the presence of a black ship among these truthers who may have falsified the data in order to decredibilize the whole study and i'm surprised that nobody has mentionned this issue here : how could elemental nanoAlu remain activate 7 years after 911: hardly possible without a very efficient coating according the studies i have read on the subject. Or storage in very dry and oxygen depleted conditions...

Neither of which can have happened for these samples. As you say, hardly possible.

This is where you are completely wrong for the obvious reasons i have just recalled

It is physically impossible for this conclusion to be wrong. The simple fact that the energy density is many times too great for a nanothermite reaction means that atmospheric combustion is the only possible source for at least the majority of the energy releaased.

several millimeters of thermite could heat any column by hundreds of degrees because the reaction is fast : so there is not enough time for the heat to escape, and the reaction is fast just because it does not need a huge volume of air around like a combustion.

Now that's just ridiculous. The law of conservation of energy doesn't have any loopholes. The energy output is the energy output; the only thing the speed of reaction can influence is the efficiency of the heat transfer, and that can't exceed 100%. For Harrit et al's chips to have had any significant effect, orders of magnitude more energy was needed. There's no source for that energy. And let's remember, we're not even talking about several millimeters - these chips are sub-millimeter in thickness. There is simply not enough energy, by orders of magnitude, and the speed of release won't change that.

1200 lbs of TNT divided by the volume of the fireball in the plane crash is still a ridiculous energy density as compared to xhat is needed to melt iron.
please learn what a density is!

Again, that's just ridiculous. A certain amount of steel has to be melted, in Jones's proto-hypothesis. Density is a secondary consideration; the absolute energy required for melting enough steel simply is not available.

Again sorry but i cannot find any way to avoid a thermitic reaction just from the evidence of molten iron spheroid production as shown in their photographs. This is crucial and conclusive even if all the rest of the article were not conclusive. And this is why , when i couldnt obtain the same reaction my first conclusion had to be that it is my chips that deactivated by heat or humidity or aging...because the only other way out of this would be to accuse the authors of complete falsification of their data!

The just follow your own lines of reasoning. You have two possibilities: either a thermite reaction occurred, or the data was falsified. You have failed to reproduce the evidence of a thermite reaction having occurred. Your reasoning suggests that a thermite reaction cannot have occurred, because the native oxide formation on aluminium nanoparticles would neutralise the reducing agent. Heat, humidity and ageing - be reasonable, these samples are supposed to have been still reactive after over eight years' storage in essentially uncontrolled conditions; any ageing that was going to occur has already occurred. Which is left as the more likely explanation?

Dave

henryco

16th March 2010, 07:38 AM

The principal reason to ignore it is that you have tried and failed to replicate this specific result.

It's impossible to ignore because it's a clean result that is claimed with photos
to support it and there is no other way to explain this observation. On the other hand there are plenty of reasons that could explain why i failed,
for instance that my sample were collected two days after 9/11 and it rained in between.

And unnecessary. As you point out below, the microspheres are not pure iron, they contain oxygen. Have you quantified how much? Is there reason to suspect the presence of any free iron?

I found pure iron microspheres in my sample! and i have shown their spectra!
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf
Notice that even when a pure iron microsphere is produced it must reoxydize very fast at high temperature before it is completely cooled if it is not in an oxygen depleted environment! so my own observations support that not only pure iron microspheres were generated but also that they appeared in an oxygen depleted air (thermobarics can consume all the oxygen for instance) where they could cool and remain pure iron.

Now that's just ridiculous. The law of conservation of energy doesn't have any loopholes. The energy output is the energy output; the only thing the speed of reaction can influence is the efficiency of the heat transfer, and that can't exceed 100%. For Harrit et al's chips to have had any significant effect, orders of magnitude more energy was needed. There's no source for that energy. And let's remember, we're not even talking about several millimeters - these chips are sub-millimeter in thickness. There is simply not enough energy, by orders of magnitude, and the speed of release won't change that.
Density is a secondary consideration; the absolute energy required for melting enough steel simply is not available.
Dave

Did you perform the computation? i did it a long time ago

At 100% efficiency:

- The reaction of a volume V of coil (carbon) produces the energy to heat and melt ~ 10V of iron (79kJ/cc released. 7.8kJ/cc needed to heat and melt the iron: (470 J/(°C.kg) x 1500°C + 270000J/kg) x 8000/1O^6 kg/cc)

But each C atom requires one O2 from the air hence a volume V of Carbon needs
32/12 (molar masses ratio ) times 2267/1.43 (density ratio) times 5 (20% oxygen in the air) = ~ 20000 V of air.

Hence when a small organic particle burns in the air the energy is released slowly in a huge volume hence a small particle of iron in its vicinity (volume V also) can only receive a ridiculous fraction of this heat energy ~ 1/20000. Impossible to reach the melting point with that.

- The reaction of a volume V of Thermite produces enough energy to melt ~ 2V of Iron. 16kJ/cc for thermite ~ 5x less than carbon...
BUT this heat is released entirely and fastly in the small volume V. This is why a micron size particle of thermite could melt iron in contact with it and nothing burning in the air in the DSC could do that!

Actually at the WTC, thermite was only needed to insure the heating effect that the jet fuel fires couldnt produce: soften the steel columns at the floors of the impact, not necessarily melt them!

One volume V of Thermite can heat 8V of steel by 500°C at 100% efficiency.
and 4V of steel at a more reasonable efficiency of 50%. So you just need to apply a thermite layer which has approximately 1/4 the steel thickness of any column to do the job. Thus 2 millimeters would be enough for all steel columns at the impacted floors.

The chips are very thin but there are photos strongly suggesting that the thermite was applied in a multilayered red/grey/red/grey.... that could reach millimeters in total thickness.... so sorry again but i really see no problem with this scenario.

F H-C

henryco

16th March 2010, 08:03 AM

T.A.M.

16th March 2010, 11:49 AM

henryco:

As David said, henry, the fact that you COULD NOT reproduce their results, should be reason to doubt the validity of THEIR RESULTS, not make the ridiculous and much less likely assumption that of the sample you received, ALL OF THE CHIPS had already reacted.

To do so is not only bizarre and unscientific, but seriously makes me question whether you allowing your views on the 9/11 attacks cloud your judgement.

TAM:)

The Almond

16th March 2010, 02:02 PM

As for the iron rich microspheres and the idea that it could be due to fly ash:
The articles

http://www.flyash.info/2005/200fan.pdf
http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/cfa51.htm
http://igs.indiana.edu/Geology/coalOilGas/flyAshProperties/index.cfm

describe hollow iron oxide spheres.

Only the first article describes hollow iron oxide spheres, with very little data to back it up. I don't doubt that, given the way that the materials are formed, some of the spheres will trap air. However, the idea that fly ash is composed of only hollow iron oxide spheres is preposterous. It's worth remembering also:
1) If the sphere shell is sufficiently thick, backscattered electron imaging and secondary electron imaging alone are not enough to determine if it's hollow.
2) Optical methods for particle sizing and morphology (including petrographic methods) aren't able to determine if the particles are hollow.

In the RJ Lee group report from 2003,

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:acTGlRoiV3gJ:www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2520Liberty%2520Street/Mike%2520Davis%2520LMDC%2520130%2520Liberty%2520Do cuments/Signature%2520of%2520WTC%2520dust/WTC%2520Dust%2520Signature.Composition%2520and%252 0Morphology.Final.pdf+RJ+Lee+group+report+dec+2003 .pdf&hl=fr&gl=fr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjpDFfbyV_G8YVx-OLgq0sIGZUZBUhmmvF2Hpl-oChDvdQU_uqbM8C3m4ydkYvEQdj_Ygvcf6_ioLNQuGPX2e-yK5VDytlw3zJjYTceiGPBEtY-mxgoGFjb1YDt8amhwQ3tOv6p&sig=AHIEtbTkaw08t-NYMaqCj9FdpiLnHUXQ0A

they found 5.87 % solid iron spheres (see XEDS) in the WTC dust,

It would be incredibly difficult to determine from XEDS if a particle is hollow (unless the shell is only a few nanometers thick) or solid. RJ Lee group is likely making an assumption, and given their vast experience with particle analysis, I'd be more likely to trust their analysis.

while 0.04 is what you expect in "normal" buildings (Table 3).

This confirms what i also observed: the fraction of these microspheres is huge!!

You do understand that the difference between a normal building and the WTC towers is that the WTC towers were on fire, right? The dust Jones tested is actually a combination of dust and ash, and, as the RJ Lee report notes, iron oxide spheres are a component of common dust. Ash, on the other hand, has a significantly higher concentration of iron because iron bearing compounds don't combust easily.
[/quote]
and the report concludes: WTC dust and normal background dust have different sources.[/quote]
Yes, and the plume that carried the material to Jones's source mixed the two together.

Alferd_Packer

16th March 2010, 02:14 PM

they found 5.87 % solid iron spheres (see XEDS) in the WTC dust, while 0.04 is what you expect in "normal" buildings (Table 3).

This confirms what i also observed: the fraction of these microspheres is huge!!
and the report concludes: WTC dust and normal background dust have different sources.

So?

What is your point? Of course the WTC dust is different from regular background dust.

What is your claim as to the significance of this?

Alferd_Packer

16th March 2010, 02:26 PM

This confirms what i also observed: the fraction of these microspheres is huge!!
and the report concludes: WTC dust and normal background dust have different sources.

Just to add:

You seem to be making that comparison of the fraction of fly ash in the WTC dust to the fraction in background dust to claim that the fraction in the WTC dust is not “normal.”

This is just silly. Of course the fraction of fly ash in the WTC dust is higher that normal dust. The WTC dust resulted from huge fires and the building collapses. These are not “normal” conditions at all. The whole reason for the comparison in the report was to categorize the signature components of WTC dust. The fact that these components differ from normal dust don’t signify anything other than the WTC dust was generated by huge fires and building collapses.

sheeplesnshills

16th March 2010, 02:53 PM

they found 5.87 % solid iron spheres (see XEDS) in the WTC dust, while 0.04 is what you expect in "normal" buildings (Table 3).

What was "normal" about the WTC Towers and the way they were destroyed?:confused:

jay howard

16th March 2010, 02:58 PM

Your confirmation bias is showing. We're discussing the presence of a substance which is known to combust in a standard atmosphere at 430ºC, so we know the stuff is flammable. You can't reject candidates for the identity of a flammable substance because they're flammable.

I get your point, Dave. Fair enough. The uncontroversial point I'm getting at is that given what we know about this substance, (its characteristics and abundance in the WTC dust), it's just not likely some electronics parts.

If you recall, your original claim was in response to the USGS particulate info and stats yearbook about ferrofluids being used to make computer disk drives. This stuff is clearly NOT from a computer disk drive. Have we ruled out all the possibilities in electronics? No. Have we narrowed down the probability that it's computer parts? Yes. How? Abundance and characteristics.

And you also can't reject candidates because they're not used in construction, industrial paints or corrosion protection.

Can we rule out nuclear magnetic resonance imaging contrast media? I think so. What about manufacturing processes that use ferrofluids? Yes. What about end products of ferrofluids? Not impossible, but not very likely.

What about the other main use cited in that USGS report: CATALYSTS. Could this substance be a puropsefully-designed reactive material? Yes, it's possible. The relative uniformity of the iron oxide suggests a use which takes advantage of the high surface area-to-mass properties afforded by such small particles.

When compared with Xerogel, (fig. 29, pg. 25), the fast reaction is remarkable--even in comparison to a known nano-energetic composite. That characteristic is enough to cement the theory that this stuff is indeed some kind of highly processed incendiary/explosive. If you give up the ludicrous idea that heating these chips is condensing dust into iron and silicate microspheres, then it becomes very likely that this stuff is evidence of pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings.

Anything used in IT is likely to have been present in the towers in significant quantities, and you also have to consider anything else that might be present in an office building. We are not talking about large quantities of material here.

How are you claiming we aren't talking about large quantities of material here? It's been found in 4 different samples from 4 different locations. Apparently, there is a lot of this material in the dust.

I think you're trying too hard to ignore any possibilities you don't like.

Dave

And I think you are eager to consider the lower probability theories over higher probability theories as long as they don't infer the possibility of incendiary or explosive materials in the WTC dust.

All we ever have is evidence and probability. I don't "like" the IT parts theory because at this point in time, there isn't a good contender material in electronics that has the properties of the red/gray chips. If you can think of any, let's compare it.

In the meantime, the best theory is the one that explains the most evidence and doesn't have to ignore any phenomena. Right now, that theoy is that the red/gray chips are some kind of nano-energetic composite material.

.

The Almond

16th March 2010, 03:07 PM

You remember when you linked to the USGS Iron Oxide Pigments Statistics and Information as if it provided a definitive answer to the question "is paint composed of 100 nm iron oxide particles?" Your link was supposed to be the case closer--verifying for God and everyone that these particles were indeed, not unusual for building materials. But here's what the 2008 USGS Minerals Yearbook for Iron Oxide actually said:

Did the minerals yearbook claim that the only use for Iron Oxide was computer disk drives? The answer to the, again, rather asinine question of whether or not iron oxide is used in pigments and coatings is yes. The answer to the question of particle size can be found in the following texts available from your local university library:

Outlines of Paint Technology, Volume 1: Materials (1982) W. M. Morgans
Page 26 notes that particle size distributions for paints and pigments ranging from 100 nm to 300 nm. It also suggests methods for determining particle sizes in pigments.

Chemistry of Pigments and Fillers (1983) D. H. Solomon and D. G. Hawthorne
Page 301 shows the particle size range for a pigment known as "Pure Yellow Oxide". The accompanying micrograph (figure 7) shows the particle size range, which is also shown in the table above. The listed particle size range is 100 nm to 1.5 µm.

Pigments: An Introduction to their Physical Chemistry (1967) D. Patterson (ed)
Page 100 identifies several variants of iron oxide pigments and notes "[...] iron oxides with particles of 0.1 µm or less are used as transparent colorants."

Not a word about construction materials

Concrete Admixtures Handbook: Properties, Science and Technology (1984) V.S. Ramachandran (ed)
Page 316, in the section on fly ash notes, as point (iii), "Magnetite and hematite occur as opaque spheres in high-iron fly ashes." Further, the author of the section sites G.L. Fisher et al in Environmental Science and Technology (1978). Fisher's paper notes that the smaller particles tend to be opaque and spherical according to light microscopy.

or industrial paints or corrosion protection. And this is not surprising considering the difficulty involved in manufacturing uniform 100nm particles.

The above references should show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that not only were such technologies available in the late 1960's, but that the use and manufacture of iron oxide particles for use as pigments has been common in industry for the last 50 years.

True. And all we ever have is the evidence. And the evidence is clear that this material is NOT paint nor some industrial building material nor is it computer parts and we can pretty much rule out nuclear magnetic resonance imaging contrast.

The references above will show this claim false.

So, if you are making the claim that this stuff is paint

Pigment.

, YOU are now the one in the position to back that claim up with evidence. Let's see how that goes:

We need only to look at the authorship of the paper to determine who the claimant is. It is up to the author to reduce or eliminate through evidence and robust statistical analysis any possible confounding variables, however trivial they may seem.

Really!? You don't accept mutually corroborative BSE, SE, photomicrograph images, XEDS graphs and corresponding maps, but you can look at a photograph of peeling paint, read a description and that's "case closed" for you?!

The data I linked to earlier is an example of a pigment/industrial coating, made of iron oxide (among other materials) in a ceramic matrix comprised of alumina and silica. Jones has provided evidence of a pigment/industrial material, made of faceted iron oxide in a matrix of alumina and silica. Why should we not eliminate this material, said to coat the beams of every major structural element in the WTC, from consideration as the source material of the sample analyzed by Jones?

And again, you assume a "confident manner" by linking to something that makes reference to iron oxide particles used in pigments. Do you have some info that shows Fe2O3 particle sizes in paint pigments are 100nm? No, but that doesn't stop you from claiming certainty on that question.

McCrone's particle atlas does have such data, but it is unfair to demand that you purchase a $600 license in order to confirm that I am correct. The references I have listed should be available at your nearest university library free of cost.

Not only have you and everyone else failed to bring any evidence whatsoever to bear on the plausibility that this substance is some building material, the publication you cite references several uses of nanoscale iron oxide,[...]

Plausibility cannot be ascertained by either party. The provenance of the sample is in doubt. A better, and more interesting question, is, "What evidence does Jones bring to show that this material was a thermite coating applied to the steel in the WTC towers in order to heat the structure past the point of stability and cause the towers to collapse?" The answer, of course, is none.

