Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[The Almond]

If I may, I would like to point out something very wrong in the Jones, harrit, et al paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. He has a DSC trace of the red/grey chips, soaked in MEK (figure 29) in which he claims the peak to be thermite of some sort. However, 460C just happens to be the autoignition temperature of the methylethylketone.
I am sorry if this is already well known, there is just too much to go through to find out.

Good catch, and it certainly goes along with what a lot of other people with a semblance of competence have said before. The DSC results actually disprove the existence of thermite. Welcome to the forums, by the way.

[ergo]

I think there are even whole threads on this, but here's the latest:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7280536&postcount=1476

Do they have any evidence of this? No. (http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325) Has a study been done that refutes Harrit and Basile? No. (http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/03/listening-to-debunker-arguments-is-like.html) So why do they say it's paint? They're bedunkers. They'll say anything. They think it's normal for steel-framed highrises to plummet to the ground from local upper-floor failures. What can we expect?

[ergo]

Jono, here, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7281243&postcount=1505) says the paper's very data debunks its conclusions. The floor's yours, Jono!

[carlitos]

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

[ergo]

Sunstealer is going to publish a paper on it? When?

[ElMondoHummus]

I've already recommended to the moderators a move of this to this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

... since that's the topic being discussed.

[DGM]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
Ergo is not allowed to read that. It's not "truther" certified.

;)


If by chance you do read it ergo, what did he get wrong?

[DGM]

Sunstealer is going to publish a paper on it? When?
What did he get wrong?

[ergo]

I've already recommended to the moderators a move of this to this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

... since that's the topic being discussed.

That thread is two years old. Has Sunstealer published his findings yet?

[DGM]

That thread is two years old. Has Sunstealer published his findings yet?
Did he get something wrong?

[ergo]

Anytime DGM starts spamming a thread, I know I've asked some questions that aren't going to be answered...

Jono, where did you go?

[Mr. Skinny]

That thread is two years old. Has Sunstealer published his findings yet?
Did Sunstealer have access to samples of the WTC dust that Harrit analyzed?

I wasn't aware that they were making samples available so that others could try to replicate his analysis. Without the samples, you can't really do a peer review to see if the science is repeatable. The best you can do is point out apparent flaws in the existing research.

[1337m4n]

Uh-huh. So what did he get wrong?

[DGM]

Anytime DGM starts spamming a thread, I know I've asked some questions that aren't going to be answered...

Jono, where did you go?
So you can't answer what he got wrong?

Why don't you have it independently verified by someone with no connection to 9/11?

[ergo]

Did Sunstealer have access to samples of the WTC dust that Harrit analyzed?

I wasn't aware that they were making samples available so that others could try to replicate his analysis. Without the samples, you can't really do a peer review to see if the science is repeatable. The best you can do is point out apparent flaws in the existing research.

Fair enough, Mr. Skinny. Were samples requested? And by whom? Is there some reason to believe that other WTC dust would not have the same material?

[16.5]

Well, is this the thread where we point out that Dr. Jones has apparantly lost his mind?

Ergo? You know the whole earthquake making machine?

Ergo, thanks for dredging up one of the truthers most ridiculous moments ever.

Quality thread, Ergo stamped and CERTIFIED!

[TheRedWorm]

So you can't say what he got wrong, right?

[ergo]

Quality thread, Ergo stamped and CERTIFIED!

Thanks!

So, where is the paper that Sunstealer published?

[Mr. Skinny]

Fair enough, Mr. Skinny. Were samples requested? And by whom? Is there some reason to believe that other WTC dust would not have the same material?
I'm not sure if samples were requested or by whom (if at all). I'd have request samples of the material if I had become aware they were available, but the truthers I polled on the forum said they wouldn't accept any results that came from a government laboratory, so I more or less quit paying attention to that part of the issue. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it.

And I don't believe other WTC dust samples would be acceptable. It's possible that other samples could be radically different than Harrit's sample, depending on where they were collected.

[DGM]

Thanks!

