[Moderated] New Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper [Archive]

metamars

11th April 2009, 04:36 PM

JREF member Sunstealer has done a very credible job in discussing the article recently paid for by Professor Jones.

I find it hard to believe that the only possible explanation for Professor Jones' data is SunStealer's interpretation. Below, I reproduce my posts suggesting other ways to get platelet morphology aluminotherics. I made one essential correction. The text now reads "Besides packing more Al per unit volume, a platelet morphology, by maximizing the ratio of Al to Al oxide, ...." , instead of "Besides packing more Al per unit volume, a platelet morphology, by minimizing the ratio of Al to Al oxide, ...."

==========================================

Playing with Platelets

There may be other options. E.g., you can buy silicon in nano-scale platelet form (http://www.primetprecision.com/index.php?id=74&tx_knowledge_pi1).

You can deposit Al onto silicon via sputtering (http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/bin.asp?CID=3079&DID=189783&DOC=FILE.PDF).

( and perhaps other methods of physical vapor deposition? not sure if this means elemental Al )

As for the motivation to do so, I have absolutely no idea about cost (and absolutely no intention to research it), but aside from that, referring to "MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-11022007-144001/unrestricted/Francis_Andrew_Thesis.pdf)"

we see that:

nanometer scale spherical particles in nanothermite are 20-120 nm

oxide shell thickness is 1-8 nm

consider middling values of 50 nm and 4 nm, about 26% of your particle is taken up in the oxide shell. You are also wasting the space in between spheres.

Perhaps platelets made on nano-silicon platelet substrates help you pack more elemental Al, per unit volume. Especially if Al-oxide shells are "sticky" as they form Al nanothermite in the normal, spherical form, thus leaving huge pockets of empty space to fill. (BTW, IIRC, the Ph.D. thesis I linked to gets into compressing nanopowders. If not that one, then definitely the master's thesis mentioned above.)

If it does this, and saves you money, that would be a double motivation for doing so.

Once again, I remind everybody that I am not a domain expert. Thus, my sputtering speculations may sputter!

Playing with Platelets, part 2

Another speculation as to platelets vs. spherical:

The MODELING thesis says:

Quote:
A combination of increased oxide shell formation temperature and increased oxide shell strength could be used to maximize the flame velocity in particles with increased relative particle size.

Besides packing more Al per unit volume, a platelet morphology, by maximizing the ratio of Al to Al oxide, might result in not just more energy, but relatively less power (i.e., a slower reaction). For one thing, I expect the oxide layer to break near the platelet edges (this is an uneducated guess, I hasten to add), and to do so under less pressure than would be required to break an oxide layer of equal thickness in the spherical case. * This would tend to negate the dispersion melt mechanism as a contributor to flame propagation. Hence, your nanothermite will have it's power profile shifted back towards that of the micron-thermite type, while simultaneously generating more total energy.

If you look at Fig. 1 of MODELING, you can see that Aluminothermics already have dramatically superior energy density (per unit mass) than high explosives, but the energy density, per unit volume, of Al/Fe2O3 is only about 40% greater than high explosives. You can't change the inherent mass of reactants, but you can fiddle with the density. If you simultaneously increase the energy per unit volume, while slowing down the reaction, you can end up with a hotter, but quieter "explosion".

* from MODELING:
Quote:
The pressure inside the Al particle causes tensile hoop stress (σh) in the oxide shell. Due to the small thickness of the oxide shell (1 – 8 nm), it is almost defect free and therefore its ultimate strength (σu) approaches the theoretical maximum strength of alumina (σth) estimated at 11.33 GPa [11].

T.A.M.

11th April 2009, 04:53 PM

I am very appreciative of the moderated status of this new thread.

As it is new, and so as not to lose my points/areas of concern, I will restate them here.

1. Jones' Analysis was biased, and focused on finding a particular outcome from the get go. As a result, the analysis and subsequent paper ignore, or at best GLAZE OVER the issue of other possible sources of their Red/Grey Chips.

2. Jones' did not address, outside of a dismissive "it is contamination" the presence of Chromium and Zinc in at least one sample, and with this in mind, the possibility that the Sodium spikes in the Spectra, may have also been Zinc. There was no washing of the samples in order to eliminate contamination as a possiblity (or to rule it in).

3. All of the other LEGITIMATE analysis of dust from the WTC GZ had a considerable quantity of Paint in the dust samples. Yet there is no mention of paint particles within the samples that Jones had, and if they were found, how they were separated from the red/grey chips. I find the magnet method poor, because as we all know, paint from the WTC could have been found in the form of bilayered particles, due to peel off or rust/corrosion, and as a result, a magnet would work on them also.

4. I have a problem with the Journal that Jones selected to submit/publish his article with. There is mention of a personal connection between one of the lead scientists producing the paper, and the editorial board. There is a wealth of information indicating that the journal is a "Vanity" "Pay to publish" journal that solicited for members of the editorial boards for its various journals via viral email schemes to unqualified, unrelated (in field of knowledge) academics.

TAM:)

metamars

11th April 2009, 05:10 PM

You can deposit Al onto silicon via sputtering (http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/bin.asp?CID=3079&DID=189783&DOC=FILE.PDF).

The paper states that they can do this at the rate of .23 nm / sec. That was back in 1988.

Sunstealer

11th April 2009, 08:26 PM

I'll start by thanking 16.5.

I planned to do something similar, but it seems the original thread has ended quicker than anticipated.

I also think it's essential that a link to Jones' (God someone put me out of my misery and tell me that damn apostrophe is in the right place or that I need to add an S or ES or something!) paper is in order otherwise we won't know what we are talking about, eh 16.5? ;) :p

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

I suggest people download it and open it whenever they wish to comment because it's going to get referenced alot. When people quote from the paper it helps immensely if the page number, the chip sample (*see below) and/or the diagram or graph (Fig #) is also stated so that it can be referenced quickly.

In time I will get a better prepared and fully correlated response using material from the other thread (better google cache that then!) and other sources. You'll all be aware that anything that isn't on the web doesn't exist, so I need to ensure all sources have links etc. ;)

I'd also like to say that there were a couple of posts I would have liked to have replied to in the closed thread, because they were relevant ones and deserve a scientific and civil response namely Bill's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4608942&postcount=1793) and metamars (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4609058&postcount=1823)

I'm sure I'll have time to answer them, in the mean time here is a table (or maybe pic if I can get it sorted at this late hour) that breaks down the samples in Jones' paper and shows which experiments were carried out on each sample (that helps everyone understand what was done to each) therefore enhancing understanding. It might not be 100% correct at this moment, because I've still still look at post DSC; photo/SEM/EDS analysis in depth (and word 2007 is a PITA- grrrr [yes I know open office but I don't have it on this machine). Feel free to comment/correct/ask questions though.

* Do people agree that the following is correct so far? It's not crystal clear from the paper, but I'm working my way through it - boy does that take time. Any comments would be helpful - this is a WIP.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=866

Senenmut

11th April 2009, 08:38 PM

this might have been posted already. this is the danish researcher, niels harrit, doing an interview on tv. it has been translated to english.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DQjBfbn24

pteridine

11th April 2009, 11:01 PM

leftysergeant

11th April 2009, 11:45 PM

Jones' samples do not appear to me to all have the exact same make-up. There is zinc chromate, an obvious indicator that we may be looking at rust-inhibiting paint, in some of them, but not in others. There are varied concentrations from one chip to another of those elements which are found in all the chips.

Excuse me, but, if you are going to the trouble of producing nano-banano demolition films, are you not gooing to take steps to ensure that each anmd every piece of it is the same thickness and has the same concentration of each and every reagent? I fail to see how the sooper-dooper ther*te would function in anything like a predictable manner if there were expanses of the film over which not all the neccessary components were found.

Paint is, however, quite another matter.

If the vehicle is evenly distributed throughout, it is going to work as paint The vehicle is an utterly homogeneous liquid substance. It suspends the fillers and pigments in order to stick them to the surface to be painted.

If it is not stirred properly, the fillers and pigmments will be present in different concentrations throughout a sample of still-liquid paint, perhaps in a thick paste at the bottom of the can, or layered with different concentrations of filler and pigment up and down the column. The vehicle is, however, not in any way altered.

So, we stir the paint and begin painting a large job of structural steel, and then pause before another batch, but out belly buttons are punching us in the back and urging us to complete this run before 1200, so we do not bother to stir the paint again.

By this time, there is a thin layer of nearly clear vehicle sitting on top of the reservoir, a heavy concentraion of kaolin at the bottom, and layers with a lot of zinc chromate, layers with a lot of iron oxide, layers with a lot of Titanium white and so on throughout the reservoir. The resulting applications will not be of a uniform hue or density of color and it may be a little sluggish comiong out of the nozzle as you start to draw in the bottom stratum of solids, but the vehicle is still going to stick to the steel and harden into pretty nearly the same sort of material throughout the process. It works perfectly, within this context.

It's just unaesthetic.

Inconsistant paint works, sort of. Inconsistant therm*te does not, usually.

metamars

12th April 2009, 05:25 AM

Playing with Platelets

You can deposit Al onto silicon via sputtering (http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/bin.asp?CID=3079&DID=189783&DOC=FILE.PDF).

( and perhaps other methods of physical vapor deposition? not sure if this means elemental Al )

Dr. G. informs me that sputtering is very expensive. (Page 3, here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html).) It would cost hundreds of dollars to coat just 1 teaspoon. I don't know about the practicality of depositing the Al via vaporizing it thermally in a vacuum, then gradually re-introducing air, but I have calculated that the energy input to vaporize 10 short tons of aluminum is only on the order of $4,000. (I assumed that oxygen to make a forced flame would roughly equal double the cost of the oil, which is a sheer guess.)

T.A.M.

12th April 2009, 08:30 AM

Mercutio

12th April 2009, 09:37 AM

I find it hard to believe that the only possible explanation for Professor Jones' data is SunStealer's interpretation. [snip]

Just a quick comment, early in the thread. Sunstealer's interpretation may or may not be the best interpretation--to my eye, it appears to be a better one than Jones' interpretation, but I am no expert--but it does not have to be. Sunstealer's interpretation is sufficient to point out important flaws in Jones' analysis, and this is all it needs to do.

If a chemist finds a brand new reaction, and someone points out that her test tubes were dirty, the proper response is not to argue that dirty test tubes don't matter, but to redo the experiment with clean test tubes. Sunstealer has pointed out enough problems that the ball is back in Jones' court. The burden of proof is where it should be--on Jones.

T.A.M.

12th April 2009, 11:58 AM

Very, very interesting admission by Jones et al upon questioning via email by Dr. Greening...

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Yes you read it correctly, Jones seems to be back tracking, CONSIDERABLY, to declare that the last several years of thermite talk, has been for Explosive "FUSES"!!!!

I am speechless.

TAM:)

leftysergeant

12th April 2009, 03:05 PM

He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings.

Exactly. Thermite works in a vacuum. You cannot ignite paint chips if yopu hit it with the heat of a ton of thermite in a vacuum.

Way to hit the floor with both guns firing on your first post.

The Platypus

12th April 2009, 04:48 PM

Even if we were to hypothetically accept this as valid.

I don't see how we can go from, "hey we found a few weird flakes of something that could be thermite" too, "it can only be evidence that completely confirms, 9/11 was a done by our own gov't in a big conspiracy by some evil secret NWO group to control the world".

The leap into imagination would still be just as mind boggling.

metamars

12th April 2009, 06:43 PM

Very, very interesting admission by Jones et al upon questioning via email by Dr. Greening...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Yes you read it correctly, Jones seems to be back tracking, CONSIDERABLY, to declare that the last several years of thermite talk, has been for Explosive "FUSES"!!!!

I am speechless.

TAM:)

Much ado about nothing. The chips were announced in 2007. I believe that that's the first year they were studied. Jones' first paper presenting the thermite hypothesis was earlier. Also, he's previously said that he believed there were a couple of forms of thermite.

His recent paper deals with whether or not nano-thermite is present, not how it was used. Frankly, I don't think Professor Jones cares how it was used, exactly.

What is important is whether or not it's thermite, paint chips, or some other mundane material. Speaking for myself, I'll probably devote some time, in the next few weeks, to printing out a few copies and seeing if the physicists and materials scientists in town have an opinion. I'll also print out the photo of kaolinite, and show them that. However, I have my doubts that it's kaolinite. See my next post.

metamars

12th April 2009, 06:48 PM

metamars

12th April 2009, 08:05 PM

Figure 5.8 ( p 83 of the paper; the 104th page counting pages before page 1) of COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES (http://esr.lib.ttu.edu/bitstream/handle/2346/956/JGranier_dissertation_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1) shows the dramatic difference that Al particle size has on DSC peaks, for the case of Al/MoO3 aluminothermic. They plot, on the same graph, the DSC's for Al particle sizes of 40nm, 50nm, 80nm, 120nm, 1-3μm, 3-4.5 μm, 4.5-7μm, 10-14μm and 20μm. The larger the particle size, the higher temperature you need to hit the biggest peak.

(Actually, it looks like 1-3μm and 3-4.5 μm do not follow this general trend, but those peaks are very close.)

The DSC peak for the fattest Al particle, the 20μm, occurs at about 1010 C. The peak for the smallest Al particle, the 40 nm one, occurs at 500 C. Jones' DSC peak. for what he suggests is Al/Fe2O3 thermite, is in the 415 - 435 C range.

Notice, also, that this dramatic drop of DSC peak temperature with decreasing particle size puts to bed the egregiously wrong notion that there's nothing special about nano-scale properties, which some people were proclaiming in the first JREF thread on this subject.

terl

12th April 2009, 09:29 PM

A question about the post linked to in the original post: where does the kaolinite with gypsum spectrum come from?

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 08:41 AM

Sunstealer:

A question;

The length of time the samples were stored (6 years) and the method (whether they were stored in the dark or light, plastic bag or not, etc....) of storage, can these have an effect on the essential make up of the chips? Specifically, can chemical reactions occur over time, or with improper storage, that might make some of the elements that may have been in the chips disappear (ie become part of a compound outside the chip) or make certain element appear that would not have been there in the beginning, but began present overtime?

Thanks

TAM:)EDS/EDX/XEDS basically will tell you what elements are present - and that's about it really. If a chemical reaction occurs within the sample itself then the EDS will show exactly the same spectrum as before - XRD will show the difference. The case where that will be different will be if the sample has oxidised (therefore should get a larger O peak) or it's come onto contact with another material which either contaminates the sample or reacts with it.

So as long as they were stored in a sealed plastic bag there won't be any problem.

However, it is true that reactions occur over long periods of time, eg: plastic left in sunlight, we've all seen computer parts turn that nasty yellow colour. Light could also effect the samples, but I doubt this - no one is going to store these outside of a draw/case etc.

Al/Fe2O3 powder particles are not going to be affected by everyday light. The Carbon matrix, which is binder in the samples might, but we have no idea what that specifically is so it's impossible to comment.

Everyone knows that I think the sample's red layers are paint (and not paint from the same source or composition I might add) and these will certainly take a long time (because they are engineered to last as long as possible) to change their characteristics and by that I mean drying out, flaking and cracking or colour change due to light.

I don't think that the length of time stored is any factor - the likelihood is that these chips have been exposed to the elements for just as long as, if not longer than the time stored, as part of the paint that was originally applied to who knows what. No one can say that these samples came specifically from the WTC or any other source - more on that later.

Just had a strange thought about carbon dating the "red layer" but I suspect that technique is not accurate enough to determine differences in such small time scales.

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 09:51 AM

I have updated the "specimen test table" for Jones' paper - see below. This now gives us a clear indication of which tests and consequent analysis was performed on each sample of the paper.

It is now easy to cross compare samples and the tests carried out as well as see the source of each sample. Note - what Jones calls samples I call specimens and I use the term sample for the dust samples, but I shall revert to calling specimens as samples when referring to the paper to avoid confusion.

I hope it's readable and not too small - "ctrl and +" for firefox users to enlarge.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=867

Henry62

13th April 2009, 10:24 AM

Hi friends,
here is avaiable an English article about the last prof. Jones' paper:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html

ciao
Henry

-----------------------------

Visit the English section in my blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

alienentity

13th April 2009, 11:03 AM

'Notice, also, that this dramatic drop of DSC peak temperature with decreasing particle size puts to bed the egregiously wrong notion that there's nothing special about nano-scale properties, which some people were proclaiming in the first JREF thread on this subject.'

This is of course a misrepresentation of the discussion on Nano-scale properties from the previous thread - I see Metamars also posted the exact wording on the 9/11 forum.

I still have not seen any scientific proof which shows that the combustion temp of real nanothermite is 430c or thereabouts. I also find it very, very strange and somewhat suspicious that Jones et al did not test:
1) actual WTC paint chips (identified properly as such)
2) real nanothermite with similar chemical composition to the famous red/grey chips for comparison

I can't help but feel this latest paper is not actually a very thorough effort to discover the truth except in a very half-hearted way, but is heavily geared towards producing a predetermined result with much ambiguity.

I mean, very simply put, it would have been necessary to demonstrate the chips were able to combust WITHOUT an external oxygen source. This was not attempted!! As definitive proof (to anyone who is slightly skeptical) it automatically fails.

Unfortunately what it DOES do very well is provide yet another source of rampant speculation for devoted conspiracy theorists. It seems this is the real audience the Jones et al are pandering to, and developing their careers and cottage industry from.

I guess you could characterize it as a sophisticated marketing effort at this point. I see very little chance that this paper will be much more than a curiosity for the established scientific community. Much more work will need to be done to 'prove' that nanothermites were used in the WTC disasters, IMHO.

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 11:20 AM

Now that we have a "specimen-test table" we can now do cross comparisons of each of the chips examined in the paper. I aim to look at each characteristic in turn but to start with it makes sense to look at the Visual Characteristics, the "Gray Layer" and then the "Red Layer" for each sample as described in Fig 4.

Visual Characteristics

Below are pictured the visual representations of 6 of the chips.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=870

In observation we can clearly see that samples a, b, c and d match each other closely in characteristic. It is also plain to see that Fig 31 does not match any of the other chips. In addition it's "red layer" is far duller than that of the other chips and is sandwiched between the two darker grey, outside layers. None of the other chips exhibit these darker outer layers. Therefore we must conclude that this particular chip is significantly different and would not fit into the data set of chips a) to d). This chip should be examined and compared with samples a) to d) in order to find out why. If this comparison shows significant differences then we must conclude that the samples are from different materials or sources. If that is the case then this sample is not thermite.

Sample in Fig 13, "MEK chip" shows similarity in colour to samples a) to d) but there is no metallic "gray layer" shown nor is there a scale in order for comparison. Further on in the paper there is another optical photo of this particular chip and helpfully a SEM micrograph.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=871

In the right hand image we can clearly see a "gray layer" but it is darker than that in samples a) to d) with no metallic reflection as seen in the "insert" in Fig 2d). We can say that this sample shares some general characteristics with samples a) to d), but further methods and analysis is required to confirm that they can be treated as one data set.

The left hand image is of the same sample with layers left to right comprising the "red layer" (which is post MEK testing therefore expanded), the "gray layer" and an unknown lighter fibrous appearing material. Now compare that sample with the SEM photo in Fig 4.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=872

We can clearly see that the "gray layer" in Fig shows a sharp, crystalline and brittle layer. The "gray layer" in Fig 32 appears to have different characteristics. A higher SEM magnification should resolve whether this layer is identical to those in samples a) to d) but none is shown (which may well be due to space).

Note the possibility of a third layer in Fig 4 below and to the right of the roughly 90° corner in the "gray layer". Again this should be investigated because this may indicate other properties of the chip(s).

We also have images and data from a chip sent to a French investigator (and this will be referred to as to as the "French chip".

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=873

This French chip also shows three distinguishable layers with the third being of a crystalline fibrous appearance. The middle gray layer shares characteristics with both samples in Fig 4 and Fig 32. The paper states

In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red
and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by BSE imaging and XEDS.Therefore we can see why Fig 32 and the French SEM photo differ from Fig 4 with respect to the "gray layer".

Whilst not conclusive we can say that this gray layer in Fig 32 looks like it is the same as that in Fig 4. An XEDS spectrum should confirm this - bear in mind the different magnifications in these photos.

I aim to make conclusions after the red and gray layer analysis with regard to the samples, however, it is clear that the sample in Fig 31 does not share the characteristics of the others and therefore it must be concluded that it cannot form part of the data set.

So what is it and why hasn't further examination been carried out before continuing analysis with the other samples? We clearly have two different samples so which one is thermite? An anomaly such as this should be examined as a first priority because it questions the method used for extraction of the samples in the first place.

XEDS analysis of the gray layer in "chip - Fig 31" will also throw up anomalies and further questions.

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 11:44 AM

This post is to be read after and considered with the Visual Characterisation post - post #23.

Gray Layer Analysis

The following are XEDS spectra for samples a) to d) and sample "chip Fig 31" respectively. Note that there is no corresponding spectra from the MEK chip. This means that we have no way of knowing whether the gray layer in the MEK chip matches either of the following.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=868
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=869

Please also note that we have EDS data from the "French chip", but there is problem with identifying exactly which spectra correlate with the sites identified on page 13 -

From what I can gather the gray layer in the French chip shows similar spectra to that of samples a) to d) in Fig 6 above.

It is clear and plain for all to see that the spectrum in Fig 33 does not match those of Fig 6 - the Fe peak is missing altogether and the C peak is far higher. We can safely conclude that the gray layers are completely different material and therefore that the chips are from different sources. This fact now throws up doubts with regard to the extraction method across the four samples of WTC dust. It's obvious that these samples are different so why is the sample in Fig 31 still considered to be thermite and not ruled out of the data?

Jones paper only touches on this and the rest of the paper lacks sufficient discussion of what these gray layers are and what they are for. How do they relate to these samples? Are these gray layers considered part of the thermite or not?

Why is there no spectrum of the gray layer in the "MEK chip"? In order for the sample "MEK chip" to be considered part of the data set that makes up samples a) to d) then it must be shown to share the same gray layer composition as samples a) to d) and also the same red layer composition. It must be shown that the "MEK chip" can form part of the data set otherwise testing on that chip cannot correlate data obtained from the 4 samples a) to d).

Examination of these grey layers both with XEDS and SEM throws up doubt as to the validity of the methods used to characterise these chips along with several questions that need to be answered in full.

Red layer analysis will continue after this one.

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 11:59 AM

I have not read the original post but I independently reviewed Jones' paper and concluded the following:

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud.
He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components.

His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data.I share your conclusions. There are way too many unanswered questions that he needs to answer before he starts conducting DSC and Flame tests.

His paper states

Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust samples collected. An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.I have just shown with my Visual Characteristic and Gray Layer analysis that they did not perform this characterisation thoroughly. They should have done this thoroughly, because their method of extraction from the dust sample, namely,

A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples
is going to collect anything that's attracted to a magnet (duh, I hear you all say). We've discussed paramagnetism and the different magnetic characteristics of iron oxides in another thread so why weren't these considered before that extraction method was chosen.

If it was then why do they not realise that their extracted sample is more likely than not to have material other than thermite in it? If they do then a thorough characterisation is required and it should be shown what the criteria are for rejecting and retaining chips for further analysis. Just collecting stuff by magnet and then declaring it all thermite chips is unscientific in it's method.

I've shown that Chip Fig 31 is a clear example of this improper method and shoddy characterisation. What are other peoples takes on this?

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 12:03 PM

Dr. G. informs me that sputtering is very expensive. (Page 3, here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html).) It would cost hundreds of dollars to coat just 1 teaspoon. I don't know about the practicality of depositing the Al via vaporizing it thermally in a vacuum, then gradually re-introducing air, but I have calculated that the energy input to vaporize 10 short tons of aluminum is only on the order of $4,000. (I assumed that oxygen to make a forced flame would roughly equal double the cost of the oil, which is a sheer guess.)I would have commented but what you suggested re: sputtering, is quite far out there.

The only sputter machines I've used are for coating SEM and TEM samples.

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 12:06 PM

BigAl

13th April 2009, 12:59 PM

Also consider that thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite. It requires a very high temperature to start the reaction. Typically the material used is Magnesium ribbon.

Why use a material that is difficult to ignite as a fuse when something such as a Magnesium ribbon will do?

What explosives need a fuse that burns at 2500°? :confused:

Curiouser and curiouser.

Footnote #20 in Active Thermitic Material Discovered points to this DoD/DARA literature that shows military applications of nano-material

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

Fuse-type applications seen to be there.

A Twoofer used this paragraph from that publication in support of the assertion t hat nano-termite soes something useful for him:

With regards to the latter application, nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, Particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

Ingredient hardly means that it is the major component of any munition.

Of course, the twoofer didn't know what "thermobaric" munitions do and don't do. They wouldn't demolish a glass and beam structure. They would just blow out all the glass.

Here's a neat DIY themobaric explosion.

DIY Thermobaric explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dU1P32n_o

Needless to say, nobody saw anything like that at WTC on 9/11.

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 01:03 PM

First off, I must point out again that I have very limitied knowledge and ability in these matters. I am presenting my observations as a very slightly educated guess, and not a strong assertion of fact.

If you look at p. 1260 of the Second Edition of the Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science (http://books.google.com/books?id=rlcLQmcTADEC&pg=PA1260&lpg=PA1260&dq=DSC+kaolinite&source=bl&ots=yEk8D6MmSg&sig=GqawDvviT0aeKoCXZiX0E1Nh7_c&hl=en&ei=P4PiSZyYFMTVlQfek7HgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1260,M1) you see two spikes, in the DSC graph of raw kaolinite, figure 4 (a). The first one, which is completely missing in the Jones' DSC plots, is at what looks like 50 C. The second spike is at about 525 C.

In figure 4(b), they show a DSC for Kaolinite-DMSO. There are still spikes at 50 C and 525 C. There is also a new spike at about 180 C. The key observation which I make is that adding crap to the kaolinite doesn't move or remove raw kaolinite spikes. Is this always true? I frankly don't know. But, if it is true, then the Jones' samples are not kaolinite.

I hope SunStealer will comment on this.I understand what you are getting at. I don't think those two graphs can be compared with the DSC graphs in Jones' paper. The scales are completely different. On the one hand you have µV/mg (micro volts per milligram) and the other W/g (Watts per gram). I've no idea how you can convert from one set of units to the other in order to show a comparison and therefore scale of spikes.

Remember that the samples a) to d) also include a Carbon based matrix of unknown material. We also know that samples a), b) and d) do not show any Sulphur in their red layer spectra [ sample c) does but I've shown this to be associated with gypsum] so it's certainly not dimethylsulfoxide and water as per the link. We have two different materials and ours does not contain "Raw Kaolin". It's really a chalk and cheese analysis and indicates you are investigoogling to come up with something different to disprove Kaolinite.

The best was to disprove Kaolinite is to get Jones to perform XRD or find another substance which a) the morphology matches hexagonal platelets as seen in the SEM photos b) has a distinct EDS spectra that matches.

...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.Page 19 - 3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry.

The masses of the reactants appear to be different in that Jones' mass calculations contain a material that probably doesn't contribute.

See Gray Layer analysis for questions that are thrown up and need answering regarding the gray layer - if Jones considers the gray layer to be part of the thermite material then he can include it in the DSC graph. If not then he needs to redo the DSC calculations omitting the mass of the gray layer.

The paper has very little comment on the gray layer and it's suspicious in it's abscence.

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 01:12 PM

Footnote #20 in Active Thermitic Material Discovered points to this DoD/DARA literature that shows military applications of nano-material

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

Fuse-type applications seen to be there.

A Twoofer used this paragraph from that publication in support of the assertion t hat nano-termite soes something useful for him:

Ingredient hardly means that it is the major component of any munition.

Of course, the twoofer didn't know what "thermobaric" munitions do and don't do. They wouldn't demolish a glass and beam structure. They would just blow out all the glass.

Here's a neat DIY themobaric explosion.

DIY Thermobaric explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dU1P32n_o

Needless to say, nobody saw anything like that at WTC on 9/11.Yes I'm well aware of thermobaric weapons and what they are capable of. The design is specific so that it doesn't destroy the structure. Unfortunately truthers will google some key words and then when they find what they think answers a specific question they will either link it or quote from it without understanding that it in no way applicable to the question in the first place (and often debunks them).

Anyone know of an explosive that would require a temperature of 2500°C to work? Anyone know why the fuse mechanism would require to be 10µm thick and painted onto a 10-20µm layer of Fe203?

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 01:16 PM

A question about the post linked to in the original post: where does the kaolinite with gypsum spectrum come from?Sure - it comes from USGS data fromParticle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html) specifically http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/

metamars

13th April 2009, 01:22 PM

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 01:32 PM

In response to 1st and 2nd posts of http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140115

The "red layer" on the sample for MEK testing (Chip Fig 13) is of a different composition to that of samples a)-d) in the paper. Compare "red layer" EDS spectra in Fig 14 to Fig 7, a)-d).

Also notice how (Chip Fig 13) does not have any detailed SEM analysis, therefore we have no idea what the characteristics are of the particles that make up that chip. Therefore it is impossible to know what the MEK is doing to that chip.

It means that you cannot say that there are aluminosilicates in "Chip Fig 13" and that it does not represent any of the testing performed on samples a-d).

Without seeing the morphology and the EDS spectra of that chip then nothing can be determined from it in relation to any other sample in the paper - it stands on it's own.

It's becoming more obvious each time I do any work on the paper that samples a-d) are similar, sample "Chip Fig 13" is different material to samples a-d) and sample "Chip Fig 31" is different material again. There is no continuity amongst the samples therefore one cannot use data from the MEK chip and correlate it with data (DSC specifically) from samples a-d).

Which is ultimately what I'll show when I tie in "Red Layer analysis with Visual Characterisation and Gray Layer Analysis which should all come under Characterisation of Samples.

metamars

13th April 2009, 02:19 PM

I understand what you are getting at. I don't think those two graphs can be compared with the DSC graphs in Jones' paper. The scales are completely different. On the one hand you have µV/mg (micro volts per milligram) and the other W/g (Watts per gram). I've no idea how you can convert from one set of units to the other in order to show a comparison and therefore scale of spikes.

I had noticed that, but figured that if the spike temperature coordinates weren't comparable, there wouldn't be much point to using a generic reference of "DSC".

This is a good example of why I hope you ask to move this thread to the science section. A forum with lots of scientists is more likely to have participant that can answer questions like this, hopefully with references that they can conjure up with very little effort.

pgimeno

13th April 2009, 03:02 PM

I can't post links yet, but googling for "forensic paint analysis and comparison guidelines" (with or without the quotes) gives as first hit (here at least) an FBI page which explains why Jones et al. at the very least should have specified the particular kind of paint they ruled out:

Searching for differences between questioned and known samples is the basic thrust of forensic paint analysis and comparison. However, differences in appearance, layer sequence, size, shape, thickness, or some other physical or chemical feature can exist even in samples known to be from the same source.

My bold. From section 5.2. Questioned and Known Samples.

I'm wondering, is any of the authors a forensic analysis expert?

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 03:23 PM

General Characterisation (Visual Characterisation, Gray Layer and Red Layer Analysis).

I've shown that sample "chip Fig 31" does not belong in the data set and asked why this chip wasn't analysed further or removed.

I'm now looking at the red layer data for comparison between samples as part of the characterisation process.

Red Layer Analysis

Below you can see XEDS spectra from samples a) to d) and the sample that is tested with MEK (MEK chip).

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=874
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=875

As anyone can see, the two sets of spectra are very different in nature. The MEK chip has a far busier profile especially at the lower values of KeV. If we take samples a), b) and d) as the base-level for what should be a spectrum for the red layer (I'll come to c) in a minute) namely C, O, Fe, Al Si, then we can see very clearly that we have additional labelled peaks of Zn, Cr, Ca, S which are very distinct and a far larger O peak. There is no way anyone can simply dismiss peaks of that intensity as possible contamination with wallboard or gypsum because we also have significant peaks of Zn and Cr.

We should also note, that in Fig 14 there are two other distinct peaks that have not been labelled. There is a peak at 1.3KeV which indicates the presence of Magnesium (Mg) and another at 3.4KeV which indicates the presence of Potassium (K). These should have been picked up upon but were not. Once again, to dismiss such obvious peaks as contamination is to conclude wrongly.

So we now have additions of Zn, Cr, Ca, S, Mg and K. Unless it can be shown that these elements are definitely from contamination then they must be considered as part of the spectra for the MEK chip's red layer.

If that is the case then in no way can the MEK chip be considered as part of the data set that includes samples a) to d). The MEK chip must stand on it's own and therefore the MEK test must stand only for that chip.

In order for this chip to be considered part of the data set that samples a) to d) make up, then a detailed SEM analysis of the red layer must be undertaken so as to show that this chips red layer contains the same particle characteristics as those in samples a) to d). That is it must be shown that there are rhomboidal Fe2O3 particles of approximately 0.1µm and >1µm platelets with the same XEDS spectrum as that seen in Fig 11a).

The MEK test is essentially void if used as an indication of what would happen to samples a) to d) if subjected to the same test. The red layer of the MEK chip is not of the same material as that of samples a) to d) (unless shown otherwise).

So lets put in the correct labelling for Fig 14.

http://forums.randi.org/album.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876

What could this red layer be? Why is it different to the other samples?

From http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...3C%20Appxs.pdf (link not working properly :confused:)

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/painttable.gif

and the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf and http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/MSDS/F010.pdf show that the composition is

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=877

We can see that the above XEDS spectrum for the red layer of the MEK chip shows sufficient data to suggest that the material may contain

Talc - Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
Zinc Yellow - ZnCrO4

as well as the common oxides, aluminates and silicates.

I've shown in other posts on other threads how the platelets in Fig 8 and 9 have a large probability of being Kaolinite. Talc on the other hand has a different structure and XEDS data will show a different spectra too.

In order for the MEKS chip to be accepted as part of the data set of samples a) to d), these anomalies must be sorted out. The quickest way of doing this is to examine the MEK chip in the same detail as samples a) to d) - specifically looking at the morphology of the various particle structures and then performing XEDS on each particle to rule out talc as an a component of the red layer. Similarly ZnCrO4.