The SE image you cite in the McCrone Atlas has a 1 um reference bar at the bottom, so clearly, that doesn't even come close to the scale of iron oxide particles in the red/gray chips. And yet, you cite it as if it "finally shut down this silly conversation." It's just not necessary to get the particles so small and uniform in pigment applications.

The top of page 100 in the Pigments book (see above) notes, "The hues of most of the colored inorganic pigments are determined not only by their molecular compositions, but also on particle size and crystalline form." Further down the page, it notes, "The color dependence on average particle size is illustrated by the dominant wavelength of magnetite, which changes from 600 nm to 635 nm as the particles increase [...]"

Interestingly, it appears that magnetite, along with other iron oxide pigments, appears to have a size dependency on fluoresced wavelength. So, it seems that, when iron oxides are used as a pigment, size control and separation are of paramount importance.

Will you please read what you're citing before you link to it? Or do you just like to pretend you've "closed the case" on all this business?

.
I believe the above linked references and information will close the case.

Myriad

16th March 2010, 05:07 PM

Out of curiosity, I just stirred a magnet through the ashes of my wood fireplace, left over from a wood fire 72 hours ago. Can anyone tell me what all the shiny round ferromagnetic particles about 10-50 microns in diameter I'm finding are, and where they came from? (I live in a wood-framed house, and to my knowledge neither welding nor thermite reactions have ever occurred therein.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

henryco

17th March 2010, 04:48 AM

Just to add:

You seem to be making that comparison of the fraction of fly ash in the WTC dust to the fraction in background dust to claim that the fraction in the WTC dust is not “normal.”

This is just silly. Of course the fraction of fly ash in the WTC dust is higher that normal dust. The WTC dust resulted from huge fires and the building collapses. These are not “normal” conditions at all. The whole reason for the comparison in the report was to categorize the signature components of WTC dust. The fact that these components differ from normal dust don’t signify anything other than the WTC dust was generated by huge fires and building collapses.

I dont understand how the large concentration of iron rich microspheres at WTC could be correlated to the WTC fires because the fires at WTC could not reach the iron melting point.

On the other hand i was ready to accept that these iron microspheres had their source in the fly ash used as a material in the production of concrete:
these would have been part of the concrete from the begining but the data from normal building dust and WTC dust before 911, clearly shows that their concentration from this source only should be very small, much smaller than observed! Right ?

if a normal fire can indeed produce iron microspheres as someone suggested in this thread, please explain to me how this can be ...

Fred

henryco

17th March 2010, 04:57 AM

Dave Rogers

17th March 2010, 05:00 AM

If you recall, your original claim was in response to the USGS particulate info and stats yearbook about ferrofluids being used to make computer disk drives. This stuff is clearly NOT from a computer disk drive. Have we ruled out all the possibilities in electronics? No. Have we narrowed down the probability that it's computer parts? Yes. How? Abundance and characteristics.

Can we rule out nuclear magnetic resonance imaging contrast media? I think so. What about manufacturing processes that use ferrofluids? Yes.

I'm just going to focus on this particular point, because you're still working from an unsourced assumption. The original quote was that one use of ferrofluids was in computer magnetic disc media. At no point was it suggested that ferrofluids are only used in the manufacture of computer discs and that no part of the ferrofluid remains in the final product; this is entirely your interpretation, and is not backed up by any source that anyone has produced. Since small magnetic iron oxide particles are well known to be used in magnetic recording media, your insistence that small magnetic iron oxide particles cannot possibly be found in magnetic recording media, based on a source that gives magnetic recording media as a major use for ferrofluids that contain iron oxide nanoparticles, is completely indefensible.

Let me remind you that the relevant part of the original quote was, "Uses for ferrofluids include computer disc drives". Computer disc drives are, rather obviously, an application where particle size control is important, so we could expect well-controlled particle size, magnetic iron oxide in them. Therefore,without more data on absolute abundance in the debris, this is a source we cannot eliminate.

Dave

henryco

17th March 2010, 05:07 AM

sheeplesnshills

17th March 2010, 11:44 AM

i forgot to make clear in my previous post that i can understand why the fly ash from a metal furnace has iron microspheres: just because the temperature of the burning coal there is over 1500°C the melting point of Fe. Whis was not the case in the WTC fires.

Concrete often contains fly ash so the temp at the WTC fire is quite possibly irrelevant as to whether or not it is in the WTC dust.
Then again you do not know for certain that what you had even was WTC dust.
Its just something Jones et al sent you.

T.A.M.

17th March 2010, 12:55 PM

Eventually, even the samples that was collected hundred meters away from the WTC soon after the destruction, show this huge amount of iron microspheres, whereas the fires only affected a small number of floors before collapse and i would not expect even the total weight of sue to be in any way comparable to the total weight of concrete and gypsum that was pulverised in the "collapse". So the ~ percent in weight of iron microspheres in the WTC dust we all find in our samples is incredible ! not at all related to the quantity the fires could release even if their temp had been over 1500°C.

Have you contacted these people (John K McGee, Lung Chi Chen, Mitchell D Cohen, Glen R Chee, Colette M Prophete, Najwa Haykal-Coates, Shirley J Wasson, Teri L Conner, Daniel L Costa, and Stephen H Gavett), who are LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS in the field, who also conducted analysis of WTC dust, to see (A) what they think of your conclusions, (B) what they make of the microspheres, and (C) what their results were?

For C, you can go read their paper here,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241534/pdf/ehp0111-000972.pdf

WARNING, above is a PDF.

I see nothing in their conclusions that idicates surprise at iron content, or anything suspicious...care to comment?

TAM:)

ElMondoHummus

17th March 2010, 01:09 PM

On the other hand i was ready to accept that these iron microspheres had their source in the fly ash used as a material in the production of concrete:
these would have been part of the concrete from the begining but the data from normal building dust and WTC dust before 911, clearly shows that their concentration from this source only should be very small, much smaller than observed! Right ?

You're obviously referring to the RJ Lee report. As you noted, that data from normal building dust was for structures that were standing prior to 9/11 and had therefore not collapsed. Now remember, after the towers fell there was a higher concentration of dust everywhere, definitely far higher than was present beforehand. Post collapse photos alone establishes this. There being a higher amount of microspheres due to this is a logical extention of that fact. The collapse produced orders of magnitude more dust, and given that microspheres were a normal component of the dust, there would obviously be more microspheres present too. So ruling out concrete and other sources due to pre-collapse measurements of their amounts is turning logic on it's head; the fact that the concentrations were less prior to collapse is a perfect indicator that they were liberated by the collapse of the towers, and therefore had come from the same sources that they did prior to collapse.

BigAl

17th March 2010, 04:37 PM

Bump. I'd like to see an answer to this.

Out of curiosity, I just stirred a magnet through the ashes of my wood fireplace, left over from a wood fire 72 hours ago. Can anyone tell me what all the shiny round ferromagnetic particles about 10-50 microns in diameter I'm finding are, and where they came from? (I live in a wood-framed house, and to my knowledge neither welding nor thermite reactions have ever occurred therein.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

sheeplesnshills

18th March 2010, 10:38 AM

Bump. I'd like to see an answer to this.

Might try a log fire this weekend and try that experiment myself:). How much wood was there in the WTC towers, were walls, metal or wood studs for example? All those wall street executive wood desks alone........:D

jay howard

18th March 2010, 11:08 AM

Did the minerals yearbook claim that the only use for Iron Oxide was computer disk drives? The answer to the, again, rather asinine question of whether or not iron oxide is used in pigments and coatings is yes. The answer to the question of particle size can be found in the following texts available from your local university library:

Outlines of Paint Technology, Volume 1: Materials (1982) W. M. Morgans
Page 26 notes that particle size distributions for paints and pigments ranging from 100 nm to 300 nm. It also suggests methods for determining particle sizes in pigments.

Chemistry of Pigments and Fillers (1983) D. H. Solomon and D. G. Hawthorne
Page 301 shows the particle size range for a pigment known as "Pure Yellow Oxide". The accompanying micrograph (figure 7) shows the particle size range, which is also shown in the table above. The listed particle size range is 100 nm to 1.5 µm.

It's not surprising that various pigments use iron oxide in a range of sizes.
It's not surprising that some of those particles are as small as 100 nm.
But to expect the QC processes to produce a relative uniformity of particle sizes is impossible with a capital "I".

There simply is no requirement for pigment particles to be so uniform. It's expensive and unnecessary. It would be like sanding the frame of a house smooth before applying sheetrock. Very time-consuming (and therefore expensive) and totally unnecessary. That level of refinement far exceeds any practical purpose.

Now look at figure 8 and more clearly, figure 9 on page 15: these particles are clearly very close in size--about 100 nm. It is exceedingly unreasonable to theorize that the apparent uniformity of particles ONLY OCCURS IN THESE AREAS.

If this material were paint, we should expect to see a range of sizes of the iron oxide. We don't. Not in any of the images. Did they simply miss the variety of iron oxide particle sizes in all the samples? It's possible. But not likely. You will NEVER crack open a sample of paint and see a relative uniformity of iron oxide particles at 100 nm. Never.

And what of the other properties? Why is this material magnetic? Is there some paint that's magnetic when dried? (I'm asking this sincerely--not sarcastically.) Is there some paint that would produce a concentrated exothermic reaction at 430C? That's extremely unlikely. But not impossible. And what of the iron and silicate spheres produced from the reaction?

Taking all these properties into account, the paint theory leaks like a sieve.

The data I linked to earlier is an example of a pigment/industrial coating, made of iron oxide (among other materials) in a ceramic matrix comprised of alumina and silica. Jones has provided evidence of a pigment/industrial material, made of faceted iron oxide in a matrix of alumina and silica. Why should we not eliminate this material, said to coat the beams of every major structural element in the WTC, from consideration as the source material of the sample analyzed by Jones?

I think it's a fair consideration to compare the material. I do not advocate "hiding" an analysis of it--especially if it will provide a firm basis from which to eliminate a substantial amount of doubt. And if it's a match, then this whole debate is over, and I'm just wrong. So yea, I'd personally like to see this comparison done.

Plausibility cannot be ascertained by either party. The provenance of the sample is in doubt.

What do you mean "the provenance is in doubt"? I know you doubt the data. I know you doubt the conclusions of the researchers. Do you doubt that the material is from the WTC wreckage? Just want to clarify what it is you're doubting.

A better, and more interesting question, is, "What evidence does Jones bring to show that this material was a thermite coating applied to the steel in the WTC towers in order to heat the structure past the point of stability and cause the towers to collapse?" The answer, of course, is none.

First, that's not what the HJF crew is claiming. Second, it doesn't really affect the existence of the evidence to claim it could not have brought the towers down by itself. This kind of tertiary theorizing is fun, but it's not what this discussion is about.

The authors of the paper did propose that "it is indeed possible that such matches, [invented by Los Alamos National Lab], which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust."

But I don't see the point of trying to rule out the significance of the material based on a particular theory of its application if we cannot even agree that this substance is a nano-energetic composite or paint. This is a strange kind of "hedge" against the eventuality of accepting that this material is nanothermitic. If you don't accept that premise, what's the purpose of trying to rule it out based on usage?

I believe the above linked references and information will close the case.

Where have I heard that before?

.

TruthersLie

18th March 2010, 11:41 PM

Is there some paint that would produce a concentrated exothermic reaction at 430C?

Ummm what item produced a concentrated exothermic reaction? Nothing in the test produced any exothermic reaction. This "paper" had something combust in an oxygen rich environment. YOu cannot claim it was an "exothermic" reaction in an oxygen rich environment. No matter how you try to handwave it, unless you test it in an inert environment, you cannot make that claim.

I think it's a fair consideration to compare the material. I do not advocate "hiding" an analysis of it--especially if it will provide a firm basis from which to eliminate a substantial amount of doubt. And if it's a match, then this whole debate is over, and I'm just wrong. So yea, I'd personally like to see this comparison done.

Great. Then have jones et al do it again using PROPER methodology. While you are at it, denounce this craptacular pile o fail and ask them to send their samples to an independent lab and publish the results openly.

handwave noted.

What do you mean "the provenance is in doubt"? I know you doubt the data. I know you doubt the conclusions of the researchers.

NO, I don't doubt the data. No i don't doubt the researchers. The data, findings, conclusions and anything they have said are invalid due to their massive methodological errors, which you don't defend because you can't. Because their findings, data and conclusions are invalidated by the bad methodology, they need to do it AGAIN. properly.

Do you doubt that the material is from the WTC wreckage? Just want to clarify what it is you're doubting.

I have no idea if the material is from the wtc wreckage. It could be left over from the construction and was released during the collapse. It could be stuff from the collapse and destruction. It could be something released during the clean up when they were using thermic lances to cut debris.

IT could be any of those. Unless you can eliminate any of them, you cannot make claims about what it is from.

The authors of the paper did propose that "it is indeed possible that such matches, [invented by Los Alamos National Lab], which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust."

I have bolded the important part there. Possible and could contain. What does that say in plain english? We have no proof, we have no evidence so we are making **** up .

But I don't see the point of trying to rule out the significance of the material based on a particular theory of its application if we cannot even agree that this substance is a nano-energetic composite or paint.

because you and jones have failed to show that it is anything besides for paint.
bad controls, bad methodology, bad science and you want me to accept the data? What are you high on and why aren't you sharing?

henryco

19th March 2010, 05:16 AM

You're obviously referring to the RJ Lee report. As you noted, that data from normal building dust was for structures that were standing prior to 9/11 and had therefore not collapsed. Now remember, after the towers fell there was a higher concentration of dust everywhere, definitely far higher than was present beforehand. Post collapse photos alone establishes this. There being a higher amount of microspheres due to this is a logical extention of that fact. The collapse produced orders of magnitude more dust, and given that microspheres were a normal component of the dust, there would obviously be more microspheres present too. So ruling out concrete and other sources due to pre-collapse measurements of their amounts is turning logic on it's head; the fact that the concentrations were less prior to collapse is a perfect indicator that they were liberated by the collapse of the towers, and therefore had come from the same sources that they did prior to collapse.

You have to compare the concentrations relative to this part of the dust which origin is the main building materials (such as concrete): the class A particles. Again, even renormalized in this way, the fraction of iron microspheres is 10 times higher than before the collapse.

0.04/2.57 = 0.0156 << 5.87/35.58 = 0.165

All other publications report several percent of iron in the dust (they all agree on that) but only the RJ Lee report stresses that this iron is often found as iron microspheres. The others seem to not pay much attention to this important discovery.
5% by weight of these spheres in the dust is huge! Means thousands of tons of iron melted. Notice also that the report give evidence that lead vaporized (hence 1800°C was reached) and redeposited on fiber wool.

henryco

19th March 2010, 05:50 AM

Bump. I'd like to see an answer to this.

Microspheres in your wood ash?! certainly not originated from your wood.
According this study:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1993/misra93a.pdf
there is less than 0.5% of iron in wood ash (see table 4) and there is no fusion of this ash below 1400°C (as explained in the abstract).
We are speaking here of 5% iron microspheres in the WTC dust and the organic material that could burn at the WTC represent a negligible weight fraction of the main building material that we find in this dust.
On the other hand there are always everywhere small iron microspheres at a very low level in the soils thus everywhere in your house. Their origin is micrometeoritic activiy.

F

sheeplesnshills

19th March 2010, 07:30 AM

Means thousands of tons of iron melted.

Yet none of the beams showed such melting? How do you explain that? And the microspheres Jones found were supposedly from his "thermite" .....are you suggesting that thousands of tones of thermite were added to the building????:confused:

henryco

19th March 2010, 08:28 AM

Yet none of the beams showed such melting? How do you explain that? And the microspheres Jones found were supposedly from his "thermite" .....are you suggesting that thousands of tones of thermite were added to the building????:confused:

the main source of all these iron microspheres may have nothing to do with thermite but certainly is related to the high energy weapons that destroyed the towers whatever these are.

twinstead

19th March 2010, 08:54 AM

Wait a minute. I thought Jones' findings were supposed to be thermite? Now they may be some kind of residue of a yet to be defined "high energy weapon"?

Myriad

19th March 2010, 09:13 AM

The "5% iron-rich microspheres" figure is highly suspect. Even if the sample(s) from which this figure was derived were genuine, uncontaminated, and correctly measured, I can think of several different physical processes, including preferential settling out of the dust plume and the action of air currents on standing dust, that would be very likely to significantly concentrate the heavier denser particles relative to other species in a surface-collected dust sample.