So, where is the paper that Sunstealer published?
It was published on this forum. As far as I can see it's all the atention it needs.

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

Is that not good enough for you?

What did he get wrong?

[ergo]

I'm not sure if samples were requested or by whom (if at all). I'd have request samples of the material if I had become aware they were available, but the truthers I polled on the forum said they wouldn't accept any results that came from a government laboratory, so I more or less quit paying attention to that part of the issue. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it.

And I don't believe other WTC dust samples would be acceptable. It's possible that other samples could be radically different than Harrit's sample, depending on where they were collected.

So, no one ever approached Harrit to request his samples? Did Sunstealer try?

[ergo]

it was published on this forum. As far as i can see it's all the atention it needs.

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

is that not good enough for you?



My laughing-so-hard-it-hurts smiley doesn't appear to be working ;)

[DGM]

Notice how ergo tries to shift away from the content of the paper.


:rolleyes:

[DGM]

My laughing-so-hard-it-hurts smiley doesn't appear to be working ;)
I (we) noticed you edited out a line in my post.

What did he get wrong?

[ergo]

Notice how ergo tries to shift away from the content of the paper.


I'm sure you know so much about it, DGM...:rolleyes:

[Mr. Skinny]

So, no one ever approached Harrit to request his samples? Did Sunstealer try?
Did you read my post that you quoted?

I don't know how you jump from "Skinny doesn't know" to "So, no one ever approached Harrit..." etc.

It's no wonder other people here find you to be insufferable.

At least read the post you quote and comment on. Certainly you can do that much.

[beachnut]

So, no one ever approached Harrit to request his samples? Did Sunstealer try?
You failed to read the paper. When they tested their samples, the energy did not match thermite. Darn, they debunked themselves like you do. This is why no real journal would publish their fake paper, so they had to pay to have it published, vanity journal.

[NoahFence]

Notice how ergo tries to shift away from the content of the paper.


:rolleyes:

And this is surprising.....

why?


Ergo - why not start by telling the class why this is important in the first place?

[ergo]

At least read the post you quote and comment on. Certainly you can do that much.

Well, you'll notice that I posed it as a question, and not a statement of fact. Since someone else here suggested that Harrit and Jones were refusing to share their samples, the question needs to be asked: Did anyone ask for them?

But fair enough, Mr. Skinny! We have you down as "I DON'T KNOW."

[DGM]

Well, you'll notice that I posed it as a question, and not a statement of fact. Since someone else here suggested that Harrit and Jones were refusing to share their samples, the question needs to be asked: Did anyone ask for them?

But fair enough, Mr. Skinny! We have you down as "I DON'T KNOW."
Put me down as "I don't need it , I will use their data".

Thanks

:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

Well, you'll notice that I posed it as a question, and not a statement of fact. Since someone else here suggested that Harrit and Jones were refusing to share their samples, the question needs to be asked: Did anyone ask for them?

But fair enough, Mr. Skinny! We have you down as "I DON'T KNOW."
The stuff looks like clay. Did you look up the chemicals Jones has in his chips? The sad part is bringing thermite to a jet fuel fire is insanity. Jet fuel has ten times the energy of Jones's failed paint chips, clay covering, what ever it is. 10 Times the energy is in jet fuel, and the office fires have more energy. Plastics have over ten times the energy of thermite. So you are backing idiots who say thermite did it, when office fires did it, like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

They have carbon in their thermite, there is no carbon in thermite. Darn, you should have read the paper.

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, you'll notice that I posed it as a question, and not a statement of fact.
So, Harrit is a lousy analytical chemist then? Is he even a chemist?

Notice that I phrased this as a question, not a statement of fact.
Since someone else here suggested that Harrit and Jones were refusing to share their samples, the question needs to be asked: Did anyone ask for them?
As previously stated: I don't know.

But fair enough, Mr. Skinny! We have you down as "I DON'T KNOW."

[ergo]

Put me down as "I don't need it , I will use their data".