My subsequent General characterisation shows that samples a) to d) can be treated as one set, however, "sample Fig 31" cannot be part of that set and nor can the MEK chip which looks increasingly like it has a form of paint separate to the paint observed on chips a) to d). In effect there are 3 different samples in this paper, all of which were extracted using the same method, all of which are claimed to be thermite. I've shown that cannot be possible.

leftysergeant

13th April 2009, 04:09 PM

Searching for differences between questioned and known samples is the basic thrust of forensic paint analysis and comparison. However, differences in appearance, layer sequence, size, shape, thickness, or some other physical or chemical feature can exist even in samples known to be from the same source.

Jones' chips shpw spme variation in color and composition and structure. This is consistant with paint, according to the FBI standards.

Thermite, an engineered product, needs to be uniform in structure and composition to work.

The chips are, thus, in at least this aspect, more paint-like than thermite-like.

And it just occured to me that we may be making an error in assuming that all red paint chips are structural steel coatings. Think metal furniture.

alienentity

13th April 2009, 07:03 PM

.

And it just occured to me that we may be making an error in assuming that all red paint chips are structural steel coatings. Think metal furniture.

This is a good point. Dr. Greening at first seemed to be critical of the JREF thread because it was focusing on paint, but (correct me if I'm wrong) he also started making references to red primer!

My question still is how to explain the fact these little chips turned up in so many dust samples - in my view this would indicate they were a very common material in the towers. Paint still seems the most likely candidate for that reason as well....

Another curiosity is that Jones' paper doesn't indicate the presence of actual WTC paint remnants - this is remarkable. Wouldn't we expect to see at least SOME paint?

Sunstealer

13th April 2009, 07:52 PM

pteridine

13th April 2009, 09:44 PM

T.A.M.

14th April 2009, 05:11 AM

There has been a distinct quiet on this paper over the last few days. Some of it, in this thread, is due to the moderated status, but overall on this forum, those who came out of he woodwork seem to have gone back in...curious.

Metamars, the only one in defense of Jones in this thread, has moved on to other things (application of thermite) rather than the crux of the paper.

It would be curious to see if similar is going on across the board (at other sites).

TAM:)

leftysergeant

14th April 2009, 08:23 AM

If you read my 3 large posts you'll see that I allude to the fact that the samples in Jones paper are not all one and the same and also that they can't all be from the same source.

It is possible that they all came from the towers. The paint on my desk is different from the paint on your desk is different from the paint on the core columns.

There are literally thousands of sources for paint in NY. The only thing that makes me think that samples a) to d) came from the WTC buildings is that samples a) to d) match and they were found in 4 separate places.

What do you want to bet that Jonesie missed some chips that were not red?

tsig

14th April 2009, 10:38 AM

If you read my 3 large posts you'll see that I allude to the fact that the samples in Jones paper are not all one and the same and also that they can't all be from the same source.

There are literally thousands of sources for paint in NY. The only thing that makes me think that samples a) to d) came from the WTC buildings is that samples a) to d) match and they were found in 4 separate places.

I have no idea why they didn't screen for paint during characterisation of samples removed from the dust samples. Maybe they did but they don't say.

Since the samples were collected under less than strict conditions we do not really know that they came from the Towers or if they did what contaminates might be present either introduced by accident or deliberately by Jones.

In fact he could have concocted the samples completely for all anyone knows.

Sunstealer

14th April 2009, 10:40 AM

I point out again that DSC in an air stream will show combustion. The peak could be the carbonaceous binder burning in air. Thermite is a redox reaction and to show anything like it would require DSC in an inert stream, such as Argon.I can't see anywhere in the paper with regards to the DSC test that the tests were carried out in an oxygen atmosphere. Usually these test are performed with an inert gas such as argon or nitrogen. It would negate the test to perform it in air, which is blindingly obvious and I cannot believe anyone would be that stupid.

Can anyone point to the set up they used in order to show that these samples were tested in an air/oxygen atmosphere?

T.A.M.

14th April 2009, 11:52 AM

Since the samples were collected under less than strict conditions we do not really know that they came from the Towers or if they did what contaminates might be present either introduced by accident or deliberately by Jones.

In fact he could have concocted the samples completely for all anyone knows.

While I think he is a snake oil salesman of the highest degree, I would hope that he was not that fraudulent.

However, what I would like to see, is a description, on a microscopic scale, of other dust samples. It is highly improbable, if not near impossible, that these 4 samples of Jones would contain these mysterious chips, and no other samples collected and analyzed by others, would contain similar "chips".

Ultimately, other labs should be involved, and the descriptions from other analysis, in particular of any "paint chips" they may have found (as is described in many an abstract from other analysis), be scrutinized, and compared to Jones results.

If anyone has access to any of the dust analysis articles found on Google scholar, would they be so kind as to peruse the article, and where possible, paraphrase or quote here in this thread, the results, in particular descriptions of the dust contents (especially any paint or other chips).

TAM:)

tj15

14th April 2009, 12:02 PM

Question: Is barium nitrate in nano thermite? Did Jones find barium nitrate?

boloboffin

14th April 2009, 12:33 PM

I can't see anywhere in the paper with regards to the DSC test that the tests were carried out in an oxygen atmosphere. Usually these test are performed with an inert gas such as argon or nitrogen. It would negate the test to perform it in air, which is blindingly obvious and I cannot believe anyone would be that stupid.

Can anyone point to the set up they used in order to show that these samples were tested in an air/oxygen atmosphere?

Well, if the setup isn't contained in the article itself, that doesn't speak well of the paper or its reviewers. Is testing in an inert gas so standard that it goes without saying?

alienentity

14th April 2009, 12:47 PM

The only thing that makes me think that samples a) to d) came from the WTC buildings is that samples a) to d) match and they were found in 4 separate places.

Thanks for the reply. Yes I agree not all the samples seem to match, suggesting some or none may be thermite.

I'm responding more to their claims, not as much to your observations. In that case, I can't help but think that this current paper is totally insufficient in terms of proving any alternative hypothesis on the collapses.

They still have a long way to go if they want to prove that a thinly-applied coating of this stuff could cause a very rapid collapse; let alone how much would have been applied and where. I suspect the last three points are going to be impossible to address adequately, and will only be accepted by a tiny fringe of conspiracy nuts.

Maybe this will turn out to be analogous to homeopathy, where the smaller and more diluted the amount is, the more powerful the effect.:idea:

hmm, I wonder if the placebo effect works on buildings...

Kent1

14th April 2009, 12:54 PM

While it is a different paint, the EDS on figure 6 looks remarkably similar to the paint spectrum in this article. (Paint chip underside sample)
http://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/failure_analysis_paint_coating.pdf

Certainly contamination of the local elements and type of paint will have large factors, but interesting none the less. See Figure 6 on PDF page 22, then compare with Jones paper on PDF Figure 6 on page 7. The Fe and the O seem very close. The AL and Si also strike me as interesting.

Note the Sulfur (S) and Chloride (CL) are likely from the local environment as stated here
http://www.matcoinc.com/?type=art&id=2365&

pteridine

14th April 2009, 08:22 PM

GregoryUrich

15th April 2009, 01:13 AM

Julio

15th April 2009, 02:09 AM

There's something that puzzles me about DSC plots. Perhaps because I'm not familiar with it.

In DSC you are heating a sample to a temperature, and see how much energy it is abosrbing or releasing. In the plots, the data is from the very start is either zero or in the "positive" side of the y-axis. So is the exothermic peak. This would mean that the sample is either "not absorbing" or "releasing" some energy from the very start of the analysis. Now, how can any material rise its temperature without absorbing any energy at all?? Or is it igniting from the very start??

Now, if you look at graph 29 (pag 25), there's a comparison between sample 2?(b?) and a xerogel with ultra fine grain thermite. This sample shows absorption during the heating unitil it gets to the exothermic peak, when it show release of energy. Now, it does make some more sense for me.

Look now at the DTA graphs of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C (Fig. D-6, pag 444). I know DTA is not the same than DSC, but are similar things. When heating the sample, it is absorbing energy (all data is in the negative y-axis). The exothermic peak reduces the amount of absorbed energy needed to increase temeprature: it is releasing energy, but the overall effect is to absorb less energy from the environment, because some is already supplied by its internal exothermic process. But the final balance of energy shows absorption. When cooling the sample, it is releasing energy, and hence, the data is in the positive y-axis side of the graph. It makes sense for me.

That's what I would expect for the Jones' samples : to see absorption of heat when rising temperature, and then, if there really is some ignition, a real release of temperature. Something like the xergoel he compares with.

So, my interpretation is that the DSC data has substracted a "baseline": the energy that is absorbed from the environment, to leave only the excess heat absorbed or "not absorbed" compared to the reference sample(*). So, DSC data does show an exothermic process in the sample, but it is not clear whether the global energy balance is a release of energy (ignition) or just that it absorbs less energy than the referencie sample (beacuse it is supplied by the internal exothermic process).

So, now. Does it make any sense, or am I totally lost?:confused:

(*) I don't mean any kind of manipulation, but that this data is usually presented this way.

Sunstealer

15th April 2009, 04:39 AM

These guys ran the DSC in a flow of air with more than enough to burn anything burnable. Fires always show a nice exotherm.

Jones paper, Page 10, left column, lines 3-10:
The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C. During heating, the samples were contained in alumina pans and air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute during the heating.Thanks, I missed that even though I searched this dog's breakfast of a paper.

Well that just about does it for me - these people are either completely inept and incompetent or they completely fail to understand the thermite reaction or they are utterly, utterly dishonest - maybe they are all three.

I just keep holding my head in my hands because I just cannot believe that anyone would be so stupid as to place a material compromising an iron oxide layer attached to a red layer containing aluminosilicates and Fe2O3 with an unknown Carbon based material, into a DSC, combust it and then claim a thermite reaction has taken place. :jaw-dropp

Game over - and truthers believe this <rule 10>? This paper wouldn't pass the criteria for publishing in the Beano let alone anything reputable.

There has been a distinct quiet on this paper over the last few days. Some of it, in this thread, is due to the moderated status, but overall on this forum, those who came out of he woodwork seem to have gone back in...curious.Funny that. The original thread ran to 40+ pages. I guess even truthers know they can't defend this appalling paper.

metamars

15th April 2009, 08:37 AM

Here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-45.html#p2688) Dr. Greening compares the peak ratio of reacted thermite and nano-Al2O3 to Harrit's supposedly unreacted thermite.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-45.html#p2688

I've measured the peaks in pixels as precisely as I could, using screen capture + paint shop pro.

I find that the Xi Jin Xu analysis shows a (.25 - .165) / .165 = 51% higher ratio of O/Al than Jones, et. al.

metamars

15th April 2009, 09:03 AM

Here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-45.html#p2688) Dr. Greening compares the peak ratio of reacted thermite and nano-Al2O3 to Harrit's supposedly unreacted thermite.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-45.html#p2688

Please disregard my previous reply to this post. I used p.17 spectrum, instead of Fig 17 spectrum.

T.A.M.

15th April 2009, 09:13 AM

tsig

15th April 2009, 10:25 AM

While I think he is a snake oil salesman of the highest degree, I would hope that he was not that fraudulent.

However, what I would like to see, is a description, on a microscopic scale, of other dust samples. It is highly improbable, if not near impossible, that these 4 samples of Jones would contain these mysterious chips, and no other samples collected and analyzed by others, would contain similar "chips".

Ultimately, other labs should be involved, and the descriptions from other analysis, in particular of any "paint chips" they may have found (as is described in many an abstract from other analysis), be scrutinized, and compared to Jones results.

If anyone has access to any of the dust analysis articles found on Google scholar, would they be so kind as to peruse the article, and where possible, paraphrase or quote here in this thread, the results, in particular descriptions of the dust contents (especially any paint or other chips).

TAM:)

Well that's the thing. If you don't follow accepted protocol you open yourself to all kinds of accusations. Jones's track record doesn't inspire much confidence either.

No I don't think he fabricated the samples, mainly because he doesn't have the expertise to do so. Just saying that any referee should have thrown this paper out on first principles.

alienentity

15th April 2009, 11:36 AM

Game over - and truthers believe this <rule 10>? This paper wouldn't pass the criteria for publishing in the Beano let alone anything reputable.

Funny that. The original thread ran to 40+ pages. I guess even truthers know they can't defend this appalling paper.

That could be. Perhaps they were hoping the real skeptics might finally buy into this witch hunt. But they quickly realized that this paper raises more questions than it answers.

Edited for topic

bofors

16th April 2009, 01:45 AM

If a chemical reaction occurs within the sample itself then the EDS will show exactly the same spectrum as before

Exactly the same? Where is the proof of this? Please show us some examples.

XRD will show the difference.

XRD? You mean X-ray diffraction? What exactly are you trying to say here with "show the difference"?

Edited for topic for moderated thread.

beachnut

16th April 2009, 03:36 AM

This paper will follow the same course as the previous one the published in Bentham.

I think they published with Bentham as a last resort. When no serious journals would publish it (I assume the tried) they had to find somewhere to publish, and as luck would have it, one of Bentham's 300 OA journals was relevant, and "peer reviewed" (loose terminology) to boot.

I suspect this paper will hit a few independent blog sites, a few local level papers, but will not garnish them any degree of publicity nationally, either in the media, or the scientific community.

TAM:)
And that is 911Truth.

The product of Jones red chips looks a lot like an ALUMINIZED steel tube damaged by heat.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steeltubewithAl.jpg
Not thermite, not burnt thermite, just ALUMINIZED STEEL HEATER TUBES suffering damage from heat.

Plus his samples are not consistent for much save debris from the WTC that have rust and Al in them along with other elements you find in glass, steel, paint, clay and other items all found in the WTC without making up this paper about thermite.

We are lucking no one found cookie crumbs in the dust, we would have energy levels 11 times greater than TNT as Jones published a paper on butter extracted from cookie crumbs found at the WTC from 911, 11 times greater energy density than TNT. Now that would be a cool pay to publish paper. "Cookie Crumbs Confirm Inside Job with 11 Times the Energy of TNT".

Dave Rogers

16th April 2009, 05:23 AM

Dr. G. informs me that sputtering is very expensive. (Page 3, here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html).) It would cost hundreds of dollars to coat just 1 teaspoon.

It's not the expense that's the problem with sputtering. I use a sputtering coater regularly, that has the capacity to coat a 4" sample of silicon. It's a high vacuum chamber in an installation about six feet long, seven feet high and three feet deep, and the sample is introduced through a load-lock big enough to accept about an eight-inch by three-inch cross-section. I'm not even going to bother working out what sort of installation would be needed to sputter-coat material onto the columns of a WTC tower; it's such a ridiculous notion, it's not worth the time.

Dave

Dave Rogers

16th April 2009, 05:54 AM

I want to reply to a couple of comments that metamars made in the closed thread on Jones's Bentham paper, and I think this is probably the appropriate place to do it. I was away over Easter, so it took a while to catch up, but the specific post is at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4599311#post4599311.

First of all, I think this may have been covered, but I'd like to put it to bed:

High energy release per unit mass suggests that the chips don't contain the oxygen needed for combustion, because that tends to limit the energy density.
Don't you have this backwards?

No, I have it the right way round. The Wikipedia article on energy density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) explains it similarly:

Energy densities excluding oxidisers This table lists energy densities of fuels that require external oxidisers, such as oxygen. These figures do not take into account the mass and volume of the oxygen required for the chemical reactions, as it is assumed to be freely available and present in the atmosphere. Such systems give a higher energy density than an equivalent system that must hold its own oxidiser.

Therefore thermite, which holds its own oxidiser, has a lower energy density, at around 4kJ/g, than combustible materials that don't contain their own oxidisers, for example kerosene at around 43kJ/g.

Now the rather more complex point:

Again, this has been corrected several times in this thread. The energy density of "super thermite" is exactly the same as that of the same thermite composition with a greater particle size.
Wrong, again. See figure 7.3, p. 114, in Grainier's thesis, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES (http://esr.lib.ttu.edu/bitstream/handle/2346/956/JGranier_dissertation_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1), for Al/MoO3 thermite. The difference isn't even 1 order of magnitude, but it's not close to "exactly the same", either. Apparently, you're thinking of perfect reactions.

Let's take a look at the figure in question, reproduced here under fair use conditions as a small part of the above referenced work for research.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1476449e7178ebe28d.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16046)

It's not entirely clear, but look at the Y axis. The highest value quoted is less than 4000J/g, the figure for the energy density of thermite.

Now, let's address the comment "Apparently you're thinking of perfect reactions". I'm using the term "energy density", which is perfectly clear, and is equal to the amount of energy that can be released in a 100% efficient reaction. What we can see from Grainier's thesis is that the amount of energy released by any thermite formulation is less than its energy density, but that the efficiency of energy release is greater for smaller particle sizes. This is completely consistent with the fact that the energy density of thermite is independent of particle size, as I originally pointed out.

Now, going back to the paper, DSC results indicate energy releases of 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5kJ/g from four samples, with the comment made that the underlying grey layer is included in the mass but does not react, so does not contribute to the heating. We can assume, therefore, that the minimum possible value of energy density of the material believed to be thermite is 7.5kJ/g, or nearly twice the energy density of pure thermite. This is assuming a perfect reaction, and assuming that there is no inert grey layer on the sample giving the highest energy release; if either of these assumptions is invalid, then the actual energy density must be greater. The conclusion is simple and inescapable: the material is not thermite.

At this point a peer-reviewer capable of referring to Wikipedia would have returned the paper to its authors for a major revision. In particular, the use of an air ambient for the DSC experiments, as specifically stated on the fourth page of the paper, invalidates any possible conclusion concerning a thermite reaction, as Sunstealer has repeatedly pointed out. Again, there is a simple and inescapable conclusion: this paper was not competently peer-reviewed.

Dave

metamars

16th April 2009, 06:27 AM

It's not the expense that's the problem with sputtering. I use a sputtering coater regularly, that has the capacity to coat a 4" sample of silicon. It's a high vacuum chamber in an installation about six feet long, seven feet high and three feet deep, and the sample is introduced through a load-lock big enough to accept about an eight-inch by three-inch cross-section. I'm not even going to bother working out what sort of installation would be needed to sputter-coat material onto the columns of a WTC tower; it's such a ridiculous notion, it's not worth the time.

Dave

I wasn't thinking of sputter coating steel columns. I was suggesting sputter coating Silicon nano-sized platelets, with Aluminum. The Al/Si platelets which result would then be incorporated into nanothermite as a sol gel. The sol gel layer is, in turn deposited on a ferrous layer.

Whether you can essentially cut up the resulting nanofoil into little chips (so as to make them immersible, thus thinly spreadable, in a solution that you can paint on to a column) is something that I don't particularly feel confident speculating on, but I will guess that it's probably not much harder than cutting aluminum foil into little pieces. Whether or not the stuff would fall apart under the stress of cutting, I have no idea.

I suspect you would only need sputter coating for precise control of thickness and geometry, while depositing Al by vaporizing it first (assuming this would even work) would give more uneven results.

Sunstealer

16th April 2009, 06:43 AM

Exactly the same? Where is the proof of this? Please show us some examples.Well it's quite simple - EDS/EDX/XEDS can only show what elements are present. If no outside element has been introduced then the exact same elements are present therefore the spectra will be the same (assuming the same mode for the beam is used).

This will take you some time to read but it covers everything you will need to know. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=667SJf95AFAC&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=XEDS+basics&source=bl&ots=uQOpNgJEkz&sig=idH-UmwOHWImI_4jgWpS1fP3sEU&hl=en&ei=8yTnSa_1Gc24-Qa0qrnoBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA555,M1

XRD? You mean X-ray diffraction? What exactly are you trying to say here with "show the difference"?

Edited for topic for moderated thread.Yes x-ray diffraction.

What I am trying to say is that the two methods are completely different in the way they operate and the diagrams they produce. X-ray crystallography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallography) will produce a diffraction pattern. It's from this diffraction pattern that you can tell what the crystal structure is and therefore identify the material. Many materials will have very similar XEDS spectra because they are made from similar elements however, we cannot tell exactly what the material is because XEDS cannot tell us what compounds are present. XRD will do this and it's able to distinguish different compounds that are made from similar elements.

FTIR (Fourier Transmision Infra Red spectroscopy) will do the same thing with organic compounds.

Again here are some basic information http://epswww.unm.edu/xrd/xrdbasics.pdf

Sunstealer

16th April 2009, 06:55 AM

I wasn't thinking of sputter coating steel columns. I was suggesting sputter coating Silicon nano-sized platelets, with Aluminum. The Al/Si platelets which result would then be incorporated into nanothermite as a sol gel. The sol gel layer is, in turn deposited on a ferrous layer.

Whether you can essentially cut up the resulting nanofoil into little chips (so as to make them immersible, thus thinly spreadable, in a solution that you can paint on to a column) is something that I don't particularly feel confident speculating on, but I will guess that it's probably not much harder than cutting aluminum foil into little pieces. Whether or not the stuff would fall apart under the stress of cutting, I have no idea.

I suspect you would only need sputter coating for precise control of thickness and geometry, while depositing Al by vaporizing it first (assuming this would even work) would give more uneven results.I did infact Lol when I read your idea to sputter coat, but that's only because I know what a typical type of machine (http://em-lab.berkeley.edu/EML/wimage/sputtercoat.jpg?PHPSESSID=8a93f4c4689229d1be7c762f f685e6b8) is used for sputter coating (just like Dave) and how amusing it would be for someone to have to sputter coat kilograms of material in such a machine. Sputter coating is also directional in that the spray is directed down wards onto the target, the underside is not coated. I can't even imagine a huge machine to sputter coat large quantities of powder ensuring a coating around the particle.

It's a non-starter tbh.

Dave Rogers

16th April 2009, 07:00 AM

I wasn't thinking of sputter coating steel columns. I was suggesting sputter coating Silicon nano-sized platelets, with Aluminum. The Al/Si platelets which result would then be incorporated into nanothermite as a sol gel. The sol gel layer is, in turn deposited on a ferrous layer.

OK, that makes a little more sense, but it seems rather pointless. What you're aiming to do is produce a precise Al:Si ratio, which could be done much more easily by simply combining the right amounts macroscopically and grinding to nanoscale dimensions. Handling very thin silicon platelets isn't exactly trivial either. It doesn't sound like a scalable technique, given that you're talking about tons of material.

I suspect you would only need sputter coating for precise control of thickness and geometry, while depositing Al by vaporizing it first (assuming this would even work) would give more uneven results.

No, Al evaporation by e-beam is as routine as sputtering and uses a rather smaller piece of equipment. Still not very scalable, but not as bad as sputtering.

It's all reasoning the wrong way, though. You're saying "This is what we see, how can we construct a backward argument that leads to thermite". If you start from the requirement to coat columns with nanothermite sol-gel and work forwards, there's no way you'll end up with a solution that involves planar coatings. No sane engineer would even consider producing a precisely dimensioned multilayer that was then supposed to be ground up and sprayed on; bulk mixing followed by grinding is inevitably orders of magnitude cheaper, simpler and more reliable.

Dave

Dave Rogers

16th April 2009, 07:40 AM

I did infact Lol when I read your idea to sputter coat, but that's only because I know what a typical type of machine (http://em-lab.berkeley.edu/EML/wimage/sputtercoat.jpg?PHPSESSID=8a93f4c4689229d1be7c762f f685e6b8) is used for sputter coating (just like Dave) and how amusing it would be for someone to have to sputter coat kilograms of material in such a machine.

The machine in your link isn't a sputter coater, it's a small benchtop evaporator for gold-coating SEM samples. A decent sized sputter coater is much, much bigger.

Dave

metamars

16th April 2009, 08:42 AM

OK, that makes a little more sense, but it seems rather pointless. What you're aiming to do is produce a precise Al:Si ratio, which could be done much more easily by simply combining the right amounts macroscopically and grinding to nanoscale dimensions.

I assume that a "precise Al:Si ratio" is a very secondary goal. (It turns out that Si can help make thermite into a eutectic, optimal content 11%, IIRC). Rather, if the idea is to how to make an incendiary which is also explosive, to some degree, you need intimate mixing which nanoscale affords. Also, if you look at MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION, you see that heat diffusion cannot explain the the extremely fast ignition times and much higher flame propagation velocities you get with nano, vs. micron. The author supports the melt dispersion mechanism as an explanation for these nano-scale (dynamic) properties.

Whether or not you agree with the author regarding melt dispersion, he a) used the idea to good effect in his calculations and b) showed experimentally that "flame propagation velocity depends sensitively on relative particle size, relative particle size distribution, oxide shell formation temperature, and shell strength." b) constitutes a set of facts that care neither for your opinion, nor mine.

I have no idea about control of oxide shell formation temperature in any grinding process, but I have a hard time believing that you could control shell strength via any grinding (and filtering, if necessary) process, whatsoever. I also have a hard time believing that you could effectively or at least efficiently control relative particle size and relative particle size distribution in a grinding process (and filtering, if necessary).

Feel free to enlighten us to the contrary.

Handling very thin silicon platelets isn't exactly trivial either. It doesn't sound like a scalable technique, given that you're talking about tons of material.

This subject is totally beyond both my area of expertise, and desire to google-vestigate. I have a cousin who is a chemical engineer, maybe he could shed some light on this question, though I don't see him much these past few years. A better option is to start knocking on doors at local university chemical engineering departments. You may be completely correct on this point, and I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think I'll be looking into this in the near future, if ever.

It's all reasoning the wrong way, though. You're saying "This is what we see, how can we construct a backward argument that leads to thermite". If you start from the requirement to coat columns with nanothermite sol-gel and work forwards, there's no way you'll end up with a solution that involves planar coatings.

Not planar coatings, multi-layer planar chips that can be incorporated into a paint.

No sane engineer would even consider producing a precisely dimensioned multilayer that was then supposed to be ground up and sprayed on;

Not ground up - cut up. There's a huge difference. (Well, not if the stuff is crumbly. :) )

bulk mixing followed by grinding is inevitably orders of magnitude cheaper, simpler

Only if you don't care about the higher power afforded by nano versions, not to mention the higher energy density. Also, in a black op of the scale of 911, cost is practically a non-factor. A single F-22 will be selling for $150 - $200 million dollars, by way of comparison.

and more reliable.

Dave

More reliable as an incendiary, to make kerosene-like jet fuel look like napalm going off, in 1/3 of a second?? No way.

T.A.M.

16th April 2009, 09:05 AM

Apparently the authors of the article, or at least one or two, are getting agitated with other scientists and science followers, daring to criticize their paper/analysis.

Apparently J Courley has asked Dr. Greening to stop with the "Grenades" and to stop with the "armchair ideas".

Dr. Greening:

That is all I am trying to say ... but for this effort I have now been requested (by e-mail) to stop pestering the authors with these "armchair ideas" and go and do my own analysis on my own samples.

Well actually no one has told me to stop e-mailing them, (yet!), just to stop with the "grenades".

Yes, that very word came from one of the authors: JRG

and metamars, who I am sure can speak here, for himself, has been asked by Kevin Ryan to remove him (Kevin) from his (metamars) email list.

Metamars:

Have you been requested by anybody other than Kevin Ryan? (He also asked me to remove him from my "email list", so I stopped cc'ing him.)

All quotes above, from:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-60.html

The reason I post these, outside of the obvious curiosity, is to point out, in yet another way, the lack of professional approach these scientists have. Any scientist, any real scientist, will tell you that analysis and criticism of scientific work, yes even there own, is what science is all about. It is part of what purifies the field, so to speak. Repeatability, explaining in or out other possibilities, etc...are all part of this, but also seem to be parts these particular scientists dislike...very much.

TAM:)

Sunstealer

16th April 2009, 09:13 AM

The machine in your link isn't a sputter coater, it's a small benchtop evaporator for gold-coating SEM samples. A decent sized sputter coater is much, much bigger.

DaveThey are always called sputter coaters in the industry. eg:

http://www.emitech.co.uk/pdfs/sputter_coating.pdf

I know it's a bit off-topic but what's the larger machine?

ElMondoHummus

16th April 2009, 09:28 AM

I want to reply to a couple of comments that metamars made in the closed thread on Jones's Bentham paper, and I think this is probably the appropriate place to do it. I was away over Easter, so it took a while to catch up, but the specific post is at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4599311#post4599311.

First of all, I think this may have been covered, but I'd like to put it to bed:

No, I have it the right way round. The Wikipedia article on energy density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) explains it similarly:

Therefore thermite, which holds its own oxidiser, has a lower energy density, at around 4kJ/g, than combustible materials that don't contain their own oxidisers, for example kerosene at around 43kJ/g.

Now the rather more complex point:

Let's take a look at the figure in question, reproduced here under fair use conditions as a small part of the above referenced work for research.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1476449e7178ebe28d.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16046)

It's not entirely clear, but look at the Y axis. The highest value quoted is less than 4000J/g, the figure for the energy density of thermite.

Now, let's address the comment "Apparently you're thinking of perfect reactions". I'm using the term "energy density", which is perfectly clear, and is equal to the amount of energy that can be released in a 100% efficient reaction. What we can see from Grainier's thesis is that the amount of energy released by any thermite formulation is less than its energy density, but that the efficiency of energy release is greater for smaller particle sizes. This is completely consistent with the fact that the energy density of thermite is independent of particle size, as I originally pointed out.

Now, going back to the paper, DSC results indicate energy releases of 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5kJ/g from four samples, with the comment made that the underlying grey layer is included in the mass but does not react, so does not contribute to the heating. We can assume, therefore, that the minimum possible value of energy density of the material believed to be thermite is 7.5kJ/g, or nearly twice the energy density of pure thermite. This is assuming a perfect reaction, and assuming that there is no inert grey layer on the sample giving the highest energy release; if either of these assumptions is invalid, then the actual energy density must be greater. The conclusion is simple and inescapable: the material is not thermite...

Dave

To the best of my knowledge, this is absolutely correct.

Dave, just as a little addendum: I've been trying to reeducate myself on the chemistry concepts I've let lay dormant for a heckuva long time now. I think the relevant stuff to look up here in order to really understand how Jones was fooling everyone - and how the paper Metamars is citing applies - is to study the concept of "enthalpies of reaction". The enthalpy of a perfectly stoichiometric and fully complete thermite redox is well known. The paper Metamars cites does discuss how changes in particle size help 1. Speed of reaction (which is something we all already knew) and 2. Completeness of reaction (which speaks to real world, not idealized everything-reacts-100% situations). Because decreasing the particle size helps aid a reaction get closer to a perfectly stoichiometric balance, it does indeed release more energy per gram. However, your, my, and other's points are still entirely valid: You canNOT exceed the enthalpy of a perfect reaction. You simply can NOT. The energy is not there to begin with. So the point here is that people have to draw distinctions between understanding how particle refinement releases energy by allowing for a more complete reaction, and how the ultimate limit is not dictated by the particle size, but by the chemical bond energy that's available to begin with. Refinement can increase energy released, but only up to that limit. Exceed the limit, and you know that you're no longer talking about a ferrous-oxide/aluminum redox reaction.

That may be obvious to those of use who've taken enough chemistry courses in college to understand this without needing it to be explicitly pointed out, but I have to allow for the fact that well-meaning readers might not have thought of this. So please forgive the pedanticism, but I felt that this must be said. Even if it's obvious to you, others might find it useful to know.

metamars

16th April 2009, 10:23 AM

metamars

16th April 2009, 10:25 AM

My previous post I referred to the Grainier thesis. It was actually the Andrew Francis thesis, MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION

alienentity

16th April 2009, 10:32 AM

I wasn't thinking of sputter coating steel columns.....etc..

I suspect you would only need sputter coating for precise control of thickness and geometry, while depositing Al by vaporizing it first (assuming this would even work) would give more uneven results.

metamars, aren't you getting WAY ahead of the evidence here? Right now what the thermite theorists have is a few tiny chips of a 'suspect' material.

It has not been established by the scientific community whether these are in fact thermite or not; and as Dave has pointed out, some of the samples should be eliminated based on their energy densities.

I suggest that you might focus your inquiries on said chips and how the Jones paper results might be validated.

I hope you will forgive us skeptics for discouraging such speculation, but you must remember that you are, in no uncertain terms, accusing your government of performing this hypothetical act of mass murder - the burden of proof needs to be very high indeed.
In all fairness the 9/11 'truth' movement, which I gather includes you, is accepting a fairly LOW BOP, which is extremely offensive to many of us.

Rather than BEGINNING your inquiry with an open mind, and simply assessing evidence, the assumption you're starting with is 'THEY did it, with thermite, but how?' All three of those assumptions are intellectual traps you MUST avoid.

Can you really blame the NIST investigation for NOT pursuing the CD scenario given the paucity of evidence which leads there? Perhaps in a few more years you will perceive the gravity of the errors that your movement is making, the harm and pain it is causing, and, perhaps more important, the great patience, caring and wisdom of many of the skeptics on this forum who are responding to you with civility.

I hope that day comes for you. In the meantime try to say focused on the issue at hand: the red chips. Be prepared for failure.

Lenbrazil

16th April 2009, 06:38 PM

Very, very interesting admission by Jones et al upon questioning via email by Dr. Greening...

//the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Yes you read it correctly, Jones seems to be back tracking, CONSIDERABLY, to declare that the last several years of thermite talk, has been for Explosive "FUSES"!!!!

I am speechless.

TAM:)

They said this in the paper (PGS 20 – 23) - [Emphasis in original text]

“Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition” [30]. It is indeed possible that such matches, 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. With regard to the safety of super-thermite matches, the Los Alamos announcement notes:

“Unfortunately, conventional electric matches
use lead containing compounds that are extremely
sensitive to impact, friction, static, and
heat stimuli, thereby making them dangerous to
handle. In addition, these compounds produce
toxic smoke. The Super-Thermite electric
matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are
safer to use because they resist friction, impact,
heat, and static discharge through the
composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition…”

[…]

It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30].

But then if the red material were part of some sort of fuse mechanism all the stuff about how high its energy content is basically irrelevant (or so it seems to a layman like me).

They also contradicted themselves they emphasized the excerpt of the “Los Alamos announcement notes” about how thermite matches resist heat - which conforms w/ Jones observation in his 1st “paper” that thermite, unlike RDX etc. only ignites at temps well over 1000* C – but earlier in the new paper noted that “the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C.”