The main problem with thermitic origin of iron microspheres (besides the lack of any plausible scenario involving the use of any kind of thermite in the buildings on 9/11) is that no one has shown any mechanism by which particles of that shape and size distribution can be created from thermite reaction products nor from structural metal melted by thermite reaction products. Such sphere formation would be at the very least indicative of extremely poor heat transfer between the reaction product and the material it's supposed to have damaged, because it indicates that the reaction product underwent its liquid to solid phase transition at about 1500°C while out of contact with any other surface. Agitation of molten material during the collapse has been suggested, but that fails to explain the size distribution (specifically, the lack of larger droplets).

Production of such spheres from bulk steel by means of any form of transmitted energy has also not been demonstrated, nor any plausible physical mechanism even suggested.

While I don't have a conclusive finding yet, I'm looking into origination of iron-rich microspheres from the burning of wood and paper. Wood, like all living tissue, contains ferritin proteins. Each ferritin protein complex sequesters up to about 1200 iron atoms in the form of a tiny granule of ferrihydrate. Ferrihydrate is metastable, decomposing spontaneously into hematite in an exothermic reaction, especially when it is no longer in the wet oxidative environments in which it naturally forms (and free of the surface contaminants that abiotic mineral ferrihydrate deposits typically have). My hypothesis is that the ferrihydrate granules, in the hot reducing environment of a flame after being freed by the combusiton of the phytoferritin, condenses and reduces into the iron-rich droplets observed. Self melting of the droplets occurs in the process. No conventional vaporization of iron occurs, or is necessary, at any stage of the process, because the iron exists at the outset in a quasi "dissolved" form as nanoclusters bound within proteins.

It's a somewhat speculative hypothesis, but it has some significant advantages over competing hypotheses including (1) accounting for the upper limit of the microsphere size distribution (due to limited concentrations of iron in the burning wood and paper), and (2) requiring no silent invisible death beams.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The Almond

19th March 2010, 09:35 AM

It's not surprising that various pigments use iron oxide in a range of sizes.
It's very telling what you decided to quote from my response. Please consider, again, the following:

Pigments: An Introduction to their Physical Chemistry (1967) D. Patterson (ed)
Page 100 identifies several variants of iron oxide pigments and notes "[...] iron oxides with particles of 0.1 µm or less are used as transparent colorants."

It's not surprising that some of those particles are as small as 100 nm.

This is a significant retreat from your earlier positions that no pigments contained iron oxide and that no pigments contained iron oxide with 100 nm particles. However, this:

But to expect the QC processes to produce a relative uniformity of particle sizes is impossible with a capital "I".

Is an excellent example of the "Moving the Goalposts" tactic. Your original claim was that the iron oxide represented proof that the material is thermite. Now your argument appears to be that thermite (or nano-thermite) is composed of an entirely uniform 100 nm particle matrix. You also seem to believe that it is impossible to create uniform (that is, a sample of particle sizes representing a relative standard deviation of no more than, shall we say, 5% of the average particle diameter) particles. I can assure you, that is false.

There simply is no requirement for pigment particles to be so uniform. It's expensive and unnecessary. It would be like sanding the frame of a house smooth before applying sheetrock. Very time-consuming (and therefore expensive) and totally unnecessary. That level of refinement far exceeds any practical purpose.

Again, if you had read the entirety of my response, you would have noticed that I already addressed this claim:

The top of page 100 in the Pigments book (see above) notes, "The hues of most of the colored inorganic pigments are determined not only by their molecular compositions, but also on particle size and crystalline form." Further down the page, it notes, "The color dependence on average particle size is illustrated by the dominant wavelength of magnetite, which changes from 600 nm to 635 nm as the particles increase [...]"

Interestingly, it appears that magnetite, along with other iron oxide pigments, appears to have a size dependency on fluoresced wavelength. So, it seems that, when iron oxides are used as a pigment, size control and separation are of paramount importance.

There is a size dependency for iron oxide particles. Larger particles produce different colors when the size range is extremely small. This particle size control is critical to consistent paint colorization.

Now look at figure 8 and more clearly, figure 9 on page 15: these particles are clearly very close in size--about 100 nm.

In order to establish uniformity, the authors would have needed to do quantitative particle sizing, which would have required the use of the a scale calibration artifact. They would have needed to image a random sampling of particles and determined the size distribution from the calibration information. Without such data, no quantitative information about the size or uniformity of the particles can be determined. I don't doubt that they look roughly uniform, or that their average particle size is probably 100 nm, but I point this out to note that, scientifically speaking, this point has not been proven robustly.

If this material were paint, we should expect to see a range of sizes of the iron oxide. We don't.

How do we know what the range and relative standard deviation of particle diameters are? The answer "It looks like it" doesn't fly in a scientific publication.

Not in any of the images. Did they simply miss the variety of iron oxide particle sizes in all the samples?

Their work indicates to me that the authors of the paper are incompetent. I would posit that they simply did not use the appropriate methodology to establish the veracity of their claims.

You will NEVER crack open a sample of paint and see a relative uniformity of iron oxide particles at 100 nm. Never.

In whose opinion?

And what of the other properties? Why is this material magnetic?

Is all thermite magnetic? Does that imply that all that which is magnetic is thermite?

Is there some paint that's magnetic when dried? (I'm asking this sincerely--not sarcastically.)

Any paint that uses hematite or magnetite in any significant concentration would be magnetic. A user's ability to "detect" magnetic fields using a magnet would depend on the strength of the magnet and the overall content of magnetic material. The magnetic properties of a material can be changed if the material is heated near the Curie point.

Is there some paint that would produce a concentrated exothermic reaction at 430C?

In an oxygen atmosphere, any material containing carbon will combust. Further, this material exhibited energy densities greater than those of thermite. Thermite is excluded on conservation of energy grounds.

That's extremely unlikely. But not impossible. And what of the iron and silicate spheres produced from the reaction?

Again, iron and silicate spheres are a common product of combustion. They are a common component of ash. Myriad has noted the production of magnetic particles from wood ash. These silica and alumina spheres are essentially a glass eutectic, the melting point of the combined material is lower than either of the pure materials. Interestingly, the NCSTAR 1-3C also notes that the pigment applied to the WTC structure contained diatomaceous silica and silica sand.

I think it's a fair consideration to compare the material. I do not advocate "hiding" an analysis of it--especially if it will provide a firm basis from which to eliminate a substantial amount of doubt. And if it's a match, then this whole debate is over, and I'm just wrong. So yea, I'd personally like to see this comparison done.

What I'm saying is that, given that the Sramek coating was applied to every structural member in both WTC 1 and 2, it's far more likely that Jones's material is just that. Jones needs to provide evidence that it's not that. His extraordinary claim, his evidence.

Then again, all Jones has to do is burn the samples in argon, and prove that the material will combust without oxygen. Why didn't he do that again?

What do you mean "the provenance is in doubt"? I know you doubt the data. I know you doubt the conclusions of the researchers. Do you doubt that the material is from the WTC wreckage? Just want to clarify what it is you're doubting.

Jones's stated purpose in his research is to find evidence that members of the US government were complicit in the destruction of the twin towers and WTC 7. To do that, we should only consider evidence whose chain of custody would be acceptable in court. It's worth noting that to even initiate a "grand jury" investigation, Jones would need to show an admissible form of evidence.

We're not looking at admissible evidence.

Despite Jones's insistence that the samples come from the WTC (and I'll admit that it's likely that they do), the method of collection and chain of custody issues would cause his evidence to be thrown out. What's further, Jones needs to establish the validity of his sampling method (that would have required a random sampling shortly after the collapse from clean sources) and the statistical relevance of his data (which would require comparison to a variety of standards including ashes from other high-rise fires). He's done none of that. The importance, relevance of the data and the origin of the samples need to be established in a robust, statistically valid way. That's provenance. That's what's missing.

First, that's not what the HJF crew is claiming. Second, it doesn't really affect the existence of the evidence to claim it could not have brought the towers down by itself. This kind of tertiary theorizing is fun, but it's not what this discussion is about.

The authors of the paper did propose that "it is indeed possible that such matches, [invented by Los Alamos National Lab], which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust."

But I don't see the point of trying to rule out the significance of the material based on a particular theory of its application if we cannot even agree that this substance is a nano-energetic composite or paint. This is a strange kind of "hedge" against the eventuality of accepting that this material is nanothermitic. If you don't accept that premise, what's the purpose of trying to rule it out based on usage?

Let's look at the idea that the material is nano-energetic. If it is, but it was not directly related to the collapse of the towers (as in the case of a thermite "match"), then its relevance is trivial. The material is nano-energetic, but it's use and reason for being there are left as questions. That throws the idea that it was planted there for nefarious purposes out the window. In other words, if it's a thermite match, why bother with it instead of a standard electrical pulse primer (and it's a match that has to be set off with an electric pulse!)?

If the material is thermite paint, applied directly to the columns in order to melt them and ensure collapse, the authors have to show why anyone would bother to do this. The thickness of the "nano energetic paint" is not sufficient, given the material as thermite, to heat the columns appreciably. So what are we left with?

It's up to the authors to show why their data are meaningful. Just throwing out data with no cause or link to relevancy is lazy, irresponsible science. It's not up to the reader to draw conclusions, it's up to the authors.

What's unfortunate is the way that the rest of the Truth movement has interpreted the results. Gage has happily added the "thermite found in dust" to his list of moronic reasons why the towers couldn't have collapsed on their own. It's already become a talking point, and that's precisely what the authors wanted. Without proving a single relevant fact, they want us to believe they've solved the mystery of the missing thermite.

Bull honkey.

Alferd_Packer

19th March 2010, 09:37 AM

I dont understand how the large concentration of iron rich microspheres at WTC could be correlated to the WTC fires because the fires at WTC could not reach the iron melting point.

Fred, how do you think that iron micropsheres form in fly ash in the first place?

if a normal fire can indeed produce iron microspheres as someone suggested in this thread, please explain to me how this can be ...

Fred

I imagine it would be through the same process by which those microspheres are formed in fly ash.

Alferd_Packer

19th March 2010, 09:45 AM

i forgot to make clear in my previous post that i can understand why the fly ash from a metal furnace has iron microspheres: just because the temperature of the burning coal there is over 1500°C the melting point of Fe. Whis was not the case in the WTC fires.

Oops, I didn’t’ read this part before I posted my response above.

Why do you think that a burning coal furnace can reach 1500C, but that the fires in the WTC towers did not?

Coal and jet fuel are essentially the both hydrocarbon fuels. There is no difference between a coal fired furnace with a natural draft chimney and the fire floors in the WTC where the smoke was exiting out the upper floors of the building.

Even a simple candle can generate temperatures of 1400C in the flame.

Alferd_Packer

19th March 2010, 09:51 AM

On the other hand i was ready to accept that these iron microspheres had their source in the fly ash used as a material in the production of concrete:
these would have been part of the concrete from the begining but the data from normal building dust and WTC dust before 911, clearly shows that their concentration from this source only should be very small, much smaller than observed! Right ?
Fred

Fred, I’m not sure where you are coming up with some of these assumptions.

1) I agree with you that it is very likely that fly ash was incorporated into the lightweight concrete used in the construction of the WTC towers. And yes, these would have been in the concrete from the beginning.

2) You wrote: “ the data from normal building dust and WTC dust before 911.” Where did you get a sample from WTC dust from BEFORE 9/11? Is this something new? I have not heard that anyone had such a thing before this. Can you provide any details on how this was obtained?

3) Even if we assume that the “normal” background dust was collected in a third party building which used the same lightweight concrete mix as the WTC towers, that would not mean that the “normal” background dust would have the same percentage of iron microspheres as did the WTC dust.

Since the concrete in the WTC towers was broken up and “dustified” (as Judy Woods would say) during the collapse, while the concrete in the third party building in which we collected the background dust sample was not, there is no reason to assume that the percentages of iron microspheres in both samples should be equal.

Dave Rogers

19th March 2010, 09:55 AM

TruthersLie

19th March 2010, 11:30 AM

To be fair to Jay, combustion in an oxygen-containing atmosphere is an exothermic reaction, albeit one that cannot proceed without the presence of oxygen. So, realistically, the answer to Jay's question is that any kind of paint with an organic binder will produce an exothermic reaction at somewhere around 430ºC. There really isn't anything even vaguely unexpected about paint catching fire.

Dave

Dave.

You are correct. It was late and I was reading exothermic as thermitic in my reply.

what they showed is that something combusted at 430 C in an oxygen rich environment with a higher energy density than thermite can produce.

Which is again a methodological error to try to prove it was thermite/nanothermite/godzilla poo they should have used an inert atmosphere.

henryco

19th March 2010, 11:54 AM

Oops, I didn’t’ read this part before I posted my response above.

Why do you think that a burning coal furnace can reach 1500C, but that the fires in the WTC towers did not?

because the Nist reaches in its simulation the maximum for a fire in open air : 1100°C. this is already extreme!

Coal and jet fuel are essentially the both hydrocarbon fuels. There is no difference between a coal fired furnace with a natural draft chimney and the fire floors in the WTC where the smoke was exiting out the upper floors of the building.

Even a simple candle can generate temperatures of 1400C in the flame.

this is still far from the iron melting point. in a metal furnace the heat is "concentrated" in time and space and the oxygenation conditions are optimal. such that you can melt iron.

The worse is again that even if you could produce these microspheres in a fire you would be very very far from several percent in weight of the dust.
All flammable materials in the whole tower represent a negligible weight (not to mention that a small number of floors were actually on fire before collapse) as compared to 90000 tons of pulverized concrete.

alienentity

19th March 2010, 02:32 PM

Most interesting posts by F H-C et al.

I'd like to make the observation that Frédéric also seems confused by the various possibilities, and hasn't settled on any strong hypothesis yet.

1) He states that 'The chips are very thin but there are photos strongly suggesting that the thermite was applied in a multilayered red/grey/red/grey.... that could reach millimeters in total thickness.... so sorry again but i really see no problem with this scenario.'

but

2) 'the main source of all these iron microspheres may have nothing to do with thermite but certainly is related to the high energy weapons that destroyed the towers whatever these are.'

He seems to argue for Judy Wood -type DEW weapons here. This has nothing to do with thermite or nano-whateveritis

3) nanoparticles of elemental Alu dont exist in nature: Al is always oxydized in surface bery fast, and for a 40nm particle, this surface is very soon the whole particle itself exposed to oxygen of the air.

This is the only reason i see to really question the presence of a black ship among these truthers who may have falsified the data in order to decredibilize the whole study and i'm surprised that nobody has mentionned this issue here : how could elemental nanoAlu remain activate 7 years after 911: hardly possible without a very efficient coating according the studies i have read on the subject. Or storage in very dry and oxygen depleted conditions...

So Frédéric seems to argue variously for Truther fraud (Jones and co. presumably), DEW weapons and nanothermite paint.

I don't know how to make head or tails out of all that. Just wanted to point it out - I'm sure others have noticed the contradictions as well.

btw, F H-C wrote that temps couldn't have reached 1500°C based solely on the fact that
'Nist reaches in its simulation the maximum for a fire in open air : 1100°C. '

Isn't it just cherry-picking to seize on this, yet dismiss the other NIST findings? Besides, NIST is not the only source for valid arguments and data - why indeed couldn't the huge fires have produced temps high enough to create iron-rich microspheres?

There's lots of evidence of fires, but nothing for thermite (where's the melted steel?). Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me.

T.A.M.

19th March 2010, 06:44 PM

ALien;

I believe the problem is that it would take over 100 layers of this alleged thermitic paint, based on THEIR numbers, to raise the temperature of steel it is applied to any significant degree. For each "layer" it would have to be sprayed on, allowed to dry, then another layer applied (otherwise you would get a blend of primer and paint, not a layer of each followed by another layer of each).

This would have to be done a hundred times, and if that were the case (A) through what plausible scenario could this be done in the cases of those buildings, and (B) Explain to me how you could apply layer after layer and not have each layer REACT as it is applied, rather then build up.

This idea of "100 layers" of thermitic paint is just off the charts implausible, IMO.

TAM:)

pgimeno

20th March 2010, 02:16 AM

Some of [the black areas in the image] is most definitely H. As I said earlier in response to this, they likely used a filter or just reduced the intensities to demonstrate separation and concentration of certain components.

Anyway, there should be something there. Something as in, not nothing. Remember the XEDS spectrum shown in fig. 14. It shows peaks for: C, O, Fe, Zn, Al, Si, S, Ca, Cr, plus Mg (present but not marked in fig. 14 and present and marked in fig. 17), and Na, Cl, and P (fig. 18) and (as noted by Sunstealer (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4614382&postcount=36)) K.