Sure, but I'm not sure that's really saying much.

Bedunkers and data is like babies and spaghetti.

[brazenlilraisin]

Truthers and data is like Superman and Kryptonite.

[DGM]

Sure, but I'm not sure that's really saying much.

Bedunkers and data is like babies and spaghetti.
So what did Sunstealer get wrong (speaking of data and your accusation he botched something)?


:rolleyes:

[Drudgewire]

Bedunkers and data is like babies and spaghetti.


Debunkers and data make good taco fillings too?

[alienentity]

Ever pause to consider why, a couple of years after publishing their initial paper, neither Harrit nor Jones have taken the simple, scientific step of testing their paint chips in an inert gas?
After all, if they did this they could PROVE it was really nanothermite giving off the energy, and not some other organics.

Why have they not done this?

Also, years ago Jones mentioned that Jeff Farrer had been in touch with some real nanothermite experts, notably Dr Tillotson. I wonder what Dr. Tillotson had to say about the exchange.....funny that Jones, Harrit and Farrer have gone completely silent about the whole thing.

You'd almost think they'd found out something and didn't want to tell the Truther community about it. But why? What would suddenly cause them to give up when they'd already made allegations for 5 years and lectured everywhere on it? (Harrit still is lecturing)

Perhaps they found out that it really isn't nanothermite. I think that's the real answer.

Back to you, Ergo. ;)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sunstealer is going to publish a paper on it? When?

As soon as Harrit and Jones publish a paper.

Let us know when that happens, k?

[ElMondoHummus]

This is agument for arguments sake and unproductive. It's time to shut the door on the silly objection being raised here. The important thing is not Sunstealer's replication of Jones experiments; rather, it's the gross errors that Sunstealer identified in the Jones/Harrit paper. Whether or not he tried to independently validate their data is irrelevant; the errors themselves are present in the paper whether or not Sunstealer does his own tests on the chips. No one needs to replicate X-EDS spectra in order to point out that the individual elements Jones/Harrit's data shows as present are those found in kaolinite, and nobody needs to replicate the photomicrography in order to point out that the morphology of the platelets Jones & Harrit identified are entirely consistent with the same. In fact, for both of those it would be stupid to so that because the point of the critique is to show what the authors claimed about was entirely unjustified by the data they presented.

The critique is not of the data; it's of the claims made about the very data the present, as well as the conclusions drawn from that.

What truthers are ignoring is this: The damning analysis is damning because it uses Jones's and Harrit's own data and shows where they got things wrong. No one has to replicate an experiment to show that Jones, Harrit, Farrar, Legge, etc. screwed the pooch in their data interpretation.

[16.5]

Thanks!

So, where is the paper that Sunstealer published?

Hell, sport, where is the "peer reviewed" paper that Jones and the rest of the mutts published?

It turns out the peer reviewers were actually Jones' truther buddies.

Ooops.

Keep on plucking that chicken, ergo!

[LashL]

These two threads have been merged and I've taken the original thread off of [Moderated] status but if members cannot abide by the Membership Agreement, and remain civil and polite, sans petty sniping and bickering, it will go back on [Moderated] status.

[twinstead]

ergo, even if in your mind the correct answer to "what did he get wrong?" is "has Sunstealer published his findings yet?", this thread would be much more interesting if you would swallow your pride and actually tell this layman what he got wrong. I'm honestly interested in your opinions about it.

Otherwise it's just mindless bickering.

[alienentity]

Just to touch on the subject of the repercussions of the Jones/Harrit paper, please note that Dr Jones has had ample opportunity to answer to the lingering questions, yet has not done so.

It's remarkable that he persisted for a few years culminating in the paper, then has apparently drifted away into the 'free energy' realm. Has he given up on nanothermite because he realizes it isn't in the WTC dust?

I say 'yes'. I think he's smart enough to know that nanothermite is a dead end. His followers generally are not nearly as informed or intelligent, and will continue to plug the dead nanothermite canard for years to come, without a doubt.