They fail to explain why a substance that “ignites and reacts vigorously” at temps commonly seen in office fire would have been used. Just how would one control the demolition under such circumstances? If it were painted on cutter charges instead of steel I imagine it would have heated that much more quickly because the wicking effect the steel frame would not come into play.

My guess is that either they had the paper mostly written when they did calcs like Ryan Mackey’s and Greening’s and realized that there wasn’t nearly enough of the material to do any damage to the towers either as an explosive or heat source and quickly added the stuff about “super-thermite matches” and/or Harrit and Jones wrote those parts separate and failed to notice the contradiction or hoped no one else would notice when they cobbled it together.

metamars

16th April 2009, 07:46 PM

The reason I post these, outside of the obvious curiosity, is to point out, in yet another way, the lack of professional approach these scientists have. Any scientist, any real scientist, will tell you that analysis and criticism of scientific work, yes even there own, is what science is all about. It is part of what purifies the field, so to speak. Repeatability, explaining in or out other possibilities, etc...are all part of this, but also seem to be parts these particular scientists dislike...very much.

TAM:)

While I regret that many of Dr. Greening's criticisms and helpful suggestions are not better received, I have been cc'd on some of the emails, and I understand that some of the scientists are a bit peeved over past events. It doesn't help that some of them conflate Dr. Greening with JREF - even if they're aware of a 'split', let's call it. I certainly am sympathetic to some of their frustrations, not least of which is, having to work pro bono, they cannot devote the time and resources following every suggested method that has been put to them.

I suggest you suppress your tendency to always make 911 Truth sympathizers look bad, at least in this case, as you are not privy to these emails. And no, I'm not going to ask for permission to print them on a public forum.

If you're honest, you must admit that they have put their careers and reputations on the line. The tone of some of those emails make it obvious that they are quite confident of what they have found. However, it remains to be seen what the scientific community makes of their claims, and what their own future research will show. E.g., Professor Jones was quite enthused about a reference I gave him for a technique which is cheap and "quasi" non-destructive, that should be able to identify the chips as paint or some sort of coating, if they are indeed, such. As Professor Jones has already given me permission to publish his emails, I will quote his reply:

I find this to be a wonderful suggestion and I would like to have the
LIBS testing done. ........

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Steven J

This was in reply to my email:

Subject: easy, virtually non-destructive way to test chip sample, to compare with LIBS spectral fingerprinting of paints and coatings

Please see the following. I strongly urge you to do such testing, which looks to me like it would greatly reduce any uncertainty about whether or not the chips could be any known painting or coating.

<name redacted>

See http://www.springerlink.com/content/r19145r8870qr41t/

Taesam Kim1, Binh T. Nguyen2, Vari Minassian2 and Chhiu-Tsu Lin1
(1) Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115-2862, USA
(2) Caterpillar Inc., Technical Center, Bldg. K, 14009 Old Galena Road, Mossville, IL 61552, USA
Published online: 20 June 2007

Abstract Two algorithms—peak picking and peaks correlation—have been compiled in a portable laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) system and used specifically for spectral fingerprinting of paints and coatings, which contain multiple ingredients and require several application steps. The LIBS technique starts with a laser shot on the specimen surface, detection of the emission of the elements present, and analysis of the sample compositions. The LIBS system has been successfully illustrated for the identification and analysis of coating substrates, surface pretreatments, and primer and topcoat paints obtained in the lab and at field sites. The results indicate that, despite the compositional complexity in organic metal finishing, the spectral fingerprint of paints and coatings can be effectively determined by the LIBS technique. The advantages of LIBS technique over other conventional methods, such as EDX, are that it is quasi-nondestructive (<100 ?m of sample size), requires no sample preparation, is fast (within minutes), is user-friendly (for nontechnical personnel), and is capable of application both online and at the field sites.

Besides the fact that my suggestion had the nice benefit of likely being affordable, I put it politely. This is not to say that serious suggestions and criticisms should be ignored if they're rudely put, just that these particular scientists are not as closed off to criticisms and suggestions as you might think they are.

Finally, I got a reply from one of the scientists (not Jones) who had wanted to use a technique closely related to LIBS, and had suggested so much twice, but was waiting for a "60 hour day" to do it (presumably on his own).

beachnut

16th April 2009, 10:44 PM

I have quantified differences graphed in Grainier's Figure 1 (by counting pixels).

In terms of energy / volume,

HMX is 52% Al/Fe2O3
RDX is 52% of Al/Fe2O3
TNT is 29% of Al/Fe2O3

In terms of energy / mass

HMX is 24% Al/Fe2O3
RDX is 22% of Al/Fe2O3
TNT is 12% of Al/Fe2O3

TNT is 31.67 percent Fe2O3 + 2Al

Are you numbers correct? What was the source?

chocolate chip cookies are 426 percent Fe2O3 + 2Al

It was the cookie crumbs Jones should be looking for.

Dave Rogers

17th April 2009, 02:07 AM

They are always called sputter coaters in the industry. eg:

http://www.emitech.co.uk/pdfs/sputter_coating.pdf

Sorry about that, you're right, it is a sputter coater. There's not that much difference between them and small evaporators.

I know it's a bit off-topic but what's the larger machine?

Similar, but production scale, with multiple targets and 4" wafer capability (might take 6" at a stretch). Evaporators seem to scale better than sputter coaters, so a similar sized evaporator won't be anything near as big.

Dave

metamars

17th April 2009, 07:41 AM

No, I have it the right way round. The Wikipedia article on energy density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) explains it similarly:

OK, gotcha.

Therefore thermite, which holds its own oxidiser, has a lower energy density, at around 4kJ/g, than combustible materials that don't contain their own oxidisers, for example kerosene at around 43kJ/g.

Now, here I'm confused. Even given the correct, wikipedia definition of energy density, the Francis Andrew thesis shows a AlFe2O3 energy density of 4,000 cal/ gram (in Figure 1). But 4,000 calories is not 4 J, but rather 16,736 J, according to this converter (http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/energy-ex.html). (Also, this converter (http://acsweb.fmarion.edu/pryor/cal.converter.html).) So, it looks to me like the wikipedia entry is wrong.

Although I know neither Mr. Wikipedia nor Mr. Francis, I think that it's most likely that I, wikipedia, and then Francis have made a mistake - in that order. :)

With 16 KJ/g energy density (I still have to force myself to use the phrase correctly :) ), it's simply not true that chips which weigh in at 8 KJ/g have " nearly twice the energy density of pure thermite." Rather, their effective energy yield is about half of thermite's energy density.

metamars

17th April 2009, 08:08 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1476449e7178ebe28d.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16046)

It's not entirely clear, but look at the Y axis. The highest value quoted is less than 4000J/g, the figure for the energy density of thermite.

What is probably a minor point: that graph is for Al/MoO3. It's probably minor, since Al/MoO3 has about a 7% higher energy density than Al/Fe2O3 (determined by eyeballing Fig 1 in the Andrew Francis thesis.)

Clearly, the chips in Jones, et. al., if they are thermites, at all, are not composed of spherical nano-particles of Al, which is the only sort of Al particles hitherto known to myself (and, I suspect, to the scientists working on nano aluminothermics, in general). It's certainly the type of Al particles studies by Grainier.

I have speculated that the whole point of a platelet morphology is to allow both a higher effective energy ("practical energy density", if you will), as well as lower power (i.e., slowing down the reaction). While I have presented arguments to support my speculation, I don't stand by them as anything other than speculation, and hope that capable scientists will weigh in with at least their theoretical opinions, even if experimental confirmation, in the public domain, of this idea is a long way off.

I'm sure we all agree, though, that if there is a way to double and treble the effective energy content of nanothermite, that is highly desirable from a CD and weapons point of view.

16.5

17th April 2009, 08:16 AM

While I regret that many of Dr. Greening's criticisms and helpful suggestions are not better received, I have been cc'd on some of the emails, and I understand that some of the scientists are a bit peeved over past events. It doesn't help that some of them conflate Dr. Greening with JREF - even if they're aware of a 'split', let's call it. I certainly am sympathetic to some of their frustrations, not least of which is, having to work pro bono, they cannot devote the time and resources following every suggested method that has been put to them.

I suggest you suppress your tendency to always make 911 Truth sympathizers look bad, at least in this case, as you are not privy to these emails. And no, I'm not going to ask for permission to print them on a public forum.

If you're honest, you must admit that they have put their careers and reputations on the line. The tone of some of those emails make it obvious that they are quite confident of what they have found. However, it remains to be seen what the scientific community makes of their claims, and what their own future research will show. E.g., Professor Jones was quite enthused about a reference I gave him for a technique which is cheap and "quasi" non-destructive, that should be able to identify the chips as paint or some sort of coating, if they are indeed, such. As Professor Jones has already given me permission to publish his emails, I will quote his reply:

This was in reply to my email:

Besides the fact that my suggestion had the nice benefit of likely being affordable, I put it politely. This is not to say that serious suggestions and criticisms should be ignored if they're rudely put, just that these particular scientists are not as closed off to criticisms and suggestions as you might think they are.

Finally, I got a reply from one of the scientists (not Jones) who had wanted to use a technique closely related to LIBS, and had suggested so much twice, but was waiting for a "60 hour day" to do it (presumably on his own).

You'll forgive us for not feeling particularly sorry for the authors for not having done proper tests, employed proper scientific reasoning nor methods before they published this paper in a publication that does not have proper standards for peer review.

The "scientists" have had enough time to post on 911 Blogger, issue press releases, sit for an interview on Danish TV, make plans for their trip to Australia, etc, but now they can't find enough time to do what they should have done in the first place?

Further, if they can't handle JREF's criticism, they might has well hang up their “lab” coats.

metamars

17th April 2009, 09:00 AM

Now, here I'm confused. Even given the correct, wikipedia definition of energy density, the Francis Andrew thesis shows a AlFe2O3 energy density of 4,000 cal/ gram (in Figure 1).

I googled "heat of reaction" and thermite, and came up with this (http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/thermites.html).

Fe2O3+ 2 Al -> Al2O3+ 2 Fe Dh = -3.98 kJ/gram.

OK, now I'm officially, really confused.

Dave Rogers

17th April 2009, 10:53 AM

I googled "heat of reaction" and thermite, and came up with this (http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/thermites.html).

Fe2O3+ 2 Al -> Al2O3+ 2 Fe Dh = -3.98 kJ/gram.

OK, now I'm officially, really confused.

This agrees with Wikipedia and with Grainier's dissertation. I'm guessing Francis said calories but meant joules; I'd be surprised, in this century, to see a scientific publication that didn't use SI units.

And that brings us back to Steven Jones's 200% efficient thermite.

Dave

Sunstealer

17th April 2009, 02:43 PM

With 16 KJ/g energy density (I still have to force myself to use the phrase correctly :) ), it's simply not true that chips which weigh in at 8 KJ/g have " nearly twice the energy density of pure thermite." Rather, their effective energy yield is about half of thermite's energy density.One of the other problems I have with the DSC experiment is that Jones et Al don't talk very much about the "gray layer", all of the theories of thermite are concerning the "red layer" only. Yet this red layer wasn't separated (and I don't blame them! How would you do that? Lots of patience required) for the DSC test. That means that the "gray layer" would have formed part of the weight and therefore affect the calculation.

If we make the assumption that the red layer weighs the same as the "gray layer" and that a reaction only occurs in the red layer then how does that affect the calculation. i.e. the sample weighs half as much. Does that double the energy/g?

Julio

17th April 2009, 02:46 PM

I googled "heat of reaction" and thermite, and came up with this (http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/thermites.html).

Fe2O3+ 2 Al -> Al2O3+ 2 Fe Dh = -3.98 kJ/gram.

OK, now I'm officially, really confused.

The way Jones writes the reaction, the heat released is 853 KJ/mol

Now, 1 mol of Fe2O3 +2 moles of Al are 214 grams thermite. 853/214=3.98 KJ/g, which is the value you have there. I'd say the 4 Kcal/g should be 4 KJ/g. Mistaken units.

Hope it helps.

Sunstealer

17th April 2009, 03:00 PM

Clearly, the chips in Jones, et. al., if they are thermites, at all, are not composed of spherical nano-particles of Al, which is the only sort of Al particles hitherto known to myself (and, I suspect, to the scientists working on nano aluminothermics, in general). It's certainly the type of Al particles studies by Grainier.Yep all the nano-aluminium particles I've ever seen from manufacturers are all spheres. What bothers me is this (I've edited it to only show one spectrum)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=888

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

alienentity

17th April 2009, 03:13 PM

metamars

17th April 2009, 06:30 PM

This agrees with Wikipedia and with Grainier's dissertation. I'm guessing Francis said calories but meant joules; I'd be surprised, in this century, to see a scientific publication that didn't use SI units.

And that brings us back to Steven Jones's 200% efficient thermite.

Dave

There is no rule of nature or God that demands that nanothermites be manufactured in stoichiometric proportions, especially if they're going to be burnt in air. See my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4629273&postcount=169), where I estimate (using some risky assumptions, to be sure; I'm not in the mood to pay for full access to a journal article) that a viable Al nanopowder in air can be ignited which has double the effective energy density of a stoichiometrically correct version.

metamars

18th April 2009, 12:21 PM

I have no idea about control of oxide shell formation temperature in any grinding process, but I have a hard time believing that you could control shell strength via any grinding (and filtering, if necessary) process, whatsoever. I also have a hard time believing that you could effectively or at least efficiently control relative particle size and relative particle size distribution in a grinding process (and filtering, if necessary).

From the Grainier thesis:

Nano-scale aluminum is pyrophoric in air and must be stabilized for handling. An oxide passivation layer is ‘grown’ around the core aluminum particles by controlling the pressure, temperature, oxygen concentration and exposure time to achieve a uniform and precisely controlled oxide layer. This shell provides an air stable nano-aluminum particle.

T.A.M.

18th April 2009, 04:00 PM

Has there been any word on Jones' submissions of this paper to other journals, namely non "pay to publish" journals?

TAM:)

WhiteLion

18th April 2009, 06:22 PM

Here is an article on this matter by a certain John R Moffett; "Was it Nanotech-Thermite or Phasers that took down the WTC? (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Nanotech-Thermite--by-John-R-Moffett-090415-784.html)"

Sunstealer

18th April 2009, 08:20 PM

I'm going to add a couple of things which cropped up - notably Bofors linking to the http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf and the subsequent EDS spectra, because I find it interesting and it's a source of data that I previously hadn't had time to compare, bearing in mind I've set out my stall and don't think that there is anything more to say until further data is provided by Jones et al that shows that the platelet particles aren't Kaolinite or show that the MEK chip's red layer doesn't contain talc or zinc chromate, but anyway this post will simply strengthen my argument.

Lets look at the the data in the link above anyway. We can clearly see material of approximately 3mm in thickness in Fig C-3 of the mounted and polished specimen and we can also clearly see a reduction in thickness of this material to approximately half (1-1.5mm). We know that a 10-20µm layer of thermite can't do that which has already been shown by Dr Greening, but lets press on.

The proposal is that a thermite material has caused this to happen.

So lets examine the EDS spectra of the surface of this steel bearing in mind the material in the thermite is Al and Fe203 that undergoes a redox reaction to produce liquid Fe and Al2O3.

The first thing we notice with regard to the spectra is the lack of Al present. We should expect to see Aluminium present even in small quantities as a by-product of the thermite reaction (in the form Al2O3). This is not the case. Where is this alumina? It's not there. Why not? (click the above link and look at the EDS spectra and show me Al).

Secondly when we examine Fig C-8 we clearly see EDS spectra for FeO and FeS. If thermite were responsible for this then we would expect to see a significant Sulphur peak in the EDS spectra from the red layer in Jones' samples a,b,c,d.

Where's the Sulphur?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=874

We see a small peak in sample c) but this can be explained by other means and Jones et al only mention sulfur (sulphur) twice in the document and specifically say that

Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.Which is a different material to the red layer in samples a,b,c,d.

Their own words dismiss Sulphur as a contaminant yet many truthers will say that the presence of Sulphur in thermite is to lower the melting point of steel. If that were the case (which is preposterous) then why do we see so little Sulphur in the red layer? Why, when Sulphur is detected, is it dismissed as a contaminant? You can't have your cake and eat it - This conundrum needs answering by truthers for it is a legitimate question.

So lets look at the EDS spectra. Firstly I'll provide the spectra for the oxide layer that has formed on the samples in the above link Fig C-13 - locations 2 & 3, which we know were subjected to temperature in excess of the eutectic for FeS or Fe-O-S namely approximately 940°C and then compare with the gray layer of samples a-d), hence;

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=908

They are very similar in characteristic, shape aswell as elements identified. I've only roughly matched the x-axis scale but the correlation of shape is strikingly similar.

Firstly we must deal with the Carbon peak and the difference between the two spectra. In the first graph we see little to no Carbon and in the subsequent graphs a-d) we see a significant peak. This is easily explainable and any metallurgist will know why, (but can people resist the temptation to press the spoiler button and think why? - hint: read the above link) In the FEMA sample we know that the steel material has been subjected to high temperature and exposure to air. This causes decarburization of the steel's surface, hence the lack of a C peak in the EDS spectrum for the subsequent oxide - anyone who doubts this just has to google decarburization to find out or read the above link

So what does that tell us? Well for starters, the gray material in Jones' samples, when analysed, had not been subjected to the same high temperatures as seen in http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf and that is why there is a different level of Oxygen in the spectra, but they are clearly from a similar source, namely a steel substrate and not only that, but a substrate that looks like A36 steel due to the Mn peak at @ 5.9KeV.

Jones et al do not comment in any depth with regard to the "gray layer", their paper pretty much ignores it, yet this layer is supposedly a constituent in their thermite hypothesis. This "gray layer", as the data provided by Jones et al, not only shows that this is not a constituent of thermite, but also provides a strikingly good match for iron oxide from a A36 steel that has not been subjected to temperatures above @ 430°C (and 650°C if my memory serves me with regard to the temperature at which steels decarburize).

Why have Jones et al not looked into this "gray layer" as they call it, which is characteristically distinct from the red layer and shows high similarity to an oxide layer of (a known) steel, which has been shown by comparison between their own XEDS and spectra from FEMA.

This additional analysis shows that Jones et al have never considered the "gray layer" as being part of a steel substrate. They claim the chips are thermite, yet have not been thorough enough to analyse the "gray layer" of their chips and either hypothesise nor determine their origin.

Another mark against them.

Sunstealer

20th April 2009, 05:35 PM

ElMondoHummus

21st April 2009, 09:02 AM

Notice, also, that this dramatic drop of DSC peak temperature with decreasing particle size puts to bed the egregiously wrong notion that there's nothing special about nano-scale properties, which some people were proclaiming in the first JREF thread on this subject.

I feel the need to respond to this. We are still correct. This is why: You are stating that the fact that a tinier particle leading to more complete reaction is the "special property" we were addressing in other threads. No, it is not. The "special property" was that ultrarefinement of the thermite particles would lead directly to the heat measurements the paper's authors observed, which were in excess of the enthalpy of reaction for thermite.

The clear insinuation on the authors' part was that the heat observed and noted in the paper was from a thermite reaction. To be blunt, the authors did little to correct that misapprehension. Yes, they left themselves an "out" in the form of the statement conceding "excess" heat could be from organic combustion, but that doesn't matter. They never separate out that contributor. On top of that, they continued to juxtapose the heat release with other thermite properties. What they wanted believers to think is clear: These heat measurements demonstrate that the particles are energetic, and therefore must be "nano" thermite.

The point here is that, even though they gave themselves a three-sentence way out of this obvious insinuation, they clearly wanted people to think that the heat data supports the argument that this chip was thermite. And on top of that, they provided data on "nano" technology to give believers another excuse to believe in the results. The bottom line is that they deceived, and that lead people to attribute the excess heat above and beyond the reaction's maximum possible to "nano" properties. That is clear in the responses in other threads.

So, as we pointed out in those other threads, there is indeed a limit to the energy released in any given reaction. And that is what the argument was; the fact that you turned out not to be making it doesn't change that at all. Too many other truthers were trying to make the argument that the excess energy released was in fact from a thermite reaction, and when confronted with the fact that it exceeded the maximum possible value for a thermite reaction, many retreated to the position that it was the "nano" property which allowed that excess to be achieved. This is a stance profoundly ignorant of chemistry. No refinement of reactants allow them to exceed their maximum possible enthalpy of reaction, yet the very clear excuse being made by apologists was exactly that.

As I said in the other thread, you managed to find the one paragraph in the paper allowing an out: The fact that the authors admitted that much of the energy released could be due to the oxidation of the organic material in the chip. You and the authors seem to be the only ones harping on that point, but regardless, it's no excuse. The very clear argument was that the nanosizing was what allowed such high measurements, and it was not an argument made in conjunction with any excuse that additional reactions were occuring to bump up the heat release. That is the "special property" we were referring to, and that is still an utterly incorrect concept to believe in.

Context is everything. There is nothing to be "put to bed" about what we said, and it was far from being "egregiously wrong". In fact, it was completely on point. There is no "nano" property that allows a reaction to exceed the maximum possible enthalpy of reaction. Period. That is what we were referring to, and noting that there were other reactions available to explain the "excess" heat, let alone noting that experiments demonstrate that refinement helps get reactions closer to the maximum theoretical heat release doesn't change the fact that those alternate reactions were never considered by anyone other than you. They were certainly never quantified by the paper's authors themselves. The bottom line here is that nothing about reactants being "nano" means the reaction can exceed the maximum enthalpy of reaction. That is what we were refuting.

alienentity

21st April 2009, 09:58 PM

Is anyone actually reading this thread? Why so few comments? Why do people who support the paper we are discussing not post here? The original ran for 40+ pages yet this one can't manage 3. Is no-one posting or are the mods having their work cut out and refusing to allow peoples posts?

This is the thread that people should be posting on with regard to this topic and it's going to be allowed to die yet others will grow. What's the point?

I assume it's because all the inflammatory derail is cut out here so it's taken the stuffing out of the truther arguments. I'm convinced that 98% of them are not interested in a serious debate about the issues - does this really surprise anyone?

You've made some solid criticisms of Jones' latest work, but the truthers wanted this to be the end of discussion, not the beginning - they generally have no idea how science is actually conducted, or how to evaluate theories properly, otherwise they wouldn't rush to accept this stuff in the first place.

My own criticisms of the thermite theory go beyond the red chips, although you may recall I have expressed concerns that the material showed up in samples taken at different locations, which I feel argues that it must be something quite common; also that there would almost certainly have to be residue of such material on actual WTC steel, which would have been noticeable.
Neither of those concerns have been addressed anywhere that I'm aware.

I've thrown out the idea of energy density on a couple of youtube channels (the ones that haven't blocked me immediately for posting criticism) as per observations on the original JREF forum and I received almost no feedback except some vulgar remarks and triumphal 'case closed' statements. One person has suggested we publish our own papers if we have something to say...

The one semi-intelligent assertion was that nanothermite would have a greater energy density than regular thermite (at max 4kJ/gram). So far no truther has bothered to tackle the issue of varied energy densities, or oxygen vs inert gas.

Apart from that there hasn't been a whole lot of reaction to criticism of the paper that I'm aware of. Perhaps the situation will be similar to the experience of Ryan Mackey, who says he has received very little response to his DRG NIST paper.

Is that a good thing? Anyway thanks for all your hard work - I'd love to see it published in a journal.

henryco

22nd April 2009, 01:00 AM

Hello everybody,

The energy density of some of the chips seems greater than the theoretical maximum for thermite? A real concern?
Even paper or wood is more energetic as far as i have understood than thermite so even a small organic material contribution
might explain the excess.
However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction.
Fortunately the ambiguity convincingly disappears as soon as we know that the chips ignited and produced iron dropplets so there
actually was a highly exothermic reduction of the iron oxyde.

Therefore when the MEK analysis and the comparison with paints (conductivity, spectra) come into the gain, i would say this is
just to refine the picture...just for fun! Can any expert here tell us about a paint which ignites spontaneously at 400°C and produces
iron dropplets ? Chemistry is not my field , i'm working on alternative theories of gravity so may be i missed
something important. If yes please let me know!

Frederic Henry-Couannier

Dave Rogers

22nd April 2009, 03:59 AM

I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction.
Fortunately the ambiguity convincingly disappears as soon as we know that the chips ignited and produced iron dropplets so there
actually was a highly exothermic reduction of the iron oxyde.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Iron-rich microspheres are a well-known and characterised component of fly ash, a product of the combustion of coal - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=10643&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or for examples. Since this is a process involving normal combustion of hydrocarbons, the presence of similar residues in the products of combustion doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that something other than hydrocarbon combustion is taking place. As far as I recall (I can't check because Bentham's website seems to be offline right now), the paper doesn't demonstrate that the microspheres are actually pure iron droplets, just that they have a shiny surface and contain iron.

Dave

T.A.M.

22nd April 2009, 05:15 AM

ElMondoHummus

22nd April 2009, 07:58 AM

That doesn't necessarily follow. Iron-rich microspheres are a well-known and characterised component of fly ash, a product of the combustion of coal - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=10643&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or for examples. Since this is a process involving normal combustion of hydrocarbons, the presence of similar residues in the products of combustion doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that something other than hydrocarbon combustion is taking place. As far as I recall (I can't check because Bentham's website seems to be offline right now), the paper doesn't demonstrate that the microspheres are actually pure iron droplets, just that they have a shiny surface and contain iron.

Dave

The authors call them "iron rich", and the EDX spectra shows the presence of other elements (carbon, oxygen, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, sulfur, potassium, calcium, and titanium). In the paper, the authors take care to note that the spheres "weren't observed" prior to combustion in the calorimeter test, thus implying that they were not there to begin with, and only appeared after burning. It's impossible to tell whether they were spheres that existed before the test and were liberated from the containing matrix during the combustion, or whether they were honestly formed in some sort of reaction in the manner the authors claim. Other researcher would get the benefit of the doubt from me, but not these guys. I'd definitely require verification via analysis of remaining material (if they have any).

henryco

22nd April 2009, 11:54 AM

moorea34

22nd April 2009, 12:37 PM

And this curve (picture B) for SSL ?

ttp://la.cesam.ua.pt/highlights/2007/QAA_v1_MartaOtero.htm (please add h behind the link)

Two peaks (300, and 500 °C)... 20W/g for the maximum

Is therm*te less powerfull than sludge ? :o

M

T.A.M.

22nd April 2009, 12:51 PM

I have written a more detailed post in response but since the site does not admit URLs for the new ones i dont know if it will appear : so my post is probably lost

To summarize
it is completely obvious from the photos that the spherical shapes (the authors say some of them are predominately iron and some oxygen) formed as a product of the reaction (these are really big , 50microns and could not be missed in the initial chip)
can burning coal melt iron ?

F

The solution to shut everyone here up about it, is very simple.

Have Jones submit HIS SAMPLES to a DOCUMENTED, INDEPENDENT (free of any personal or professional connections to the authors) LAB for analysis of the dust. They could then compare those samples, in terms of composition, presence or absence of these amazing chips, and how the chips react, to known samples from the WTC dust, with known chains of custody, and no agenda.

If results came back from such a lab analysis indicating that these chips are thermite, and are present in samples collected from KNOWN SAMPLES OF WTC DUST, with a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY, then you would make me believe. If Jones and the rest are honest in their quest for THE TRUTH, they would do so, to quiet all critics.

TAM:)

lapman

22nd April 2009, 01:10 PM

The solution to shut everyone here up about it, is very simple.

Have Jones submit HIS SAMPLES to a DOCUMENTED, INDEPENDENT (free of any personal or professional connections to the authors) LAB for analysis of the dust. They could then compare those samples, in terms of composition, presence or absence of these amazing chips, and how the chips react, to known samples from the WTC dust, with known chains of custody, and no agenda.

If results came back from such a lab analysis indicating that these chips are thermite, and are present in samples collected from KNOWN SAMPLES OF WTC DUST, with a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY, then you would make me believe. If Jones and the rest are honest in their quest for THE TRUTH, they would do so, to quiet all critics.

TAM:)
Isn't this similar to what he did back in Dec, 2007? There wasn't an answer to that one. Obviously, the results were not to his liking.

Dave Rogers

22nd April 2009, 01:13 PM

can burning coal melt iron ?

Irrelevant. Iron-rich microspheres are a normal product of coal combustion. There's nothing in the paper to differentiate Jones's microspheres from these.

Dave

911kongen

22nd April 2009, 01:27 PM

Why dont Jones send one of his nano-chips AND a pice of WTCs paint to a independent company. Then they can prove if this is the same thing. Im afraid someone that sees something that has the same ingrediense as thermite, will say its a form of thermite. In a way it is!? The paint is a form of thermite! ? Just not the explosive or ekstreme sort.

Sunstealer

22nd April 2009, 01:41 PM

It's interesting how they call the spheres iron rich. Look at the 3 spectra below. Lots of other elements in there, notably O and Si.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=925

Sunstealer

22nd April 2009, 03:37 PM

Hello everybody,Hello, henryco.

Therefore when the MEK analysis and the comparison with paints (conductivity, spectra) come into the gain, i would say this is just to refine the picture...just for fun! For me the MEK test is slightly strange and raises further questions with regard to the similarity between samples in the paper. The "red layer" of this chip is of a different material to samples a,b,c,d. Comparison of Figs 7 & 14 shows this. I don't think they can claim both are thermite.

There are no SEM pictures pre and post testing so it's difficult to see what has actually happened to the chip and confirm what they are claiming, that is "elemental aluminium". There is also no detail about the paint used for comparison.

I would like to see detailed SEM pictures of this red layer in the "MEK chip", because I think this would prove the difference as I suspect it contains talc and zinc chromate.

Can any expert here tell us about a paint which ignites spontaneously at 400°C and produces iron dropplets ?That would be very nice to find someone who can! I've no idea whether paint companies even look at the combusted product when producing data for Material Safety Data Sheets or any other research. /shrug. I think the best thing would be for an independent materials testing company (or two) to be given the samples without any information about the sample or their source and have those results free for all to see.

Chemistry is not my field , Nor mine - a necessary evil. :)

i'm working on alternative theories of gravity so may be i missed something important. If yes please let me know!

Frederic Henry-CouannierI'm currently working on WMD.

Weld Metal Deposition - Specifically Ti 6-4 for casings. You use an automated welding machine to lay down layer after layer of weld material, slowly building it up into the component's shape, then that goes for final machining into the finished part. ;) :D
To summarize it is completely obvious from the photos that the spherical shapes (the authors say some of them are predominately iron and some oxygen) formed as a product of the [an unknown] reaction (these are really big , 50microns and could not be missed in the initial chip)I agree with this [with my addition]. Unless someone has been dishonest, which I highly doubt, then it's a logical conclusion. We don't see the spheres in the SEM photos pre-ignition, but we do post-ignition. However, this in no way proves that a thermite reaction has occurred especially because the test was carried out in air.

Red paint contains Fe2O3. Red paint also contains aluminosilicates. Red paint also contains some form of organic binder or thinner. Red paint will also contain impurities, because the materials used are from natural sources. Red paint will also contain other elements due to propriety chemical make up. (Individual companies have their own recipes and even these recipes will have natural variance). We also know that similar microspheres occur in fly-ash, which isn't produced via a thermite reaction.

We also see lots of other post ignition material too, but this wasn't detailed in the paper. It wouldn't surprise me that paint of such a composition produces tiny metallic spheres on ignition and this is something I'm quite interested in and intrigued about. Energy requirements, surface chemistry and mechanics are not as predictable on the micro scale as on the macro. This is something I'm going to look into and ask a few colleagues about.

can burning coal melt iron ?Oh yes. Reverberatory Furnace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverberatory_Furnace)

There are different types of coal and it's best to use certain types for iron making. Whilst the blast furnace produces pig iron from ore, this material is a liquid and is "tapped off", so coal can certainly reach the required temperature. We use a coal derivative, namely coke, in blast furnaces.

Thanks for your interest.

T.A.M.

22nd April 2009, 04:41 PM

Frederic Henry-Couannier :

Given your role as the scientist who "Independently" verified Jones results, care to show your data here, or point us to your paper on the matter?

Also, seeing as you are here, and Jones is not, would you be ok with the samples of the WTC dust you were given, or the ones Jones has, being provided to another lab, one with no personal or professional contact to the authors of the paper, for an independent analysis of the dust, and the chips, where a comparison can be made to other known dust samples that have a known chain of custody?

Thanks

TAM:)

metamars

23rd April 2009, 12:53 AM

Hello everybody,

Hello. BTW, you should check out the911forum.freeforums.org (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150.html). Dr. Greening posts there. He is banned from JREF.

Also, I have speculated that the red chip material may ignite at a lower temperature than nano-aluminothermics due to the platelet morphology. "Normal" Al particles in aluminothermics have spherical oxide layers such that ultimate strength approached the theoretical maximum strength of 11.3 GPa, but flexural strength of Al-oxide is in the MPa range. See my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4638746&postcount=96). Granier's nanothermite thesis is here (http://dspace.lib.ttu.edu/bitstream/2346/956/1/JGranier_dissertation_FINAL.pdf).

henryco

23rd April 2009, 04:38 AM

Frederic Henry-Couannier :

Given your role as the scientist who "Independently" verified Jones results, care to show your data here, or point us to your paper on the matter?

I dont have the right to write the link here because i'm new on this forum but i can send it to you via private email so you can post it here.

Also, seeing as you are here, and Jones is not, would you be ok with the samples of the WTC dust you were given, or the ones Jones has, being provided to another lab, one with no personal or professional contact to the authors of the paper, for an independent analysis of the dust, and the chips, where a comparison can be made to other known dust samples that have a known chain of custody?

Of course i can and ready to share this dust with anyone. How can i be sure that there will be an independent check ? You also can acquire a sample (much easier for you in the USA ). Anyway, i could not perform the crucial tests: ignition, DSC and MEK so my results only confirm that there are microspheres and red chips in my samples with the same aspect and chemical signatures that Jones, Harrit and co have shown.