Are you claiming that *all of these* are contamination? My, that's a lot of contamination. Isn't it more likely that the black areas correspond to an element present in the spectrum but that we're not shown at all? Do you still maintain, looking at figs. 14 and 15, that the MEK-soaked chip has anything at all in common with samples 1-4, besides the color? (Remember that the authors admit that Zn and Cr are sometimes seen in the red layers; see caption of Fig. 14, but we're not shown the XEDS maps for Zn and Cr. We're not told what that "sometimes" means - "sometimes" as in, some chips have them and some others don't? That plainly means that the chips are different.)

And, even if you were right and the data were filtered to show concentration of certain components (which I doubt), what would be the basis to affirm that there's a substantial amount of Fe2O3 based on figure 15? Figure 15 shows that most of the O is correlated to Si and not to the Fe, so there's no basis to state that "Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK solvent (Fig. 15)" (sic) (p.19).

The matrix material is most definitely a hydrocarbon, so there should be C and O throughout all the maps.

Which burns in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, by the way. But that's not established for the MEK-soaked chip, which is of a different nature to that of samples 1-4. Remember, a magnet can attract lots of things; if you pick only red-grey ones, but you fail to make any effort to classify them and ensure that you're handling all of the same kind, as happens in the paper, then you can easily end up with a non-uniform mixture leading you to wrong conclusions, as happens in the paper.

Would you rationalize that the MEK caused the hydrocarbon matrix to break down chemically? An insignificant percentage may indeed have broken down, however, we should still expect to see C and O throughout the entire sample. But we don't. Why not? Because they are using XEDS as a qualitative technique to demonstrate relative concentrations of various elements.

A better explanation is that the MEK-soaked chip is fundamentally different from samples 1-4.

If you want to postulate the existence of elemental Fe, be my guest. I don't see how that gets you any closer to dismissing the significance of this material, but it's not inconceivable that it exists. Did the elemental Al disappear yet?

Yet once again: I don't claim there's elemental Fe, that's entirely your claim. Not oxidized does not mean elemental. Same with Al: not oxidized does not mean elemental, and you have no basis to claim that it's in elemental form, because you can't exclude other elements that could also be bound to Al. We're just not shown other elements present in the XEDS spectrum that could be bound to Fe and to Al. Using only the data given, there's no basis to claim that there's elemental Al. However, it's a fact that we lack XEDS maps for other elements present in that particular chip, that are not present in samples 1-4 as the XEDS spectra show. You only bring up incredulity to support that they should be the same thing. The data shows otherwise. The claim that there's elemental Al in samples 1-4 can't be sustained, as it's based in comparing things of a very different nature. It would be established if there were no other elements in that chip as in samples 1-4, and if the spectrum for that chip matched that of samples 1-4. But that's not the case; they show unoxidized aluminium in one chip and make two claims that aren't supported by their data: that the aluminium is elemental, and that the same applies to samples 1-4. There's strong evidence, presented by Sunstealer, that in samples 1-4 the aluminium is not free but in the form of an aluminosilicate, thus it's unsustainable that the aluminium is in elemental form in any of the samples.

pgimeno

20th March 2010, 02:18 AM

Carsten from Denmark

20th March 2010, 07:54 AM

Senenmut

21st March 2010, 08:11 AM

I am almost sure that fig. 25 is a pic. from cement/flyash and not from the post-DSC.
Fig. 27 is indeed a pic. of flyash.
In Denmark we use up to 30% flyash in cement.
So why the fuss about iron-rich spheres in the dust from WTC.(not the samples)
And why call them iron-rich, why not O,Si,Al,Ti,S,Mg C,K,Ca-rich.
These elements are found in flyash.
We need pic. af the DSC-residues.
The flame-test is a joke and the corrosponding pics. is an insult.
this article makes it sound like flyash was not used when the wtc towers were built. if you read about the new wtc being built, they are using flyash.

from the article:
TMS hot topic symposium examines WTC collapse and building engineering

"Additional barriers deal with building codes and the need to adhere to existing standards. Years of effort and very aggressive champions are always needed to get a new material into common use. As an example, Hooper discussed the difficulty in persuading building officials to accept fly-ash residue from coal burning as a component in concrete. Adding fly ash makes concrete a more environmentally friendly material, but required federal legislation to overcome skeptics."

sheeplesnshills

21st March 2010, 11:36 AM

this article makes it sound like flyash was not used when the wtc towers were built. if you read about the new wtc being built, they are using flyash.

from the article:
TMS hot topic symposium examines WTC collapse and building engineering

"Additional barriers deal with building codes and the need to adhere to existing standards. Years of effort and very aggressive champions are always needed to get a new material into common use. As an example, Hooper discussed the difficulty in persuading building officials to accept fly-ash residue from coal burning as a component in concrete. Adding fly ash makes concrete a more environmentally friendly material, but required federal legislation to overcome skeptics."

I think the enviromemtal issues in using it are new not its use.

beachnut

21st March 2010, 12:22 PM

this article makes it sound like flyash was not used when the wtc towers were built. if you read about the new wtc being built, they are using flyash. ... Fly-ash was used in ancient Rome.

common knowledge? to cement experts...
Fly ash concrete was first used in the U.S. in 1929 for the Hoover Dam, where engineers found that it allowed for less total cement. It is now used across the country.

Who used fly-ash?

Long before modern power plants began producing coal fly ash, Roman builders turned to volcanic ash to harness the power of pozzolans.

In fact, the term “pozzolan” is derived from the name of an Italian city — Pozzuoli — that is regarded as the birthplace of ash concrete technologies. Famed Roman structures such as the Pantheon and Colosseum, as well as many roads and aqueducts, are still standing over 2,000 years after their construction — in part because of the durability of their ash-based concrete. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1Fly-AshPant.jpg

http://www.flyash.com/data/upimages/press/HWR_brochure_flyash.pdf

Would the event of massive office fires set with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel create some fly-ash? Yes? No? Maybe? Metal spheres?

Senenmut

21st March 2010, 04:36 PM

Fly-ash was used in ancient Rome.

common knowledge? to cement experts...

Who used fly-ash?

Would the event of massive office fires set with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel create some fly-ash? Yes? No? Maybe? Metal spheres?

the romans were ahead of their time!!

the article implies that flyash was not used the construction of the old wtc buildings. the new wtc does incorporate flyash.

as henryco said "5% by weight of these spheres in the dust is huge! Means thousands of tons of iron melted."

Senenmut

21st March 2010, 05:20 PM

i forgot to make clear in my previous post that i can understand why the fly ash from a metal furnace has iron microspheres: just because the temperature of the burning coal there is over 1500°C the melting point of Fe. Whis was not the case in the WTC fires.

why do you think the temp is over 1500C.
i found an article that states:
"For the combustion of mineral coal, the energy industry is
mainly using dry-bottom boilers which produce coal fly ash, bottom ash and FGD gypsum as by-products.
In dry-bottom boilers, the ash does not liquefy due to the
relatively low boiler temperature of about 1200°C."

that would not melt the iron content in the flyash.

i guess im wondering how one could distinguish between iron spheres from flyash and iron microspheres that were created during the wtc destruction.

this is from the article:
Extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction

***There are other identifying features that characterize WTC dust compared with ordinary office dust; the RJ
Lee report concludes:
“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…”

i wonder if there is anyway to distinguish between these "spherical particles due to surface tension" and the iron microspheres from flyash?

Alferd_Packer

22nd March 2010, 06:49 AM

I think the enviromemtal issues in using it are new not its use.

Exactly. due to it's chemical make up, fly ash is regulated under environmental laws that were not in place when the original WTC towers were built.

Alferd_Packer

22nd March 2010, 09:03 AM

Oops, I didn’t’ read this part before I posted my response above.

Why do you think that a burning coal furnace can reach 1500C, but that the fires in the WTC towers did not?

because the Nist reaches in its simulation the maximum for a fire in open air : 1100°C. this is already extreme!

I find it extremely frustrating and annoying that most people fail to grasp the differences between heat and temperature.

The notion that a particular fuel can only burn at a particular temperature indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic science.

The NIST simulation was just that, a computer simulation that produced an average value for the temperature of an area. This is not the absolute maximum, it is an average of the maximum.

1100 C temperatures is not an extreme value for a typical structure fire. The fires in the WTC were far from typical, fed by jet fuel, they involved large amounts of fuel on multiple floors at once.

Alferd_Packer

22nd March 2010, 09:04 AM

Coal and jet fuel are essentially the both hydrocarbon fuels. There is no difference between a coal fired furnace with a natural draft chimney and the fire floors in the WTC where the smoke was exiting out the upper floors of the building.

Even a simple candle can generate temperatures of 1400C in the flame.

this is still far from the iron melting point. in a metal furnace the heat is "concentrated" in time and space and the oxygenation conditions are optimal. such that you can melt iron. .

You seem to be of the impression that fly ash with metal spheres only forms in metal furnaces. This is not the case. The vast majority of fly ash is generated from coal power boilers. Do you think that these boilers operate at temperatures that will melt iron?

The worse is again that even if you could produce these microspheres in a fire you would be very very far from several percent in weight of the dust.

Do you have empirical data to support this claim?

All flammable materials in the whole tower represent a negligible weight (not to mention that a small number of floors were actually on fire before collapse) as compared to 90000 tons of pulverized concrete.

Which means what, exactly?

sheeplesnshills

22nd March 2010, 10:13 AM

"All flammable materials in the whole tower represent a negligible weight (not to mention that a small number of floors were actually on fire before collapse) as compared to 90000 tons of pulverized concrete.

Look at pictures of the Windsor Tower fire, contents were quite enough to totally engulf the building for hours...........and at least 10 floors of the first WTC tower were on fire ......the photos from the Helicopter Cop show huge fires.

beachnut

22nd March 2010, 12:49 PM

the romans were ahead of their time!!

the article implies that flyash was not used the construction of the old wtc buildings. the new wtc does incorporate flyash.

as henryco said "5% by weight of these spheres in the dust is huge! Means thousands of tons of iron melted."
No, the article does no imply fly-ash was not used in the old WTC, in fact the information on fly-ash makes it a great use in lightweight floors. But the there are studies ignored by Jones and company which imply fly-ash was a product of the WTC disaster. Care to comment on reality based studies 911 truth fails to research and discuss which refute their thermite based lies?

5 percent by weight of samples that have no chain of custody? This is not science it is Jones who made up thermite out of the blue 4 years after 911 and Jones had zero evidence. I have a copy of his first paper which he put out and then was fired for his conduct on 911 issues and his faulty nonexistent research which fueled his claims. I have his first paper, his letter which precipitated his retirement, being fired.

The paper by Jones has come and gone. It had to be paid to be published and has zero effect on the scientific community understanding of 911 and how the WTC collapsed.

I have seen lies of small fires in the WTC towers posted again, when the fires were the largest office fires started on multiple floors in history. Had 911 taken place at night, most of 911 truth would wonder how they survived so long to let most of the people evacuate. The only purpose of the paper in question is to satisfy some bias of Jones who now thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti. The paper is nonsense and nothing will save it from being a failure in the world of science.

If you disagree with me, take the paper to a real journal which publishes similar topics and you find rejection of the paper for many reasons already pointed out. Take the paper and have it accepted by a real journal! Jones needs to step up and explain why his paper was not peer reviewed.

The good part is due to the failed test where the energy was not a match for thermite; it appears the samples were not planted, but just other substances not thermite. Since office contents have more heat energy than thermite, I find it complete nonsense thermite is proposed and then the lack of TONS of iron from thermite reactions at the WTC closes the thermite case.

the article implies that flyash was not used the construction of the old wtc buildings. No the article does not come close to implying such. Do you need the study where fly-ash is discussed with respect to the WTC?

alienentity

22nd March 2010, 02:41 PM

i wonder if there is anyway to distinguish between these "spherical particles due to surface tension" and the iron microspheres from flyash?

Or maybe they're the same. Ever consider that? You should.

Senenmut

23rd March 2010, 05:31 AM

still no flyash??
Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading10

Concrete
Concrete is composed of aggregate, sand, and Portland cement (Chandra and Berntsson, 2003). The aggregate material in WTC concrete sample appears to be expanded shale. The sand is primarily quartz, but can contain feldspar, iron and titanium oxides, micas, and other rock-forming minerals. Portlandite (Ca(OH)2) and magnesium hydroxide are also present in minor to trace amounts. Portland cement hydrates to form a large variety of Ca-rich phases including calcium silicate hydrate, calcium aluminum hydrate, calcium aluminum iron hydrate, and Portlandite (Ca(OH)2) (Chandra and Berntsson, 2003). Portlandite is indistinguishable from lime (CaO) using qualitative EDS. Minor gypsum is added to control the set of the concrete.

Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component. Portland cement particles will usually have a high Ca peak accompanied by Si and/or Al, Mg, Fe. Most particles of Portland cement will be composed of several Ca-rich phases. These phases are generally extremely fine grained and often occur without distinct grain boundaries. These phases can usually be differentiated using backscattered electron imaging combined with EDS analysis.

A large proportion of the quartz in WTC dust is likely from disaggregated concrete, but has been grouped below with mineral material. Calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) are also components of concrete, but as with quartz, have been grouped with mineral material because they can be present from a variety of sources.

The Almond

23rd March 2010, 08:26 AM

jay howard

23rd March 2010, 10:53 AM

It's very telling what you decided to quote from my response. Please consider, again, the following:

This is a significant retreat from your earlier positions that no pigments contained iron oxide and that no pigments contained iron oxide with 100 nm particles. However, this:

Is an excellent example of the "Moving the Goalposts" tactic. Your original claim was that the iron oxide represented proof that the material is thermite. Now your argument appears to be that thermite (or nano-thermite) is composed of an entirely uniform 100 nm particle matrix.

Since we've been having this discussion, I've been clear about the fact that paint/pigments do not require this uniformity of particle size at 100 nm. I state this unequivocally back in post 460:
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!

And here in post 562: Are uniformly sized nanometer scale iron oxide particles ubiquitous in nature? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

And again in post 564: How is it you can look at the BSE images in figure 8 and say they do NOT demonstrate the presence of relatively dense, faceted particles that are nearly uniformly 100 nm?... If you were actually attempting to evaluate this info scientifically/skeptically, there would be no reason to deny the existence of these relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles in these images.

Yet again in post 591:
The SE microscopy clearly reveals fairly uniform nanoscale particles in a bi-layered matrix.... By "highly processed" I mean that the red material is composed of relatively uniform nanoscale particles that have been finely mixed.

And here again in post 631:
Find some paint/coating that is composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles.

And again in 637:
Not a word about construction materials or industrial paints or corrosion protection. And this is not surprising considering the difficulty involved in manufacturing uniform 100nm particles.

And this one in 649:
The relative uniformity of the iron oxide suggests a use which takes advantage of the high surface area-to-mass properties afforded by such small particles.

So, to accuse me of "moving the goalposts"--a favorite accusation around here on both sides of these issues--requires a robust ignorance of reading comprehension. I think we've been having a productive conversation by and large, but this type of pre-refuted sophistry serves no purpose here. I've been clear about what would count as a counterexample to the red/gray chips being something that doesn't belong in a building: relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles in paint/pigment/primer/etc.

As I've also stated unequivocally before, if you find industrial paint that has relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles in it that combusts at 430C, then you have a very good contender for the material that the HFJ crew found. Until then, you'll have to stick with incredulity or claims of data fabrication.

You also seem to believe that it is impossible to create uniform (that is, a sample of particle sizes representing a relative standard deviation of no more than, shall we say, 5% of the average particle diameter) particles. I can assure you, that is false.

This is NOT what I'm saying at all, at all. I'm saying that the manufacture of relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles is very difficult and most likely more expensive than is required for the manufacture of pigments using iron oxide. Everything I've read and been pointed towards on this subject confirms this.

Paint manufacturers aren't going to process their pigments any further than necessary to make them work. Period. If they don't absolutely require uniform particle sizes, then you can guarantee they won't waste their time making them--unless they form naturally uniform sizes, they won't be in the mix. When, by several techniques, the particles appear strikingly uniform at 100nm, you can pretty much rest assured this wasn't an accident.

Like I said earlier, it's not surprising that the range of particle sizes in iron oxide pigments goes to 100nm. It would indeed be very surprising if ALL the particles in a pigment sample were 100nm. Clear?

.

The Almond

23rd March 2010, 01:40 PM

Since we've been having this discussion, I've been clear about the fact that paint/pigments do not require this uniformity of particle size at 100 nm. I state this unequivocally back in post 460:

[...]