REminds me a little of the guys who started the whole 'crop circle' phenomenon - they did it as a hoax, they've admitted it was a hoax, but amazingly crop circle fanatics don't believe them.... boggles the mind, it does.

Jones' latest escapade, for your information:

http://freeenergy.tv/solid-state-devices/dr-steven-e-jones-20x-overunity-circuit-pt-1/

[triforcharity]

Thanks!

So, where is the paper that Sunstealer published?

As soon as Jonses' is, then there might be some kind of legitimate discussion on it......

[Oz1976]

Thanks!

So, where is the paper that Sunstealer published?

Where's the Paper that Harrit published in a peer reviewed chemical engineering / scientific journal? Oh right...the Bentham fiasco...yeah...

Please find for me in any one of these journals where his "science" on "thermite" is published and I'll gladly read it with an open mind.

Chemistry
Accounts of Chemical Research
Angewandte Chemie
Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan
Canadian Journal of Chemistry
Chemical Communications
Chemical Reviews
Chemistry Letters
Journal of the American Chemical Society
Helvetica Chimica Acta

Physics
Acta Crystallographica-- parts A, B
Advances in Physics
American Journal of Physics
Journal of Physics - parts A-D, G
Nature Physics
New Journal of Physics
Physical Review - parts A-E and Physical Review Letters
Reports on Progress in Physics
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

Engineering
Advances in Production Engineering & Management
Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering
Fluid Phase Equilibria
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
International Journal of Functional Informatics and Personalized Medicine
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Journal of the IEST
NASA Tech Briefs
The Post Office Electrical Engineers' Journal
Radioelectronics and Communications Systems

Materials Science
Advanced Materials
Advanced Composite Materials
Advanced Functional Materials
JOM
Journal of Electronic Materials
Light Metal Age
Materials Today
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions
Nature Materials
Science and Technology of Advanced Materials
Computational Materials Science

Any paper at all in any one of these will suffice supporting your idiotic claims. You want to use your brain? Tell me, why would the "scholars for 9/11 truth and justice" need to create their own journal for "peer reviewed" publishing? Why? Why could they not submit their papers to recognized respected journals? Are the journals and scientists and editors of those journals in on it too?

[Africanus]

So, Harrit is a lousy analytical chemist then? Is he even a chemist?

Yes, he is! He spent his whole career on studying photochemistry. But I don't know wether this qualifies him of investigating this chips. I'd suppose not.

Ever pause to consider why, a couple of years after publishing their initial paper, neither Harrit nor Jones have taken the simple, scientific step of testing their paint chips in an inert gas?
After all, if they did this they could PROVE it was really nanothermite giving off the energy, and not some other organics.


We should not forget that Harrit wanted to carry out tests on the nature of the organic component of his red/gray chips. I haven't read anything on that topic. Did he make any progress?

[Mr. Skinny]

Yes, he is! He spent his whole career on studying photochemistry. But I don't know wether this qualifies him of investigating this chips. I'd suppose not.
I had to look up photochemistry. Like you, I don't know whether this qualifies him or not. I'll have to investigate further.

We should not forget that Harrit wanted to carry out tests on the nature of the organic component of his red/gray chips. I haven't read anything on that topic. Did he make any progress?I'm in the "I don't know" category on that one as well.

I would love to have a sample of the material they analyzed though.

[ergo]

So when/where do bedunkers refute the findings?

[Edx]

Sunstealer is going to publish a paper on it? When?

Why does he need to publish it?

[twinstead]

So when/where do bedunkers refute the findings?

The big collective YAWN from respected scientific organizations anywhere on Earth is quite the refutation in my mind. Oh, yea. I forgot. You keep forgetting just how much in the abject minority your little cult is.

Carry on

[pgimeno]

Thanks!

So, where is the paper that Sunstealer published?