I understand that Iron can be melted in a furnace where the heat can accumulate and be concentrated but can a small piece of coal, dimension less than 100 microns melt a somewhat smaller piece of iron? i would say of course not since the dissipative process are much too effective at such small scales! So if you admit that some microspheres which are mostly iron (see Fig 21 and Fig 20) were produced from the chips in the DSC, what else than the reduction of Fe and oxydation of Al (released heat initially concentrated in the reactants ) could be responsible for that ? I can only explain this melted iron provided it participated in the reaction.
Clear evidence is also shown for the reduction of Fe: in the red layer it was Fe2O3, in the residues the iron content far exceeds the oxygen content!

Another point : i thought that a DSC could give an indication on how powerful a sample can be. May be this is only true for monomolecular explosive (TNT) or thermite where the reaction actually procedes in the whole volume...but may be not . can anybody comment on that ?

Since the power is related to the ability of a given volume of tested material to release its energy rapidly, the power indication given by the DSC is certainly not meaningful when applied to an organic compound which can only react at its interface with the surrounding air providing the oxygen.
So its power directly depends on its Surface/volume ratio i.e. its size!

So may be i have to admit that the DSC results are only reliable concerning the power provided there was not too much organic oxydation contamination.

However the other observations (melted iron microsphere, reduction of the Iron, hot material projections at ignition) are still providing an almost irrefutable evidence for a thermitic reaction.

Having taken spectra at various points both from the grey and red layers
i confirm tht there is always a variable contamination from place to place but the background (the elements which are always there) is easy to identify!

So the presence of such a small amount of Zn in the sample submitted to MEK is completely irrelevant since the chip has the same aspect as the others and since the authors have convincingly shown that most of the Aluminium is not associated with Si or O.

F H-C

chillzero

23rd April 2009, 04:47 AM

henry, you can post the url with a few spaces added in :

w w w (dot) whatever the url is (dot) com

We can fix it for you.

twinstead

23rd April 2009, 04:53 AM

I still can't get my brain past this chain of custody thing. That's just the largest of many reasons why IMHO only a fool would put his "stamp of approval" on a paper like this, scientist or not.

T.A.M.

23rd April 2009, 05:08 AM

Henry;

You seem somewhat reasonable, so I will be frank,

1. Most here on this forum, those considering themselves debunkers or skeptics, do not trust Stephen Jones. He has for many years now, shown himself to be driven beyond reason, by an obsession that the twin towers were brought down by elements of the USG. For this reason, anything he produces, scientific or otherwise, is suspect...to say least.

2. In this thread, you will see the issues we have with Jones' paper.

3. As you are known to him, at some level, personally, and are affiliated with proving "thermite" was in the rubble, we must hold your analysis, for now, also suspect.

4. As I have said above, if Jones wants to prove his case beyond a doubt, he needs to submit his samples to a truly independent lab for composition analysis, as well as analysis of the red chips. This data, must then be compared to known samples of WTC dust with a known chain of custody. If after all that, the conclusion is "superthermite was in the dust" then you will have this community at least "interested" beyond the usual.

TAM:)

beachnut

23rd April 2009, 05:23 AM

...
However the other observations (melted iron microsphere, reduction of the Iron, hot material projections at ignition) are still providing an almost irrefutable evidence for a thermitic reaction.

F H-C Are you stating this as a chemist? Are you a chemist? (you implied earlier you were not, but this statement implies you are since you left out reams of supporting information) Why do these constitute irrefutable evidence for you a non-chemist, and how can you state such an unfounded conclusion? Oh, you said, "an almost". Got it.

The energy in the samples is erratic which is irrefutable evidence it was not a thematic reaction like thermite for several reasons. Based on the fact you are not a chemist what do you say?

Do you agree with Jones that Hoffman's idea on how the thermite was placed in the WTC includes thousand of ceiling tiles with thermite in them?

Do you agree with Jones theory that thermite was used to bring down the WTC? Why is there zero products of thermite found at ground zero? Why is there zero evidence on any steel from the WTC of thermite?

The paper was used by 911Truth believers to imply this is it; the big loaded gun as Jones now calls it. Why have you not taken your confirmation and earn a Pulitzer Prize for this revelation Jones implies is proof of thermite taking out the WTC?

metamars

23rd April 2009, 06:45 AM

Of course i can and ready to share this dust with anyone.

There have been complaints about the precision with which ratios of atomic species can be determined via XEDS, and also the ambiguity unnecessarily introduced by DSC done in air (which contains oxygen) as opposed to in vaccuum or inert gas. Please read the comments by Sunstealer and Greening (again, Greening's comments are at the911forum.freeforums.org).

Unlike debunkers here, I would urge you to share chips with people that you know, or people that people you know, know, etc., that have expertise and access to equipment that will nail this stuff down, better. What about your university? Preferably they are established, have a spotless record for integrity, etc.

I spoke to a physicist at a local university, looking to see if he could explain the difference between a DSC and micron level DSC (which measures in units of Volts/mass). He didn't even know what a DSC is! I think you really need to focus on searching out material scientists and physical chemists.

How can i be sure that there will be an independent check ?
At the thread on this subject in the Science forum, somebody suggested McCrone Associates (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4644477&postcount=121). Looking at their web site, however, shows that the US government entrusted them with making a copy of the Zapruder film (of the JFK assassination). That means I don't trust them.... I would guess that the chance that McCrone has no spooks (i.e., spies) on their payroll is zero.

In general, I think it's best to avoid any labs that do business with any Western government, and certainly if they do business with intelligence agencies. Who knows what secrecy/non-disclosure agreements they have signed - the existence of which they are not allowed to disclose? I would stick with tenured professors who, even if they are funded by their governments, do not do any sort of military work. Also, it's obviously ideal to have many, many researchers working on the chips.
Please note that I am allowing the above paragraphs as part of a response to a prior post. However, responses to this specific issue will not be allowed to derail the thread, and will probably not be approved (or may be removed after approval). A new thread can be generated in the main CT section, if you wish to explore this further.

If possible, please break any chips you have in half, and only send half out. If a third party returns with results that are outliers, you still have the other half to examine, to verify or disconfirm that they have committed fraud.

henryco

23rd April 2009, 08:48 AM

Are you stating this as a chemist? Are you a chemist? (you implied earlier you were not, but this statement implies you are since you left out reams of supporting information) Why do these constitute irrefutable evidence for you a non-chemist, and how can you state such an unfounded conclusion? Oh, you said, "an almost". Got it.

Even 911 debunkers and chemists at the same time admit that no hydrocarbon combustion out in the open can reach the temperatures to melt iron and this is why they dont believe that the flowing liquid metal from the towers was iron but rather Aluminium. This is even more obvious in the case of a very small staff in a DSC since the dissipative effects increase when the ratio surface/volume increases : as a physicist i can certainly say that!

The energy in the samples is erratic which is irrefutable evidence it was not a thematic reaction like thermite for several reasons. Based on the fact you are not a chemist what do you say?
what is written in the article: the mass of the inert grey layer relative to the red one varies from chip to chip. I think the grey part is a moderator. The thermitic reaction had to be moderated to avoid projection and keep the hot material in contact to the steel. This is a personnal point of view: i believe thermite was not used as an explosive but only in charge cutters with sulfur (thermate) for the bigger columns and to heat the remaining columns at the level of the planes impact (small thickness of steel to heat, many layers of thermite applied)...for a natural initiation of failure.

Do you agree with Jones that Hoffman's idea on how the thermite was placed in the WTC includes thousand of ceiling tiles with thermite in them?
I dont know, since the conductivity of steel is much higher than that of the surrounding air , the heat flow would be mostly toward the steel : efficient heating provided the molten metal is not projected away by a too explosive reaction.

Do you agree with Jones theory that thermite was used to bring down the WTC?
Only for the initiation of the failure looking as natural as possible (not starting with huge explosions) . Afterward its another story, probably hydrogen thermobarics or something else...

Why is there zero products of thermite found at ground zero? Why is there zero evidence on any steel from the WTC of thermite?
Tons of molten metal at GZ! many evidences also from previous Jones studies
and FEMA (thermate slags , sulfidation etc...) ...but i dont want to discuss everything all together: i'm discussing iron dropplets here and i was quite surprised to read above in this forum that even some debunkers are ready to admit molten iron generated at the WTC (byproducts of redchips ignition in the WTC fires: we do see them in the DSC !) .

link to my study:
www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

F H-C

T.A.M.

23rd April 2009, 08:50 AM

henry,

If there is to be any addressing of the Jones paper, and your evidence in support of it, by the scientific community as a whole, then the dust and chips need to be examined by a company or institution that has NO PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL association with the authors.

This would not normally be the case, but given all of the scientists that worked on the paper have openly admitted they believe 9/11 was an inside job, a theory that flies in the face of what is accepted by the current science community, there must be no doubts about bias or tampering with the samples. Any affiliation with the lab who analyzes it will come under suspicion if they are in any way connected to Jones or the other co-authors.

Now if there is a problem with suggested labs (McCrone Associates), then find another unconnected (to either the USG at the time of 9/11, or to the truth movement) lab, and suggest that one to Jones.

If this is not done, the paper will remain, as it is now, an unknown, untold of paper of little to no significance, and little to no impact.

TAM:)

Sunstealer

23rd April 2009, 11:24 AM

Of course i can and ready to share this dust with anyone. How can i be sure that there will be an independent check ? You also can acquire a sample (much easier for you in the USA ). Anyway, i could not perform the crucial tests: ignition, DSC and MEK so my results only confirm that there are microspheres and red chips in my samples with the same aspect and chemical signatures that Jones, Harrit and co have shown. Those are not crucial tests.

Crucial tests are the characterization of the compounds in the sample. This means XEDS is not good enough. There are many techniques that could be used for this absolutely crucial part of the investigation, for example

XRD, SIMS, Microprobe (Auger), XPS.

So if you admit that some microspheres which are mostly iron (see Fig 21 and Fig 20) were produced from the chips in the DSC, what else than the reduction of Fe and oxydation of Al (released heat initially concentrated in the reactants ) could be responsible for that ? I can only explain this melted iron provided it participated in the reaction.
Clear evidence is also shown for the reduction of Fe: in the red layer it was Fe2O3, in the residues the iron content far exceeds the oxygen content!Only one of the spheres, namely the one examined in Fig 21, show a predominantly Iron Oxide spectra. Bearing in mind that Jones' samples have a gray layer comprised of Iron Oxide (which is most likely from steel - see post #92 above) and that the DSC test was carried out in an atmosphere containing 21% Oxygen, then no-one can specifically say what pre-DSC material the spheres come from. It's an ambiguous test and therefore worthless. All it does is cloud the issue.

Why does no one talk about this "gray layer"? If it's part of the thermite then it should react in the DSC but their own paper states on page 19

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.

So their own data is seriously flawed. If they don't know the mass of the gray layer and the gray layer doesn't contribute to the reaction, but varies in thickness and therefore mass, how can their data be accurate? They are including an unknown mass in their calculations and this mass has nothing to do with the test. Crazy.

The time and money spent would have been better used sending their samples to a number of independent laboratories for analysis. That would be conclusive.

So may be i have to admit that the DSC results are only reliable concerning the power provided there was not too much organic oxydation contamination.And that's the problem. The paper states on page 15 that,

It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.

Which really should read something more like.

"It is shown that the red layer comprises rhomboidal (rhombohedral) crystals of Fe2O3, approximately 0.2µm in diameter and thin hexagonal, plate-like, aluminosilicate particles with a minimum diameter of 1µm, in an unknown matrix material whose primary constituent is Carbon."

"intimate mixing" - I do bite my thumb, Sir.

There is plenty of Carbon in the matrix which suggests an organic binder. There is a good chance that this is flammable and will corrupt the DSC test. Rather than acknowledge this they say

We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.

And it's these things that really annoy me, because they have effectively said, before the samples have been analysed, that thermite is present.

Does anyone think that Jones et al could possibly ever write a conclusion that doesn't involve thermite? Imho, they can't. Doesn't matter what the sample data says they MUST describe it in terms of thermite otherwise it blows their entire theory away, hence the above statement without any examination to find out exactly what this material is - it's speculation and has no place in a scientific paper. They could examine any material in the world and they would still say it's related to thermite.

However the other observations (melted iron microsphere, reduction of the Iron, hot material projections at ignition) are still providing an almost irrefutable evidence for a thermitic reaction.You cannot conclude that. The DSC tests where conducted in air, therefore any oxidation can be wholly explained. Secondly the XEDS spectra of the red layer show far too many other elements in the sample to conclude that α-Fe is present. Infact the only material containing Fe in the red layer is the rhomboidal crystals identified as Fe2O3, as shown in Figs 8,9 & 11. The only possible source for α-Fe or ferrite is from the gray layer, because it's from steel.

Having taken spectra at various points both from the grey and red layers i confirm tht there is always a variable contamination from place to place but the background (the elements which are always there) is easy to identify!

So the presence of such a small amount of Zn in the sample submitted to MEK is completely irrelevant since the chip has the same aspect as the others and since the authors have convincingly shown that most of the Aluminium is not associated with Si or O.I'm sorry but this is incorrect. I have shown that the sample submitted for MEK analysis has a completely different spectra for the red layer when compared to samples a,b,c,d. This proves the samples are not the same and therefore the MEK test is void and not only that but the paper is flawed because of it. They cannot handwave away data from their own spectra as contamination without showing the particles that make up this contamination. If they claim gypsum particles are present as a contaminant then they must show them. It's odd they claim contamination when

In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by BSE imaging and XEDS.

Please read post #36 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4614382&postcount=36)

They also do not correctly label the Spectrum and two elements namely K and Mg are also present. If you read post #36, it's clear that there is more data to associate the "MEK chip" to tnemec red primer paint than anything else.

Because we don't know the exact source for the chips and the chips are comprised of different materials including the "gray layer" (see Figs 31,32, 33 and associated text) yet the paper's authors claim that all of the samples are identical, we can safely conclude that they haven't considered alternative sources, namely, non-WTC buildings or surroundings, nor do they seriously consider alternative materials such as paint. You would expect this when they state

The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower. It's well known that a number of bridges have been subjected to criticism and have been examined, including the Brooklyn Bridge, for safety reasons because of their state of repair. If Mr Delassio swept a handful of dust from a rail could he not also have dislodged paint or rust from the rail? I've seen photographs of parts of the bridge that show a red layer of paint or primer under the bridges white paint.

In effect their need to prove thermite blinds them with respect to performing the testing, the analysis of the results and the conclusion. An independent examination is paramount. They have plenty of material,

Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this estimate so why are they not sending it to independent laboratories?

Sunstealer

23rd April 2009, 11:53 AM

Unlike debunkers here, I would urge you to share chips with people that you know, or people that people you know, know, etc., that have expertise and access to equipment that will nail this stuff down, better. What about your university? Preferably they are established, have a spotless record for integrity, etc.This should be out of the question. I don't know why metamars is suggesting this because it's highly irregular and unacceptable. Independent means just that, independent from "debunkers" just as much as anyone else.

I think you really need to focus on searching out material scientists and physical chemists.Yes, at an independent lab. The sample shouldn't be discussed if possible (they may need to talk about dimensions, etc, but source and composition should be a no no), the analysis techniques used are to be determined by the lab as long as they result in a proper quantitative analysis. The lab should say based upon their analysis what the material is and the whole lot should be publically available.

At the thread on this subject in the Science forum, somebody suggested McCrone Associates (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4644477&postcount=121). Looking at their web site, however, shows that the US government entrusted them with making a copy of the Zapruder film (of the JFK assassination). That means I don't trust them.... I would guess that the chance that McCrone has no spooks (i.e., spies) on their payroll is zero.

In general, I think it's best to avoid any labs that do business with any Western government, and certainly if they do business with intelligence agencies. Who knows what secrecy/non-disclosure agreements they have signed - the existence of which they are not allowed to disclose? I would stick with tenured professors who, even if they are funded by their governments, do not do any sort of military work. Also, it's obviously ideal to have many, many researchers working on the chips.
Please note that I am allowing the above paragraphs as part of a response to a prior post. However, responses to this specific issue will not be allowed to derail the thread, and will probably not be approved (or may be removed after approval). A new thread can be generated in the main CT section, if you wish to explore this further.
Whilst I acknowledge Chillzero's edit I'll comment, because I think it's relevant to the whole independent testing discussion - it either makes it in or not.

If the testing house doesn't know the origin of the samples, if the person requesting the analysis doesn't give them any background information about the topic (namely 9/11) or show them any previous analysis and if that person isn't connected with "9/11 truth", such as a third party, then how will any testing house possibly make a connection? If you send it to more than one company then how can they collude? That's what you do with independent analysis - contact the companies, give them as little info as possible, just enough to get a rough price quote and then send them the sample(s).

Sunstealer

23rd April 2009, 01:14 PM

Even 911 debunkers and chemists at the same time admit that no hydrocarbon combustion out in the open can reach the temperatures to melt iron and this is why they dont believe that the flowing liquid metal from the towers was iron but rather Aluminium. This is even more obvious in the case of a very small staff in a DSC since the dissipative effects increase when the ratio surface/volume increases : as a physicist i can certainly say that!But isn't there is a difference between the macro and micro when it comes to the energy required for melting especially with regard to small particles and their stability? Can you not get coalescence of particles resulting in melting of the particle surface?

what is written in the article: the mass of the inert grey layer relative to the red one varies from chip to chip. I think the grey part is a moderator. The thermitic reaction had to be moderated to avoid projection and keep the hot material in contact to the steel.Could you explain the term "projection" please. Is that a term meaning that the gray layer is there to stop material (of the red layer) from being ejected away from the steel surface during the thermite reaction? If that is the case then you are suggesting that the "gray layer" is the outside surface and the red layer is "sandwiched" between it and the steel?

Can you comment on my post where I show that there is a high degree of correlation with this gray layer and a layer of oxidised steel as shown in the Limited Metallurgical Examination for FEMA? I am convinced that the gray layer is oxidised steel which has spalled (come away) from the steel's surface. See previous posts.

This is a personnal point of view: i believe thermite was not used as an explosive but only in charge cutters with sulfur (thermate) for the bigger columns and to heat the remaining columns at the level of the planes impact (small thickness of steel to heat, many layers of thermite applied)...for a natural initiation of failure. Firstly we observe next to no Suphur in the red layers of samples a,b,c,d as evidenced by Fig 7. Has Jones not found thermate?

In Fig 14 we do observe Sulphur, which is dismissed as a possible contaminant too, but given that so many other elements are observed this cannot be dismissed.

In your own examination of the red layer you say that the S and Ca are contamination on pages 14 & 15 (and again in the gray layer pages 16,17 & 18). If one is expecting thermate to be (one of) the material(s) then why do you dismiss Sulphur as a contaminant?

I dont know, since the conductivity of steel is much higher than that of the surrounding air , the heat flow would be mostly toward the steel : efficient heating provided the molten metal is not projected away by a too explosive reaction.Dr Greening has performed calculations to show that steel would only be heated by 8°C based on the thickness of the red layer observed. How can such a thin layer of thermite possibly contain enough energy to heat a steel section 5mm in thickness let alone more to it's melting point? (5000 times thicker than 10µm)

Could you produce a calculation to show if it's possible or not? (He's a physicist so i think it is a reasonable question).

Tons of molten metal at GZ! many evidences also from previous Jones studies and FEMA (thermate slags , sulfidation etc...) ...but i dont want to discuss everything all together: Yes I understand. Have a quick look at the spectra produced from the FEMA report, notably the oxide layer and compare it with the gray layers in samples a,b,c,d. I've done that in post #92 above. This also highlights issues with the lack of Sulphur in Jones' samples and the often made claims that Sulphur in the Fe-O-S eutectic comes from the material Jones has found.

link to my study:
www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

F H-CThanks - this was brought to my attention by another member of JREF and the link was posted in the original 40+ page thread that got closed. My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)

Thanks.

beachnut

23rd April 2009, 06:35 PM

Tons of molten metal at GZ! many evidences also from previous Jones studies
www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf (http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf)

F H-C
Did you know each jet aircraft had lots of these on it? These were all crammed into the corner in one of the WTC towers. They have caused jet aircraft to crash when shipped improperly. So there are possible source for making fires to make aluminum and office contents spew out the corner without thermite being planted to kill Americans.
6i_l_ux3R-4

Tons of molten metal? Where is it? Do you have pictures of tons of molten metal?

Did high pressures (in the explosions) and temperatures trigger new physics phenomena ?

What does this mean with respect to what?
Do you really think a new physics phenomena was in action at the WTC?
Are you serious?

None of the steel holding up the WTC was touched or heated by thermite. There is zero evidence and the dust from the WTC is not evidence of thermite being planted at the WTC.

In your paper.

●
Sol-gels method is not only a way to gain power but also enables an accurate control of the reaction power. The spray applying is a known technology ==> the nano-thermitic layer could heat the steel columns very efficiently. The reaction produced liquid iron. Explosions dispersed it producing myriad of these iron microspheres we observe in the WTC dust.

Why did this thermite fail to burn in the WTC? You know you are claiming this stuff is some nano-thermitic stuff and it has a propensity to burn to completion, not float away. Oh, the one of the thousands of remote triggers never found in the WTC failed?

How thick would it have to be?
How much thermite would be used?
Who did it and why?
Why where there 19 terrorists?

The office fires in the WTC were large and on multiple floors; how much heat energy was released by the WTC fires and how much thermite would it take to equal each fire?

How much thermite would be needed to equal the heat in 66,000 pounds of Jet fuel?

I need to know these things so I can see if your ideas on thermite pass the common sense test.

So the kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel injected by terrorist with a plane impact.

And the kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the office fires in the WTC towers.

Why did the 19 terrorist plant thermite when the aircraft impacts were enough to make their points? They painted the WTC steel? You implied it, now explain it?

Your study shows the dust was not thermite but you are willing to explain away all the contaminates and claim thermite? Why do you do this? What is the bias that makes you ignore your own findings of no thermite in the dust? You got some neat rust samples.

What did they treat the welds in the WTC steel with?

henryco

24th April 2009, 03:27 AM

Could you explain the term "projection" please. Is that a term meaning that the gray layer is there to stop material (of the red layer) from being ejected away from the steel surface during the thermite reaction? If that is the case then you are suggesting that the "gray layer" is the outside surface and the red layer is "sandwiched" between it and the steel?

Yes
The photo from the article with two red layers strongly suggest that it was applied in multilayers thus could reach millimeters in thickness
the ration between the inert and activ part allows to tune accurately the power of the reaction.

Can you comment on my post where I show that there is a high degree of correlation with this gray layer and a layer of oxidised steel as shown in the Limited Metallurgical Examination for FEMA? I am convinced that the gray layer is oxidised steel which has spalled (come away) from the steel's surface. See previous posts.

Yes but Possible only for the last gray layer of a multilayer. Certainly not possible for the gray layer found in between two red layers!

Firstly we observe next to no Suphur in the red layers of samples a,b,c,d as evidenced by Fig 7. Has Jones not found thermate?

In Fig 14 we do observe Sulphur, which is dismissed as a possible contaminant too, but given that so many other elements are observed this cannot be dismissed.

In your own examination of the red layer you say that the S and Ca are contamination on pages 14 & 15 (and again in the gray layer pages 16,17 & 18). If one is expecting thermate to be (one of) the material(s) then why do you dismiss Sulphur as a contaminant?

I didnt mean that the thermate was the redchips. It would make no sense to apply thermate at the surface of a column since the melting effect would only be superficial. As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.

Dr Greening has performed calculations to show that steel would only be heated by 8°C based on the thickness of the red layer observed. How can such a thin layer of thermite possibly contain enough energy to heat a steel section 5mm in thickness let alone more to it's melting point? (5000 times thicker than 10µm)

Could you produce a calculation to show if it's possible or not? (He's a physicist so i think it is a reasonable question).

But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500°C 8 times this thickness of steel) add this to the already hundred of degrees from the WTC fires, also take into account that the bigger columns were cutted by thermate charges so the remaning ones were overloaded and you can insure the failure!...as if it was natural...as if it were produced by the fires alone!

Yes I understand. Have a quick look at the spectra produced from the FEMA report, notably the oxide layer and compare it with the gray layers in samples a,b,c,d. I've done that in post #92 above. This also highlights issues with the lack of Sulphur in Jones' samples and the often made claims that Sulphur in the Fe-O-S eutectic comes from the material Jones has found.

nothing to do with the redchips! no sulfur in them , i agree.

Thanks - this was brought to my attention by another member of JREF and the link was posted in the original 40+ page thread that got closed. My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)
Thanks.

This new link is an english version! aspirateur means vacuum cleaner in french
because some of our dust was collected in an appartment with a vacuum cleaner . But here the label is not meaningful since the redchip is not from this sample... i can recover the numbers but they will tell you nothing interesting!

Dave Rogers

24th April 2009, 04:22 AM

As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.

This is a gross misrepresentation of an observation which has already been explained by other means. It's perfectly clear to anyone not playing semantic games with the words used in newspaper articles that (a) the material in which sulphur was detected were not "previously molten metal" but a slag containing iron sulphate and iron oxide, which would be expected to melt at a much lower temperature than steel, and that (b) thermal decomposition of the gypsum wallboard in the rubble pile was a much more likely source of sulphur than a thermite reaction. Even Steven Jones is now claiming that sulphur in his samples originates from wallboard rather than thermate.

Dave

GlennB

24th April 2009, 05:24 AM

But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500°C 8 times this thickness of steel) ....

Then please present your calculations.

henryco

24th April 2009, 06:27 AM

This is a gross misrepresentation of an observation which has already been explained by other means. It's perfectly clear to anyone not playing semantic games with the words used in newspaper articles that (a) the material in which sulphur was detected were not "previously molten metal" but a slag containing iron sulphate and iron oxide, which would be expected to melt at a much lower temperature than steel, and that (b) thermal decomposition of the gypsum wallboard in the rubble pile was a much more likely source of sulphur than a thermite reaction. Even Steven Jones is now claiming that sulphur in his samples originates from wallboard rather than thermate.

Dave

Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

Fred

twinstead

24th April 2009, 06:47 AM

Dave Rogers

24th April 2009, 06:48 AM

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

That is not the conclusion of the experts who have studied this phenomenon. The statement "the rest was of course molten" is unfounded; the explanation offered is one of corrosion by sulphur-rich slag, which would mean that the missing material was dissolved rather than melted. What has also never been observed, it should also be pointed out, is a melting process which gives the results seen in these specific steel members; in particular, thinning of edges to near-razor sharpness is strong and almost incontravertible evidence against melting, which will tend to produce rounded edges through the action of surface tension. Therefore, there is no good reason to conclude that these steel members were subjected to temperatures above the melting point of steel.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

This is simply untrue. The object referred to as a meteorite has, clearly and visibly, undeformed reinforcement bars projecting from it, with the spiral ridges on their surface still intact. Again, this is clear and incontravertible evidence that they have not melted.

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post).

No evidence has been advanced that any such event occurred. The microspheres are described as iron-rich, but are clearly not iron, and from the analysis results have not been shown not to be iron oxide microspheres similar to a familiar and well-known by-product of hydrocarbon combustion.

If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed.

If you choose to close the debate without having addressed these serious counter-arguments then you are in effect conceding.

Dave

metamars

24th April 2009, 07:03 AM

Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

Fred

Please consider at least informing us how (or if) you plan to test the chips more thoroughly. While you, personally, may not have access to the proper facilities, surely if you make an effort you can find somebody who will have the requisite facilities and expertise. A closely related question is: "What (if anything) are you, the Harrit team, or any other group researching the chips doing to make your findings known to the relevant scientific communities?" I realize promoting one's research isn't the norm, but publishing in a journal (Bentham) which has been around less than 2 years is basically a guarantee that almost nobody in that field (Physical Chemistry) will see the Harrit paper, unless they're attention is directed to it. Would it not make sense for you to hand-deliver or snail-mail the paper to some physical chemists in France, and at least ask them for some private feedback?

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics. So, if you do not want to reply to this post at JREF, I completely understand, but please consider doing so at the911forum.freeforums.org (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150.html).

A W Smith

24th April 2009, 07:18 AM

Yes
The photo from the article with two red layers strongly suggest that it was applied in multilayers thus could reach millimeters in thickness
the ration between the inert and activ part allows to tune accurately the power of the reaction.
When? in 1971? or later UNDER the existing fireproofing which according to documents was never removed during the lifetime of the buildings.

I didnt mean that the thermate was the redchips. It would make no sense to apply thermate at the surface of a column since the melting effect would only be superficial. As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.

thermate is NOT an explosive, therefore, cannot be used as a "cutter charge" unless you are claiming a melting charge on a vertical member. Such a device never existed. The reacting thermate cannot hold itself against the vertical member and remain in contact with the surface during the reaction.

But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500°C 8 times this thickness of steel) add this to the already hundred of degrees from the WTC fires, also take into account that the bigger columns were cutted by thermate charges so the remaning ones were overloaded and you can insure the failure!...as if it was natural...as if it were produced by the fires alone!
You are going to have to show your calculations. And also what "given thickness"??

This new link is an english version! aspirateur means vacuum cleaner in french
because some of our dust was collected in an appartment with a vacuum cleaner . But here the label is not meaningful since the redchip is not from this sample... i can recover the numbers but they will tell you nothing interesting!Are you serious? A vacuum cleaner? Along with the cat hair? Soiled carpet? Pollen? And other possible contaminates from the atmosphere as well as carbon from the brushes of the vacuum motor itself? This method of collection does not concern you? Is this a joke? Why was this particular sample even mentioned? It should have been discarded and ignored along with all the other 5 year old samples.

Dave Rogers

24th April 2009, 07:22 AM

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics.

There is nothing dishonest about the criticism many of us are levelling at Steven Jones's work. I suspect that, as long as he persists in drawing unwarranted conclusions from his findings, that his attitude will be the one that prevents any meeting of the minds.

Dave

Dog Town

24th April 2009, 07:49 AM

My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)

Thanks.

As I demonstrated in that thread, that got closed. Put it through google translator.It works pretty darn good.
http://translate.google.com/

ElMondoHummus

24th April 2009, 08:25 AM

Please consider at least informing us how (or if) you plan to test the chips more thoroughly. While you, personally, may not have access to the proper facilities, surely if you make an effort you can find somebody who will have the requisite facilities and expertise. A closely related question is: "What (if anything) are you, the Harrit team, or any other group researching the chips doing to make your findings known to the relevant scientific communities?" I realize promoting one's research isn't the norm, but publishing in a journal (Bentham) which has been around less than 2 years is basically a guarantee that almost nobody in that field (Physical Chemistry) will see the Harrit paper, unless they're attention is directed to it. Would it not make sense for you to hand-deliver or snail-mail the paper to some physical chemists in France, and at least ask them for some private feedback?

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics. So, if you do not want to reply to this post at JREF, I completely understand, but please consider doing so at the911forum.freeforums.org (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150.html).

You're kidding me. You received highly valid and legitimate criticisms about the paper, and your conclusion is that they're not "honest"?

Jesus.

Sunstealer

24th April 2009, 02:33 PM

Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects.I fully understand. I very much appreciate (and I hope others do too) you posting here and answering questions in a different language to French. I hope you continue to read the thread and post especially seeing as you have directly examined a sample.

If I may ask just two more things concerning your SEM analysis at

The general SEM photos - page 13, have markers (aspiro 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33) identifying where each XEDS analysis was performed. However, the spectra do not have the corresponding identification, because the pdf file cuts them off - see red arrows - see below. Would you mind labelling the spectra if it wasn't much trouble? That would help hugely because I have a question about the layers.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=927

In the photo below I see 3 different layers - marked 1,2,3. You mention the red (rouge) and dark (sombre) layers. Is layer 3 the same material as layer 2? Layer 3 looks more crystalline and metallic with a "fibrous" appearance as seen on the surface of a ductile fracture (the same as a "cup and cone" fracture of a ductile material) than layer 2.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=928

Thanks very much for your help.

moorea34

25th April 2009, 02:57 AM

a very interesting paper :

Incorporation of kaolin fillers into an epoxy/polyamidoamine matrix for coatings
A. Astruca, E. Joliff a, J.-F. Chailana,∗, E. Aragona, C.O. Petterb, C.H. Sampaiob, Progress in Organic Coatings 65 (2009) 158–168

Sory but I can't insert images (12 post only for me !!)

moorea34

25th April 2009, 03:32 AM

For all the DSC curves concerning Al-nano-thermite (not anly with Fe2O3 but also with Mo or Cu) we can note an endothermic peak at 660C°, the melting of Al...

Where is this peak on Jones' graphs, fig 29 ?
Unfortunately (?) the red curve is cuted before, at 600°C ....

Source...

Dependence of size and size distribution on reactivity of aluminum
nanoparticles in reactions with oxygen and MoO3 Juan Suna, Michelle L. Pantoya b, Sindee L. Simona,∗ Thermochimica Acta 444 (2006) 117–127

Thermite reactions of Al/Cu core-shell nanocomposites with WO3
Yi Wang a, Wei Jiang a, Zhipeng Chenga, Weifan Chenb, Chongwei Ana,
Xiaolan Songa, Fengsheng Li a,∗ Thermochimica Acta 463 (2007) 69–76

Characterizing Energy Transfer using an Infrared Camera from a Reacting Nano -Composite Thermite Embedded in a Steel Target by Charles Crane, B.S.M.E. A Thesis In MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Other very interessant paper : Metal-based reactive nanomaterials
Edward L. Dreizin*, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 35 (2009) 141–167(For the pictures of nano-Al very diferent than 'red chips' ones)

The peak for red chips are not very powerfull... You have DSC curves for Coal and sludges here :
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 86 (2006) 2, 489–495
SIMULTANEOUS THERMOGRAVIMETRIC-MASS SPECTROMETRIC STUDY ON THE CO-COMBUSTION OF COAL AND SEWAGE SLUDGES M. Otero1, M. E. Sánchez2, A. I. García2 and A. Morán2*

May be pictures later...

moorea34

25th April 2009, 04:19 AM

I have sent an e-mail to authors of Incorporation of kaolin fillers into an epoxy/polyamidoamine matrix for coatings (french researchers)

I'll give you the result ;)

moorea34

25th April 2009, 08:08 AM

I've found the paper of Tillotsom (red curve on fig 29 of Jones' paper). The DSC curve realy stop at 600°C.

metamars

25th April 2009, 11:42 AM

For all the DSC curves concerning Al-nano-thermite (not anly with Fe2O3 but also with Mo or Cu) we can note an endothermic peak at 660C°, the melting of Al...