So, to accuse me of "moving the goalposts"--a favorite accusation around here on both sides of these issues--requires a robust ignorance of reading comprehension. I think we've been having a productive conversation by and large, but this type of pre-refuted sophistry serves no purpose here. I've been clear about what would count as a counterexample to the red/gray chips being something that doesn't belong in a building: relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles in paint/pigment/primer/etc.

Since I don't want to devolve into he said - she said sophistry either, I will concede that you have been consistent in your position.

As I've also stated unequivocally before, if you find industrial paint that has relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles in it that combusts at 430C, then you have a very good contender for the material that the HFJ crew found. Until then, you'll have to stick with incredulity or claims of data fabrication.

False choice fallacy. My argument is that there is more than sufficient provenance for this coating as the material in question. It was applied to every major structural member in the WTC, it has the same qualitative composition as Jones has listed, including the zinc and chromium (see figure 14) as very specifically noted in NCSTAR 1-3C, and it notes the use of iron oxide as pigment. That's a confounding variable, and it's up to Jones to eliminate it.

Of course, a great first step to prove that the material is thermite would be by showing that it combusts in an inert atmosphere. Why didn't Jones do that?

This is NOT what I'm saying at all, at all. I'm saying that the manufacture of relatively uniform 100nm iron oxide particles is very difficult and most likely more expensive than is required for the manufacture of pigments using iron oxide. Everything I've read and been pointed towards on this subject confirms this.
So because most manufacturers wouldn't bother to do it, all manufacturers don't do it? Or it's impossible? Again, your opinions on what is and is not in the best interest of the paint manufacturer are very interesting, but they have no relevancy on this debate.

A pigment used to make a protective, anti-corrosive paint for every major structural member in two of the tallest free-standing structures in the world most assuredly represents a special case. The manufacturer was given a series of specifications, and met them to the best of their ability.

Paint manufacturers aren't going to process their pigments any further than necessary to make them work. Period.

Please stop ignoring this:

The top of page 100 in the Pigments book (see above) notes, "The hues of most of the colored inorganic pigments are determined not only by their molecular compositions, but also on particle size and crystalline form." Further down the page, it notes, "The color dependence on average particle size is illustrated by the dominant wavelength of magnetite, which changes from 600 nm to 635 nm as the particles increase [...]"

Interestingly, it appears that magnetite, along with other iron oxide pigments, appears to have a size dependency on fluoresced wavelength. So, it seems that, when iron oxides are used as a pigment, size control and separation are of paramount importance.

If they don't absolutely require uniform particle sizes, then you can guarantee they won't waste their time making them

Are you a paint manufacturer? Do you feel like you can speak for all paint manufacturers in the world now and for the last 50 years?

--unless they form naturally uniform sizes, they won't be in the mix. When, by several techniques, the particles appear strikingly uniform at 100nm, you can pretty much rest assured this wasn't an accident.

I would love to see the particle size distribution done using the quantitative particle sizing methodology I described earlier. What page of the article was that on?

Like I said earlier, it's not surprising that the range of particle sizes in iron oxide pigments goes to 100nm. It would indeed be very surprising if ALL the particles in a pigment sample were 100nm. Clear?

There is no evidence that all of the particles are exactly 100 nm in diameter. "It looks like it" doesn't work in science. Particle sizing, random sampling, isolation and separation. That's what's required to prove this point scientifically.

newton3376

23rd March 2010, 03:30 PM

"It looks like it" doesn't work in science.

This point can't be stressed enough....so many truther arguments rest on this....

"It looks like" squibs...

"It looks like" uniform particles...

"It looks like" freefall speed...

"It looks like" the top should have toppled like a tree...

"It looks like" molten iron...

"It looks like" it collapsed into its own footprint...

"It looks like" the sphericals are from molten iron produced from thermite...

"It looks like" the fires on 9/11 weren't really that bad...

This is all I ever hear from them....no evidence...just opinions and incredulity....the Jones paper is no exception.

Every test he does implies that it "looks like" some kind of thermite without ever conclusively showing that it is.

W.D.Clinger

23rd March 2010, 04:44 PM

This point can't be stressed enough....so many truther arguments rest on this....

"It looks like" squibs...

"It looks like" uniform particles...

"It looks like" freefall speed...

"It looks like" the top should have toppled like a tree...

"It looks like" molten iron...

"It looks like" it collapsed into its own footprint...

"It looks like" the sphericals are from molten iron produced from thermite...

"It looks like" the fires on 9/11 weren't really that bad...

This is all I ever hear from them....no evidence...just opinions and incredulity....the Jones paper is no exception.

Every test he does implies that it "looks like" some kind of thermite without ever conclusively showing that it is.
More accurately, several of their tests clearly showed that it did not look like or behave like thermite.

That's why they speculated it was nanothermite, which was conveniently unavailable for comparison testing.

Carsten from Denmark

24th March 2010, 10:47 AM

I claim, that flyash were used in paint and cement during the building of the WTC1-7.
Anyone to comment?

newton3376

24th March 2010, 11:00 AM

More accurately, several of their tests clearly showed that it did not look like or behave like thermite.

Of course....that is why I write "it looks like" using quotation marks....because in reality the phrase is not accurate when examined...

That's why they speculated it was nanothermite, which was conveniently unavailable for comparison testing.

Yep....once they realized that their little "energy" experiment proved that is WASN'T thermite they simply shifted to "nano" or "super" thermite in an attempt to save their position...

Unfortuantely for them it did not fool most people.

jay howard

24th March 2010, 02:45 PM

So because most manufacturers wouldn't bother to do it, all manufacturers don't do it? Or it's impossible? Again, your opinions on what is and is not in the best interest of the paint manufacturer are very interesting, but they have no relevancy on this debate.

This just doesn't seem like a very controversial statement. Have I contacted all the pigment/paint manufacturers? No. But this is just basic market economics. Paint/pigment makers aren't going to go through the trouble of overprocessing something beyond the necessities of its application because that cuts directly into profit margins. This isn't chemistry or materials engineering, this is basic economics.

Take a look at these prices for alpha-Fe2O3 (http://www.ssnano.com/inc/sdetail/308) at 20-40 nm. Not surprisingly, it's $76/100g. Sure, they probably painted all the towers in that stuff, right?

Here's a patent description (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0204438.html) for producing Fe2O3 particles at 50-100 nm. Not exactly the kind of technology we would expect to find at a paint manufacturing facility.

All the available info out there makes it very unlikely that industrial scale manufacturing processes would ever mess with uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles unless it was absolutely necessary. Again, this isn't a controversial point, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. Are you still in disagreement over this?

Please stop ignoring this:

The top of page 100 in the Pigments book (see above) notes, "The hues of most of the colored inorganic pigments are determined not only by their molecular compositions, but also on particle size and crystalline form." Further down the page, it notes, "The color dependence on average particle size is illustrated by the dominant wavelength of magnetite, which changes from 600 nm to 635 nm as the particles increase [...]"

Interestingly, it appears that magnetite, along with other iron oxide pigments, appears to have a size dependency on fluoresced wavelength. So, it seems that, when iron oxides are used as a pigment, size control and separation are of paramount importance.

Right. The reason I didn't respond to this is that the wavelengths that magnetite absorbs (or doesn't absorb) is absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about nanometer scale iron oxide particles. They're referencing "600 nm to 635 nm" as the wavelength that the material in question absorbs or reflects, thus changing its color. That's neato!

What's your point? You either don't understand what you're quoting or you have no interest in demonstrating your disagreement.

Are you a paint manufacturer? Do you feel like you can speak for all paint manufacturers in the world now and for the last 50 years?

No. Not a paint manufacturer. Yes. I can speak for all the paint manufacturers in the world for the last 50 years that unless they have a very specific and expensive need for relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles, they will not waste their time and money making them. Nor will their manufacturing processes "accidentally" make them.

I would love to see the particle size distribution done using the quantitative particle sizing methodology I described earlier. What page of the article was that on?

There is no evidence that all of the particles are exactly 100 nm in diameter. "It looks like it" doesn't work in science. Particle sizing, random sampling, isolation and separation. That's what's required to prove this point scientifically.

The only evidence we have on this is what the HFJ crew has done in their paper. From all the pictures they took, the faceted, relatively dense, 100 nm particles are very likely iron oxide and there aren't any that appear much larger or smaller--as we would expect if this material were paint/pigment/corrosion protection/etc.

In all fairness, their hasn't been an analysis done specifically on the particle size of the iron oxide. And in all fairness, finding the same relatively uniform 100 nm particles in 4 different samples which were broken open for SE analysis makes the hypothesis that "they just missed the bigger particles" very slim.

And finally, can you show me any industrial paint/pigment/coating/etc. WHATSOEVER that is composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles? No? That's not surprising.

.

jay howard

24th March 2010, 02:51 PM

This point can't be stressed enough....so many truther arguments rest on this....

"It looks like" squibs...

"It looks like" uniform particles...

"It looks like" freefall speed...

"It looks like" the top should have toppled like a tree...

"It looks like" molten iron...

"It looks like" it collapsed into its own footprint...

"It looks like" the sphericals are from molten iron produced from thermite...

"It looks like" the fires on 9/11 weren't really that bad...

This is all I ever hear from them....no evidence...just opinions and incredulity....the Jones paper is no exception.

Every test he does implies that it "looks like" some kind of thermite without ever conclusively showing that it is.

You forgot: "It looks like" kaolinite...

Apparently you never read Sunstealer's much linked post which supposedly put this entire debate to bed by showing a picture of kaolinite next to a picture from the HFJ paper, thus demonstrating once and for all that the material in question was just paint.

Everyone here was hanging all over that one. It was probably linked in response to my posts alone, about 3 or 4 times. Yet it was exactly the kind of weak, unscientific comparison used by the poor, ignorant truthers.

Nice miss.

.

ElMondoHummus

24th March 2010, 03:35 PM

You forgot: "It looks like" kaolinite...

Apparently you never read Sunstealer's much linked post which supposedly put this entire debate to bed by showing a picture of kaolinite next to a picture from the HFJ paper, thus demonstrating once and for all that the material in question was just paint.

Everyone here was hanging all over that one. It was probably linked in response to my posts alone, about 3 or 4 times. Yet it was exactly the kind of weak, unscientific comparison used by the poor, ignorant truthers.

Nice miss.

.

That's an utterly dishonest statement. Sunstealer not only identified specific physical characteristics of the platelets unique to kaolin (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658), but also matched up characteristics from the X-EDS spectra (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4607894#post4607894) that established its presence. We were "hanging" over it because it proves the existence of kaolin and refutes Jones and Harrit's observations. You deliberately mischaracterize it by comparing it to facile observations based on ignorance. A truther seeing a plume of dust from a window and saying "demolitions" is most certainly not the same as a materials scientist identifying specific characteristics from micrographs and matching that with data in EDS spectrographs.

Try to avoid distortion next time. It does you no good.

The Almond

24th March 2010, 04:44 PM

This just doesn't seem like a very controversial statement. Have I contacted all the pigment/paint manufacturers? No.

Then what makes you qualified to judge their production process?

But this is just basic market economics. Paint/pigment makers aren't going to go through the trouble of overprocessing something beyond the necessities of its application because that cuts directly into profit margins. This isn't chemistry or materials engineering, this is basic economics.

Actually, this is your opinion. In this instance, it is wrong. You're not a paint manufacturer and you can't speak for all of them, nor can you speak for their production processes or pricing models.

Take a look at these prices for alpha-Fe2O3 (http://www.ssnano.com/inc/sdetail/308) at 20-40 nm. Not surprisingly, it's $76/100g. Sure, they probably painted all the towers in that stuff, right?

The towers were a special case. So what if the coating applied to every major structural member in the twin towers was more expensive than common, anti-corrosive coatings? Your argument that using nano-sized iron oxide is inconvenient and expensive is a non-starter. The towers were a special case.

Here's a patent description (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0204438.html) for producing Fe2O3 particles at 50-100 nm. Not exactly the kind of technology we would expect to find at a paint manufacturing facility.

According to whom? Are you a coatings manufacturer? Have you toured every facility in the US? In the world?

All the available info out there makes it very unlikely that industrial scale manufacturing processes would ever mess with uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles unless it was absolutely necessary. Again, this isn't a controversial point, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. Are you still in disagreement over this?

Yes, because all you've offered as proof is incredulity.

Right. The reason I didn't respond to this is that the wavelengths that magnetite absorbs (or doesn't absorb) is absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about nanometer scale iron oxide particles. They're referencing "600 nm to 635 nm" as the wavelength that the material in question absorbs or reflects, thus changing its color. That's neato!

As particle size increases, the apparent color (that is, fluoresced wavelength) changes. That's why you need uniform particle sizing. All that from a book written in 1967 about pigments and coatings. Did you check it out from your local university library yet?

What's your point? You either don't understand what you're quoting or you have no interest in demonstrating your disagreement.

Please attack the argument, not me.

No. Not a paint manufacturer. Yes. I can speak for all the paint manufacturers in the world for the last 50 years that unless they have a very specific and expensive need for relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles, they will not waste their time and money making them. Nor will their manufacturing processes "accidentally" make them.

The twin towers represent a special case. They're a special case. They're special because they were very large and corrosion of such large, expensive steel beams would have unacceptably degraded the load bearing capacity of said structural members. Using the general properties of Home Depot brand paint does not to eliminate a coating proven to be on every major structural member in the WTC is nonsense.

The only evidence we have on this is what the HFJ crew has done in their paper.

I agree. Particle sizing evidence is lacking from the paper in addition to a number of other calibrations and statistical control mechanisms.

From all the pictures they took, the faceted, relatively dense, 100 nm particles are very likely iron oxide and there aren't any that appear much larger or smaller--

That, of course, is if you believe the scale bar they added to the images. Again, I'm not saying that they're lying, just incompetent. Calibration of the scale bar would require a calibration artifact.

as we would expect if this material were paint/pigment/corrosion protection/etc.

Unless this is a special coating.

In all fairness, their hasn't been an analysis done specifically on the particle size of the iron oxide. And in all fairness, finding the same relatively uniform 100 nm particles in 4 different samples which were broken open for SE analysis makes the hypothesis that "they just missed the bigger particles" very slim.

I'm only prepared to discuss scientifically relevant, valid, statistically robust data. That's a precursor to science. If the particle size similarity is the smoking gun to Jones's argument, he should have the decency to:
1) Do a quantitative particle size analysis
and
2) Compare the particle size analysis to a known sample of nano-thermite.

Jones did neither.

If particle size is the strongest piece of evidence in favor of the nano-thermite hypothesis, then Jones would be well served to make certain that the argument stands up to scientific scrutiny.

On the other hand... If Jones wants to submit his project to a Bumpkintown Middle School 6th grade science fair, he will find my standards for evidence significantly relaxed. Although I doubt his project would win...

And finally, can you show me any industrial paint/pigment/coating/etc. WHATSOEVER that is composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles? No? That's not surprising.

What would that prove? I can find papers on anti-corrosive coatings applied to a variety of metals, and some of them will have the microstructural evidence to show the particle size range of the pigments (See Ghanem, NA et al in Industrial Engineering Chemistry (1978) pages 44-50). But so what?

Jones thinks the material is thermite paint applied to the twin towers. The twin towers already had an industrial coating whose composition matches the one Jones posits as nano-thermite. It's up to Jones to eliminate that coating from consideration. That's science. Confounding variables are the responsibility of the author to control and eliminate. Jones failed.

Dave Rogers

25th March 2010, 03:50 AM

TruthersLie

25th March 2010, 04:34 AM

Can I just point out that the current dispute is a classic example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy? Jay Howard is claiming that the particle size distribution of the iron oxide particles is too monodisperse for paint, based on a complete absence of actual numbers for the particle size distributions of paint or of Harrit et al's samples. At the moment, it hasn't even reached the status of a bad argument. Particle size distributions are absolutely impossible to estimate by simply looking at a sample. Anybody with any experience at this sort of thing is well aware of that. Unless you've taken a representative sample of particles, measured their sizes, and plotted the results out on a histogram, or measured the distribution quantitatively by some other means, you have very little idea of the distribution. Until someone's done that on Harrit et al's samples, this is a line of argument that would be rejected immediately by any reputable scientist.

Dave

Dave.

This "argument" should never have gotten this far. Any competent scientist will reject this "paper" when they start counting up all of the methodological errors.

Until Harrit, jones, et al can produce a proper paper which isn't riddled with methodological errors we shouldn't be drawn into a debate over their data. Because of the bad control and bad methodology, their data is extremely questionable (if not outright invalid).

Senenmut

25th March 2010, 08:41 AM

When fly ash is added to concrete, the siliceous and calciferous components undergo a pozzolanic reaction with the calcium hydroxide. The fly ash becomes largely indistinguishable from the CSH gel component.