I don't know where is the paper that Sunstealer published. I know where is the paper that Harrit, Jones et al. published. It turns out to be a vanity publisher that accepts any articles to those who pay (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html). It turns out the editor-in-chief was not informed of the publication (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353) and she felt stabbed in the back (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html). It turns out the publisher is infamous in the scientific world (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4619501#post4619501) for the low quality of the publications it produces. Sunstealer's publication in this forum is on par with the scientific guarantees provided by Bentham (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5308975&postcount=39). Maybe more: Sunstealer is specialized in materials science, and therefore qualified to identify the material in question; none of the authors of the paper published in Bentham was.

It turns out the paper is full of methodological errors which you have not cared to even attempt to address (which was the topic of this thread in the first place). Where did they compare the samples to the Tnemec primer used to protect the WTC steel? Where is a calorimetric test in absence of oxygen? Where is a categorization of the chips instead of treating them all as the same thing, despite the clear differences in the spectra and shape (see figs. 11 and 14 and photographs 2 and 31)? What are the elements missing in fig. 15? Why do they say it's thermite if the energy density does not correspond to that of thermite? And so and so on...

The only person who was allowed access to the samples for corroboration, a truther too, found no traces of active thermitic material. At best, this debunks their claims that the dust contains high quantities of such active material. To me, it proves that the authors neglected to check the presence of iron microspheres prior to the burning in the samples that went through DSC (which we don't know where they came from as there is no categorization of chips as stated above, but figure 21 proves it's not the same thing as the ones in Fig. 11).

[TruthersLie]

Sunstealer is going to publish a paper on it? When?

Just as soon as Jones and company publish theirs in any real journal...

when will that be again?

[Oz1976]

So when/where do bedunkers refute the findings?

Why did you ignore This Post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7281899#post7281899)? I woud like to know where the Harrit paper is published in any one of those please. Or any 9/11 Truther paper for that matter.

[Oystein]

If I may, I would like to point out something very wrong in the Jones, harrit, et al paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. He has a DSC trace of the red/grey chips, soaked in MEK (figure 29) in which he claims the peak to be thermite of some sort. However, 460C just happens to be the autoignition temperature of the methylethylketone.
I am sorry if this is already well known, there is just too much to go through to find out.
Good catch, and it certainly goes along with what a lot of other people with a semblance of competence have said before. The DSC results actually disprove the existence of thermite. Welcome to the forums, by the way.

Actually, no, that is not a good catch. The premise is wrong: The chips whose DSC trace is repeated in fig. 29 is one of the 4 chips plotted earlier in fig. 19, and is NOT the chip that was soaked in MEK.
Besides, ignition point of that sample was slightly below 460°C.
However, in that range, many common organic materials autoignite. For example many resins used for paints. Since we know from Harrit and Co. that their anorganic stuff in the red layer was embedded in an organic matrix, and since we know that the hematite they found is a very common pigment and that the kaolinite they found is a very common ingredient of paints, it stands to reason that indeed a resin, or similar stuff, burned in that DSC, and not a solvent.

[Africanus]

So when/where do bedunkers refute the findings?

The refutation is in Harrit's paper. There is no further refutation necessary.

[ElMondoHummus]

The refutation is in Harrit's paper. There is no further refutation necessary.

While terse, this is quite literally true. And it's also what Sunstealer had been pointing out all along: The data disproves the conclusion the authors drew. The X-EDS spectra and maps, in conjunction with the scanning electron micrography, rather clearly shows the presence of kaolin and the absence of free aluminum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658). The refutation to Jones's and Harrit's claims are, quite literally, in the pages before their conclusions.

[16.5]

While terse, this is quite literally true. And it's also what Sunstealer had been pointing out all along: The data disproves the conclusion the authors drew. The X-EDS spectra and maps, in conjunction with the scanning electron micrography, rather clearly shows the presence of kaolin and the absence of free aluminum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658). The refutation to Jones's and Harrit's claims are, quite literally, in the pages before their conclusions.

Didn't they also prove that the substance emitted more energy than therm*te could theoretically release?

[ElMondoHummus]

Didn't they also prove that the substance emitted more energy than therm*te could theoretically release?