Where is this peak on Jones' graphs, fig 29 ?
Unfortunately (?) the red curve is cuted before, at 600°C ....

Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves, p. 199 (p. 220, total) in Granier's dissertation, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES, shows peaks from 511 C to 525 C (the green, 20 Kpm peak is off the chart), and onset from 419.4 C to 451 C.

I don't see any endotherms, at all.

Notice that Harrit's peak is at ~ 430 C - if their sample is, indeed, nanothermite, it appears that the morphology has made the oxide layer easier to crack, apparently at about the same temperature as what I'll presume are defective spherical oxide shells, would crack at.

I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?

moorea34

25th April 2009, 12:28 PM

You will find some pictures here ...

http://www.bastison.net/ALCHIMIE/alchimie.html#B9

The text is in french but I've kept the legends...

leftysergeant

26th April 2009, 03:00 AM

That is not the conclusion of the experts who have studied this phenomenon. The statement "the rest was of course molten" is unfounded; the explanation offered is one of corrosion by sulphur-rich slag, which would mean that the missing material was dissolved rather than melted. What has also never been observed, it should also be pointed out, is a melting process which gives the results seen in these specific steel members; in particular, thinning of edges to near-razor sharpness is strong and almost incontravertible evidence against melting, which will tend to produce rounded edges through the action of surface tension.

I am blessed with the ability to look at an object from several different perspectives at once. As a fire fighter, I saw nothing about the "Swiss cheese" steel to indicate that thermnite or explosives had been used.

As a construction worker (on rare enough occassion these day, as I approach 63) I fdind nothing at all surprising about the styeel's being scattered on the ground after such a fire.

As an artist, the surfaces exposed by the "melting" of the Swiss cheese looks like some of the metal over which I had poured fuming nitric acid to etch patterns into the surface.

Of course, on the pile, there would be little if any nitric acid, but, with all those computer banks, I anm sure there were great amounts of sulphuric acid. Sulphuric acid and steel are strange in that they reeact best when the acid is somewhat diluted.

Well, DUH!

Panoply_Prefect

26th April 2009, 03:59 AM

I have a short question regarding Jones' paper:

He (they...) go on about how the samples were collected just after the attacks. However, none of the samples were handled by people who know how to handle samples until some five to seven years after the event:

Sample one was given to Jones november 15, 2007
Sample two february 2, 2008
Sample threee. also february 2, 2008
Sample flour, november 2006.

Now its been a few years since I did any paper-writing but to me this sounds like a serious breach of protocol. Plus the fact that since the samples were collected by individuals and sent to Jones, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of the composition of the entire complex. None the less, they find nanothermite in one hundred procent of the samples. What are the odds of that?

moorea34

26th April 2009, 10:33 AM

metamars

26th April 2009, 12:07 PM

Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves, p. 199 (p. 220, total) in Granier's dissertation, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES, shows peaks from 511 C to 525 C (the green, 20 Kpm peak is off the chart), and onset from 419.4 C to 451 C.

I don't see any endotherms, at all.

I need to clarify or correct this. There are no peaks of negative magnitude (which are readily observable in other aluminothermic DSC's). However, there are dips approaching 660, such that the DSC plot is still positive in magnitude, which I can observe for 3 of the 5 readings (done at different Kelvins per minute). The data for the 20 Kpm plot terminates before 660, but it's magnitude is almost zero far from 660 - make of that what you will.

There's a very obvious dependence of existence/magnitude/sign of endotherms in Granier's DSC plots on Al size. Viz., the smaller the Al size, the less of an endotherm at 660, which can't even be seen for the case of 50 nm Al, 5 Kpm (though that may be because of obstruction by the other plots). This is to be expected, since the main reaction exotherm shifts from after the Al melting endotherm to before the Al melting endotherm. If you consume your Al at a temperature lower than it takes to melt it, it's simply not going to be there (in elemental form) to create an endotherm.

Also, for the smaller Al nanothermites, a dip at 660 C does not make the sample, as a whole, have a negative reading.

You can see this for yourself by studying the following in Granier:

p. 199 (220 total) has DSC for 50 nm Al + MoO3
p. 200 (221 total) has DSC for 80 nm Al + MoO3
p. 201 (222 total) has DSC for 120 nm Al + MoO3
p. 202 (223 total) has DSC for 1-3μm Al + MoO3
p. 204 (225 total) has DSC for 3-4μm Al + MoO3

It's certainly plausible that for 10 and 20μm-Al, which Granier worked with but doesn't show DSC's for, that the there is no noticeable dip at 660 C.

I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?
This should have been:

I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?

===================

Figure E.1a – 50nm Al + O2 DSC/TGA Curves (5Kpm), in Granier p. 174 (p 195, total) shows no exotherm at 660, at all. Apparently, gaseous O2 allows for a more thorough burning of Al. As the Harrit DSC was done in air, the oxygen present may have obliterated any chance to observe even a miniscule dip at 660 C.

===================

I hadn't noticed this, earlier, but Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves on p. 199 gives values for energy density for the same type of Al + MoO3 aluminothermic which varies by a factor of close to 2 - viz., 1885 J/g, 2016 J/g, 2354 J/g, and 3276 J/g. The only variable was temperature rate increase.

metamars

27th April 2009, 03:39 AM

Figure E.1a – 50nm Al + O2 DSC/TGA Curves (5Kpm), in Granier p. 174 (p 195, total) shows no exotherm at 660, at all. .

This should have been:

Figure E.1a – 50nm Al + O2 DSC/TGA Curves (5Kpm), in Granier p. 174 (p 195, total) shows no endotherm at 660, at all.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1617649f57cd123a77.png

metamars

27th April 2009, 04:34 AM

There's a very obvious dependence of existence/magnitude/sign of endotherms in Granier's DSC plots on Al size. Viz., the smaller the Al size, the less of an endotherm at 660, which can't even be seen for the case of 50 nm Al, 5 Kpm (though that may be because of obstruction by the other plots). This is to be expected, since the main reaction exotherm shifts from after the Al melting endotherm to before the Al melting endotherm. If you consume your Al at a temperature lower than it takes to melt it, it's simply not going to be there (in elemental form) to create an endotherm.

Also, for the smaller Al nanothermites, a dip at 660 C does not make the sample, as a whole, have a negative reading.

You can see this for yourself by studying the following in Granier:

p. 199 (220 total) has DSC for 50 nm Al + MoO3
p. 200 (221 total) has DSC for 80 nm Al + MoO3
p. 201 (222 total) has DSC for 120 nm Al + MoO3
p. 202 (223 total) has DSC for 1-3μm Al + MoO3
p. 204 (225 total) has DSC for 3-4μm Al + MoO3

It's certainly plausible that for 10 and 20μm-Al, which Granier worked with but doesn't show DSC's for, that the there is no noticeable dip at 660 C.

Here are 3 of the 5 DSC plots that I referred to. Topmost is 50 nm Al, middle is 120 nm Al, bottom is 3-4μm Al. I have added a vertical bar at about 660 C to all of these plots. Does anybody seriously doubt that at 20 nm Al, no endotherm will be noticeable; and even if it were visible in a vaccuum or inert gas DSC, it would not be noticeable in a DSC test like that done be Harrit, et. al., with O2 gas present?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1617649f587a3a0163.png

moorea34

27th April 2009, 05:17 AM

Metamars : does anybody seriously see 50 or 20 nm Al here ?

http://www.bastison.net/Graphique/Images7/Chips_Jones.jpg

(from Harrit and al.)

and Figure 5.8 shows that endothermic peak is more important for 40 nm than 50 nm...

pgimeno

27th April 2009, 05:39 AM

I understand that Iron can be melted in a furnace where the heat can accumulate and be concentrated but can a small piece of coal, dimension less than 100 microns melt a somewhat smaller piece of iron? i would say of course not since the dissipative process are much too effective at such small scales! So if you admit that some microspheres which are mostly iron (see Fig 21 and Fig 20) were produced from the chips in the DSC, what else than the reduction of Fe and oxydation of Al (released heat initially concentrated in the reactants ) could be responsible for that ? I can only explain this melted iron provided it participated in the reaction.

I have no sufficient chemical background to evaluate this, but I recall having seen that slight variations in the composition of a material (with respect to the total percentage of iron in it) can make broad differences in the melting point.

For example, structural steel is mostly iron, yet the melting point of steel can vary significantly depending on the type. In the "Structural steel" entry of Wikipedia there's a section called Thermal properties which explains how the melting point can vary from 1130°C to about 1539°C, depending apparently on the amount of carbon, if I interpret it correctly.

Isn't it the case, maybe, that some hint on the melting point of these spheres should be provided before taking the step of considering it anomalous?

It has already been pointed out by Dave Rogers that these iron- and oxygen-rich spheres can be produced by other reactions. Shouldn't this be ruled out before advancing in other hypotheses?

moorea34

27th April 2009, 07:50 AM

a very interesting paper about thermite :

Texas Tech University, Charles Crane, May 2009 A Thesis In MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCES
v
Abstract
A method to study energy transfer from a reacted thermite placed on a steel target substrate was presented as a function of thermite composition. A high speed infrared camera captured a temporally evolving thermal distribution through the substrate, while the thermite, which was placed in a v-notch, self propagated. Two thermite compositions were studied: Boron with Iron (III) Oxide (B-Fe2O3) and Aluminum with Iron (III) Oxide (Al-Fe2O3). A numerical model was developed to predict temperatures near the v-notch in order to estimate the amount of energy transferred into the steel by using a control volume energy balance. Results quantified the percent of the overall energy available from the chemical reaction that was conducted through the substrate and was compared to energy lost. The B-Fe2O3 reaction was more efficient in transferring energy into the steel, 46% of its heat of reaction, than Al-Fe2O3, 10% of its heat of reaction, based largely on the lower contribution of losses by radiation and convection. The Al-Fe2O3 reaction produced more gas by chemistry, 10% by mass, which transported more energy away from the v-notch region as compared to the non gas producing B-Fe2O3. The reaction times for the Al-Fe2O3 propagation rate were roughly two to three times faster than the B-Fe2O3 which lowered the heating rate of the substrate. Much work had been performed that examined the combustion behaviors from a reacting thermite, but there are very few studies that attempt to quantify the energy transfer from a reacting thermite to a target. This diagnostic approach and numerical analysis was the first step towards quantifying energy transferred from a thermite into a target and lost to the environment.

metamars

27th April 2009, 09:46 AM

Metamars : does anybody seriously see 50 or 20 nm Al here ?

http://www.bastison.net/Graphique/Images7/Chips_Jones.jpg

(from Harrit and al.)

I see platelets 68 nm thick - with a lot of help from Paint Shop Pro. :)
In the image below, I put a black rectangle around a platelet which is close to on edge, rotated that selection, and lined it up with the 1 micron scale. I put yellow lines to demarcate the edges that I measured. I get 5 pixels / 73 pixels, or .068. That means 68 nm.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1617649f5cc2821289.png

Of course, I should have done this before I started blabbering about 20 nm Al, even though in the specimen in question we are talking about platelet morphology instead of spherical morphology, Al/Fe2O3 instead of Al/MoO3, and DSC in air instead of in Argon.

[quote]
and Figure 5.8 shows that endothermic peak is more important for 40 nm than 50 nm...

Yes, you're correct, though in light of the last sentence that I wrote, it likely doesn't matter, or, if it does, and behavior is similar to Granier's Fig. 5.8, it's to make the Harrit samples less likely to show a noticeable endotherm at 660C. Correct?

Do tell us, won't you, what your best guess is for Al/MoO3 thermite DSC test in air, for the usual spherical Al particles? Would we see an endotherm in that case, or not? Did you look at the plot of DSC of Al particles in O2, that I show in post 144?

Sunstealer

27th April 2009, 09:55 AM

The DSC experiment is worthless and there is absolutely no point in spending any time discussing it. It's a red herring. People can theorise and google for papers all they want, but it does not aid the discussion one bit because it's a distraction comparing chalk and cheese just because they both start "ch". Here are the reasons why.

1. No "elemental" aluminium (free aluminium) was found in the samples (a,b,c,d) that underwent the DSC test.

2. None of the particles in the samples a,b,c,d are below 100nm. As Moorea34 points out above.

3. None of the particles found in samples a,b,c,d are spherical.

4. The DSC experiment was performed in air.

All of those nano-thermites contain spherical particles far, far smaller than anything we see in the actual samples. Comparing Al + MoO to the material we have here is like comparing Mt Everest to an Elephant because they are both big. All that is happening is you are being distracted from the actual paper and the data that is in it.

Some people seem to be confusing microns (µm) with nanometres (nm).

1mm = 1000µm.
1µm = 1000nm.
0.1µm = 100nm.
0.05µm = 50nm.

Incidentally most DSCs seem to have an upper limit well below 1000°C.

For example, structural steel is mostly iron, yet the melting point of steel can vary significantly depending on the type. In the "Structural steel" entry of Wikipedia there's a section called Thermal properties which explains how the melting point can vary from 1130°C to about 1539°C, depending apparently on the amount of carbon, if I interpret it correctly.

Isn't it the case, maybe, that some hint on the melting point of these spheres should be provided before taking the step of considering it anomalous?The problem is that materials on such as small scale do not share the same material properties as the bulk material (great big lump). So when people quote iron or steel melting they are quoting the bulk material property. This cannot be applied to the same material on a far, far smaller scale. Surface area (amongst others) becomes a more important factor at those sizes, such as the Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals, which look to have a minimum size of approximately 0.1µm.

There has been research with regard to "melting point depression" for some years and we are seeing a drop when sizes are approximately 100nm across although it depends on the material.

metamars

27th April 2009, 11:18 AM

a very interesting paper about thermite :

Thanks for digging this up. Yes, it does look interesting. I haven't studied it carefully, but I do see that Table 8, p. 51 (p. 62, total) shows Average Particle Size of 202 nm for Al, but < 5 µm for B. The question this raises in my mind is "Would not comparing 202 nm and 5 µm Al powders have shown a similar relationship?" We already know that peak exotherms are at very different temperatures from Al nanopowders compared to Al micron powders. Would not doubling the temperature at which most of the chemical reactions take place lead to much more energy going into adjacent steel? (Which raises the question of why you would want a nanopowder to begin with, of course. But this would ignore the constraint, in a slow CD scenario, of not melting off fireproofing. See below.)

Also, the author says that the main difference in energy loss is the Al nanopowder loses more energy through convection. However, in a "slow CD" scenario where you are merely weakening the steel, so that it fails gradually, one can envision putting a thin layer of nanothermite over a column segment (say 4 mm thick) and covering that over with fire proofing. Would the 13.5% energy loss to gas production (Table 6) be sufficient to make the gasses blow off the fireproofing? If not, would the remainder of the energy production not be so great that it quickly melted or burned the fireproofing? (I don't know the answer to these questions, but IMO these are the sorts of questions that need to be asked when considered a 'slow CD' scenario.) What temperature did WTC fireproofing melt at, anyway?

Speaking of a 'slow CD' scenario, I'm embarrassed to say that I hadn't thought through what may be the biggest problem for this, ito the Harrit chips. They may not burn hot enough! Well, maybe they do if you apply it unevenly (as I have previously suggested), and there are effects arising from the asymmetry of heating and expansion that would actually make a column more vulnerable, as compared to heating it more uniformly, to a temperature 170 C higher.

metamars

27th April 2009, 11:24 AM

1. No "elemental" aluminium (free aluminium) was found in the samples (a,b,c,d) that underwent the DSC test.

Unlike you, I am reserving judgement on this.

2. None of the particles in the samples a,b,c,d are below 100nm. As Moorea34 points out above.

.068 * 1000 nm = 68 nm. I find the platelets to be 68 nm thick, give or take. How thick do you determine the platelets to be?

moorea34

27th April 2009, 11:28 AM

metamars

27th April 2009, 12:46 PM

Metamars, if you want to compare the curves, it would be interesant to compare also the Al particule !

Platelets - Spheres ... Spheres - Platelets

That seems quite different to me....

I've read a lot of papers about nano-Al (15-20) but never platelets... May be have you some references ?

No, though I've posted references for nano-sized silicon platelets, and regarding the ability to sputter Al onto Si. I tend to think that, by now, if anybody had any public information on somebody creating Al/Si nano- particles, it would be known to us.

As for mass producing such puppies, I'm no chemical engineer, but I don't see why you can't make a tube out of tungsten, hang it vertically, fill it will Al vapor, tumble Si nano-particles (perhaps suitably chilled) into the top, and catch them at the bottom. I have no idea how quickly the Al would condense onto the chips, but I'll bet 50 virtual cents that some smart chemical engineers or material scientists could swing this.

You still haven't commented on whether or not you expect that Harrit's particles, if they are aluminothermics, would show a 660 C endotherm in air or not, in light of the DSC of Al + O2 that I have posted.

moorea34

27th April 2009, 01:32 PM

You still haven't commented on whether or not you expect that Harrit's particles, if they are aluminothermics, would show a 660 C endotherm in air or not, in light of the DSC of Al + O2 that I have posted.

So it's Al or Al-Si ??

Kinetic evaluation of combustion synthesis 3TiO2 + 7Al→3TiAl +
2Al2O3 using non-isothermal DSC methodPeaks endo

Thermite reactions of Al/Cu core-shell nanocomposites with WO3 Peaks endo

COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1
NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE
A1+MoO3 THERMITES
Peaks endo

Of course all with argon, so for Jones and al. it's a double mistake !!!
Very unlucky !

For the O2 atmosphere, we have again the peaks endo for other size (fig E2a... E2g micrometer size) (Granier)

metamars

27th April 2009, 02:07 PM

So it's Al or Al-Si ??

According to Harrit, et. al, it's elemental Al plus Silicon (not an Al/Si compound)

Kinetic evaluation of combustion synthesis 3TiO2 + 7Al→3TiAl +
2Al2O3 using non-isothermal DSC methodPeaks endo

Thermite reactions of Al/Cu core-shell nanocomposites with WO3 Peaks endo

COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1
NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE
A1+MoO3 THERMITES
Peaks endo

Of course all with argon, so for Jones and al. it's a double mistake !!!
Very unlucky !

Would you be clearer, please? Links, pages, explanations, arguments, etc....

For the O2 atmosphere, we have again the peaks endo for other size (fig E2a... E2g micrometer size) (Granier)

And here even for 40, 80 and 120 nanometers...

13737

Where did you get this graph from? Granier? What page? What percentage of O2 is it?

Are you claiming that Harrit, et. al. cannot, under any circumstance have had an aluminothermic, based on lack of 660 endotherm, or are you willing to admit that that is not a solid argument against Harrit, et. al., having nanothermite.

If the latter is the case, are you going to admit so much on your web page?

Sunstealer

27th April 2009, 02:31 PM

Unlike you, I am reserving judgement on this.OK peeps lets do some science. Lets first start by reading the paper and doing some analysis on the results specifically with regard to the aluminium.

The first thing is to look at Fig 10 because this Fig is an XEDS map of the various elements across an area of the sample. What this does is helps to visualise where the different elements are and whether there is any connection between them. Humans are good at spotting patterns and the best way is to slowly move your head back from the screen as you look at the graphic. Remember we are interested in Al so concentrate on the purple square. Now you are back a few feet look at the other squares and compare the intensity to the purple square. Notice anything?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=935

You did didn't you? What you noticed was that the turquoise and purple squares correlate extremely well. Especially noticeable is the diagonal / in the centre. This means that whatever the turquoise square represents, in this case Silicon (Si), it is strongly connected with Aluminium. In the materials scientists head cogs are starting to turn, because this information pushes us into a certain direction.

So lets now compare the Al and Si maps with the other elements. Fe doesn't show any correlation, infact if anything it's the opposite. We are now thinking that whatever contains the Al and Si doesn't contain much Fe. Onto the O. Again we see correlation with the diagonal and some other points (including the dark vertical area to the left of the diagonal), but we don't see such a striking correlation as with Si and Al, however the correlation is there. Oxygen is found in lots of different compounds and will therefore be associated with parts where Al and Si aren't found in the map. What's important is that there is correlation. Finally Carbon (red square) doesn't match with Al or Si, it doesn't look like it tallies much with Fe, but there is correlation with O. This is quite expected. So now what do we do?

Well you can see the grey BSE image (a) above which is the region where the XEDS map was produced. Look at that image and then look at the Al and Si maps. What do you see? Yep, it's that diagonal again. This means that the Al, Si and O in that diagonal are all associated with that particle. Also not the particle that is just to the right and below the (a). Again that particle has similar associations.

We can also note that the clumps of white particles in that BSE image match that of the Fe map. It's safe to conclude that we have distinctly separate particles, one containing Fe and the other containing Al,Si and O.

So lets take a look at the SEM photo-micrographs.
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=936

In the middle of photo (a) we can clearly see these particles. Looking at the other photos it becomes self evident that these particles are thin sheet-like particles (platelets) and they have an hexagonal shape to them (d). There is also something else that is interesting about these platelets. Look at the arrow in photo (d). Look at the platelets. What's happened to them? They are all stacked up together. Why is that? What causes that?

So now we have established that the Aluminium and the Silicon as well as some of the Oxygen in the sample (of the red layer) is directly linked to these thin hexagonal platelets.

Has anyone ever had a grow your own crystal toy as a child? You get a tiny seed and place it in a solution and the seed grows and forms a shape. Different solutions give you different shapes. Well the exact same thing happens with platelets like these and also with the whitish grains you can see in the same SEM photos. These whitish crystals are rhomboidal (some say rhombohedral) in shape and because Fe and O are associated with them then we are sure that they are Fe2O3 - experience and reference shows us that this is correct.

Closer magnification as seen in Fig 9 - shows us to be correct.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=938

We also notice that there is another material present, namely a Carbon matrix. So now we know that Al cannot be free or elemental, it is bound with Si and O in the crystal. If it wasn't bound in the crystal then we would expect to see another particle that was of a different morphology (structure).

So what are these hexagonal platelets that contain Al, Si and O. These elements point us in the direction of Aluminosilicates, which are minerals or clays, but which one?

Well we could be here for days trying to find the right one. But do you remember the strange stacking? The thin hexagonal platelet. Yep, they are odd aren't they? Kind of stick in the mind as a feature that if you ever came across it again you'd think, "hey, I've seen that!".

Does this remind you of anything?
http://www.semp.us/_images/biots/Biot226PhotoF.jpg

Or this? (Below are Scanning Electron Microscope Pictures of Kaolinite Interstratified with Illite. Note the platelets of Kaolin are easily observed. )

http://www.smianalytical.com/img/sem.jpghttp://www.smianalytical.com/clay-analysis.html
and how about this?

http://www.semp.us/_images/biots/Biot226PhotoE.jpg

Remember the XEDS maps and how the Si is associated with Al, remember the identical peak ratios for the platelet

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=888

Kaolin (Kaolinite) Al2Si2O5(OH)4 will give identical Al and Si peaks, it also has the same shape (as proven above), it also stacks just like the platelets are stacked in Jones' samples. I don't know of any other aluminosilicate material that stacks or has this shape. Does anyone else? Metamars, can you find a material that has these characteristics, but isn't kaolin? Kaolin is a natural mineral. It's morphology is thin platelets. There is no man made engineering going on, just mother nature some physics and chemistry. Wow, how cool is that, material that are nanometres thin are found naturally occurring in minerals.

Kaolin is used in thousands of materials. There is nothing odd or strange about it (except perhaps it's shape and the natural way it's platelets stack - which gave the game away). And there is no elemental aluminium in Kaoulin.

So what happens to the thermite reaction if there is no aluminium free to oxidise? Yep, that's correct, the thermite reaction cannot take place. This proves that the samples are not thermite and did not undergo a thermite reaction in the DSC. Something else reacted and because air was present then combustion most likely took place.

And that folks is how science is done.

Note that no one complains about elemental Oxygen. No one tries to say that the Oxygen isn't part of a compound with the Iron. Yet that is exactly what they do when they talk about the Aluminium. The data in the paper proves Fe2O3 crystals are present and the same data proves that Aluminium is bound up in platelets of Kaolin, so why is no one having a go at elemental O? Why just the Aluminium?

The paper also specifies an MEK test on sample to free this elemental Al, but it isn't any of the samples a,b,c,d that had the full analysis and DSC tests conducted. Infact it's another material altogether.

.068 * 1000 nm = 68 nm. I find the platelets to be 68 nm thick, give or take. How thick do you determine the platelets to be?Yes, that looks about right. No-one ever measures particle size via their thickness. It's always across the largest diameter.

Imaginary experiment - imagine we take a whole range of diameters of hexagonal platelets, but their thickness doesn't change at 68nm. Now if we pass them through a mesh what is the determining factor for whether they are trapped in the mesh or fall through assuming the mesh hole is round?

That's right it's the platelet's diameter that determines whether it's collected or not. So we characterise materials via their diameter. In any case natural materials produced in mother nature are formed as crystals and do form at very small scales as I have shown.

Sunstealer

28th April 2009, 08:44 AM

Look at the arrow in photo (d). Look at the platelets.

Correction - it should read (c).

Sunstealer

29th April 2009, 12:01 PM

I wanted to rebut Henryco's last post and ask him some questions, but he seems uninterested in the discussion so I left out the following from my last post to him in the hope he might answer.

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditionsWhat he writes here isn't quite true. I agree that short term sulphidation (as expected if the sulphur was from thermate) alone won't produce the effect but this wasn't short term sulphidation and do not forget that oxidation is also occurring, which in itself is an exothermic reaction. This oxidation will cause a lattice incoherency between parent material (steel) and the oxide layer (rust) resulting in spallation (rust flakes off). Further corrosion will be exacerbated by the grain boundary attack which results in weakening the grain boundaries causing them to separate allowing a deeper and faster penetration of Oxygen. Decarburization is occurring at the surface of the steel as indicated by the lack of cementite (Fe3C) (in pearlite* lamellae) and the overwhelming presence of ferrite (predominantly white part) at the parent material's surface - see below.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=944

If thermate where the process used then we wouldn't see the same extent of decarburization as we observe, nor would we see the same level of sulphidation, especially along grain boundaries, because both mechanisms are based on (solid state) diffusion and therefore time dependent. A short time won't produce such an effect but a longer time will. (Just look up carburisation - 100 hours @ 1000°C, [and nitriding] of steels to see time periods required for similar diffusion ). It's for this reason that high temperature corrosion by sulphidation and oxidation is the reason for what is observed. This has occurred over a significant time period. See below - dark area is oxide, light area parent material (steel) - diffusion of species is occurring in the direction from the dark to the light.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=948

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).I know this might be off-topic, but do you have a link to any data for this? The "meteorite" comes up in discussions now and then, but I'm not aware of any analysis and nor is anyone else. This above statement I don't think is true and no one has seen any evidence for this.

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

FredYes I agree it is untenable. The samples Jones have can't melt steel of any appreciable thickness.

* I expect some of the terms aren't familiar so I'll add some links.

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2008/Steel_Microstructure/SM.html - for general sample preparation for metallography and from the same site
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2008/Steel_Microstructure/SM.html for explanation of steel microstructures.

metamars

29th April 2009, 12:42 PM

Yes, that looks about right. No-one ever measures particle size via their thickness. It's always across the largest diameter.

I'll have more of a response to the rest of your post, later, but for now:

Using your figure E (or is it R?), I measured 500 nm for the thickness of those platelets. (2 pixels wide / 40 pixels of the scale) * 10,000 nm.

Why don't you show us pictures of kaolinite with thickness around 70 nm?

moorea34

29th April 2009, 01:32 PM

In the jones' paper, if we look at fig 15 (after MEK sample), we clearly see a correlation between Si and O...

Is it silica (SiO2) ???

ElMondoHummus

29th April 2009, 01:41 PM

I know this might be off-topic, but do you have a link to any data for this? The "meteorite" comes up in discussions now and then, but I'm not aware of any analysis and nor is anyone else. This above statement I don't think is true and no one has seen any evidence for this.

There is no evidence of this at all. The meteorites have unmelted rebar and other flammables - such as paper - embedded into them. They give every indication of having been formed by compression and other mechanical forces, and zero indication of having had any component originate from molten steel.

Here are a couple of quick links to a post and a thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4455112#post4455112

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106240

Best thing to do is to hit up the search and combine the word "meteorite" with "Gravy" (yes, Mark Robert's handle). That'll turn up decent threads and posts.

moorea34

29th April 2009, 01:50 PM

I'll have more of a response to the rest of your post, later, but for now:

Using your figure E (or is it R?), I measured 500 nm for the thickness of those platelets. (2 pixels wide / 40 pixels of the scale) * 10,000 nm.

Why don't you show us pictures of kaolinite with thickness around 70 nm?

Like this...
13778

or this ?
13779

The Makoro kaolin deposit, southeastern Botswana:
its genesis and possible industrial applications
Georges Ekosse Applied Clay Science 16 2000.

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF KGa-1 B WELL-CRYSTALLIZED
KAOLIN SOURCE CLAY
ROBERT J. PRUETT 1 AND HAROLD L. WEBB 2
Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 41, No. 4, 514-519, 1993

metamars

29th April 2009, 04:30 PM

In the middle of photo (a) we can clearly see these particles. Looking at the other photos it becomes self evident that these particles are thin sheet-like particles (platelets) and they have an hexagonal shape to them (c).

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.

I am sorry to remove this section of content, but unfortunately, posts in moderated threads must be strictly on topic, and this was off topic in a manner that would generate a derail.

Having said all that, some of the platelets in Fig. 8 (c) are indeed stacked, many deep. At a larger scale, that would imply artificiality. At such a small scale, in light of the kaolinite picture, and the fact that I can't think of any counter-examples, I would tend to think the opposite. I've only seen 4 photos of Si platelets (in the page I link to above), but I don't see any stacking.

Nevertheless, I will also reserve judgement on what to make of the fact that we can find lots of stacked platelets in the Harrit samples. I just don't know enough about this stuff, and you certainly haven't convinced me that the platelets are kaolinite, either - which is the only type of stacked platelet that I (now) know of.

Perhaps somebody can chime in with insights into what bulk powders of silicon nanopowders with platelet morphology look like? Do we see stacking, or not? Somehow, I don't think anybody can answer that question besides a very few people in the entire world - I'll guess 200.

Sunstealer

29th April 2009, 05:18 PM

In the jones' paper, if we look at fig 15 (after MEK sample), we clearly see a correlation between Si and O...

Is it silica (SiO2) ???There is correlation between the two and the most likely compound is SiO2, but there is also a degree of Carbon associated too, not just with the Si and O, but also with Al.

I don't know what their eyes are telling them, but when they say,

Furthermore, the data indicate that wherever silicon or iron is concentrated, oxygen is also concentrated. On the other hand, there also exist regions where the aluminum is concentrated but where the oxygen may not accompany it commensurately.

yet they don't mention Carbon when there is far more correlation between Carbon and Oxygen (and Aluminium) in the sample. (In Fig 15 there are two distinct "holes" in the maps.) This is ambiguous, but instead of presenting data on that sample with higher SEM magnification, redoing an XEDS map as they did before (Fig 10) as well as showing distinctly, which elements belong to which particle, they decide to do XEDS on areas of high concentration of Si, Al and Fe of their sample at a much lower magnification. This is worthless without closer inspection, because you cannot say exactly what is present and what particle it's present in. After MEK then we would expect a much "cleaner" sample. Why are they not providing us with evidence showing that the Zinc and Chromium in the pre MEK soaked sample was a contaminant?

Note that this XEDS map is taken at 50µm and the other at 1µm. I don't understand the difference if the idea was separation of aluminium particles. They don't even show any consistency and and have different magnifications in post-MEK - Fig 15 (a) and Fig 12 (b) and pre MEK - Fig 12 (a). If they claim Al separation then they should show the particles!

Remember that we don't have any idea what particles where present before or after the soaking in MEK, because none has been presented, all we have is Fig 15 (a) and 12 (a). We don't have the before XEDS map of this sample either so we can't say if anything has been separated.

Bearing in mind the massive discrepancy between the red layers of samples a,b,c,d and the sample that was soaked in MEK, then we can't say that the two are the same material. This is a huge inconsistency. So a test on one cannot be cross-read to the other.

I think that the MEK test is very dodgy, not only because of all of the above, but also the fact that they performed the same test on a paint sample yet didn't include details (or pictures for comparison) of that sample in the paper. I still cannot understand why anyone would want to try to separate out particles of Al when they have the very tool infront of them to see Aluminium particles. Doesn't make sense.

Why didn't they perform a proper characterisation of the samples they had? I'm of the opinion that they think that anything separated from the dust by magnet which has a "red layer" is thermite, irrespective of whether the material shows different compositions for different layers; red as well as grey.

Ooops - sorry Moorea34 - got carried away.

moorea34

30th April 2009, 04:24 AM

I think also that this paper coulds be interesting...

http://www.rsc.org/ej/CC/2008/b810994j.pdf

Fe203 + carbon , 600 °C .... ;)

moorea34

30th April 2009, 05:31 AM

For the carbon matrix I've found that :

Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society
versionPrint ISSN 0103-5053
Mesoporous carbons prepared by nano-casting with meso- or non-porous silica nanoparticles
J. Braz. Chem. Soc. vol.17 no.6 São Paulo Sept./Oct. 2006

(fig10a)

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-50532006000600015&script=sci_arttext#fg10a

(may be my precedent post was not so interesting.... sorry)

moorea34

30th April 2009, 09:29 AM

And for the DSC tests on coatings :

DSC evaluation of binder content in latex paints, C. Pagella*, D.M. De Faveri, Progress in Organic Coatings 33 (1998) 211–217

13783

(3,5 kJ/g here)

;)

Redford

30th April 2009, 04:15 PM

Nice one. My first thought was "damn it's a match". But then after comparing with the same x scale :

w w w .ruppert-lesite.com/img/compare-1.jpg

(remove spaces)

... it appears we're still not there ;)

240-185

1st May 2009, 03:41 AM

I'd like to add henryco's answer regarding the DSC performed in air:

Les tests ont été réalisés à l'air car la courbe de référence de nanothermite avait aussi été réalisée à l'air. Il importait donc de procéder dans les mêmes conditions pour comparer. Donc pas d'erreur de méthodologie. Pour des gens qui comprennent les DSCs apparemment le fait d'imaginer qu'un constituant organique puisse générer des pics aussi étroits relève de la pure incompétence [...]

which means:

Tests have been performed in air because the reference curve of the nanothermite was performed in air. So, it was important that we had to proceed under the same conditions in order to make a comparison. So, no methodological error. For people who understand DSCs, the fact that some people may imagine that an organic constituent may generate so narrow peaks reveals pure incompetence [...]