Of course, the only thing that doesn't react or react well is the iron oxide spheres...

thanks for explaining how fly ash reacts but the question remains. did they or did they NOT use fly ash in the wtc concrete when it was built.

where in this paragraph do you see that fly ash was added to the concrete?
1. is it the aggregate?
2. is it the sand?
3. is it the portland cement?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/50...html#heading10

Concrete
Concrete is composed of aggregate, sand, and Portland cement (Chandra and Berntsson, 2003). The aggregate material in WTC concrete sample appears to be expanded shale. The sand is primarily quartz, but can contain feldspar, iron and titanium oxides, micas, and other rock-forming minerals. Portlandite (Ca(OH)2) and magnesium hydroxide are also present in minor to trace amounts. Portland cement hydrates to form a large variety of Ca-rich phases including calcium silicate hydrate, calcium aluminum hydrate, calcium aluminum iron hydrate, and Portlandite (Ca(OH)2) (Chandra and Berntsson, 2003). Portlandite is indistinguishable from lime (CaO) using qualitative EDS. Minor gypsum is added to control the set of the concrete.

Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component. Portland cement particles will usually have a high Ca peak accompanied by Si and/or Al, Mg, Fe. Most particles of Portland cement will be composed of several Ca-rich phases. These phases are generally extremely fine grained and often occur without distinct grain boundaries. These phases can usually be differentiated using backscattered electron imaging combined with EDS analysis.

A large proportion of the quartz in WTC dust is likely from disaggregated concrete, but has been grouped below with mineral material. Calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) are also components of concrete, but as with quartz, have been grouped with mineral material because they can be present from a variety of sources.

The Almond

25th March 2010, 07:00 PM

thanks for explaining how fly ash reacts but the question remains. did they or did they NOT use fly ash in the wtc concrete when it was built.

Fly ash is so common in concrete its use would be worth absolutely no mention whatsoever. It did not contribute to the collapse, and since it was added to concrete to create flooring (the superstructure was all steel), it really wasn't an important part of the structure itself.

where in this paragraph do you see that fly ash was added to the concrete?
1. is it the aggregate?
2. is it the sand?
3. is it the portland cement?

Fly ash, along with silica fume, rice husk ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, bottom ash and metakaolin are known as supplementary cementitious materials. They replace cement by weight in concrete mixes. A common concrete mix is comprised of about 11 % by weight of cement, of which a further 30 % to 50 % is a supplementary cementitious material.

Concrete [...]

Senenmut, I'm currently working on my PhD in the materials science of portland cement concrete. Please don't bother to lecture me on cement chemistry.

Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust [...]

A large proportion of the quartz in WTC dust is likely from disaggregated concrete, but has been grouped below with mineral material. Calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) are also components of concrete, but as with quartz, have been grouped with mineral material because they can be present from a variety of sources.

I've trimmed the relevant sections for you. Those particles identified as belonging to concrete are primarily calcium rich phases. Iron rich particles, while a common component in concrete can also come from a variety of sources. Iron oxide spheres and iron doped silica/alumina particles are a common component of ash. The WTC towers were on fire. End of story.

Senenmut

25th March 2010, 08:22 PM

Fly ash is so common in concrete its use would be worth absolutely no mention whatsoever. It did not contribute to the collapse, and since it was added to concrete to create flooring (the superstructure was all steel), it really wasn't an important part of the structure itself.

so your saying that YES they did use fly ash in the wtc concrete?

and no it not was a "common" thing to put fly ash in concrete.

"Additional barriers deal with building codes and the need to adhere to existing standards. Years of effort and very aggressive champions are always needed to get a new material into common use. As an example, Hooper discussed the difficulty in persuading building officials to accept fly-ash residue from coal burning as a component in concrete. Adding fly ash makes concrete a more environmentally friendly material, but required federal legislation to overcome skeptics."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_200204/ai_n21311364/

Fly ash, along with silica fume, rice husk ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, bottom ash and metakaolin are known as supplementary cementitious materials. They replace cement by weight in concrete mixes. A common concrete mix is comprised of about 11 % by weight of cement, of which a further 30 % to 50 % is a supplementary cementitious material.

are you saying again that fly ash was used in the wtc when it was built?

Senenmut, I'm currently working on my PhD in the materials science of portland cement concrete. Please don't bother to lecture me on cement chemistry.

well, i know you probably dont trust jones too much but i do remember him stating that he did have a piece on concrete from the wtc site and guess what, no iron microspheres were present.

and here is a link so you can actually see a backscattered electron image of wtc concrete. no mention of fly ash. do you see any?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-06-IMAGE.jpg

I've trimmed the relevant sections for you. Those particles identified as belonging to concrete are primarily calcium rich phases. Iron rich particles, while a common component in concrete can also come from a variety of sources. Iron oxide spheres and iron doped silica/alumina particles are a common component of ash. The WTC towers were on fire. End of story.[/QUOTE]

Senenmut

25th March 2010, 08:28 PM

Senenmut, I'm currently working on my PhD in the materials science of portland cement concrete. Please don't bother to lecture me on cement chemistry.

accidently posted without finishing...

anyway, here is a link to all the concrete pics at this link. take a look and see if ya see any fly ash.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

I've trimmed the relevant sections for you. Those particles identified as belonging to concrete are primarily calcium rich phases. Iron rich particles, while a common component in concrete can also come from a variety of sources. Iron oxide spheres and iron doped silica/alumina particles are a common component of ash. The WTC towers were on fire. End of story.

they said the iron was in the sand, not in the fly ash.

are you telling me that fly ash WAS in the wtc concrete?

The Almond

26th March 2010, 06:20 AM

so your saying that YES they did use fly ash in the wtc concrete?

I'm saying that it is far more likely that they did use fly ash.

and no it not was a "common" thing to put fly ash in concrete.

"Additional barriers deal with building codes and the need to adhere to existing standards. Years of effort and very aggressive champions are always needed to get a new material into common use. As an example, Hooper discussed the difficulty in persuading building officials to accept fly-ash residue from coal burning as a component in concrete. Adding fly ash makes concrete a more environmentally friendly material, but required federal legislation to overcome skeptics."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_200204/ai_n21311364/

This quote offers no time reference for the period in question. I know that contractors and consultants were less likely to use fly ash in the late 30's and early 40's, but the Hoover and Hungry Horse dams (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/flyash.htm) were both built using significant amounts of fly ash. The first ASTM standard for the use of fly ash in concrete was written in 1950. By the 1960's, although there wasn't as much research about the properties of fly ash and how the chemistry of fly ash affected durability, its use was quite common, especially in pavement construction.

are you saying again that fly ash was used in the wtc when it was built?

I'm saying that fly ash was in use in the US during the time of construction of the WTC towers. And that the major cement suppliers were using fly ash and other SCMs to improve the durability of the concrete.

well, i know you probably dont trust jones too much

Trust is irrelevant. Jones is incompetent and completely ignorant of the rudiments of statistics, experimental design, spectroscopy and materials science.

but i do remember him stating that he did have a piece on concrete from the wtc site and guess what, no iron microspheres were present.

I am unimpressed.

and here is a link so you can actually see a backscattered electron image of wtc concrete. no mention of fly ash. do you see any?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-06-IMAGE.jpg

I like your link. The image has a full field width of about 1.5 mm and 675 pixels covering each direction. That means each pixel has a resolution of 2.22 microns, and that the smallest feature anyone could even begin to identify as a sphere would need to be at least 5 pixels or 10 microns in diameter. So no, I don't find any iron rich spheres larger than 10 microns in the mix. Why is that? Because fly ash needs to be close to neutrally buoyant in air. Large particles like that are far more likely to sink and become part of bottom ash, which is not used in concrete construction.

What's further, fly ash would be mixed in with the cement phases, not in with the aggregate. The cement is a heterogeneous mix of at least 5 hydration products (CSH, alumina hydrate, ferrite hydrate, ettringite and portlandite). In order to identify iron rich microspheres, we would need far greater pixel resolution and an image focused mostly on the cement paste.

Frankly, I'm a little confused by your argument in general. You seem determined to eliminate fly ash as a material used in the construction of the WTC towers. Why?

jay howard

26th March 2010, 02:41 PM

Then what makes you qualified to judge their production process?

Actually, this is your opinion. In this instance, it is wrong. You're not a paint manufacturer and you can't speak for all of them, nor can you speak for their production processes or pricing models.

Either there is enough information to make a judgment or there isn't. You claim there isn't. Therefore, you cannot say anyone is right or wrong: all you can say is WE DON'T KNOW.

If you say "there isn't enough info, therefore you are WRONG" as you've done above, you are making an argument from ignorance. This isn't the first time you've done this and it doesn't get you any closer to dismissing the red/gray chips as a very damning evidence.

The towers were a special case. So what if the coating applied to every major structural member in the twin towers was more expensive than common, anti-corrosive coatings? Your argument that using nano-sized iron oxide is inconvenient and expensive is a non-starter. The towers were a special case.

That's one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard a debunker make. You are actually claiming that they used a specialized (anti-corrosion?) coating on all the steel members in the WTC buildings that incorporated uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles!!! Because it was a "special case"!!! This is normally where someone would insert the laughing cartoon dog. This is so far from plausible it boggles the mind that you'd think this is an acceptable possibility.

Just think about this for a minute: 100g of 20-40 nm alpha-iron oxide costs $76 in 2010 (http://www.ssnano.com/inc/sdetail/308). And you're claiming they may have painted the entirety of the steel members with some industrial coating (that you cannot find anywhere) that consisted of uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles somewhere between 1972 and 2001?

That is just absolutely wild speculation drawn without ANY consideration of the evidence we have at hand. You can't point to a single industrial material that is a contender for the red/gray chips. We know that manufacturing uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles is extremely expensive. There isn't any pigment that uses them. Yet you throw this theory out there like it's "just as reasonable" as any other theory. It's not. It's ridiculous. I shouldn't even have to waste my time pointing out how hollow it is. But here I am writing this. And you're reading it.

The fact that you have to draw on such blatantly ridiculous theories just further cements the dwindling possibilities that the red/gray chips are anything other than explosive/incendiary materials.

According to whom? Are you a coatings manufacturer? Have you toured every facility in the US? In the world?

Yes, because all you've offered as proof is incredulity.

That's not true at all. We have BSE images, SE images, XEDS graphs and maps, Dr. Farrer has done TEM on the iron oxide particles, I've found pricing and patents on production of nanoparticular iron oxide, and to top it off, you have not found ANY paints, pigments or industrial coating WHATSOEVER that would be used in the WTC towers that is composed of uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles. That's all the reasons FOR and not a single reason AGAINST the theory that this material is evidence of planted explosives.

The evidence is strong and mutually corroborative that this material is unignited explosive/incendiary material.

At the same time, your best position is one of ignorance--and I'm not using that word as an insult. What I mean is you keep suggesting that we don't have enough info to make a judgment about this material, i.e., we are ignorant about it. But from that position, you cannot make any claims one way or the other about this subject.

According to you, both possibilities are equally open: it's industrial coating AND it's explosive/incendiary material. We just don't know. That's your best argument. Of course, you have to dismiss the bulk of mutually corroborative evidence produced by the HFJ crew just to get to a position of "We just don't know"--otherwise, there's plenty of evidence to make a judgment call on this material.

As particle size increases, the apparent color (that is, fluoresced wavelength) changes. That's why you need uniform particle sizing. All that from a book written in 1967 about pigments and coatings. Did you check it out from your local university library yet?

That's good information, but there's yet been a single pigment cited that uses uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles. You're convinced they exist, despite the fact that you've been unable to find any in library reference books on the subject. Just find one that could have been used on the towers. Put this debate to rest.

Please attack the argument, not me.

My apologies. No insult intended.

I agree. Particle sizing evidence is lacking from the paper in addition to a number of other calibrations and statistical control mechanisms.

So why doesn't the reference bar found in each picture count as particle sizing evidence? That's what it's there for. You doubt the evidence, thereby IT IS REFUTED!

Your incredulity is again noted.

That, of course, is if you believe the scale bar they added to the images. Again, I'm not saying that they're lying, just incompetent. Calibration of the scale bar would require a calibration artifact.

This is just your incredulity. This is simply you doubting their results. So what? Is anyone supposed to be impressed with the weight of your doubt? Does incredulity become a good argument if you're a debunker?

Unless this is a special coating.

Show me some "special" coating that would have been used in the towers or keep this ridiculous theory under wraps.

I'm only prepared to discuss scientifically relevant, valid, statistically robust data. That's a precursor to science.

Right. Like your "special coating" theory. Very scientifically robust.

If the particle size similarity is the smoking gun to Jones's argument, he should have the decency to:
1) Do a quantitative particle size analysis

So you're willing to completely dismiss the reference bar put in the photomicrographs without ANY substantive reason, then accuse the HFJ crew of not doing enough number crunching for your liking. Unless they are simply lying, there is NO REASON to DOUBT their particle sizing.

Accuse them of lying = no point discussing this with you.
Accuse them of incompetence = incredulity.
Give a reason why you think their particle sizing is incorrect or this criticism holds no water.

and
2) Compare the particle size analysis to a known sample of nano-thermite.

That's a good idea. They should do that. But not doing that doesn't invalidate their data.

If particle size is the strongest piece of evidence in favor of the nano-thermite hypothesis, then Jones would be well served to make certain that the argument stands up to scientific scrutiny.

It's far from the "strongest piece of evidence in favor of nano-thermite hypothesis" but it's one that we are closest to agreeing on the premises. Before any of this talk of particle sizing came up, no one even mentioned they had any doubt about the particle sizes.

Only when it's pointed out how unlikely paint is to contain uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles does the issue of "calibration artifacts" and "quantitative particle analysis" become an issue. Telling.

What would that prove?

It would prove me wrong. Aren't you trying to do that?

I can find papers on anti-corrosive coatings applied to a variety of metals, and some of them will have the microstructural evidence to show the particle size range of the pigments (See Ghanem, NA et al in Industrial Engineering Chemistry (1978) pages 44-50). But so what?

So what? Don't act like you haven't been looking for some industrial coating somewhere that contains uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles. If it existed, you would've found it by now. You linked to all kinds of semi-related articles and info pages and said "case closed" on them. You CANNOT rule this stuff out as an explosive/incendiary. The entire collapse event should be re-investigated because of this. Finding an explosive/incendiary should turn the entire official conspiracy theory on its head.

Jones thinks the material is thermite paint applied to the twin towers.

That's a neat theory too, but it is irrelevant how Jones thinks this material was used. The fact is, IT'S THERE. IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE. There is no other good explanation why explosive/incendiary material should be in the wreckage of the WTC towers other than it has something to do with how the towers collapsed.

The twin towers already had an industrial coating whose composition matches the one Jones posits as nano-thermite.

So this coating, you're claiming is composed of uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles? No. I didn't think so. It's not a match.

It's up to Jones to eliminate that coating from consideration. That's science. Confounding variables are the responsibility of the author to control and eliminate. Jones failed.

Your incredulity does not equal anyone else's failure. It's been shown that industrial paints/pigments/etc. do not have such uniform particles in them. You want that to be taken as a given--despite the fact that you haven't been able to cite any paint/coating with uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles in it.

That's YOUR claim to back up.

Senenmut

26th March 2010, 04:10 PM

I'm saying that it is far more likely that they did use fly ash.
why is that?

This quote offers no time reference for the period in question. I know that contractors and consultants were less likely to use fly ash in the late 30's and early 40's, but the Hoover and Hungry Horse dams (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/flyash.htm) were both built using significant amounts of fly ash. The first ASTM standard for the use of fly ash in concrete was written in 1950. By the 1960's, although there wasn't as much research about the properties of fly ash and how the chemistry of fly ash affected durability, its use was quite common, especially in pavement construction.
the article was written in april 2002.

I'm saying that fly ash was in use in the US during the time of construction of the WTC towers. And that the major cement suppliers were using fly ash and other SCMs to improve the durability of the concrete.
it might of been in use but was it used in the wtc building. take for instance when the article states:
"As an example, Hooper discussed the difficulty in persuading building officials to accept fly-ash residue from coal burning as a component in concrete. Adding fly ash makes concrete a more environmentally friendly material, but required federal legislation to overcome skeptics."

Trust is irrelevant. Jones is incompetent and completely ignorant of the rudiments of statistics, experimental design, spectroscopy and materials science.
prof jones is all about those iron microspheres and if he said he didnt find any in the concrete then there probably was none there.