Yeah, but they attempted a handwave of an excuse: That the supposed sol-gel binder burnt and was the cause of the energy surplus.

Or in short, they admitted the flaw, but pretended it wasn't one. :rolleyes:

And oddly enough, that excuse is potentially contradicted by their data too: There's only a single exotherm on the calorimeter graph. While (as some here have pointed out to be fair) this could simply mean that two reactions did indeed occur, and one just happened to touch off another, the other explanation is that there was only one, single reaction. And in the context of knowing what was available to burn and what wasn't, I'd personally have to say that the latter is far more likely.

Pseudoscience. That's what the Bentham paper was. Or more accurately, Cargo Cult Science: The superficial rituals of science carried out without the deeper understanding, all to achieve a specific end.

[Africanus]

While terse, this is quite literally true. And it's also what Sunstealer had been pointing out all along: The data disproves the conclusion the authors drew. ... The X-EDS spectra and maps, in conjunction with the scanning electron micrography, rather clearly shows the presence of kaolin and the absence of free aluminum[/URL]. The refutation to Jones's and Harrit's claims are, quite literally, in the pages before their conclusions.

I am very familar with Sunstealer's efforts, he did a great job!

The problem with Harrits paper is that there are lots of contradictions and some unanswered questions:

1. Why are the chips magnetic? You cannot explain this property on the basis of the presented data.

2. Why are temperatures greater than 3000°C necessary to ignite chips that react violently at 430°C?

3. Why differs the morphology of the investigated chips from the morphology of the nanothermite that was prepared by Gash?

4. In Fig. 21 and Fig. 25 two EDX spectra of DSC residues are depicted. Both spectra differ quite a lot. How can this be explained? Harrit claims that the chips are very similar in their chemical setup and that the reaction conditions were similar, too.

5. What is the composition of the organic part of the chips? It's very astonishing that an organic chemist doesn't examine the residue of the MEK test (NMR or FTIR).

[Sunstealer]

The refutation is in Harrit's paper. There is no further refutation necessary.Yep, the data speaks for itself. Ergo hasn't got the knowledge or experience to make an informed decision nor argue against any points in a refutation.

The paper is trash, easily the worst scientific paper I've ever read by a large margin. Undergraduates would be ashamed of writing such rubbish. The authors haven't continued the work most likely because there's no mileage in it.

8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?

We observe that the total energy released from some of
the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone
(3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the
red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical
compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red
material would promote understanding. Further studies of the
red material (separated from the gray material) compared to
known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.)
analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and
GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify
the organic material.

We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers.

In addition, the gray-layer material demands further
study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears
in multiple layers, as seen in Fig. (32).Has any of this vitally important work ever been carried out?

Now I've read that again I'm falling about laughing. What's the purpose of the mysterious gray layer? Wooooo. Find out after the break as we enter the twighlight zone. Harrit et al hadn't got a clue, they were stumbling around in the dark.

[Sunstealer]

You can also tell that they had next to no experience in materials characterisation from Oystein's post here http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7161801&postcount=593

The fact that they had to perform further testing to confirm hematite when a quick visit to wiki (or JREF a couple of days after publishing) would have confirmed it in 5 minutes, shows they had no idea - it's so obvious it's amazing they didn't know.

How anyone falls for the claptrap I don't know.

[16.5]

JOnesy et al: "One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic."

Is there any organic material that is NOT energetic??

[twinstead]

Is there any organic material that is NOT energetic??

One that is overweight and doesn't eat properly?

[DGM]

Is there any organic material that is NOT energetic??

Seems you have no knowledge of teenagers in the morning (or when work is mentioned).

:D

[R.Mackey]

JOnesy et al: "One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic."

Is there any organic material that is NOT energetic??

Nope. Any organic material will combust with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water, quite possibly with something left over. Some are more energetic than others, but this reaction is always possible by definition.

[ElMondoHummus]

Has any of this vitally important work ever been carried out?