Looks like a stundie.

Julio

1st May 2009, 11:24 AM

Jones paper refers to this other paper (Tillotson et al. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TXM-435KKJV-2G&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=96168ef14a007c2cc1dee1667b0d1b2f)) for the DSC plot of nanothermite they are comparing with.

In that paper should be written whether the test was done in air, or using an inert gas.

anyone has access to the paper?

Redford

1st May 2009, 12:10 PM

Sunstealer

1st May 2009, 01:27 PM

Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.Be careful with comparisons because the material in this paper is of a different nature to that in samples, a,b,c,d. The particles are much smaller and the Aluminium particles are high purity.

From the abstract - Nanocomposites of Fe2O3/Al(s), are readily produced from a solution of Fe(III) salt by adding an organic epoxide and a powder of the fuel metal. These materials can be processed to aerogel or xerogel monolithic composite solids. High resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) of the dried energetic nanocomposites reveal that the metal oxide component consists of small (3–10 nm) clusters of Fe2O3 that are in intimate contact with ultra fine grain (UFG) ~25 nm diameter Al metal particles. HRTEM results also indicate that the Al particles have an oxide coating ~5 nm thick.In the Harrit et Al paper the Fe203 particles (let alone clusters) are a minimum of 100nm in diameter, so atleast 10 times larger. The Platelet particles are approximately 1µm (1000nm) in diameter and therefore 40 times larger than the Al particles. Those Al particles have an oxide layer of 5nm. They also state

We believe that the sol–gel method will at the very least provide processing advantages over conventional methods in the areas of cost, purity, homogeneity, and are therefore unlikely to contain any significant amount of Silicon or Oxygen or other element as opposed to the Jones' samples as evidence by this XEDS spectra.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=888

I shall get to Metamar's comments about hexagons in good time. Once I've taken a few deep breaths and decided how I shall respond to his outrageous question on my professionalism and scientific integrity, not only in post #164, but also on another forum, whereby the comments weren't as well moderated, and try to respond within the spirit of the OP and continue as before.

Sunstealer

1st May 2009, 02:04 PM

Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.The pre-print of that document is available here https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/242925.pdf. (5.05mb pdf) It doesn't contain any calorimeter data DSC or otherwise so I don't know if that data made it to print. They ignite their sample with a propane torch.

Redford

1st May 2009, 05:15 PM

Be careful with comparisons because the material in this paper is of a different nature to that in samples, a,b,c,d. The particles are much smaller and the Aluminium particles are high purity.

I am not sure I am getting this. Harrit et al are making the comparison at a point where they consider the thermitic nature of the material to be proven. From that point they're using the graph to show the ignition starts even lower than a reference nano thermite which ignites already at lower temperature than thermite. Thus concluding the material is rather nano thermite than thermite.

(of course, if you consider the thermitic nature of the material *not* proven at that point, Fig 29 is just something asking a question : "what ignites @ 435°C ? Kaoline ?")

Now if I get you right the reference nano thermite (red curve) is made of a smaller, purest mix. So I understand (as the layman i am :blush:) than it would then be expected to actually react faster. If so, I suppose (nearly blind guess) that it will make the trace thiner, won't it ?

And if that so, the fact that the blue curve is even thiner is even more puzzling to me. :boggled:

WilliamSeger

1st May 2009, 07:12 PM

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.

Perhaps a little enlargement and histogram adjustment will help:

http://opendb.com/images/hex1.jpg

metamars

2nd May 2009, 11:30 AM

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.

Here are two pictures of Harrit Figure 9, which have been processed for edge detection, in Paint Shop Pro.

The one on the left was processed via:

Effects | Edge | Enhance More

The one on the right was processed via:

Effects | Edge |Find All

Even considering that this has Fe2O3 crystals mixed in with the platelets, it's pretty obvious that anything even suggesting a hexagon is rather rare.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1617649fc7ed070805.png

Now, contrast these with the silicon nano-platelets in the center of the following photo:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1617649f8cbde0de3d.png

R.Mackey

2nd May 2009, 11:53 AM

The pre-print of that document is available here https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/242925.pdf. (5.05mb pdf) It doesn't contain any calorimeter data DSC or otherwise so I don't know if that data made it to print. They ignite their sample with a propane torch.

I have the full paper, and I don't see where they specify DSC in a neutral atmosphere or not. I would also speculate this is why Dr. Jones did it in oxygen -- he simply didn't know any better, and was cribbing off this paper to make his own work seem as similar as possible, in search of a similar result.

moorea34

2nd May 2009, 12:27 PM

I have the full paper, and I don't see where they specify DSC in a neutral atmosphere or not. I would also speculate this is why Dr. Jones did it in oxygen -- he simply didn't know any better, and was cribbing off this paper to make his own work seem as similar as possible, in search of a similar result.

I had the full paper so and it was the same conclusion for me... Jones speak about thermite since 3 years but doesn't know anythng about it !

Dog Town

2nd May 2009, 10:53 PM

...Jones speak about thermite since 3 years but doesn't know anythng about it !

No truer words have been spoken! Bravo!

Redford

3rd May 2009, 02:19 AM

I understand how this interpretation can be temptating... But even if we assume this guy with the achievment list reported by wikipedia has been able to make such a mistake, on such a long course, AND if we assume none of the co authors were able to notice it along the months it took them to write the article, AND if on the top of that we assume peer review was conducted by three monkeys on a typewriter.... Even with that assumption's armada we have someone trying to look like an article that doesn't mention if the DSC was conducted in air or in an inert gas, and we're asked to assume that for no reason he would come up by himself with the idea to write down in his article "conducted in air".

Why would he do that ? How could he even think about that ?

henryco

4th May 2009, 11:18 AM

First off, I must point out again that I have very limitied knowledge and ability in these matters. I am presenting my observations as a very slightly educated guess, and not a strong assertion of fact.

If you look at p. 1260 of Second Edition of the Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science[/url][/b] you see two spikes, in the DSC graph of raw kaolinite, figure 4 (a). The first one, which is completely missing in the Jones' DSC plots, is at what looks like 50 C. The second spike is at about 525 C.

In figure 4(b), they show a DSC for Kaolinite-DMSO. There are still spikes at 50 C and 525 C. There is also a new spike at about 180 C. The key observation which I make is that adding crap to the kaolinite doesn't move or remove raw kaolinite spikes. Is this always true? I frankly don't know. But, if it is true, then the Jones' samples are not kaolinite.

I hope SunStealer will comment on this.

1)
According to
www.minersoc.org/pages/Archive-CM/Volume_19/19-4-653.pdf
the enthalpy corresponding to this endothermic peak at 500°C is about 40 kcal/mol thus ~ 0.65kJ/g
to be compared with 1.5 kJ/g for the peak registered with the blue curve (Fig 29): thus this endothermic peak would have been impossible to miss:
there is definitely no kaolinite in John's sample!
(On the other hand curves given earlier in this thread have shown that for another kind of thermite the tuning of the particles sizes allows to completely avoid the endothermic peak for Aluminum... since its possible i see no more reason why the absence of this peak in the chips DSC curves should be a concern anymore)

2) Because the authors was surprised that the paper by Tillotson was not clear on the conditions of the Tillotson DSC trace, it was necessary to contact him directly. Dr. Farrer contacted Tillotson directly ! : the red curve was registered in the air!

3) It'is quite obvious from the unusual profile of the aluminum rich particles that these was specifically designed not to meet the requirements of a high explosive but to provide efficient heat to the columns. The inert grey layers
also probably moderated the reaction to achieve exactly the same goal.
Optimize energy, reduce power as explained earlier by metamars just to
avoid the ejection of the hot material far away. As someone has also shown earlier in this thread up to nearly 50% of the heat could be focused toward the steel beam for specific types of thermites. I have no reason to doubt that the redhip nanothermite (nano because at least one type of particles , the Fe2O3 is ~120 nm) was also efficiently optimized and even better along this line, thanks to the inert greylayers and platelets Al and Si particles.

4) The ability of the combustion of an organic material to reach the temperatures necessary to melt iron is even worse at th microscopic scale than at the macoscopic scale, simply because at such small scales the dissipative effects are huge especially for the reactions that take place at the surface of the sample such as combustion with Oxygen in the air.
I'm really sorry but this is crucial point and for the time being the only feedback on this forum concerning that point sound like magical sentences.
And even on the JREF forum i dont want to discuss magical things...if you have serious arguments please expose them with references and computations

Thanks

F H-C

PS: The scientist standing just in front of a huge WTC "meteorite" in a well known video
says that it is molten metal and concrete fused together by the heat ... Is he a lyer or does he need another pair of glasses. Anybody can make the difference between distorted metal and previously liquid metal! A piece of molten metal from this meteorite was even sent to S Jones for analysis: he found it was mostly iron, previously molten iron! very low fractions of aluminium and sulfur (so not a corrosion process in this case!)

Sunstealer

4th May 2009, 01:41 PM

1)The inert grey layers also probably moderated the reaction to achieve exactly the same goal.
Optimize energy, reduce power as explained earlier by metamars just to
avoid the ejection of the hot material far away. As someone has also shown earlier in this thread up to nearly 50% of the heat could be focused toward the steel beam for specific types of thermites.No -the grey layer is oxidised steel. This post proves that because it's directly compared with the FEMA oxidised samples. From post #92

So lets look at the EDS spectra. Firstly I'll provide the spectra for the oxide layer that has formed on the samples in the above link Fig C-13 from http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf - locations 2 & 3, which we know were subjected to temperature in excess of the eutectic for FeS or Fe-O-S namely approximately 940°C and then compare with the gray layer of samples a-d), hence;

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=908

They are very similar in characteristic, shape aswell as elements identified. I've only roughly matched the x-axis scale but the correlation of shape is strikingly similar.

Firstly we must deal with the Carbon peak and the difference between the two spectra. In the first graph we see little to no Carbon and in the subsequent graphs a-d) we see a significant peak. This is easily explainable and any metallurgist will know why. In the FEMA sample we know that the steel material has been subjected to high temperature and exposure to air. This causes decarburization of the steel's surface, hence the lack of a C peak in the EDS spectrum for the subsequent oxide - anyone who doubts this just has to google decarburization to find out or read post # 159.

So what does that tell us? Well for starters, the gray material in Jones' samples, when analysed, had not been subjected to the same high temperatures as seen in http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf and that is why there is a different level of Oxygen in the spectra, but they are clearly from a similar source, namely a steel substrate and not only that, but a substrate that looks like A36 steel due to the Mn peak at @ 5.9KeV.

Jones et al do not comment in any depth with regard to the "gray layer", their paper pretty much ignores it, yet this layer is supposedly a constituent in their thermite hypothesis. This "gray layer", as the data provided by Jones et al, not only shows that this is not a constituent of thermite, but also provides a strikingly good match for iron oxide from a A36 steel that has not been subjected to temperatures above @ 430°C (and 650°C if my memory serves me with regard to the temperature at which steels decarburize).

Why have Jones et al not looked into this "gray layer" as they call it, which is characteristically distinct from the red layer and shows high similarity to an oxide layer of (a known) steel, which has been shown by comparison between their own XEDS and spectra from FEMA.

This additional analysis shows that Jones et al have never considered the "gray layer" as being part of a steel substrate. They claim the chips are thermite, yet have not been thorough enough to analyse the "gray layer" of their chips and either hypothesise nor determine their origin.

This is why truthers miss the clues. They are far too intent on second guessing DSC traces which require great care

I wrote the instructor's manual for a 3rd year lab on DSC at McMaster University in 2004.

Yes, DSC in an inert atmosphere is a good idea, but DSC can be difficult to interpret and is subject to variable results especially from heating rate effects.

In addition, the thermal conductivity of the sample, its particle size and packing density, the nature of the sample holder and the cover gas are all factors in determining the energy density of a sample.

Heats of reaction are best measured with bomb calorimeters.http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-75.htmlinstead of looking at the big picture.

There is zero elemental/free aluminium in samples a,b,c,d. If there was the data would show it, but it doesn't - we don't see particles of predominantly Al and some O, we see something far more intune with an aluminosilicate. Therefore these samples cannot have caused a thermite reaction in the DSC.

If you concentrate on the minutiae and speculate about inconclusive DSC results, speculate about this mysterious "gray layer", then it's not surprising that there is little time remaining to examine other data. Truthers are being highly selective and nitpicking when the bigger picture tells a different story. A story they cannot accept. The data in the paper indicates to the nature of these samples, but it is completely missed. This paper was never peer reviewed properly, it was published in highly dubious circumstances, in an unreputable journal of little note, which caused the editor of that journal to resign.

All of this nonsense and speculation by people unqualified and with zero relevant experience could be put to bed if Jones simply had his samples tested at a couple of independent laboratories and the results published publicly.

He will NEVER do this because he will be shown to be the fraud that he is.

henryco

4th May 2009, 02:30 PM

henryco

4th May 2009, 02:42 PM

No -the grey layer is oxidised steel.

I thought it was oxidised steel from the columns...until i discovered that sometimes these grey layers are found in between red layers (see the photo in the article). So may be its oxidized steel but not originating from the columns!

Consider all the evidence not just the one you like!

metamars

4th May 2009, 03:04 PM

3) It'is quite obvious from the unusual profile of the aluminum rich particles that these was specifically designed not to meet the requirements of a high explosive but to provide efficient heat to the columns. The inert grey layers
also probably moderated the reaction to achieve exactly the same goal.
Optimize energy, reduce power as explained earlier by metamars just to
avoid the ejection of the hot material far away. As someone has also shown earlier in this thread up to nearly 50% of the heat could be focused toward the steel beam for specific types of thermites. I have no reason to doubt that the redhip nanothermite (nano because at least one type of particles , the Fe2O3 is ~120 nm) was also efficiently optimized and even better along this line, thanks to the inert greylayers and platelets Al and Si particles.

I am of the opinion that the most plausible uses of nanothermite (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4680353&postcount=34) are, in order of plausibilty (most to least)

1) incendiary, to make jet fuel turn into a fireball in about 1/3 second
2) slow CD, wherein a thin layer is applied to heat the columns, causing them to fail under their pre-existing loads
3) explosive CD

I asked Harrit, et. al. to hit one of these puppies with a hammer, and see if it ignites, as a means of exploring the viability of impact ignition in scenario 1).

If you have chips to spare, would you also do this experiment, and report back to us what happens? What would also be cool is if, after hitting a chip with a hammer (or sledge hammer, for really stubborn chips :) ), somebody could take a SEM if it doesn't ignite, or only partially ignites.

Remember, don't do this experiment near any tall buildings! ;)

Sunstealer

4th May 2009, 04:21 PM

1)
According to www.minersoc.org/pages/Archive-CM/Volume_19/19-4-653.pdf
the enthalpy corresponding to this endothermic peak at 500°C is about 40 kcal/mol thus ~ 0.65kJ/g to be compared with 1.5 kJ/g for the peak registered with the blue curve (Fig 29): thus this endothermic peak would have been impossible to miss:
there is definitely no kaolinite in John's sample!
(On the other hand curves given earlier in this thread have shown that for another kind of thermite the tuning of the particles sizes allows to completely avoid the endothermic peak for Aluminum... since its possible i see no more reason why the absence of this peak in the chips DSC curves should be a concern anymore)Could you please show how you have calculated from 40 kcal/mol to ~ 0.65kJ/g This would help me very much. What figure have you used for g/mol?

In the www.minersoc.org/pages/Archive-CM/Volume_19/19-4-653.pdf paper I see figures of ~ 37Kcal/mol at 642K (369°C) which agrees with the literature.

In fact, the value of 37 kcal/mol obtained here is close to those reported in the literature (40--42 kcal/mol) and is in good agreement with the reaction enthalpy (38.8 kcal/mol).

Dehydroxylation occurs over a temperature range 362-412°C (635-685K) but only within certain parameters for calculation.

The results in Fig. 2 and Table 4 indicate that the thermal dehydroxylation of kaolinite at temperatures ranging from 635 to 685 K shows behaviour intermediate between a first-order and a diffusion-controlled model for values of tr < 0.6.

You quote a figure of 500°C when the data is for 642K (369°C) - I presume that this is a miss-type.

I did a very quick look at Fig 29 and I think I agree with you on the 1.5kJ/g peak. (1.5kJ/g = ~ 0.65W/g between ) Could you show on Fig 29 where this is and how you calculate it.

Thank you very much.

Sunstealer

4th May 2009, 06:00 PM

I have a funny suggestion: may be kaolinite platelets were used as a substrate for the deposition of elemental Aluminum. When the vaporised Aluminum deposited at the surface it might have heated it sufficiently to trigger the dehydroxilation into metakaolinite and this would be the reason why we cannot see anymore the endothermic peak in the DSC..He he - I have been looking at metakaolin too! Whilst I need more information about the DSC data in Fig 29 and how it could relate to the dehydroxylation of kaolin, (I await more information from you) metakaolin would explain a lack of a corresponding dehydroxylation exotherm peak in the DSC data in Fig 29 - blue.

I find this quite funny - I'm actually looking into areas that never previously interested me. My old head of Dept would be quite astounded that I have taken an interest in kaolin and clays, because I wasn't much interested at the time he was lecturing on the subject - the boring middle-aged <rule 10> :D Maybe some of his teaching did stick eh? ;)

I thought it was oxidised steel from the columns...until i discovered that sometimes these grey layers are found in between red layers (see the photo in the article).

Do you mean Fig 31?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=991

So may be its oxidized steel but not originating from the columns!If it's not oxidized steel from the columns then why would there be a thermite material attached to it? Is there another reason why a thermite material would be attached to a steel material that was not a column or other significant structure in the WTC?

This is one of the many reason why I have big problems with the paper. Harrit et al do not really consider what this grey layer is! It differs between samples/chips! I think it is a very bad way to describe the specimens as having a grey layer rather than say the specimen has two layers.

We see different types of "gray layer" as shown by Fig 33 and also Fig 31. Why would you paint an incendiary material directly onto some steel parts yet on other parts paint a carbon based material like an epoxy on first and then paint the incendiary material? It just doesn't make sense to me. A better explanation is that similar types of paint were used on a steel structure, some of which was bare (had rust on) and some of which had another layer of paint/primer or epoxy layer on.

One of the problems I have with the paper is that they do not label the chips properly. See this post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4613505&postcount=20

I think I am going to have to update this table because I think that Fig 33 is not connected with Fig 31. Fig 32 is connected with Fig 33 and it's "gray layer" which it has two of. This chip has also been subjected to MEK so why isn't it mentioned in the main body of the paper? Damn - and I thought I had read the paper thoroughly! Why didn't anyone see that mistake? Does no one read my posts. ;)

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). The red-mesoporous material is on the left in this view, with the touching dark-gray layer next and a lighter-gray material on the right as seen in a photograph of the same chip (right hand image in Fig. (32)). The gray layer in contact with the red layer has the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig. (33) in which iron is not seen, while the outer gray material had an XEDS spectrum just like those displayed in Fig. (6). Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material.Given that we don't know anything about this chip prior to it's soaking in MEK then i don't know why it's in the paper.

A full cross characterization of all the "chips" removed by magnet would have been worth it. And by that I mean an analysis of all chips separated from the dust and only those that are similar in character and found in atleast 3 locations be considered for further testing.

One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. Yes, but why would a nano-engineered, state of the art material be painted directly onto steel in one case but need an adhesive in another?

Consider all the evidence not just the one you like!I fully agree. I am more than prepared to be proven wrong over my conclusion that kaolin, in some form, is present in the platelets commented upon by Harrit et Al.

Henry - thank you very much for writing in this forum again. Your English is far, far superior to my "schoolboy French" :o We may differ on opinion, however, I respect your contribution.

Sunstealer

4th May 2009, 07:10 PM

I now have a bit of time to get around to this post as promised although I can't give it the fullest response, because I was hoping someone else would notice the obvious.

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination. I can fully understand the dissatisfaction with any reader, who, upon looking at images, whereby I delineate certain structures, do not agree or see a difference especially when they compare it with other photos. I'm used to looking at structures and components at extremely high magnification as per the SEM examples shown. It's not an everyday occurrence and a few weeks or so may pass, but at some point I'll end up in the SEM room either operating one of the two during my own line of work or sitting in on something or just being a nosey beggar and learning bits and bobs from a couple of lads who are, well lets just say invaluable - I've got a lot to learn. (but then so have they when it comes to producing a perfectly polished Ti 6/4 ;) )

When we look at the paper we notice that there is a distinct difference in the quality (noted by the sharpness) of the different SEM images. Readers will notice that a better quality SEM photomicrograph is usually accompanied by the "black bar" in the image, which has all of the corresponding data upon it, however, when we compare Fig 8 (a) with Fig 9 then it is clearly obvious that this is an image taken from the same point, just with a different configuration.

When you look at Fig 10 (a) rotate it approximately 80° and then compare it with Fig 9 and fig 8a you can obviously see a comparison - it's the same sample at the same point. Lazy Bs.

Fig 10a (rotate 80°clockwise) = Fig 9 = Fig 8a

Why has nobody spotted that one amongst all the examination? Hardly surprising to claim a lack of a certain shaped particle when 3 of the photographs are of the same damn spot - what not?

Metamars - how did you not spot this?

metamars

5th May 2009, 12:57 AM

Some background: Dr. Greening recently wrote a long email to the Harrit team, that I was cc'd on. I suggested to everybody that Dr. Greening be sent a couple of the chips, provided he could hook up with a scientist at a nearby Canadian university who had some of the requisite instruments, so that they could study the chips, themselves. Dr. Greening was receptive to that idea, and indicated that he had a contact at a university. No reply, yet, on that specific point, but the following reply from Professor Jones is relevant to the subject of this thread.

The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point.

Now this is the point that is critical to the fact of a rapid reaction, which the paper emphasizes and James re-iterates and Frank Greening ignores:
The formation of iron-rich spheres of micron+ sizes DURING the ignition,
Shown in Figs 20 and 21 AND 25.

The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures and is more important, IMO, than the narrowness of the DSC trace. We carefully examined the red/gray chips in each case BEFORE ignition and there were NO spheres of micron+ sizes in the pre-ignition samples.

Yet Greening ignores these data -- let's see if he will now address them, correctly, and not as he misunderstood Newton's Third Law.

Steven J

(emphasis follows that of Jones in his email)

moorea34

5th May 2009, 01:32 AM

Very interesting :

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html

And he's an expert in DSC (see above)....

T.A.M.

5th May 2009, 05:08 AM

Redford

5th May 2009, 05:58 AM

Pretty surprising how he comes back with the "energetic" argument. Nearly everything is less energetic than carbon or gasoline ; that's actually why both are used as source of energy all over the world (and not dynamite...). The paper discuss the w/g data once and only once it has demonstrated the nano thermitic reaction, and only does with caution as it admits the figures are not very significant to that regards.

So far I had a lot of interest for Greening views but he now seems to me to be twisting the things he's commenting. :-/

Redford

5th May 2009, 06:16 AM

I think getting Dr. Greening to have them analyzed, while not a perfect solution (no offense to him), is an excellent compromise, PROVIDED, that he is able to get some dust samples with a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY from other researchers, etc..., to compare the dust to (controls if you will).

I would like to see if all the other dust samples taken from the WTC site contain these red-grey chips, or were the four Jones samples the ONLY ONES to contain such.

TAM:)

Let's be clear: chain of custody will never be good enough to convince everyone. In Harrit et al's case you can't be sure the samples are note made up (not even speaking about conservation). But that's not all : they can fake datas in ways that peer reviews wont double check. So basically, if you're conviction is that Jones & co are a fraud, and making a conspiracy to manipulate world's citizens / get rich / get chicks / whatever, then don't even bother reading. Because basically it would by like reading the protocol of sion and trying to figure out if there's anything true in it... :rolleyes:

Note that it also works backside. If NIST suddenly wake up and make an analysis that says "actually, we didn't even find red chips", truthers would immediately yell "NIST's fraud" (they already do anyway...).

So anyone thinking an "abosulte proof" will come out of all of this he's IMHO dreaming awake.

What's possible thus is to just see what we can learn on the matter and see if it change our conviction. So we can read with interest, neither as a bible or as a fraud but as the work of human beings Harrit et al article, assuming they're not cheating (because the mobile for such assumption would have yet to be determined) and that they're not complete idiots (because they have a career that says otherwise).

BTW, if Jone isn't making up the "in air" Tillotson's quote, then a lot of people here have made very affirmative and very wrong statements and should take them away if they care about being honnest.

Additionnally, it would proove lack of competence to be existing on this very forum and therefore should entice everyone to stay cautious and avoid attacks on harrit et al's competence. Mind the backdraft! :p

BenBurch

5th May 2009, 08:20 AM

Sure. There are LOTS of ways to establish chain of custody on dust from there.

One simple one that comes to mind; Show me an envelope that was sealed and mailed in Lower Manhattan on that day or the day or two following, and I bet we can find dust in the seal, and I think the provenance of the sample would be convincing to just about anybody.

Ditto of you have autopsy samples of fallen firefighters or others; That preserved sample would likely preserve dust (if it were external or lung) and the source of that dust would not seriously be questioned. Even lung samples taken from exhumed remains and collected in the future could pass the test.

I also recall reading that the Smithsonian preserved relics of the buildings and those could be examined for dust if they have been kept isolated enough.

But what the "truthers" present to us is about the most highly questionable set of samples they could have come up with.

Now, why do you suppose that is? Are there records of Jones appealing to the coroner for samples and being turned down? Have any relatives of the fallen been asked to allow an autopsy on their exhumed loved ones? Has the Smithsonian actually been asked to allow dust sampling of their artifacts? Have philatelists been consulted on the envelope seal question? (Stamps too would trap dust.)

How about it? Go find yourselves some colorably honest specimens and come back with THAT analysis. OK?

T.A.M.

5th May 2009, 09:47 AM

Let's be clear: chain of custody will never be good enough to convince everyone. In Harrit et al's case you can't be sure the samples are note made up (not even speaking about conservation). But that's not all : they can fake datas in ways that peer reviews wont double check. So basically, if you're conviction is that Jones & co are a fraud, and making a conspiracy to manipulate world's citizens / get rich / get chicks / whatever, then don't even bother reading. Because basically it would by like reading the protocol of sion and trying to figure out if there's anything true in it... :rolleyes:

1. Jones' etal know who they got their samples from. In one case the have some idea of where and how and when the samples were collected. I chastise them for not being more detailed and more vigilant in obtaining what chain of custody their may have been.

2. I suspect there may very well be red/grey chips in the independent samples (not from NIST. There were several samples used to analyze for the purpose of toxins etc...surrounding the breathing issues around GZ). If there are not, then the Jones' samples are HIGHLY suspect. If they are present, then the question has to be asked, why did they not create a stir when found by other valid scientists...I suspect because they are ordinary paint primer and corrosion.

Note that it also works backside. If NIST suddenly wake up and make an analysis that says "actually, we didn't even find red chips", truthers would immediately yell "NIST's fraud" (they already do anyway...).

As I said above, I am not looking for samples from NIST to compare. I am asking that Greening collect/obtain/be given samples from other investigations/scientists that examined the dust, ones with known chains of custody (documented etc...) to compare to the Jones' samples.

So anyone thinking an "abosulte proof" will come out of all of this he's IMHO dreaming awake.

I would settle for "pretty good" proof.

What's possible thus is to just see what we can learn on the matter and see if it change our conviction. So we can read with interest, neither as a bible or as a fraud but as the work of human beings Harrit et al article, assuming they're not cheating (because the mobile for such assumption would have yet to be determined) and that they're not complete idiots (because they have a career that says otherwise).

There is a 3rd option, not CHEATING/FRAUD, not IDIOCY, but rather CONFIRMATION BIAS/BLINDNESS. I suspect that Jones' et al are so blinded by their agenda, their NEED to prove there was thermite used, that they purposely ignored other possible sources for their chips, or PURPOSELY did a whitewash/bare minimal investigation of a couple of potential sources.

BTW, if Jone isn't making up the "in air" Tillotson's quote, then a lot of people here have made very affirmative and very wrong statements and should take them away if they care about being honnest.

Take them away would be hard, they are a permanent part of the forum now...;)

Perhaps a retraction in spirit.

Additionnally, it would proove lack of competence to be existing on this very forum and therefore should entice everyone to stay cautious and avoid attacks on harrit et al's competence. Mind the backdraft! :p

There is a large difference between ones gut suspicions, ones speculation, and ones competence as a scientist.

TAM:)

henryco

5th May 2009, 10:43 AM

Could you please show how you have calculated from 40 kcal/mol to ~ 0.65kJ/g This would help me very much. What figure have you used for g/mol?

258g/mol from the french wikipedia for kaolinite (sorry still dont have the right to post web adresses here). You see a mistake ?

You quote a figure of 500°C when the data is for 642K (369°C) - I presume that this is a miss-type.

I did a very quick look at Fig 29 and I think I agree with you on the 1.5kJ/g peak. (1.5kJ/g = ~ 0.65W/g between ) Could you show on Fig 29 where this is and how you calculate it.

I did not calculate 1.5kJ/g: it's given earlier in the article for each one of the four tested chips. See the four DSC curves: the smaller peak curve was reported in the figure with the Tillotson DSC curve, i think...it's the same.

As for the 500°C, sorry: i didnt check that the temperatures in this paper was corresponding to the dehydroxylation temperature i had in mind from the website : Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science indicated by metamars (post 16 in this thread)...
The conditions are certainly not the same but i have no idea what is the main reason for the discrepancy between the two references...
The important infos we need about kaolinite are most of the time in scientific articles which are not in free access!

As for the grey layers in between the red layers, i indeed can see on the photo of fig 31 not only the unusual light-grey but also several dark grey ones, one of them in between the red layers...

Also you probably know that Harrit recently explained that knowing the composition of the red paint including the tnemec pigment one would expect
25% Zinc chromate and 20% magnesium silicates while we see no magnesium and only traces of Cr and Zn in one redchip!
So again even if there is kaolinite in these red stuffs where does it come from if not from this paint!

Best

F H-C

Senenmut

5th May 2009, 11:41 AM

i thought this was interesting when someone brought up adhesives:

"The original fireproofing on the fire floors was mostly Blazeshield DC/F, but some of the fireproofing on the flooring has recently been upgraded to Blazeshield II, which is about 20 percent denser and 20 percent more adhesive. [National Institute of Standards & Technology, 9/2005, pp. xxxvi, 83"

anyone know what blazeshield II is made of?

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=wtc+steel&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

Redford

5th May 2009, 11:55 AM

How about it? Go find yourselves some colorably honest specimens and come back with THAT analysis. OK?

You seem to be upset but not to really get my point. If some source reliable (to you) gives Jones a sample, Jones can swap it with anything else and it wouldn't be noticeable. Or he could analayse it, photoshop the images, and still no one would know. Until at least somebody else does a study. That's all I am saying.

BTW Jones said he has requested several times official samples keeped by *can't remember the acronym for the relevant instution* but never got any. He came back with that claim after this article, saying he now needed larger samples to make quantitative estimation of how much red chips were initially in the building.

Now that's what he says. Feel free to check and tell us what you find ;-)

To T.A.M. : IMHO there is no realistic way you could prove any chain of custody from private samples to be valid 8 years later. No high profile review would accept to publish anything (truther or debunker) with such political implications without rock solid custody chain. Maybe they would accept if samples were coming from official sources but truther would remain sceptic, and that would make sense from their perspective, won't it ?

I suspect that Jones' et al are so blinded by their agenda

Yup, I can see you're very disconfident of him (and I guess, by extension, of everyone working with him). I am new here and don't know why, thus. His wikipedia notice certainly gives him some credits. I'd be curious to know why you think he's so unreliable ?

There is a large difference between ones gut suspicions, ones speculation, and ones competence as a scientist.
Indeed. I would aslo add most scientists get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes ;-)

Senenmut

5th May 2009, 12:10 PM

metamars stated-
" However, in a "slow CD" scenario where you are merely weakening the steel, so that it fails gradually, one can envision putting a thin layer of nanothermite over a column segment (say 4 mm thick) and covering that over with fire proofing. Would the 13.5% energy loss to gas production (Table 6) be sufficient to make the gasses blow off the fireproofing? If not, would the remainder of the energy production not be so great that it quickly melted or burned the fireproofing? "

this made think about this fireproofing that dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl saw:
He says that, in some places, the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue.” [New York Times, 10/2/2001]

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=wtc+steel&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

beachnut

5th May 2009, 12:45 PM

No thermite here! Why? What did Jones get wrong?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg
Jones paper on thermite is being used to imply thermite destroyed the WTC. There is no physical evidence thermite was used. Engineers and scientist studied and searched the steel from the WTC event for months and never found a trace of evidence that thermite was used.

911Truth will say they were not looking for thermite but the fact is if seen thermite damage would be clearly seen and thermite products would stand out and be seen. Termite products would leave a real big evidence path.

The products of a thermite reaction are unique and can be seen after the event -
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/thermiteProduct.jpg
The results of using thermite would stand out and be found right away. What a dumb idea to pick thermite which was not found on any of the steel to do a paper and skew the results to declare you found thermite.

The fact is the paper shows some elements in dust samples that are also in thermite; Fe, O, Al, but not exclusively. So the dust could be from anything.

Jones tries to imply thermite was used to bring down the WTC yet no one has found evidence of thermite being used and the steel was checked. There would be photos of thermite damage and thermite product would be present.

The paper has failed to make a case that the samples are thermite or nano-super-thermite. The people who did the paper and the people fooled by the paper into supporting it can't even answer the simple questions for practical use like: The kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the office fires in the WTC towers?

Gage has turned this paper into one of his pitches as he collects money from those too gullible to understand the fraud he presents.