I like your link. The image has a full field width of about 1.5 mm and 675 pixels covering each direction. That means each pixel has a resolution of 2.22 microns, and that the smallest feature anyone could even begin to identify as a sphere would need to be at least 5 pixels or 10 microns in diameter. So no, I don't find any iron rich spheres larger than 10 microns in the mix. Why is that? Because fly ash needs to be close to neutrally buoyant in air. Large particles like that are far more likely to sink and become part of bottom ash, which is not used in concrete construction.
maybe ya missed these from the same link:
5 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-02-IMAGE.jpg

10 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-03-IMAGE.jpg

100 microns
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-05-IMAGE.jpg

What's further, fly ash would be mixed in with the cement phases, not in with the aggregate. The cement is a heterogeneous mix of at least 5 hydration products (CSH, alumina hydrate, ferrite hydrate, ettringite and portlandite). In order to identify iron rich microspheres, we would need far greater pixel resolution and an image focused mostly on the cement paste.

that is how they identified the stuff as concrete:
"Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component."
so click on the above links and see if ya see any fly ash in the 5, 10, 100 micron range!!

Frankly, I'm a little confused by your argument in general. You seem determined to eliminate fly ash as a material used in the construction of the WTC towers. Why?

thats because i just dont see fly ash there. im just trying to rule out where these iron microspheres could have come from. as henryco said "5% by weight of these spheres in the dust is huge! Means thousands of tons of iron melted."

newton3376

26th March 2010, 08:08 PM

You forgot: "It looks like" kaolinite...

I did not forget anything.

Apparently you never read Sunstealer's much linked post which supposedly put this entire debate to bed by showing a picture of kaolinite next to a picture from the HFJ paper, thus demonstrating once and for all that the material in question was just paint.

Incorrect...not only have I read the individual post, but I have read through the entire thread(s) dealing with this issue.

Sunstealer did much more then just show a picture and say "It looks like" kaolinite....he justified it with good arguments and evidence.

Even with that said...he never said he "proved" it was kaolinite....simply that it was a very plausible candidate.

Everyone here was hanging all over that one. It was probably linked in response to my posts alone, about 3 or 4 times. Yet it was exactly the kind of weak, unscientific comparison used by the poor, ignorant truthers.

Perhaps you should read it again.....there is much more argumentation and evidence given besided just a photo or picture.

The "It looks like" arguments that truthers give are not valid because once you examine the evidence and arguments given, they do not support the original argument.

Weak arguments and evidence are......well.....weak.

Nice miss.

I did not miss anything....I simply do not find weak and unsupported arguments and evidence to be very convincing.....while the arguments and evidence that sunstealer (and many others) have given ARE convincing because of the supporting arguments/evidence.

The Almond

28th March 2010, 09:04 PM

Either there is enough information to make a judgment or there isn't. You claim there isn't. Therefore, you cannot say anyone is right or wrong: all you can say is WE DON'T KNOW.

If you say "there isn't enough info, therefore you are WRONG" as you've done above, you are making an argument from ignorance. This isn't the first time you've done this and it doesn't get you any closer to dismissing the red/gray chips as a very damning evidence.

This is an extremely poor summary of my argument.

That's one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard a debunker make. You are actually claiming that they used a specialized (anti-corrosion?) coating on all the steel members in the WTC buildings that incorporated uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles!!!

There is no evidence that all of the particles found are uniform in size, nor is there any evidence that they are all 100 nm in diameter.

Because it was a "special case"!!! This is normally where someone would insert the laughing cartoon dog. This is so far from plausible it boggles the mind that you'd think this is an acceptable possibility.

Polemics
The WTC towers were unique in their construction, and were the culmination of a number of state-of-the-art technologies. To argue that they were subject to the same economic constraints as residential construction is silly.

Just think about this for a minute: 100g of 20-40 nm alpha-iron oxide costs $76 in 2010 (http://www.ssnano.com/inc/sdetail/308). And you're claiming they may have painted the entirety of the steel members with some industrial coating (that you cannot find anywhere) that consisted of uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles somewhere between 1972 and 2001?

What evidence has Jones provided that all of the particles in question were 100 nm in diameter?

That is just absolutely wild speculation drawn without ANY consideration of the evidence we have at hand. You can't point to a single industrial material that is a contender for the red/gray chips.

The entirety of the WTC super structure was painted with an anti-corrosive red coating which specifically used iron oxide (among others) as a pigment. That's already been established.

We know that manufacturing uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles is extremely expensive.

So what?

There isn't any pigment that uses them.

Opinion.

Yet you throw this theory out there like it's "just as reasonable" as any other theory. It's not. It's ridiculous. I shouldn't even have to waste my time pointing out how hollow it is. But here I am writing this. And you're reading it.

Polemics. This isn't a performance.

That's not true at all. We have BSE images, SE images, XEDS graphs and maps,

How were the SE and BSE images calibrated?

Dr. Farrer has done TEM on the iron oxide particles, I've found pricing and patents on production of nanoparticular iron oxide, and to top it off, you have not found ANY paints, pigments or industrial coating WHATSOEVER that would be used in the WTC towers that is composed of uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles. That's all the reasons FOR and not a single reason AGAINST the theory that this material is evidence of planted explosives.

Reasons against:
1) This material combusts at a temperature above the energy density for thermite
2) This material has only been shown to combust in an oxygen environment, while thermite would require no reducing agent
3) A coating was applied to every major structural member of the twin towers with iron oxide used as a pigment, and significant amounts of chromium and zinc, as specifically noted by Jones.
4) There is no evidence for elemental aluminum in the sample
5) The chain of custody issues are insurmountable and cannot be ignored.

The evidence is strong and mutually corroborative that this material is unignited explosive/incendiary material.

Your definition of corroborative is incorrect. Samples do not corroborate within themselves, only among samples and only then by sources other than the author. Jones's evidence may be said to be in agreement, but the only compositional technique he used was XEDS, not XRF, XRD, ToF-SIMS, ICP-MS, LA-ICPMS, GCMS, or gravametrics.

At the same time, your best position is one of ignorance--and I'm not using that word as an insult. What I mean is you keep suggesting that we don't have enough info to make a judgment about this material, i.e., we are ignorant about it. But from that position, you cannot make any claims one way or the other about this subject.

Remember, science and scientific research requires a positivist stance. We only know that for which there is evidence, and that evidence must be scientifically valid and relevant. I'm pointing out where evidence does not exist or where the evidence does not meet the standards of scientific scrutiny.

According to you, both possibilities are equally open: it's industrial coating AND it's explosive/incendiary material.

I do not believe that the material in question is explosive or incendiary or evidence for any conspiracy or relevant in any way. In my opinion, such a stance is silly.

We just don't know. That's your best argument. Of course, you have to dismiss the bulk of mutually corroborative evidence produced by the HFJ crew just to get to a position of "We just don't know"--otherwise, there's plenty of evidence to make a judgment call on this material.

"We don't know" is not the same as "There is no evidence."

That's good information, but there's yet been a single pigment cited that uses uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles. You're convinced they exist, despite the fact that you've been unable to find any in library reference books on the subject. Just find one that could have been used on the towers. Put this debate to rest.

There is no evidence that the material in question uses 100 nm iron oxide particles.

So why doesn't the reference bar found in each picture count as particle sizing evidence? That's what it's there for. You doubt the evidence, thereby IT IS REFUTED!

How was the length of the sizing bar determined?

This is just your incredulity. This is simply you doubting their results. So what? Is anyone supposed to be impressed with the weight of your doubt? Does incredulity become a good argument if you're a debunker?

No incredulity here, just pointing out the massive holes in the argument, errors in methodology and lack of evidence.

Show me some "special" coating that would have been used in the towers or keep this ridiculous theory under wraps.

I already did.

So you're willing to completely dismiss the reference bar put in the photomicrographs without ANY substantive reason,

How was the length of the scale bar determined?

then accuse the HFJ crew of not doing enough number crunching for your liking.

Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence.

Unless they are simply lying, there is NO REASON to DOUBT their particle sizing.

They're not lying, they're incompetent.

Accuse them of lying = no point discussing this with you.
Accuse them of incompetence = incredulity.
Give a reason why you think their particle sizing is incorrect or this criticism holds no water.

Dave Rogers and I already addressed this.

That's a good idea. They should do that. But not doing that doesn't invalidate their data.

It simply causes their data to become irrelevant. Remember, it is up to the author to establish the relevancy of the data.

It's far from the "strongest piece of evidence in favor of nano-thermite hypothesis" but it's one that we are closest to agreeing on the premises. Before any of this talk of particle sizing came up, no one even mentioned they had any doubt about the particle sizes.

It was never brought up as being relevant. It's like someone pointing out an exceptionally shiny turd in a pile of elephant droppings. Proving that said turd is worth something is going to take some pretty serious effort, but to the casual observer, one turd is the same as all the others.

It would prove me wrong. Aren't you trying to do that?

Proving someone wrong on an internet forum would be an inexcusable waste of time. I'm here purely to practice my writing and arguing skills, and I don't mind wasting a few electrons to do it.

So what? Don't act like you haven't been looking for some industrial coating somewhere that contains uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles. If it existed, you would've found it by now. You linked to all kinds of semi-related articles and info pages and said "case closed" on them. You CANNOT rule this stuff out as an explosive/incendiary. The entire collapse event should be re-investigated because of this. Finding an explosive/incendiary should turn the entire official conspiracy theory on its head.

Again, please don't assign motives to me. It's a waste of time.

That's a neat theory too, but it is irrelevant how Jones thinks this material was used. The fact is, IT'S THERE. IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE. There is no other good explanation why explosive/incendiary material should be in the wreckage of the WTC towers other than it has something to do with how the towers collapsed.

I addressed this earlier. It's up to the authors to show why the material is important. The authors draw the conclusions, not the readers. That's the difference between Hemingway and science.

So this coating, you're claiming is composed of uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles? No. I didn't think so. It's not a match.

Your incredulity does not equal anyone else's failure. It's been shown that industrial paints/pigments/etc. do not have such uniform particles in them. You want that to be taken as a given--despite the fact that you haven't been able to cite any paint/coating with uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles in it.

That's YOUR claim to back up.
Dave said it best:

Can I just point out that the current dispute is a classic example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy? Jay Howard is claiming that the particle size distribution of the iron oxide particles is too monodisperse for paint, based on a complete absence of actual numbers for the particle size distributions of paint or of Harrit et al's samples. At the moment, it hasn't even reached the status of a bad argument. Particle size distributions are absolutely impossible to estimate by simply looking at a sample. Anybody with any experience at this sort of thing is well aware of that. Unless you've taken a representative sample of particles, measured their sizes, and plotted the results out on a histogram, or measured the distribution quantitatively by some other means, you have very little idea of the distribution. Until someone's done that on Harrit et al's samples, this is a line of argument that would be rejected immediately by any reputable scientist.

Spot on, Dave.

henryco

29th March 2010, 12:03 PM

"Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component."
so click on the above links and see if ya see any fly ash in the 5, 10, 100 micron range!!

thats because i just dont see fly ash there. im just trying to rule out where these iron microspheres could have come from. as henryco said "5% by weight of these spheres in the dust is huge! Means thousands of tons of iron melted."

Right!
Let me add that the USGS report the total fraction of iron in the WTC dust to be in between 4.13 % and 1.63% in its various samples.
The RJ Lee study reports the iron microspheres to represent 5% of the dust.

The two estimations seem to imply that most of the iron found in the dust is encountered in spherical iron or iron rich particles.

I can corroborate that with my own sample: simple counting tells me that the iron spherical particles which are some time purely iron-made and otherwise show at least 90% of iron (percentage in weight) in most spectra, represent 10% of all the particles i collect with my magnet. But this magnet is quite powerfull and is able to catch even particles with a few percent of iron only.
Indeed this is what i noticed in almost all non spherical particles we analyzed: they had a very small fraction of iron.

Therefore i can conservatively argue that the iron of the spheres represent at the very least 50% in weight of the total iron i catch with my magnet. In other worlds i do confirm that the fraction of iron microspheres is at the percent level in this dust. And as far as i could check in my own sample
these iron microspheres are not sticked or associated to other ones such as concrete particles, excep very often, to the particles Jones has called red chips.

So in my mind there is no doubt that

- the total fraction of these microspheres in the dust is huge : the percent level ==> no fire at the WTC has melted these thousands of tons of iron, lets be reasonable. Moreother wood fly ash does not generate these microspheres
so i suspect them to be present in coal fly ash only because they were already before burning in the coal which probably was a mineral one, or because the temperature in the furnaces are much higher than at WTC.

- There is an obvious link with the red chips

- There is no link with concrete as far as i could check in the photos but also the spectra of various concrete particles in the USGS report.

I believe that a very high energy process is both at the origin of the redchips and most those microspheres and i dont exclude that the whole nanothermite story was put forward to hide something else and BTW discredit the researchers following this way. I think these searchers have been influenced and are victims rather than participating in the deception.
I believe a completely unknown kind of secret weapon involving cold fusion physics is involved but i still believe that normal thermite were used to cut and warm the columns.
May be its difficult to imagine a coating of the columns by hundred of alternated sprayed layers of sol gel thermite but may be the several millimeters rolls of coating were prepared in the lab before being applied to the columns...still complicated? ...i do agree and this is why i rather suspect another origin for the redchips....

F H-C

tfk

30th March 2010, 10:18 AM

newton3376

9th April 2010, 08:56 AM

Now, that's not fair.

Sometime "it sounds like ... explosives."

Or "it feels like ... an earthquake."

I remember one "it smell like ... explosives."

I don't remember any "it tastes like ...", tho.

Perhaps Jones & Harrit make up for that with all their "it's suggestive of ..." comments. (Would that we whisperings in their ears? Or voices in their heads?)

Tom

Good point.....there are several phrases that the truth movement commonly uses besides "It looks like"....

So has Jones ever attempted to get some independent verification of his results? I mean it is now 2010....I would think his thermite paper would have made some headway in the engienering and scientific community by now if there was any validity to his paper....

T.A.M.

10th April 2010, 06:32 AM

Jones attempts at "Independent" verification is Henry, who admits he believes the government was in on it. Henry has even gone so far as to declare that the absence of red/grey chips in his samples was proof that SOMEONE HAD SPOILED?SUBSTITUTED his samples prior to their arrival via post...

Unfortunately, this will never be resolved and here is why.

Jones has an agenda, and is borderline obsessive/paranoid on the idea that the govt carried out the attacks. As a result, I do not trust him. For all we know, he could have contaminated the original samples. So how are we to get truly independent analysis???

The only way I could see it, is if a 3rd party collected 2nd samples from the original sources of the Jones samples, insuring unbias chain of custody, and then had said samples delivered to an independent (no contact with Jones or the TM) lab, and asked them to perform the same tests on the microspheres that Jones etc... did. Also have them test the chips (if even found) in an oxygen free environment, etc...

The chances of this happening are about 0.00001%, so I think it is pretty much moot.

TAM:)

jay howard

14th April 2010, 01:07 PM

At what point does incredulity become a good argument?

That's the best anyone can do here.

.

ElMondoHummus

14th April 2010, 05:06 PM

At what point does incredulity become a good argument?

That's the best anyone can do here.

.

That (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694) is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4622640#post4622640) not (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658) true (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5658395#post5658395). It's been pointed out that Jones's and Harrit's data contradicts their claim, and also that their errors of methodology and presumption seperately invalidate their claim. It has been shown both positively that the substance is something else, and negatively that the chips are not what Jones and Harrit claim they are. That is as definitve a falsification as can be had. That is not incredulity, that is making the correct conclusion from the data they gave.

T.A.M.

16th April 2010, 03:23 PM

jay howard

20th April 2010, 09:12 PM

To accept their data as valid and true (ie to NOT be incredulous) I require the following,

1. TRULY Independent verification (jay, you are either too bias, or not a scientist yourself, if you do not see this as essential).
2. Valid methodology (big fail here)
3. A "ruling out" of other more likely sources for their magic chips.

That would be the bare minimum for me. I refuse to accept on faith...

No one is asking you to accept data on faith here. Certainly not me. Once again, if you think the scientists who wrote the paper are complicit in planting these chips in the dust, then we don't have anything to talk about. More precisely, if you make that assertion without any concrete evidence to justify it, (other than a feeling about their conclusions), then we have nothing else to discuss.

...the work a bunch of bias scientists, working out of their expertise (in many cases), that makes EXTRAORDINARY claims, yet provides NO INDEPENDENT verification, will not submit their samples for such, and have not ruled out all other more likely sources...not gonna happen. Not to mention the freshman level methodology used in the paper.

Are you saying that none of the scientists are working within their area(s) of expertise?