The real question is, why wasn't it the first thing they did? :cool:

[Edx]

Now I've read that again I'm falling about laughing. What's the purpose of the mysterious gray layer? Wooooo. Find out after the break as we enter the twighlight zone. Harrit et al hadn't got a clue, they were stumbling around in the dark.

Remember on the Jesse Ventura show when Jones said that when painted onto steel nano thermite becomes a high explosive?

Oh lol!

[Sunstealer]

I was reading some of henryco's analysis the other week.

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

He's got red/red chips which I think that means just red flakes with no other layer - his methodology and analysis is poor - there's no comparison with data in the harrit paper.

Anyway he claims to have heated these red/red chips to 800/900°C and found that the carbon was being burnt. i.e. less carbon in the spectra post heating.

[Sunstealer]

The real question is, why wasn't it the first thing they did? :cool:Exactly. You would also want confirmation from an independent lab before announcing such an "explosive" discovery. They still won't do that - I think they know that they'd be exposed if they did.

[ElMondoHummus]

Exactly. You would also want confirmation from an independent lab before announcing such an "explosive" discovery. They still won't do that - I think they know that they'd be exposed if they did.

From a scientific viewpoint, the work is woefully incomplete (and incompetently executed as well), but I don't see science and discovery as having been their goals to begin with. The point of the work was to give conspiracy addicts something legitimate looking to use. From a conspiracy peddler's point of view, mission accomplished.

The whole point was never to really, truly identify the chips. They already knew what they wanted to say the chips were. Rather, the goal was to create suspicions, and make conspiracy fantasy look marginally legitimate. Because of that, this work is already a finished product; all that remains is the proselytization of it.

Of course, Sunstealer knows this; I'm just "thinking out loud" for the benefit of other readers.

[lijebaley01]

Has anyone noticed in Harrit's paper that photos in Figs 23 and 26 are of the same chunk of Silvery-gray spheroids, being both Residue of red chip subjected to flame test and are seen after the ignition test of red/gray chip? Well, which is it, from a red chip, or from a red/gray chip? Let's see what they use for their flame test..... a small oxyacetylene flame (oxyacetylene is capable of temperatures above 6000F). Well, that is a surprise that the gray (iron) melted and formed sheroids at 6000F.
If that isn't proof of thermite, I don't know what is.

[Africanus]

Has anyone noticed in Harrit's paper that photos in Figs 23 and 26 are of the same chunk of Silvery-gray spheroids, being both Residue of red chip subjected to flame test and are seen after the ignition test of red/gray chip? Well, which is it, from a red chip, or from a red/gray chip? Let's see what they use for their flame test..... a small oxyacetylene flame (oxyacetylene is capable of temperatures above 6000F). Well, that is a surprise that the gray (iron) melted and formed sheroids at 6000F.
If that isn't proof of thermite, I don't know what is.

Even more interesting is the comparison of the EDX spectra in Fig. 21, Fig. 25 and Fig. 26. Harrit claims that the spectra in Fig. 21 and Fig. 25 are both of "post-DSC residues". But those two spectra are quite different. In contrast the spectra in Fig. 25 and Fig. 26 are very similar. My conclusion is that the spectrum in Fig. 25 is not the spectrum of a "post-DSC residue" but of a "high temperature residue".

[leftysergeant]

Let's see what they use for their flame test..... a small oxyacetylene flame (oxyacetylene is capable of temperatures above 6000F). Well, that is a surprise that the gray (iron) melted and formed sheroids at 6000F.
If that isn't proof of thermite, I don't know what is.

That part always bothered me. I have been looking for an oxyacetylene torch small enough to be used, as the giggling old doofus stated, to repair eyeglasses.

:eye-poppi

I have seen people use butane torches that small to solder eyeglass frames.

Is it possible that the blithering idiot doesn't know the difference between a welding torch and a soldering torch?

Is it possible that these cretins actually used butane torches for all the tests, thus invalidating all of their conclusions?

(Hint: they are not all that bright and they do not pay a lot of attention to detail.)