It looks like all the thermite failed to touch the steel and blew away on the wind to be contaminated by other elements so Jones had to explain away each element to have his super thermite;

The super-thermite painted on the steel fell off when the planes impacted foiling the efforts to blow up the WTC with thermite which drifted off down the street to be collected by people in a vacuum cleaner or railings around the WTC.

Besides the chain of custody we have real proof thermite was not used to weaken the steel, the steel was studied after the collapse.

We are stuck with Jones being a scam artist who once said this was his thermite proof; a cleanup cut at the WTC after 911.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Joneslie-1.jpg
If Jones was willing to present this as his proof of thermite at the WTC what has changed as he waves his hands and eliminates contaminating elements from his sample of what he calls "super-thermite", the "loaded gun" for 911Truth to shoot the other foot.

T.A.M.

5th May 2009, 02:02 PM

You seem to be upset but not to really get my point. If some source reliable (to you) gives Jones a sample, Jones can swap it with anything else and it wouldn't be noticeable. Or he could analayse it, photoshop the images, and still no one would know. Until at least somebody else does a study. That's all I am saying.

BTW Jones said he has requested several times official samples keeped by *can't remember the acronym for the relevant instution* but never got any. He came back with that claim after this article, saying he now needed larger samples to make quantitative estimation of how much red chips were initially in the building.

Now that's what he says. Feel free to check and tell us what you find ;-)

To T.A.M. : IMHO there is no realistic way you could prove any chain of custody from private samples to be valid 8 years later. No high profile review would accept to publish anything (truther or debunker) with such political implications without rock solid custody chain. Maybe they would accept if samples were coming from official sources but truther would remain sceptic, and that would make sense from their perspective, won't it ?

Yup, I can see you're very disconfident of him (and I guess, by extension, of everyone working with him). I am new here and don't know why, thus. His wikipedia notice certainly gives him some credits. I'd be curious to know why you think he's so unreliable ?

Indeed. I would aslo add most scientists get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes ;-)

The issue of my opinions of Jones, and how I arrived at them is off topic, and given the moderation status of this thread, not something I will discuss further here. Ask me again in another unmoderated thread or in the general discussion thread.

As for the "chain of custody" issue, I would say that he should have gotten some samples from labs who collected the samples within a few days of the collapse, and had been stored since, and used those, instead of samples DONATED TO HIM, I assume by fans or people who had heard of his investigating, 6 years after the fact, with little to no detail on where, when, and how the samples were collected, or how and where they were stored for the 6 years from collection to evaluation.

Any real scientist, WITHOUT AN AGENDA, would have gotten proper dust samples, with a known chain of custody. He/she would then have analyzed the dust particles on a macro level, then on a micro level. He would have then separated the particles into those readily identifiable, and those "unknown". From those that were not readily or easily known, he should have then determined a list of possibilities, and started ELIMINATING THEM rigorously and one by one. This SHOULD have included obtaining the paint primer used on the columns, as well as any paints used within the buildings.

There is no doubt to any LEGITIMATE scientist that the Jones' paper (which was written by a group of 9 people ALL of whom are affiliated with the 9/11 truth movement to some degree) was written with (A) a political agenda, and (B) with SEVERE confirmation bias/blindness.

TAM:)

Lenbrazil

5th May 2009, 06:02 PM

Lenbrazil

5th May 2009, 06:11 PM

T.A.M.

5th May 2009, 06:48 PM

Lenbrazil

5th May 2009, 08:35 PM

From my penultimate post on this thread:

Kim Todd. [said] residents...did their own tests and came up with substances that the agencies couldn’t even identify, let alone certify as safe, says Todd. “I found something called kaolin. What is that?”

Someone I think it was Sunstealer said that for about $40 one could send samples to a lab and have them identify the actual compounds, thus it seems odd that Harrit et. al didn't do this. The irony that some WTC area residents did this but they didn't occured to me while I was walking my dog and...

Lenbrazil

5th May 2009, 08:38 PM

As the "suggester" of the second theory you have listed Lenbrazil, I would have to say that it was more of a question, in the form of "could the sodium spikes be, in fact, Zinc Spikes, misread due to their close proximity to each other on the spectra".

I have not seen anyone prove to me that it COULD NOT be so.

TAM:)

What do you think is more likely
a) it was "NIST primer" with zinc misidentified as sodium OR
b) it was kaolinite?

As I said the fact that the USGS (and Ms. Todd) reported finding kalion(ite) in the dust pretty much settles it for me.

Redford

6th May 2009, 02:03 AM

Redford

6th May 2009, 03:19 AM

As I said the fact that the USGS (and Ms. Todd) reported finding kalion(ite) in the dust pretty much settles it for me.

Thanks, I remember now. Jones said several times that he requested samples from USGS and was never answered. I doubt there are plenty of other labs with samples with a better chain of custody so basically if Jones doesn't make this up, please USGS provides him those!

BTW T.A.M. if you read the articles the custody of each samples is detailed. Some of the samples have been send to seveal labs, not only Jones. So they're not all "fans". It's look more like people having the idea to keep it (explicitely for furether analysis, in the case of the sample used in the MEK test) and sending it when requested to. Now of course some have been taken with a vacuum, and all in all you can't be seriously sure about the custody. But the fact that there is four samples from different source that all features red chips leave only two credible hypothesis to me : either they're faked by Jones, either they're good.

Now Lenbrazil I must say while this is interesting (I noticed that so far no one mentioned any presence of kaoline in WTC materials ; you've changed that :P) it certainly doesn't nail it to me. Most discuss here are detail after detail but if I take a look at the big picture :

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would ignite with material ejection. The article state that several paints they tested have just been "immediately be reduced to fragile ashes" under the flame. I'd like to see someone putting some paint under fire and getting something else.

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would have a DSC peak a 435°c. And let's not forget that metamars has shown that Kaoline also has an early peak below 100°c (found it by myself too here : books.google.com/books?id=rlcLQmcTADEC&pg=PA1260&lpg=PA1260&dq=DSC+kaolinite&source=bl&ots=yEk8D6MmSg&sig=GqawDvviT0aeKoCXZiX0E1Nh7_c&hl=en&ei=P4PiSZyYFMTVlQfek7HgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1260,M1 ).

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints will generate during heating iron rich sphere that requires way higher temperature to form.

- there's also a resistance test that I didn't see discussed here that's also said to rule out paint/kaoline

- and the MEK test for which Sunstealer's main answer is that the samples is completely different, which I find so far pretty unconvincing.

So while the super thermite may not be proven, Kaoline/other paints are still way further away from the spot to me. Hope to see that list (and just that list, I don't want to run into the BSE pictures because it's sounds like a lot of talk for little conclusion to me) checked by others, especially Sunstealer.

T.A.M.

6th May 2009, 05:14 AM

Thanks, I remember now. Jones said several times that he requested samples from USGS and was never answered. I doubt there are plenty of other labs with samples with a better chain of custody so basically if Jones doesn't make this up, please USGS provides him those!

BTW T.A.M. if you read the articles the custody of each samples is detailed. Some of the samples have been send to seveal labs, not only Jones. So they're not all "fans". It's look more like people having the idea to keep it (explicitely for furether analysis, in the case of the sample used in the MEK test) and sending it when requested to. Now of course some have been taken with a vacuum, and all in all you can't be seriously sure about the custody. But the fact that there is four samples from different source that all features red chips leave only two credible hypothesis to me : either they're faked by Jones, either they're good.

Now Lenbrazil I must say while this is interesting (I noticed that so far no one mentioned any presence of kaoline in WTC materials ; you've changed that :P) it certainly doesn't nail it to me. Most discuss here are detail after detail but if I take a look at the big picture :

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would ignite with material ejection. The article state that several paints they tested have just been "immediately be reduced to fragile ashes" under the flame. I'd like to see someone putting some paint under fire and getting something else.

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would have a DSC peak a 435°c. And let's not forget that metamars has shown that Kaoline also has an early peak below 100°c (found it by myself too here : books.google.com/books?id=rlcLQmcTADEC&pg=PA1260&lpg=PA1260&dq=DSC+kaolinite&source=bl&ots=yEk8D6MmSg&sig=GqawDvviT0aeKoCXZiX0E1Nh7_c&hl=en&ei=P4PiSZyYFMTVlQfek7HgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1260,M1 ).

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints will generate during heating iron rich sphere that requires way higher temperature to form.

- there's also a resistance test that I didn't see discussed here that's also said to rule out paint/kaoline

- and the MEK test for which Sunstealer's main answer is that the samples is completely different, which I find so far pretty unconvincing.

So while the super thermite may not be proven, Kaoline/other paints are still way further away from the spot to me. Hope to see that list (and just that list, I don't want to run into the BSE pictures because it's sounds like a lot of talk for little conclusion to me) checked by others, especially Sunstealer.

1. I have read the article.

2. The Chain of Custody is only described in any detail in one case. More importantly, in all the other cases no method of collection or storage is given. These samples were given to Jones by people (for some reason, I guess they heard of him), SIX YEARS after they were collected. Yet there is no mention in most cases of how they were collected, with what tools, and what they were placed in and stored in FOR SIX YEARS.

3. Who sent them to the other labs? The suppliers of the samples or Jones? Who were these labs? Were they truly independent (henry is a fellow truther, as is the other fellow the samples were sent to, that I know of) labs, or not? If you can provide me with an independent lab outside of Jones' two friends, great, I would love to see their analysis.

4. Like I said earlier, show me some samples with NO CONTACT to Jones, that display these red/grey chips, and fine, but until then, ALL ARE SUSPECT.

5. The request for samples was put out at a conference put of by the truthers. What kind of audience do you think responded?

6. The samples, according to the paper were sent to several members of the same research group...Jones' research group.

7. Page 8 and 9 of the Harrit/Jones paper discuss all of this.

I think you should read the paper again, as clearly you believe they sent the samples to other independent labs, and this IS NOT the case.

TAM:)

Redford

6th May 2009, 07:56 AM

T.A.M.

6th May 2009, 09:01 AM

2. That's basically my point about chain of custody of private samples. You can never be sure that nothing went wrong and I wouldn't trust Harrit et al if they were trying to sell how sure they are those samples were collected and stored in a perfect way.

agreed.

3. IMO you're using the wrong word. Jones or Henryco can be seen as independant as they don't risk their career (well, not anymore for Jones). And they're not paid by any conspiracy against governement unless proven otherwise. The word I'd prefer you to use is that they're biased. They've gone far enough that way to have something to loose if red chips are just kaoline.

I guess it is semantics, so I will say that the only analysis I would trust is one done by scientists who have no affiliation with either the 9/11 truth movement, or support from the USG (though I would trust the latter over the former).

BTW I consider JREFers to be biased as well (debunking seems more or less the moto here). I thought for a while that Dr G. was reasonably balanced but his latest comments and more examination of his website make me doubt that now. (fortunately it's ok to be biased if everyone tries to stay polite, avoid ad hominem, and is fair play.)

1. I consider most JREFers to be bias AGAINST the truth movement...sure. I am as well. However, I have seen no evidence that the JREFers are working for the govt or stand to gain anything from proving the dust chips are NOT thermite.

2. If anything, Greening has shown to lean more towards questioning the Official account, as opposed to supporting it. I consider him fair on this matter, however, because he has always shown to be about THE SCIENCE first, regardless of what his political agenda may or may not be.

Now what could be done as I think you stated above would be to send the anonymous dust to a random lab. But then the first question that comes to my mind isn't "why didn't Jones do it ?" (simple answer : because he couldn't have published anything that way). It is rather : why didn't anyone else ? Why didn't you ? Why didn't NIST ?

Jones very easily could have done it. He could have performed his own analysis, and then COMPARED his results to those of the independent lab he sent his results to. He even claimed to have done so, but in the end, his "independent" labs, were merely more of his truther friends.

Why didn't I? I am a physician in Canada, the logistics would be too difficult.

Why didn't NIST? where was dust analysis considered part of their mandate, and if it was, show me where they fell short. NIST is not standing around waiting to counter truther theories. They did what was felt needed to explain the process leading up to collapse...EOS.

4. Then why even read a Jones analysis ? Sounds like an ultimate "whatever Jones says or does I've got a good excuse not to listen" argument to me...

I guess it is in hope that he can be revealed for the fraud i feel he is, so that maybe, MAYBE some of his ardent followers will see the snake oil as just that...SNAKE OIL.

5. The way I see thing everyone should be entitled to investigate this no matter what you think of them unless there is something to hide (or the storage of WTC dust is limitated). Now politically when more than 20% of the citizen are questionning the official version it is simply not reasonable IMHO to even consider not answering them. It's bad politic, bad communication and bad ethic. Especially if you publically admit you did'n't investigate on this matter yourself (as NIST did).

Who here has suggested he NOT be ALLOWED to investigate it? No one. We are not debating whether he should be allowed, but rather the validity and trustworthiness of his investigation and results.

20% of the population will question just about anything. 20% I suspect believe in Bigfoot, aliens visits, moon hoax, etc... 20% of the population, on average, are not smart enough to know any better.

6. Don't know where I got it wrong but you're right. I remember reading about samples send to other labs but it's not in the article. Apologises.

no problem. It was probably in a talk Jones gave. The link to it is somewhere on the gigantic web forum...

TAM:)

metamars

6th May 2009, 09:29 AM

2) Because the authors was surprised that the paper by Tillotson was not clear on the conditions of the Tillotson DSC trace, it was necessary to contact him directly. Dr. Farrer contacted Tillotson directly ! : the red curve was registered in the air!

Dr. Greening has complained about the overly simplistic comparison with Tillotson here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html#p2966). However, I suspect these complaints won't amount to much (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html#p2968).

As you have some of the chips, is there any chance that you could sacrifice a few to "stress test" them, to see if they react violently? By "stress test" them, I mean run the DSC at faster and faster rates of heating until you get a violent reaction. In this case, the DSC will not just have a sharp peak, but a sharp peak that comes to a sharp point, as in Figure 8.5: 40Kpm violent reaction of 80nm-Al+MoO3 in Granier, p. 131 (p. 152, total).

I'll try and post the Granier picture of the violently reacting nanothermite, later. Typically, the increase in heating rate during the Granier nanothermite DSC's were slow enough that the nanothermite reaction did not become appreciatively self-sustaining, or just stopped, completely.

Redford

6th May 2009, 10:19 AM

We agree on nearly everything and that's good to write. Just about that part:

Jones very easily could have done it. He could have performed his own analysis, and then COMPARED his results to those of the independent lab he sent his results to. He even claimed to have done so, but in the end, his "independent" labs, were merely more of his truther friends.

In theory I would agree but practically analysing this stuff requires some serious work. So you can't just find someone in the field and ask him "please sir be kind and do it". I personnaly emailed several scientists the last two weeks with very short questions on the topic and rarely had any answers. All in all I feel safe to assume than finding one unbiased scientist/lab BUT motivated enough to do what you're asking would be an unreasonable task. So to me it makes sense to get backedup by people that you know and who are volunteer to do it. And let's be honnest : it works like that most of the time anyway ;-)

Ah, and I disagree on NIST mission. Let's look at the "they didn't walk on moon" conspiracy theory. I remember reading very well explained answers from NASA. That certainly sold the case for me. So I am really annoyed to see that US administration quite obviously did all that was needed to make sure the popular questions wouldn't be answered. I believe in democracy, I dont accept "the 20% of ppl thinks Elvis is alive" because I think you can't compare polls about matter without consequences and poll about matter with consequences (and that's why when there's an election you dont have 20% seriously dumb votes either)(although you could argue with that :lol:).
All this taken into account, I dont see any sustainable reason not to spend the few dollars needed to show you care and give a proper answer. Any private company would do that in a similar situation BTW.

Redford

6th May 2009, 10:23 AM

henryco

6th May 2009, 11:50 AM

As you have some of the chips, is there any chance that you could sacrifice a few to "stress test" them, to see if they react violently?

Unfortunately there's no available DSC around in the labs of my campus...for the time being...

Fred

Lenbrazil

6th May 2009, 12:11 PM

Lenbrazil

6th May 2009, 12:14 PM

I haven't studied science since I was in high school back in the early 80's so please excuse any mistakes confusion regarding scientific notation

I did some Googling concerning the resistivity of kaolinite. I imagined that it would be close to that of the Jones chip i.e.. "a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m" but this chart seems to indicate it is was equal to or above what he and his colleagues said was the typical value for paint i.e. "over 10^10 ohm-m"

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/kaoliniteresistivity.jpg
From: http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%2012/12-1-29.pdf

I previously speculated that their result might have been in error and they read the chip as too conductive because of the proximity of the sensors (the chip was only 0.5mm x o.5 mm) or other error. Is it reasonable to assume testing such a small chip is likely to induce error? It seems they measured their chips as being MORE conductive than copper which is the 2nd most conductive element. The resistivity of copper is about 0.0000000168 ohm.m / 16.8 nOm / 1.68 × 10-6 Omega cm
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/BridgetRitter.shtml

Another question, can anyone calculate based on its composition what the resistivity of the primer described by NIST would be? They didn't say what the spectra of the tested chip was

This article, from the same site as the chart above, may be of interest to those with better science backgrounds
http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%2021/21-5-295.pdf

T.A.M.

6th May 2009, 12:46 PM

We agree on nearly everything and that's good to write. Just about that part:

In theory I would agree but practically analysing this stuff requires some serious work. So you can't just find someone in the field and ask him "please sir be kind and do it". I personnaly emailed several scientists the last two weeks with very short questions on the topic and rarely had any answers. All in all I feel safe to assume than finding one unbiased scientist/lab BUT motivated enough to do what you're asking would be an unreasonable task. So to me it makes sense to get backedup by people that you know and who are volunteer to do it. And let's be honnest : it works like that most of the time anyway ;-)

I agree it would not be easy. I guess it all depends on how much effort he wishes to put into LEGITIMIZING his work versus just getting it out there. I personally think he doesn't want to have a truly independent analysis of his dust, because he is afraid they will not come to his conclusions. He did more than get "people he knows" to back it up. The people he sent it to, were also members of his 9/11 truth site Scholars for 9/11 truth and justice. They clearly have at the very least a bias, at the other extreme, an identical agenda...not going to cut it here, or with most legitimate scientists I am afraid.

Ah, and I disagree on NIST mission. Let's look at the "they didn't walk on moon" conspiracy theory. I remember reading very well explained answers from NASA. That certainly sold the case for me. So I am really annoyed to see that US administration quite obviously did all that was needed to make sure the popular questions wouldn't be answered. I believe in democracy, I dont accept "the 20% of ppl thinks Elvis is alive" because I think you can't compare polls about matter without consequences and poll about matter with consequences (and that's why when there's an election you dont have 20% seriously dumb votes either)(although you could argue with that :lol:).
All this taken into account, I dont see any sustainable reason not to spend the few dollars needed to show you care and give a proper answer. Any private company would do that in a similar situation BTW.

Personally, I do not have the desire, as I do not consider his questions or query legitimate enough in the first place, to waste my personal money, that I would much rather spend on my family, to obtain his dust, have it analyzed, etc...If you do, go ahead.

As for NIST, I am merely stating that they had a mandate to investigate the cause and mechanism of the building collapses, and they did that. Anything you feel they SHOULD have done, is your opinion, and is not really relevant to them or their mandate. If you feel strongly about this, then sent them off an email demanding they do more.

Oh and BTW : henryco is a physicist in south of France (a bit further from NYC than you then :P ) and still managed to get some dust samples and investigate those. So you see, nothing's impossible!

I understand you may claim that you don't have that kind of motivation but at the end of the day the one's trying harder are at least more fitting the popular image of a truth's seeker ;-)

JONES SENT HENRY THE SAMPLES!!!!

I also do not invest money to prove that pictures of bigfoot are faked.

TAM:)

metamars

6th May 2009, 12:57 PM

I'll try and post the Granier picture of the violently reacting nanothermite, later.

Here it is (bottom DSC):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/161764a01dbdbd8bac.png

Gentle DSC's of 80 nm Al+MoO3, at 5 Kpm - 20 Kpm (top)
DSC of violently reacting 80 nm Al+MoO3, at 50 Kpm (bottom)

(Top is Granier Fig 8.1)

Get the point? :)

Typically, the increase in heating rate during the Granier nanothermite DSC's were slow enough that the nanothermite reaction did not become appreciatively self-sustaining, or just stopped, completely.

Oops. What I meant to say is that when the heating was stopped, then the nanothermite reaction typically did not become appreciatively self-sustaining, or just stopped, completely.

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 01:22 PM

258g/mol from the french wikipedia for kaolinite (sorry still dont have the right to post web adresses here). You see a mistake ?Thank you. I was looking for the exact same data and couldn't find it. I don't think you have made a mistake. I just wanted more information so that I could see how you have calculated the figure.

I did not calculate 1.5kJ/g: it's given earlier in the article for each one of the four tested chips. See the four DSC curves: the smaller peak curve was reported in the figure with the Tillotson DSC curve, i think...it's the same.OK - I'll go back and check. Thanks. I'm not familiar with Watt/gram - kJ/g, Kcal/g, Kcal/mol and kJ/mol make more sense to me.

As for the 500°C, sorry: i didnt check that the temperatures in this paper was corresponding to the dehydroxylation temperature i had in mind from the website : Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science indicated by metamars (post 16 in this thread)...
The conditions are certainly not the same but i have no idea what is the main reason for the discrepancy between the two references...
The important infos we need about kaolinite are most of the time in scientific articles which are not in free access!Thanks, I shall have a look at the link. It is annoying that alot of information is not free. I can get some of it at work due to our membership of some journals but the passwords are connected with the IP address for work machines so I can't use it outside of work.

As for the grey layers in between the red layers, i indeed can see on the photo of fig 31 not only the unusual light-grey but also several dark grey ones, one of them in between the red layers...Yes. This is one of the reasons that I criticize the paper for. They do not seem to have performed a correct characterisation of the material that they have removed from the dust via a magnet.

My posts previously in this thread discuss that. See

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4613505&postcount=20
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4613728&postcount=23
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4613784&postcount=24
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4614382&postcount=36

What is annoying is they do not do what you did when taking XEDS analysis - that is show on the sample a cross marking the spot. :( Their SEM skills are poor imho.

I also made a mistake in the table which you helped point out - seems no one else checks any of my work and actually has the paper open when discussing or reading the posts on this thread so they make sure what is said tallies. :p

I've updated the table to take this into account.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=1000

How many people realise that there are atleast 10 samples discussed in the paper? Many of these samples are different in character.

Also you probably know that Harrit recently explained that knowing the composition of the red paint including the tnemec pigment one would expect 25% Zinc chromate and 20% magnesium silicates while we see no magnesium and only traces of Cr and Zn in one redchip!
So again even if there is kaolinite in these red stuffs where does it come from if not from this paint!I understand the argument with regard to the Zn and Cr and how that will relate the chips to Tnemec red primer.

I want to write a sentence and I want everyone to read it out loud. If people can understand why I have written this sentence then they will understand how it relates to the samples. I shall then comment further.

"There is only one red paint in the world, it is manufactured by Tnemec, who have sole rights to produce this paint and they call this paint 99 red."

I want people to read it again. Out loud.

It's not true is it? There are hundreds and thousands of paints manufactured by many companies all over the world. Why would only one paint be used in all of the buildings that suffered damage or collapsed that day? We could be talking dozens of red paints painted on hundreds of surfaces. We should look at Tnemec red primer, but we shouldn't concentrate on that being the only source for paint.

Samples a,b,c,d, do not have the required elements in their red layers to match Tnemec red primer paint. Infact we would see talc particles and ZnCrO4 in the paint if it was. That would be the tell tale sign and we would have XEDS data to match.

However, there IS another sample (luke, it's your sister :) ) that does have an XEDS spectrum with all of those elements in. I bet it's a pretty good match too. So which sample is it. In the above table it is labelled as the MEK sample.

I have corrected Harrit et al's XEDS spectra for that sample because they crucially miss out two element peaks, namely Mg and K. See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4614382&postcount=36

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876

and this does not match any of the following by a very long way

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=874

Therefore sample in Fig 13, what I call the "MEK chip" (because Harrit et al haven't bothered to label their specimens apart from a,b,c,d -another bad mark against them) is NOT the same as sample a-d.

Red layer MEK chip ≠ a, b, c, d.

We know that the MEK chip was looked at in the SEM. We know the composition of the red layer is vastly different. So why are we not shown a detailed SEM image that shows that this red layer is exactly the same as for chips a,b,c,d? They claim contamination, but provide no proof of contamination. This is not professional. We could easily rule out Tnemec paint as the source because this MEK chip would not contain talc or ZnCrO4. We are not shown a detailed SEM image of this MEK chip's red layer, instead they claim it to be the same and wave anything else away as contamination. That's unprofessional. Show us the contamination with a SEM image.

I think that the best explanation is that the red layer in the MEK chip is Tnemec red primer paint. I think that the samples a,b,c,d are red paint, but not Tnemec red primer paint. I hope that makes it clear for everyone.

This is the reason why characterisation of the chips is so important. Jones separated 69 red/gray chips and another 15 chips from the dust. He should have produced a proper paper characterising these chips before any further work took place.

Why did they pick certain chips to investigate and not others? Why was the chip in Fig 32 not used in the DSC test? They say it has a grey layer of C and O, not Fe, O and C. What was the reasoning behind choosing what they did?

In the Science forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140426 they hammer the lack of custody with regard to the samples and no wonder. I've shown people that there is a difference between chips yet Jones and his fellows use a simplistic idea to characterise the chips

Red layer = thermite
Gray layer = err dunno, needs more investigation.

And that about sums up the paper. The samples shown are not consistent between the red layers. The samples shown are not consistent in the gray layers. How can they then claim that they are all the same thermite?

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.From their own paper.

This is astounding. How can they claim thermite and then say that?

Sorry for the long reply. I've got others to reply to and I suspect they will be long too. ;)

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 01:34 PM

As I said above, I am not looking for samples from NIST to compare. I am asking that Greening collect/obtain/be given samples from other investigations/scientists that examined the dust, ones with known chains of custody (documented etc...) to compare to the Jones' samples.He would definitely need to do this.

Jones has "chips" that do not match one another yet he claims they are all thermite. Even if Greening obtained chips from Jones then how on earth can he determine what he has been given if he cannot see the range of samples that Jones has. Jones has 69 and another 15 chips (some of them have been used for the Harrit et al paper) but because he hasn't performed a proper examination to characterise these chips then how does he know what he would give Greening and how does Greening know what he will receive?

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 02:07 PM

I've seen 3 (or 4 depending on how you count) different explanations on this forum as to why some of Jones's chips didn't contain zinc. Though I think I found evidence which just about proves the forth I was wondering if the proponents of the 1st two still stand by them and what they and other think about the 'competing' theories.

1) The passage of time, events of 9/11 and/or the application of MEK caused the zinc to be removed. (I don't remember who proposed this)

2) The zinc is reading as sodium because they are very close to each other on the scale (TAM)

To frank as a layman these don't sound very likely to me but that doesn't prove much.

3) Some of the chips are the primer described by NIST but the zincless wonders are something else eitherI've just posted replying to Henryco whereby I state that is exactly what I think. There is a possibility that the Zn is reading as Na but there is another Zn peak with a greater KeV and we would expect this to show if Zn is present. I think I've discussed this with TAM elsewhere.

a) electronic shielding (Dr. Greening) OR
b) kaolinite (Sunstealer)

The latter seems most likely to me due to the very close EDS signature and similar structure which Sunstealer demonstrated a few times. The clincher for me, and I think Sunstealer missed this, is that the kaolinite w/gypsum spectra he has posted here is FROM A SAMPLE FOUND AT GROUND ZERO.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.htmlYes I know that spectra comes from Ground Zero dust. ;). It's from here

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading09

and you can get all of their spectra for the materials here http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/ along with some corresponding SEM images.

However, be careful. I'm only suggesting that the platelet particles found in the red layer of samples a,b,c,d are kaolin, remember that there are Fe2O3 particles and an unknown carbon rich matrix in those samples too so it's not a direct comparison with Greening. I hope that Jones and his team would put up on their website any SEM images that didn't make it into the paper.

Just to make it 110% sure it would be good if we could find some references to the material being used at the WTC. I've done some googling but haven't found any yet. I however find another references to kaolin being founds there:

"“The agencies really didn’t know what they were doing,” says Kim Todd. “They seemed to not have a clue.” Residents, she said, did their own tests and came up with substances that the agencies couldn’t even identify, let alone certify as safe, says Todd. “I found something called kaolin. What is that?”"
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-Part-3.htmlKaolin is in concrete so it wouldn't surprise me if people found that in the dust just as USGS do. The difference is that I'm saying it's contained within a sample and not the bulk sample itself. I hope that makes sense.

SUNSTEALER - One thing I'm not sure of, do you think believe a product that was principally kaolinite was applied to the steel or do think it was an ingredient in a paint or primer that was mostly other substances?I think it was an ingredient in paint in samples a,b,c,d. That paint is adhered to an Iron Oxide. The most likely scenario is that this oxide is from steel. When we look at other samples we actually see three layers as I've discussed before. The red layer, the gray oxide layer and then another layer that has all of the visual characteristics of a polycrystalline material namely a metal and the XEDS data from henryco shows that the candidate for this is steel.

However, as discussed above, I have shown that the Jones' chips are not all identical. The red layer differes across chips and the grey layer differs across chips. That would suggest multiple sources of different material. Therefore we can't rule out that the oxide layer is part of something else.

I'm playing devil's advocate here one problem is that NIST indicates only one type of primer was used in the towers..Your welcome. Yes they do. In my reply to Henryco I talk about different red paints. And we can discuss different steels with red paint on them in the building. Red paint on steel doesn't have to specifically be Tnemec red primer on A36 structural steel. It's easy to get sucked into just one small area.

I'd also like if someone could verify my calcs for the zinc content of the primer. I don't think the vehicle would amount to much because NIST said "the paint was applied by the fabricators at the factory and given a low temperature (approx 120* C) bake to cure the paint and evaporate the suspending liquid" (pg 433 PDF pg 147 - http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf)

The amount of zinc in the primer would have been small. It would have been present in two components of the primer (we aren't told what the ratio of pigment to vehicle is):
1) Tenemec was 33.7% of the pigment, Tenemec is only 2.98% zinc compounds by mass. Note that was zinc compounds not pure zinc. Thus the primer was 1% zinc compounds from the Tenemec
http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

2) Zinc yellow was 20.3% of the pigment. Zinc yellow is zinc chromate hydroxide ZnCrO4*. The atomic masses of these elements are**, zinc 65.4, chromium 52, oxygen 16, thus the atomic mass of 1 molecule is 181.4 and is 36.1% zinc by mass. Thus the primer was 7.3% zinc from the zinc yellow.
http://tiny.cc/zincyellow

http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/mass.html

Even if we presume the zinc compounds were 70% zinc the primer was 8% zinc.Which is why we would expect it to shown in any XEDS spectra. Samples a,b,c,d don't show this. But another sample does; the one subjected to MEK. See above post again.

I'll state it again - I'm of the opinion that samples a,b,c,d show a red paint attached to an iron oxide, but that paint is not Tnemec red primer paint. There is no kaolin in Tnemec red and we don't see any ZnCrO4 or talc in the SEM photos. This doesn't mean it's thermite all I'm saying is that it the data points to red paint adhered to oxidised steel. Hell it could be material from fire trucks for all we know (although I doubt it because paints on vehicles have very distinct multiple layers and this would be obvious but you get my point).

Unfortunately they don't provide us with a detailed SEM image of the "MEK chip", they just say it's contaminated. I'd love to see a few high magnification SEM images of this chip but I doubt we ever will.

Could it be electronic shielding? I don't know because I would need more info with regard iron oxide and it's purpose in that role.

I think we have multiple materials from multiple sources. This is why the characterisation is so important. It separates the wheat from the chaff.

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 02:16 PM

I wonder how much of an issue the chain of custody is since they supposedly found the chips in several indepedantly gathered samples.

An unrelated point Harit et al dismissed the zinc found in one sample as surface contamination because the chip wasn't treated w/MEK. Wouldn't the obvious thing to do been soaking that chip in the solvent as well and then performed another spectra?It's not hard this science thing is it? Exactly, why didn't they do that. Infact what they should have done is broken that chip in half (as they had done to others) and kept one half as a control. By breaking the chip they could also look at the "uncontaminated" broken surface just as they did with samples a,b,c,d.

And shouldn't they have done pre-MEK-soaking apectra of the others. They don't seem to have done either.The paper is all over the shop. Just look at the specimen table I've produced, it's a mess. It doesn't look like they have much of a method. They jump around all over the place.

It's one of the reasons why I like to use a specimen table before I do any work with multiple specimens. I then know exactly which experiments are performed on which specimen and how they relate to one another. Makes labelling of specimens easier too. This is basic pre-degree stuff.

Another unrelated point, does anyone know the specific resistence of kaolinite?No. I don't think that is a worthwhile objective either. When we look at the SEM images what percentage of the material is of the platelet form? There is far more Fe2O3 particles and carbon rich matrix so any data on kaolin isn't going to give you any idea when compared to the samples. The resistance test imho is bizarre. I've got no idea why they did that.

Lenbrazil

6th May 2009, 02:19 PM

I looked up Kim Todd, the woman who said her WTC dust tested positive for kaolin. She still lives in lower Manhattan but her number is NOT listed so I sent her a telegram and will send her a postcard One of the delivery options I offered her was to drop it with or have it be picked up by a friend. I used to live in the city and have real world friends there but would rather not bother them with this nonsense. If she goes for it are there any volunteers?

I'm asking because if she is willing to send me a copy and that's the way she wants to do it i'd like to have someone lined up. PM me if interested. My box is full now but I'll free up space in a few minutes.

Len

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 03:03 PM

What do you think is more likely
a) it was "NIST primer" with zinc misidentified as sodium OR
b) it was kaolinite?Well it's possible that it's a different paint that contains kaolinite and zinc that isn't NIST primer!

This is one of the reasons why qualitative analysis such as EDS is not always the best method to use for this type of work where we have no idea of the source of the sample and what's it's comprised of.

I don't think samples a,b,c,d are Tnemec (NIST) primer because the data doesn't suggest it is even if the Zn peak is mis-labelled as Na. Most anti- corrosion paints will contain Zn because it's there to do the same job as it does in galvanising of steel.