Jay, you can complain about incredulity all you like. Your approach (to complain about such nonsense) is likely reflective of much of the approach taken by the "scientists" involved in the Jones paper, and most likely contributed to its failure in publishing.

It got published just fine. My "complaint" about incredulity as an argument in this case refers specifically to people who dismiss the data outright without a substantive justification. It is pointed out ad nauseum here on JREF that incredulity by itself does not even come close to being an argument worth considering seriously. Yet people here make it all the time when confronted with actual forensic evidence that has undergone extensive testing.

What do these claims of "failure" really amount to? Some people don't "like" the way the statistical data was presented or they don't "believe" the conductors of the tests knew how to conduct them. These kinds of claims ultimately boil down to saying "I don't believe you." That's kind of you to share your opinion, but unless you have reason (beyond the psychological incongruities produced by their conclusions) it's simply an opinion--an opinion expressed by someone that almost undoubtedly knows less about the field in question that the researchers themselves.

Take The Almond's criticism of the size of the iron oxide particles. After claiming time and time again that he "closed the case" on their ubiquity in nature, it was pointed out that they do NOT exist in nature at that size in any construction material known to exist now or up to when the towers were destroyed.

Still not convinced of this, he "does the real work" and goes to the public library where he finds reference books that talk about wavelengths of light in the 600-630 nm range as some kind of argument that these particles should be found in pigments.

After having it pointed out that there is not even a contender material that these chips might be he claims that the pictures showing relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles from 4 different samples of the chips from the WTC dust, are NOT actually 100 nm. How? He claims the size reference bars in the pictures are not up to his high scientific standards. (He is "only prepared to discuss scientifically relevant, valid, statistically robust data.")

And apparently, the reference bars in the corners of the SE, BSE images are not scientifically relevant or robust enough because the authors don't state how those reference bars were calibrated.

At this point, I need to know from you: do you think this is a justified concern? That they need to demonstrate how they calibrated their reference bars in the electromicrographs?

Many here have pointed out to you the numerous flaws in not only methodology, but approach to the topic and their findings in general. Yet I have yet to see you admit that the failure of Jones and his fellow paper writers to submit their samples for truly independent analysis, combined with a failure of any other analysis of WTC dust to detect anything like "thermite" is a glaring hole that THEY NEED TO ADDRESS, or simply start over.

TAM:)

Right. And there are some I certainly agree with: I would like to see what happens when they perform ignition experiments in an oxygen-free atmosphere. But whatever issues you have with their methodology, (unless you think they are outright liars), their other results are not automatically invalidated. None of it changes the fact that the by-products of the heated chips were iron and silicate microspheres. Nor do methodological criticisms change the fact that the chips ignited at around 430C and demonstrated violent exothermic reactions. This is demonstrable from the time-temperature curves. There is no getting around these facts. There is no getting around the fact that XEDS graphs demonstrated areas with high concentrations of Al and low concentrations of O and Si.

Again, unless you think they are just straight scamming everyone, the kind of incredulity that passes for legitimate criticisms here are nothing but psychological dissonance packaged in nice words.

.

Myriad

21st April 2010, 06:22 PM

No one is asking you to accept data on faith here. Certainly not me. Once again, if you think the scientists who wrote the paper are complicit in planting these chips in the dust, then we don't have anything to talk about. More precisely, if you make that assertion without any concrete evidence to justify it, (other than a feeling about their conclusions), then we have nothing else to discuss.

Are you saying that none of the scientists are working within their area(s) of expertise?

It got published just fine. My "complaint" about incredulity as an argument in this case refers specifically to people who dismiss the data outright without a substantive justification. It is pointed out ad nauseum here on JREF that incredulity by itself does not even come close to being an argument worth considering seriously. Yet people here make it all the time when confronted with actual forensic evidence that has undergone extensive testing.

What do these claims of "failure" really amount to? Some people don't "like" the way the statistical data was presented or they don't "believe" the conductors of the tests knew how to conduct them. These kinds of claims ultimately boil down to saying "I don't believe you." That's kind of you to share your opinion, but unless you have reason (beyond the psychological incongruities produced by their conclusions) it's simply an opinion--an opinion expressed by someone that almost undoubtedly knows less about the field in question that the researchers themselves.

Take The Almond's criticism of the size of the iron oxide particles. After claiming time and time again that he "closed the case" on their ubiquity in nature, it was pointed out that they do NOT exist in nature at that size in any construction material known to exist now or up to when the towers were destroyed.

Still not convinced of this, he "does the real work" and goes to the public library where he finds reference books that talk about wavelengths of light in the 600-630 nm range as some kind of argument that these particles should be found in pigments.

After having it pointed out that there is not even a contender material that these chips might be he claims that the pictures showing relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles from 4 different samples of the chips from the WTC dust, are NOT actually 100 nm. How? He claims the size reference bars in the pictures are not up to his high scientific standards. (He is "only prepared to discuss scientifically relevant, valid, statistically robust data.")

And apparently, the reference bars in the corners of the SE, BSE images are not scientifically relevant or robust enough because the authors don't state how those reference bars were calibrated.

At this point, I need to know from you: do you think this is a justified concern? That they need to demonstrate how they calibrated their reference bars in the electromicrographs?

Right. And there are some I certainly agree with: I would like to see what happens when they perform ignition experiments in an oxygen-free atmosphere. But whatever issues you have with their methodology, (unless you think they are outright liars), their other results are not automatically invalidated. None of it changes the fact that the by-products of the heated chips were iron and silicate microspheres. Nor do methodological criticisms change the fact that the chips ignited at around 430C and demonstrated violent exothermic reactions. This is demonstrable from the time-temperature curves. There is no getting around these facts. There is no getting around the fact that XEDS graphs demonstrated areas with high concentrations of Al and low concentrations of O and Si.

Again, unless you think they are just straight scamming everyone, the kind of incredulity that passes for legitimate criticisms here are nothing but psychological dissonance packaged in nice words.

You know what else ignites in a normal oxygen atmosphere at about 430 C and demonstrates violent exothermic reactions? Paper. Potato chips. Wood. Cotton. Carpet fibers. Bacon. Dried paint binder. Mummies. Very small rocks (if they're coal). Churches. Gravy (dried). Lead. A duck.

Your arguments, like the paper itself, are unconvincing. And they are not becoming any more so with the passage of time.

Furthermore, by not arranging necessary follow up testing by independent labs using more decisive methodologies, the paper's authors have left their target audience, which apparently includes yourself, high and dry. (Not that they would have been doing it any favors by doing such testing, as I'm sure they know very well.)

How are you planning to overcome these problems?

Respectfully,
Myriad

jay howard

21st April 2010, 09:42 PM

You know what else ignites in a normal oxygen atmosphere at about 430 C and demonstrates violent exothermic reactions? Paper. Potato chips. Wood. Cotton. Carpet fibers. Bacon. Dried paint binder. Mummies. Very small rocks (if they're coal). Churches. Gravy (dried). Lead. A duck.

And how many of these materials could we expect to see in discernible amounts in the WTC dust? That narrows the list to paper, wood, carpet, paint and small rocks. Right?

We know it's not paper. Pretty sure we can rule out wood too. Are you o.k. with that so far?

We're left with carpet, paint/binder/industrial coating, and small mineral composites--presumably from the concrete, rockwool and other building materials.

Now of these, how many of them will produce iron and silicate microspheres when heated to 430C? And how many are composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles?

Respectfully,

Jh

.

Oystein

22nd April 2010, 10:25 AM

And how many of these materials could we expect to see in discernible amounts in the WTC dust? That narrows the list to paper, wood, carpet, paint and small rocks. Right?

Actually, the a-priori likelihood of finding ducks in the debris of a New York City building is a lot higher than the likelihood of finding thermite. We know that ducks are frequently seen in inner-city parks and waters, the same can not be said of thermite. So I would, ex-ante, exclude thermite much sooner than ducks.

We know it's not paper. Pretty sure we can rule out wood too. Are you o.k. with that so far?

I think we can rule out thermite too, because they have not found some of the elements you would very definitely find with any thermXte, and they have found their chips to have properties that are outside the range of any known thermite.

We're left with carpet, paint/binder/industrial coating, and small mineral composites--presumably from the concrete, rockwool and other building materials.

Now of these, how many of them will produce iron and silicate microspheres when heated to 430C? And how many are composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles?

Respectfully,

Jh

We don't know, and the Jones-team has done pracrtically no testing to rule anything out.

Now, since the ex-ante probabilities for finding carpet, paint/binder/industrial coating, and small mineral composites are very high (we know for a 100% fact that all of these were present in WTC7), the ex-ante probability for finding ducks is low but much higher than that for thermite, and since they have produced test results that rule out thermite but not paint, binder, coating or ducks, I'd say: Probably paint, binder or coating, ducks are a longshot, thermite unreasonable.

The Almond

22nd April 2010, 10:40 PM

Are you saying that none of the scientists are working within their area(s) of expertise?

What an interesting question! Let's look at the authors, and define their expertise based on 4 criteria, shall we?

1) # of papers published in peer reviewed, mainstream, high impact factor journals dealing with forensic analysis, composition of dust/ash, paint/pigment analysis, X-ray analysis, quantitative particle sizing, differential scanning calorimetry, automated particle analysis or thermite demolitions.

2) Dissertations or theses published to UMI database or listed as part of CV whose topics or methods were relevant to any of the above subjects.

3) Employment at a prestigious, well respected institute, company, academy, think tank or book club whose primary purpose is to research and conduct analyses in one of the above mentioned topics.

4) Membership in a professional society whose aim is to foster understanding of one/some/all of the above mentioned topics.

Now I'll list each author with 4 scores in each of the above categories, and I'll include myself in the list, for comparison.
1) Niels Harrit 1*,1,1,1

2) Jeffrey Farrer 1*,0,1,1

3) Steven Jones, 1,0,0,0

4) Kevin R. Ryan 0,0,0,0

5) Frank M. Legge 0,0,0,0

6) Daniel Farnsworth 0,0,0,0

7) Greg Roberts 0,0,0,0

8) James R Gourley 0,0,0,0

9) Bradley R Larsen 0,0,0,0

10) The Almond, 4,1,1,1

*I'm giving Farrer and Harrit a bonus credit for publishing extensively in fields not directly related to the above disciplines. Both have impressive publishing records in the areas of nano-technology and semiconductors/ceramics. Farrer especially is well published in Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD), a technique that would have been very useful given the subject matter in question, had it been used.

I think this exercise shows that most of the authors are operating wildly outside of their realm of expertise. The two most qualified scientists, despite being subject matter experts in areas unrelated to this particular paper, have never published or shown that they have researched the areas covered in the paper.

What do these claims of "failure" really amount to? Some people don't "like" the way the statistical data was presented

There were no statistical data presented which could be used to established the relevancy of the data.

or they don't "believe" the conductors of the tests knew how to conduct them.

Their methods were wrong. The conclusion is that they're incompetent.

These kinds of claims ultimately boil down to saying "I don't believe you."

Incorrect. It's the equivalent to saying to Jones et al, "You're all idiots, start over."

That's kind of you to share your opinion, but unless you have reason (beyond the psychological incongruities produced by their conclusions) it's simply an opinion--an opinion expressed by someone that almost undoubtedly knows less about the field in question that the researchers themselves.

See above. My master's thesis was on quantitative analysis of cementitious materials using SEM-EDX. My dissertation is on quantitative automated particle analysis of fly ash, bottom ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag and other supplementary cementitious materials. I eat, breathe, sleep and poop X-ray analysis, hyperspectral imaging, image processing, multivariate statistics, and surface chemistry. For the last 10 years, I've been doing nothing but XRF, XRD, EPMA, SEM, ICP-MS, LA-ICPMS, Auger/X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy. I know way, way, way more about this stuff than all of the authors combined, and I'm far more handsome, stylish, clean shaven, good smelling, pleasant and humble than they are.

Take The Almond's criticism of the size of the iron oxide particles. After claiming time and time again that he "closed the case" on their ubiquity in nature, it was pointed out that they do NOT exist in nature at that size in any construction material known to exist now or up to when the towers were destroyed.

It is unfortunate that your summary of the argument misses so many of the salient points and inaccurately summarizes the exchange. Iron oxide particles do exist in nature as a common component of dust and ash and within the size range you have arbitrarily defined. Iron oxide particles were identified in a 1967 book on pigments as being as small as 100 nm and were identified as an ocher pigment. Presented with references refuting your claim, you countered that it is difficult to make "uniformly" sized iron oxide particles based on your vast experience as a professional paint and pigment manufacturer (oh wait...). It was pointed out that a protective, anti-corrosive coating was applied to every major structural element in the tower, and that the manufacturer noted the specific use of iron oxide as a colorant. That was where the debate ended.

Still not convinced of this, he "does the real work" and goes to the public library where he finds reference books that talk about wavelengths of light in the 600-630 nm range as some kind of argument that these particles should be found in pigments.

This, too, misses many of the salient points of the previous debate. I went to the library in order to do research for a paper I'm working on. Having completed my more important tasks, I went over to the section on paints and pigments and selected, from among 100 or so texts, the 3 I thought would be easiest for you to find. All three texts confirmed the existence of iron oxide in the size range you identified and provided interesting (for me, at least) insight into the materials science of pigments, especially those comprised of iron oxide. It confirmed that uniformity in particle sizing is necessary for consistent colorization since the wavelength of the emitted light from the particles varies with their average diameter. Have you looked up the references yet? Or did you decide to shell out $600 for the McCrone Particle Atlas?

After having it pointed out that there is not even a contender material that these chips might be

False. The contender material is the material applied to every major structural member in the twin towers. It's up to Jones et al to eliminate it from consideration.

he claims that the pictures showing relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles from 4 different samples of the chips from the WTC dust, are NOT actually 100 nm. How?

Because particle sizing at the length scales of 100 nm is not trivial and scale bars applied to SEM images are an educated guess at best. I know this because I've been working with electron microscopes for the last 10 years. You don't know this because you haven't.

He claims the size reference bars in the pictures are not up to his high scientific standards.

Nor the standards of any of the journals I've published in. My scientific standards were developed and tempered by participation in the scientific community. It's sad that Farrer and Harrit are so ready to fling their process and method to the wind in order to further their demented world views.

(He is "only prepared to discuss scientifically relevant, valid, statistically robust data.")

The more important question is, why are you ready to believe that which is irrelevant, invalid and statistically questionable?

And apparently, the reference bars in the corners of the SE, BSE images are not scientifically relevant or robust enough because the authors don't state how those reference bars were calibrated.

At this point, I need to know from you: do you think this is a justified concern? That they need to demonstrate how they calibrated their reference bars in the electromicrographs?

Only if they think the particle sizing is important. They need to calibrate the bars and do an actual particle size analysis, with random sampling across a statistically relevant number of particles. They need to produce a histogram, determine the error budget and calculate the particle size distribution curve.

Unless, of course, Jones doesn't think the particle sizing is important. Then what? If it's not the smoking gun, what is?

Right. And there are some I certainly agree with: I would like to see what happens when they perform ignition experiments in an oxygen-free atmosphere. But whatever issues you have with their methodology, (unless you think they are outright liars), their other results are not automatically invalidated.

The issues with the methodology make their data irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. It is the author's job to establish relevancy. The data do not speak for themselves. This is the first thing you learn in graduate school when you start writing your thesis. We do not just throw a bunch of numbers in the air and say, "Make up your own mind!" The author establishes relevancy by means of appropriate experimental design, adherence to accepted methodology and the production of valid data from valid samples. Without that, the relevancy is not established.

None of it changes the fact that the by-products of the heated chips were iron and silicate microspheres. Nor do methodological criticisms change the fact that the chips ignited at around 430C and demonstrated violent exothermic reactions. This is demonstrable from the time-temperature curves. There is no getting around these facts. There is no getting around the fact that XEDS graphs demonstrated areas with high concentrations of Al and low concentrations of O and Si.

This is where your reasoning gets squirrely. The question for all of these supposed "data" points is, "So what?" So what if the chips ignite at 430 C? Most carbonaceous material will ignite at approximately that temperature in an oxygen rich environment. So what if it "made" microspheres? Such microspheres are a very common component of dust and ash. So what if their wildly inaccurate XEDS analysis showed more aluminum? Who cares?

What do these supposedly irrefutable data prove about the collapse of the WTC towers? The DSC data prove that the material can't be thermite. So then what?

Again, unless you think they are just straight scamming everyone, the kind of incredulity that passes for legitimate criticisms here are nothing but psychological dissonance packaged in nice words.

.

False choice fallacy. Also, repeating the same arguments over and over again is boring.