I want to see video of them performing their alleged "tests."

[kmortis]

I've moved the discussion of henryco's paper off to its own thread. Please discuss it there (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=222025). Thanks.

[OCaptain]

Hey, apologies if this has been explained already in the Jones/Harrit therm*te discussions, but the thought only now occurred to me. I know that J and H have gone to great pains to mention that some of the dust in which they believe they've identified thermite came from an apartment window frame some distance away from the WTC. They use this to answer the charge that the dust could have been collected during or after cleanup from GZ, and been contaminated by thermite used in beam disassembly.

But, I haven't heard anyone address the question of where on GZ samples were collected, AND if any were collected at WTC7?

[GlennB]

Hey, apologies if this has been explained already in the Jones/Harrit therm*te discussions, but the thought only now occurred to me. I know that J and H have gone to great pains to mention that some of the dust in which they believe they've identified thermite came from an apartment window frame some distance away from the WTC. They use this to answer the charge that the dust could have been collected during or after cleanup from GZ, and been contaminated by thermite used in beam disassembly.

But, I haven't heard anyone address the question of where on GZ samples were collected, AND if any were collected at WTC7?

The Bentham article (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf) explains the provenance of the four samples used. The results from the window-sill sample were apparently not published.

[Oystein]

Hey, apologies if this has been explained already in the Jones/Harrit therm*te discussions, but the thought only now occurred to me. I know that J and H have gone to great pains to mention that some of the dust in which they believe they've identified thermite came from an apartment window frame some distance away from the WTC. They use this to answer the charge that the dust could have been collected during or after cleanup from GZ, and been contaminated by thermite used in beam disassembly.

But, I haven't heard anyone address the question of where on GZ samples were collected, AND if any were collected at WTC7?

First of all, I never heard anyone, let alone a debunker, claim or suspect that thermite was used in the clean-up operations. Thermite ist sometimes used to weld steel, sometimes to destroy machinery, but I am not aware that it is useful or even superior for cutting up debris. Do you have a source on that?


Secondly, the four samples that H and J used were (ordered by time of collection):

2/b - Delessio: Brooklyn Bridge handrail, just after second tower fell, and long before WTC7 fell and any clean-up began
4/d - White: 8th floor apartment about 5 blocks away from GZ, near open window, on morning of 9/12. Very little cutting of debris yet, if any at all
3/c - Intermont: Loft about 5 blocks away from GZ (near 4/d), on 9/12 after lunch
1/a - MacKinlay: Apartment across from GZ, collected a week later. Contamination with clean-up materials possible

They tell of a fifth sample that was analysed but not included in the study:

5 - undisclosed source: Window sill, "Potter Street", undisclosed date.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no Potter Street in NYC. There is a Potter Avenue in Staten Island, about 9 miles south-west of GZ. As the prevailing winds blew dust to east-south east that morning, I doubt that this the correct location, only miniscule amounts of WTC dust would have made it to S.I.
So I don't understand how this (lack of) information answers in any way any claims of any contamination. If it was collected a long way away from GZ, it is probably mostly anything but GZ stuff. Do you have a source for the claim that Jones and Harrit used this sample for anything?



Thirdly, as the list above shows, none of the samples were from GZ, and it is impossible to track them to any individual building. However sample 2/b was collected before WTC7 fell, so that rules out contamination by either WTC7 material or clean-up procedures.


Fourthly, while I am not aware that the provenance of the samples has been discussed anywhere in great analytical depth, other than mention of the obvious problem that none were collected by experts, were expertly stored, and seamlessly protocolled. It is hard to assess the individual validity of the samples. I know however of now good reason to question and dismiss the provenance. I think it is best to assume good faith until reasons are found to be more than generally skeptical.


Lastly, you may want to check out my thread "Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=214739)". There, we present what we think is a much better explanation for the data of J and H, namely that the red-gray chips are the the standard primer of LaClede steel company on oxidized, flaked-off LaClede steel surface from twin tower floor joists.