Really what is needed is a much better technique for the characterisation of the material. In the past I have suggested XRD. I've seen companies that will do the work quite cheaply and even at $100/hr it's not extortionate. The only problem with XRD is that you do need a big enough sample. However, Jones has over 70 samples and has broken some in half for analysis. The way to do it would be to contact a lab and discuss sizes.

There are also other techniques available such as SIMS, Auger microprobe, XPS so there are plenty to choose from. Much better than trying to figure out whether a Zn peak is Na or vice a versa.

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 03:22 PM

Actually that is the very sample they tested with MEK. That's one of the point I don't get, BTW. Sunstealer complain about that very chip being tested with MEK (because it is "contaminated")No I don't think it's contaminated. Or certainly not to the extent that Harrit et al consider it. They broke chips in half and examined the clean face yet still found Na and K in Fig 11 and they also found Na, S, K and Ca in Fig 7c. So I don't see how these can be contaminants. We find similar elements in the "MEK chip's" red layer prior to soaking

corrected Fig 14

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876

They also say underneath that figure

Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers.

but OTOH amongst all the samples that is the most likely to actually be paint.Yes, it is! Specifically Tnemec red primer paint.

I've discussed it before but it won't hurt again. We see Zn and Cr which would tally with Zinc Chromate - ZnCrO4 and we see Mg (now I've corrected the spectra) and Si and O which would tally with Talc - Mg3Si4O10(OH)2

That chip should have been broken in half and one used as a control the other soaked in MEK (if that floats your boat). High magnification SEM images would show talc or Zinc chromate particles. They did XEDS on it so they must have SEM photos too, just must.

From what I've read they didn't especially choose to do the solvant test on that chip (it looks exactly like the others) but once getting hte XEDS info they decided it was perfectly fine.The whole MEK test just doesn't look too much of a useful test to me. They should have done it on one of the samples a,b,c,d.

The weird thing is they tested another chip with MEK! I didn't realise this until the other day when re-reading the paper due to Henryco and his post.

It's hidden under Fig 32.

Fig. (32). Close-up SEM image of the chip pictured on the right, the same chip but not precisely the same spot. This chip had been treated in MEK solvent so that the red layer has expanded and porosity is evident.

The soaking of this chip with MEK isn't mentioned anywhere else in the paper. There is an oddity with this chip because it has 3 layers and the gray layer doesn't contain Fe - Fig 33. This is an anomaly with all the other chips so why was this not investigated further before soaking or did they think they could dissolve the gray layer and remove the red one?

it's all so higgledy-piggledy. There is no method with regard to these tests.

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 06:05 PM

But the fact that there is four samples from different source that all features red chips leave only two credible hypothesis to me : either they're faked by Jones, either they're good.I have noted this before and I have previously said I do not think these are fakes or hoaxes.

The fact that four very similar looking chips with similar material characteristics have been found in more than one place highly suggests that they are linked with 11/9/2001. However, that does not mean that they are specifically from steel columns from WTC 1, 2 or 7. They could equally be from other parts of the buildings or indeed components within the buildings, painted metal furniture etc, etc.

Now Lenbrazil I must say while this is interesting (I noticed that so far no one mentioned any presence of kaoline in WTC materials ; you've changed that :P) it certainly doesn't nail it to me.There was a 40+ page thread that did tried to discuss it and we've also discussed it with regard to the make up of concrete and wall board when talking about iron-rich microspheres being found in dust.

I hate that term iron-rich simply because they are not and it gives a false impression. People see that and they automatically start thinking about the melting point of Iron at 1534°C then they throw that (ignorantly) into the mix when talking about the production of such spheres. O, Si and Mg are going to reduce that temperature by hundreds of degrees.

Most discuss here are detail after detail but if I take a look at the big picture :I agree we should look at the big picture. However, one must look at the data to generate that bigger picture and that requires looking at some details.

Some would say that what we are doing is "gilding the lily" because there is no way that a 15-100µm layer of thermite, whether it be nano, super or regular (do you want fries with that?) can ever heat a steel column sufficiently to cause a degradation of the steel's strength, let alone melting it.

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would ignite with material ejection. The article state that several paints they tested have just been "immediately be reduced to fragile ashes" under the flame. I'd like to see someone putting some paint under fire and getting something else.Yes, but what sort of paint? This is the problem. We have no idea what paint to compare it to other than Tnemec red primer and we don't think it's that because of the lack of Zn, Cr, etc in samples a,b,c,d. We have absolutely no idea what they were burning in their ignition tests and neither do they! They don't say. I may sound overly critical but we already know that they don't see the difference between the red layer XEDS spectra in samples a,b,c,d and the "MEK chip". Their criteria is; if it's a red layer it's all the same. It's not. Again it's why I harp on about characterising the samples properly so as to not be burning rust with several layers of different paint or other material that had been scraped of the back of a chair by some random person who was renovating in it in their house. :)

I've just looked at that video for the first time and it's awful! Aaaaarggghhh. I want to scream. Why are they not using a proper laboratory set up when taking that video?

It's easy - you get one of these. Look at where the red arrow points to. That is a mount for a camera.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=1001

We've been using video cameras on such mounts to capture pictures for, well more than since I can remember and that was early 90's. Every lab has them, often we switch cameras with scopes. Why didn't they produce a proper resolution video with one of those? Amateurs!

Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.So even more unknown paint samples were tested! Christ my specimen table is going to end up enormous if this continues. Why are they not telling us exactly what type of paint was used? Why don't they even do some brief SEM work on their paint samples to see what's in them and compare them to samples separated from the WTC dust?

They are comparing chalk and chee. Well we don't even know if it's cheese do we?

The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately 1mm x1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive end product of the reaction was unsuccessful.If you had a camera and it was pointed at me when I read that you'd get a really good face palm. One of those ones where you actually rub your face up and down in your hands.

High-speed ejection - Intense light - High temperature - hot particle. Bollocks more like. How can people write such stuff? It's pure speculation and looks like it's there to add drama. Infact it's the sort of thing I'd expect from someone describing particle collisions not ignition of a material. This is the sort of thing the truth movement lap up because they don't realise how false it all is. We see a spark in a very blurry video that moves.

These people should be embarrassed with that video. I've got no problem with an online paper referring to other online media. But come on that video is pathetic.

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would have a DSC peak a 435°c. And let's not forget that metamars has shown that Kaoline also has an early peak below 100°c (found it by myself too here : books.google.com/books?id=rlcLQmcTADEC&pg=PA1260&lpg=PA1260&dq=DSC+kaolinite&source=bl&ots=yEk8D6MmSg&sig=GqawDvviT0aeKoCXZiX0E1Nh7_c&hl=en&ei=P4PiSZyYFMTVlQfek7HgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1260,M1 ). If you've read some of the posts by Henryco and my correspondance then you'll realise that kaolinite undergoes a dehydroxylation over a range of temperatures. henryco links to a paper whereby this starts to occur as low as 369°C. In the paper you and metamars link to this occurs at 522°C.

The problem is metamars has not read or properly understood the above. What they are talking about is the intercalation of kaolinite using a specific solution, namely; dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO). They are comparing calorimeter data between raw Kaolinite and intercalated DMSO kaolinite or K-DMSO as they call it.

my written copy from the above link - for raw kaolinite, the 4.5% mass loss observed at temperatures below 250°C is attributed to the loss of adsorbed/absorbed water molecules. After that, the dehydroxylation of kaolinite into meta kaolinite has been observed as an endothermic peak centered at 522°C

The K-DMSO phase (Fig. 4B) shows two endothermic peaks centered at 175°C, which can be attributed to DMSO elimination,So the first peak and infact any data below 250°C is concerned with raw kaolinite and the loss of water molecules. Why would a processed kaolinite for use in materials such as paint retain adsorbed/absorbed water molecules? Kaolin may undergo a number of processes (e.g: calcification) before it's inclusion in a wide range of materials. Heat is usually applied. So if the water is removed why would we then expect to see a corresponding peak @ 100°C for a calorimeter trace in a material that contains a processed kaolinite which has no adsorbed/absorbed water molecules? This satisfactorily explains the lack of a peak and shows that one should be extremely wary when unqualified people propose data in links that they neither read nor understand.

The second at 175°C is attributed to DMSO elimination. The last is dehydroxylation of Kaolinite. Henryco has discussed this and I'm looking at it after I write all of the replies to posts in the thread - but please give me some time. Dehydroxylation of Kaolinite transforms it to meta-kaolinite and therefore, if that process has occurred prior to this material being used as a paint filler, then any calorimeter data will not show this dehydroxylation peak.

Am I now proposing meta-kaolinite? No. I think we need more data and that data should come from the samples being examined via different quantitative techniques such as SIMS, XPS, Auger microprobe and my favourite XRD, if possible.

It's fine linking to other sources of information, but making sure they are relevant requires one to actually read the material and understand it. That comment isn't directed at you per se, but everyone.

Kaolin is a natural material and therefore has natural variation. This "red layer" material is not "kaolin based". It contains specifically hexagonal-shaped platelets 9some call this pseudo-hexagonal) that when taken together with the other data indicate that kaolinite is present. There is also an unknown carbon matrix material which just seems to get lost in the headlong rush towards DSC testing and Fe2O3 crystals (which is correct). A mysterious inert "gray layer" is also present which doesn't seem to be part of the reaction, or does it? What is it? The paper also says that this gray layer is also only C and O ( no Fe etc present) - see Fig 33 and 32. The paper ignores contradictions and the unknown and concentrates on thermite.

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints will generate during heating iron rich sphere that requires way higher temperature to form.Well we don't know. Kaolinite is added to many many different paints as an extender. I don't think paints are based on kaolin. With respect to the temperature of forming microspheres (I think I shall call them that because tehy certainly are not iron-rich over say Oxygen rich) all I shall say is that we see other elements present in the spheres and this will drastically reduce the temperature required for formation. We also know that when we are dealing with particles of such small sizes and increased surface areas that bulk material properties such as the melting point of Iron cannot be applied. We have to be very careful when looking at reactions and temperatures on such a small scale.

- there's also a resistance test that I didn't see discussed here that's also said to rule out paint/kaolineImho the resistance test is useless. When we look at the paper we can see that their own samples must vary massively with resistance due to the difference in the make up of the "gray layer". Fig 33.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=869

compare that with Fig 6.

http://forums.randi.org/album.php?albumid=181&pictureid=868

Why on earth would those two materials have the same resistance? Why do we not see data in the paper that shows similarity between these two materials?

- and the MEK test for which Sunstealer's main answer is that the samples is completely different, which I find so far pretty unconvincingDo you not see the difference between these?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=874

Apologies for the lack of Y-axis scale in Fig 14 - Harrit et al decide that this is not important in many of their spectra.

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 06:35 PM

Unfortunately there's no available DSC around in the labs of my campus...for the time being...

FredSacrebleu! Ne pas le brûler, Henry!

Don't waste it in a Calorimeter test!

(In the UK we have a superb TV series called the "League of Gentlemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_League_of_Gentlemen_(comedy))", which is a very dark sort of comedy and one of the characters (Babs) is a part of a duo who want to remain isolated with their shop and all outsiders are not welcome. One of Babs' all time best lines after burning an outsider was, "we didn't burn him!" when asked about someone who had gone missing - I think the whole series would translate across into French quite well. We also have the wonderful comedy series "Only Fools and Horses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_Fools_and_Horses)" whereby the lead character thinks that saying to his side-kick, Rodney, "bonnet de douche, Rodders" is somehow sophisticated). Anyway I digress.

I would suggest that if you have a sample that you submit it for independent analysis using XPS, SIMS, Auger microprobe, XRD. That costs €'s. :(

Perhaps you can get someone else to take good care of your sample and do an analysis?

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 07:06 PM

Dr. Greening has complained about the overly simplistic comparison with Tillotson here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html#p2966). However, I suspect these complaints won't amount to much (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html#p2968).

As you have some of the chips, is there any chance that you could sacrifice a few to "stress test" them, to see if they react violently? By "stress test" them, I mean run the DSC at faster and faster rates of heating until you get a violent reaction. In this case, the DSC will not just have a sharp peak, but a sharp peak that comes to a sharp point, as in Figure 8.5: 40Kpm violent reaction of 80nm-Al+MoO3 in Granier, p. 131 (p. 152, total).

I'll try and post the Granier picture of the violently reacting nanothermite, later. Typically, the increase in heating rate during the Granier nanothermite DSC's were slow enough that the nanothermite reaction did not become appreciatively self-sustaining, or just stopped, completely.The absolute last thing anyone with chips obtained from Jones should do is sacrifice them needlessly in a Calorimeter test. The reason I say that is because it is not going to show any conclusive data! Please. This an area whereby people with a grounded understanding, who know what is possible and understand that a burnt sample is of absolutely no use to anyone.

Metamars - state your qualifications and experience - state why in your honest opinion, which is based upon your experience, such a sample, which is nye on impossible to get a hold of, should be subjected to a destructive test when we know so little.

If the mods wish to split this because it's not on topic then I'm more than happy. The suggestion that a piece of material should be sacrificed upon a whim shows massive naivety and lack of experience. Such people should not be listened to.

It is far wiser to hold onto the sample, keep it as uncontaminated as possible, i.e. plastic zip bag out of the light, and look to have a proper examination that includes quantitative analysis (that doesn't require the sample to be destroyed). Perhaps other people might be interested in the sample and want to spend more money and time upon an investigation. Burning it in an experiment that will not prove anything, on the advice of, well umm, on the advice of an unqualified person isn't the best option.

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 07:20 PM

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 08:39 PM

We agree on nearly everything and that's good to write. Just about that part:

In theory I would agree but practically analysing this stuff requires some serious work.Bollocks. You get the sample from Mr X, you know all of the tests that Mr X wants performed as per the agreement, because Mr X is paying cash and you do your thing. If Mr X has asked the firm to do "x" amount for a certain budget then you look at the sample and do some preliminary investigation to see what sorts of techniques are required and how much that is going to cost. That goes back to Mr X and he makes the decision. The tech wallah knows next to nothing. (I consider myself an ex-tech wallah, so balls to all you who think it's racist or demeaning etc).

The serious work is in characterising all of the samples to see whether you've got paint scrapings from Mrs Miggin's favourite chair or the graffiti from some "artist" on a steel bridge or the possible nano-noona-super-duper thermites. Funnily enough that is what the tech wallah will do - the undergrad doing his final year dissertation would not be a bad example if you could convince the Universities dept to do something that doesn't actually support that department's research. Ytou certainly won't get a PhD out of it. Claiming that all red layers = thermite is not bright and that is what Harrit et al do.

So you can't just find someone in the field and ask him "please sir be kind and do it". I personnaly emailed several scientists the last two weeks with very short questions on the topic and rarely had any answers.Who did you email and why? What were your questions? Why in the hell do you expect to email them and get any response? Do you expect them to just do it? It's not a Nike commercial FFS. They will just think you are batpoo crazy and ignore you if it's not relevant. The dept secretary will likely just bin the crazy. It's not too hard to spot the non-scientific. The likelihood is that you are not asking the right questions or the right people anyway.

I actually have some sympathy, because you are trying to find out on your own. That is damn well commendable and don't think I'm being patronising because I'm not. It's far more than a lot of people ever do. The thing is a PhD actually means not a lot in the great scheme of things, but it does matter in the field that someone earned that PhD in. Those fields are often broad, but the PhD very narrow, but that's what it's about. So just because someone is at a faculty with letters after their name doesn't mean to say they are in a specific area and have the time or interest to respond with 20 lines of text.

If I were looking to get answers from people then I would look to collate the relevant data from the paper I was interested in, into a concise form, no longer than two A4 pages and email that to people who looked to have a relevant qualification and teaching or research status. E-mailing it to Prof So and So whose dept might be a materials dept, but he specialises in solid state physics is going to get your request filed in the cylindrical cabinet.

All in all I feel safe to assume than finding one unbiased scientist/lab BUT motivated enough to do what you're asking would be an unreasonable task. I'm sorry, but there are independent labs by the hundreds in the USA alone, let alone the rest of the world. Are you suggesting that they should work for free? I've shown that characterisation can be had for a few Dollars so why are you talking about motivated work and biases? If you just send the sample off the receiving lab is not going to do a whole test upon the person who has given them the sample.

So to me it makes sense to get backedup by people that you know and who are volunteer to do it. And let's be honnest : it works like that most of the time anyway ;-)These are the words of someone who has never had experience in the sciences. This is exactly what you do not do. This sort of thing is not tolerated. How you can "wink" and say this exposes your ignorance. Independence is everything. Not a matey Cabal that corroborates your own findings. Pah!

Ah, and I disagree on NIST mission. Let's look at the "they didn't walk on moon" conspiracy theory. I remember reading very well explained answers from NASA. That certainly sold the case for me. So I am really annoyed to see that US administration quite obviously did all that was needed to make sure the popular questions wouldn't be answered. I believe in democracy, I dont accept "the 20% of ppl thinks Elvis is alive" because I think you can't compare polls about matter without consequences and poll about matter with consequences (and that's why when there's an election you dont have 20% seriously dumb votes either)(although you could argue with that :lol:).
All this taken into account, I dont see any sustainable reason not to spend the few dollars needed to show you care and give a proper answer. Any private company would do that in a similar situation BTW.Mods? What were you doing when this drivel passed you bye? Wakey, wakey!

metamars

6th May 2009, 08:39 PM

Unfortunately there's no available DSC around in the labs of my campus...for the time being...

Fred

How about hitting one with a hammer, and see if it ignites?

Of course, if it's super duper thermite, it may weld your hammer to what you rest the sample on. :)

ElMondoHummus

6th May 2009, 08:52 PM

Jesus, Sunstealer, you are waaaaay ahead of where I was when I skimmed that paper. I didn't even realize there were more than 4 samples. :eek:

Since the microspheres are heterogenous (iron, oxygen, and a few other elements), are you saying that they could indeed have been formed during the burning of the samples? My working thesis was that they were already present in the material, just not obvious in the images Harrit, Jones, and the rest provided, and were merely liberated when the samples combusted. But what you're saying is that they could indeed have been formed during the calorimeter test, just not from a "thermite" reaction. Am I understanding that correctly?

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 09:50 PM

Oh and BTW : henryco is a physicist in south of France (a bit further from NYC than you then :P ) and still managed to get some dust samples and investigate those. So you see, nothing's impossible!

I understand you may claim that you don't have that kind of motivation but at the end of the day the one's trying harder are at least more fitting the popular image of a truth's seeker ;-)I'm more than prepared to take custody of any number of samples. I can have experienced people subject them to full SEM and quantitative analysis we have talked about in their own time using the various apparatus at work - that will require some pizzas and beer, the odd hedge trimming for free, the promise to polish all their Ti 6/4 samples to perfection for the next 6 months, etc, etc.. These people are not the same people that I have shown the XEDS data and some photos to as I have said in other posts. Sounds good doesn't it?

The thing is I know that these people would do a first class job, they always do - they are a match for your money anywhere else in the world. No messing. They do it day in day out. What's more, they would be able to give a professional report showing their conclusions and their further recommendations. It would take them approximately 20 hrs total for one or two samples given that a couple of machines were free.

The problem is

that's not independent!

It's of no use. I know that if I provided a sample to the other lads and just said, "look I know it's a bit spurious, but I need to have your opinion on this. What is it?" The old buggers would have a bit of a moan and grumble and then one of them would say, "well it doesn't hurt, it'll only take 5 minutes" and then they will be all over it like flies on ****, because that's their nature. And it's mine too.

They want to know. I want to know.

It would take them a maximum of a week to work it out (hell I've seen em do it inside 20 mins even with the bickering) and I'm sure that the amount of time is proportional to the amount of hedge cutting and lawn mowing I was prepared to do. This ratio of penance for favours wouldn't change too much with another bunch of pirates I used to work with, and the quality of work was as high - I should know I was one of them. My metallography rates are going up the tight <rule 10>.

But that isn't good enough. I may have the best intentions and they certainly do, but that isn't independent.

The samples must go to an independent laboratory that has absolutely no idea where these samples are coming from. No idea that 9/11 is involved.

Sunstealer

6th May 2009, 09:58 PM

Here it is (bottom DSC):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/161764a01dbdbd8bac.png

Gentle DSC's of 80 nm Al+MoO3, at 5 Kpm - 20 Kpm (top)
DSC of violently reacting 80 nm Al+MoO3, at 50 Kpm (bottom)

(Top is Granier Fig 8.1)

Get the point? :).No.

Redford

7th May 2009, 02:01 AM

Thanks for the extensive replies, Sunstealer. Some notes:

Yes, but what sort of paint? This is the problem. We have no idea what paint to compare it to other than Tnemec red primer and we don't think it's that because of the lack of Zn, Cr, etc in samples a,b,c,d.

... which also invalidate to me all the critics about "specify the paint!". There's thousands of paints. It's reasonable to test Tnemec, because it's supposed to be there. It's also reasonable to test a random variety of paints, which they did. Now would the exact list of those paints be relevant enough to feed an article that is already 25 pages long ? I don't think so, because that list in itself would still let untested nearly all other paints. It is just here to say : "if I pick a few paints randomly, it supports what I am saying, not proving it but making it sufficiently likely for us to continue"

I think I am asking something simple. Paper's says no painter would react this way to the flame, and as it can't be experimentaly proven, (although common sense considering safety for fire building could do the trick IMO), they just do the show with a few paints to support their affirmtion.

OTOH all of your hypothesis imply at a point that you can get this reaction to the flame with Tnemec or some other paint. And I don't see how you can skip proving that. Especially since you seems to know how to get us even better pictures ;-)

High-speed ejection - Intense light - High temperature - hot particle. Bollocks more like.

That's your interpretation. Last time I've checked, use of word to describe a reaction is a part of scientific writing. You can't put number on it, but number doesn't say it all either. Now if I look at the (yes, awful) video they took, I can see all of that frame by frame. It's not huge on the screen, but it's still quite noticeable considering the size of the sample. I know for sure I wouldn't get that with any materials.

Well we don't know. Kaolinite is added to many many different paints as an extender. I don't think paints are based on kaolin.

Here's a serious source of confusion to me. We're looking at small pieces of materials called "red chips". You think, by the datas, they're kaolin. When they produce, at low (430°c in the DSC) temperature a reaction generating iron rich sphere (sorry no better word), you're now saying "that must be due to other component" of the supposed paint supposedly featuring the kaoline you suppose to be here (no pun intended, although it may sounds so, I admit ;)). And that paint has to be in the red chip for this to work.

So what I don't get is that the rest of the chip is also supposed to be known. Why can't you formulate, knowing all that you already know, at least a credible hypothesis, compatible with paint, for the reaction ? I feel there's a need for this because without it, it seems like a very long way to assume "well, maybe it could happen, one way or another. Hot paint melting iron."

Also while it's true that melting point of iron get lower with smaller particles, here we are speaking about more than one thousand degrees. So it seems they're is a huge margin to me before you can explain what's been observed.

Imho the resistance test is useless. When we look at the paper we can see that their own samples must vary massively with resistance due to the difference in the make up of the "gray layer". Fig 33.

Ok, there I must ask you for vulgarization ;) I am no scientist and I can't jump from a ohm-m measure to XEDS curve and get reasoning on this. Can you explain a bit furter ?

Do you not see the difference between these?

Of course I do, but if it's completely different material as I understand you state, it's a hell of a coincidence that everything in a,b,c and d also is in fig(14). That's why although I see your point as interesting, to me it doesn't prove wrong Harrit et al interpretation that sample from fig 14 is same to the other + contamination.

The whole MEK test just doesn't look too much of a useful test to me. They should have done it on one of the samples a,b,c,d.
BTW unless I missed something you didn't reply to my point : if MEK sample is Tnemec (or paint), it wouldn't have behaved the way it did with MEK, would it ?

it's all so higgledy-piggledy. There is no method with regard to these tests.
I won't detail but for the sake of ASII economy I must let you know I am completely closed to that sort of argument. Nothing personal, I hate it in truther's mouth too ;-)

T.A.M.

7th May 2009, 05:09 AM

Thanks for the extensive replies, Sunstealer. Some notes:

... which also invalidate to me all the critics about "specify the paint!". There's thousands of paints. It's reasonable to test Tnemec, because it's supposed to be there. It's also reasonable to test a random variety of paints, which they did. Now would the exact list of those paints be relevant enough to feed an article that is already 25 pages long ? I don't think so, because that list in itself would still let untested nearly all other paints. It is just here to say : "if I pick a few paints randomly, it supports what I am saying, not proving it but making it sufficiently likely for us to continue"

I think I am asking something simple. Paper's says no painter would react this way to the flame, and as it can't be experimentaly proven, (although common sense considering safety for fire building could do the trick IMO), they just do the show with a few paints to support their affirmtion.

A few paints? A random variety of paints? Did I miss this part of the paper? Ok, so if that is the case, then it should be as simple as an email to someone, to send a list of the paints (I am almost sure I read they tested ONE paint) they tested to examine the components of said paint(s).

A line or two to list the names of the paint(s) (exact) they allegedly tested WOULD NOT be much to add to a paper, whether it be 2 or 22 pages long. To say otherwise is a HORRIBLY FLIMSY cop out...sorry.

OTOH all of your hypothesis imply at a point that you can get this reaction to the flame with Tnemec or some other paint. And I don't see how you can skip proving that. Especially since you seems to know how to get us even better pictures ;-)

That's your interpretation. Last time I've checked, use of word to describe a reaction is a part of scientific writing. You can't put number on it, but number doesn't say it all either. Now if I look at the (yes, awful) video they took, I can see all of that frame by frame. It's not huge on the screen, but it's still quite noticeable considering the size of the sample. I know for sure I wouldn't get that with any materials.

You just said earlier that "papers" (I am not sure where you got this info, what papers said it?) stated that no paint could produce that reaction. What a crock. If they cannot provide references to these "papers" then it is simply their opinion, which is not worth a whole lot.

Here it is in a nutshell. The vast majority of the world, in particular the science community, DO NOT believe thermite was used, they believe the collapses were the result of the impacts, the fires, and the removal of fireproofing. Therefore, Jones et al are the ones with the BURDEN OF PROOF to show otherwise.

So, given we know that paint was a common element in the buildings, and given that paint could present with Spectra similar to what Jones et al have produced, IT IS UP TO THEM, to prove that the chips are NOT PAINT. Therefore, it is up to them to prove that PAINT CHIPS with CORROSION attached COULD NOT cause such a thermic reaction.

TAM:)

metamars

7th May 2009, 07:25 AM

The absolute last thing anyone with chips obtained from Jones should do is sacrifice them needlessly in a Calorimeter test. The reason I say that is because it is not going to show any conclusive data! Please. This an area whereby people with a grounded understanding, who know what is possible and understand that a burnt sample is of absolutely no use to anyone.

Metamars - state your qualifications and experience - state why in your honest opinion, which is based upon your experience, such a sample, which is nye on impossible to get a hold of, should be subjected to a destructive test when we know so little.

If the mods wish to split this because it's not on topic then I'm more than happy. The suggestion that a piece of material should be sacrificed upon a whim shows massive naivety and lack of experience. Such people should not be listened to.

Trust me when I tell you, if it's indeed the case that more calorimeter tests would be a waste of chips, then that's the last thing that I would want.

I make no pretense of being qualified to know what is the best way to analyze the chips, though I understand that one of the constraints is money and access. So, I think it's fair to say that the tests I've proposed are cheap, even if useless! :) I have an undergraduate degree in physics and math, but am "over the hill" in physics. Alas, had the economy not fallen apart, I might well have been in graduate school by now, but such is not the case.

I emailed experts in nanothermite, yesterday, with a copy of the thermitic paper, and I pointed them to the appropriate thread at the911forum.freeforums.org.* I got an encouraging response, in which I was told by one individual that they had not been aware of the paper, previously, and I can expect to hear back, shortly, after they've read it. IMO, many qualified people should be looking at the chips. No offense to Henry, but even being a gravitational physics genius is not an ideal background, either.

* JREF is too rude a place to invite serious scientists to actually participate - at least those that I don't know personally, and am confident have a thick skin. Also, how many scientists want to waste their time with strident individuals who don't know what their talking about? (Not talking about you, here.) I've been cc'd on emails between the Harrit team and Greening, which are not always pleasant, but at least they're substantive. Too bad I only have permission to quote Professor Jones.

metamars

7th May 2009, 07:48 AM

No.

Dr. Greening has voiced some skepticism about simplistic interpretations of DSC spikes, ito reaction rates. I have argued that the spikes point to a lower bound of reaction rates. By running the DSC are faster heating rates, you can narrow the spike (if it's really thermite), perhaps to the point where the only known materials with the same chemical species, which give such spikes, are known nano-thermites.

One way that an expert in nanothermite could help is by advising at what temperature rate to run a DSC on a red/gray chip so that a sharp and very narrow peak, such as Granier observed in Figure 8.5 (above) (though not quite that sharp - his "violent reaction" lead to the crucible and lid being thrown from the sample carrier) should be observed.

If you can observe this by only sacrificing one chip, and if the nanothermite experts agree that this would be a significant test, to begin with, then smiles all around. Of course, if your friendly, neighborhood nanothermite experts tell you that this is not a useful test, then there's one waste of time and material that could be avoided.

What's your guess, Sunstealer, as to what a survey of nanothermite experts would reveal, regarding the desirability of more DSC tests? One thing's for sure - they seem to be done, all the time, in studying known nanothermites.

Redford

7th May 2009, 09:37 AM

A line or two to list the names of the paint(s) (exact) they allegedly tested WOULD NOT be much to add to a paper, whether it be 2 or 22 pages long. To say otherwise is a HORRIBLY FLIMSY cop out...sorry.

The papers says several paints were tested for ignition, several for MEK solvant and several for resistance. Now you can yell and write in caps but you didn't say what could be actually learned from that list. And if that's no more than what I said, such a list is uninformative and go below the radar. 25 pages is already very long for a publication. Most of the articles just take way more shortcuts.

That said, I am sure that list exist. If you're interested (what for, that I don't know...) it's certainly possible to ask.

You just said earlier that "papers"
Sorry for my english. By that I meant the Harrit et al article.

Here it is in a nutshell. The vast majority of the world, in particular the science community, DO NOT believe thermite was used, they believe the collapses were the result of the impacts, the fires, and the removal of fireproofing. Therefore, Jones et al are the ones with the BURDEN OF PROOF to show otherwise.

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

Now maybe there's a lot of scientists in the debunker movement, maybe even more but as long as they don't start their own association we can't seriously count them. In the meantime that's hundreds to tens balance. If any conclusion could be taken from by a new comer it's that the scientific community is rather convinced by truther. I am sure you're jumping on your seat but fact is that every new poll show progressions of truther and if you hate that, a reality check will help you to fight it efficiently. De nada =)

twinstead

7th May 2009, 09:54 AM

Redford how do YOU explain why the vast majority of the world's scientific community, after so many years, still believes that the collapses were the result of the impacts, the fires, and the removal of fireproofing?

You don't see an organization of "scientists for a round Earth", do you? Do you agree that the majority of scientists believe the earth isn't flat regardless of that?

240-185

7th May 2009, 10:12 AM

see lots of scientists/expert openly in the truth movement
"lots"?
Judy Wood is a Ph. D. Does that make she's right about Star Wars Beams?
FHC aka henryco? A man who thinks that therm*te + thermobaric weapons destroyed the towers?
Jones? Whose credibility is totally botched since he "proved" the existence of Jesus in the US or the cold fusion?
Anyone else?

Klimax

7th May 2009, 01:35 PM

One quick question regarding XEDS.
Are spikes depending on molecule in which they are bound? I have seen two Fe spikes,could they be used to determine whether Fe is (e.g.) three or five oxidation number?

Would that be then usefull in determining what was present in tested chips?

Lenbrazil

7th May 2009, 03:16 PM

.

Kaolin is in concrete so it wouldn't surprise me if people found that in the dust just as USGS do. The difference is that I'm saying it's contained within a sample and not the bulk sample itself. I hope that makes sense.

I think it [Kaolin] was an ingredient in paint in samples a,b,c,d. That paint is adhered to an Iron Oxide. The most likely scenario is that this oxide is from steel.

I've just looked at that video for the first time and it's awful! Aaaaarggghhh. I want to scream. Why are they not using a proper laboratory set up when taking that video?

[...]

We've been using video cameras on such mounts to capture pictures for, well more than since I can remember and that was early 90's. Every lab has them, often we switch cameras with scopes. Why didn't they produce a proper resolution video with one of those? Amateurs!

1) What video are you talking about?

2) Funny that you find thei microscope skills deficient the guy Jones said should have been the lead author is a PhDed SEM lab manager. Supposedly BYU's lab is especialy well equiped. He claims that his areas of specialty include "Electron Microscopy, electron diffraction, orientation imaging microscopy"

T.A.M.

7th May 2009, 03:32 PM

Redford:

ok,

1. They did not test the resistivity of many paints. They tested the resistivity of "the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side)", for which they got a "ROUGH" value, and compared this with TABULATED values they found for "paints".

From page 27 of the paper in question:

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].

2. The solvent testing was done with MEK on the red chips, and "paint samples". The red chip samples SWELLED, whereas the paint samples (type and sample number not specified) partly dissolved.

Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

To me this sounds like varying degrees of the same reaction. Perhaps you can tell me how the two differ in this regard.

-----
So this is all that is mentioned under the section "7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint". I see no mention of varied paint types being TESTED. I see one reference to looking at TABULATED values from several paints, and the solvent testing of paint samples (is this multiple samples of the same paint, or single samples from multiple paints?)

So is there a section of the paper that I over looked where they state that the TESTED multiple paint types, or were you assuming the above section I quoted was indicating multiple PAINT TYPES?

As to whether it matters what type of paints they tested, etc... it is FUNDAMENTALLY important, and for you to say it is not, is disingenous at best. Any real scientist would instantly recognize the importance of making CRYSTAL CLEAR, the exacts of his controls and providing EXACT details on how other compounds (and their exacts) were eliminated.

This was not done, to any degree beyond a feeble, and I would say purposely flimsy, attempt.

TAM:)

Redford

7th May 2009, 06:27 PM

Redford how do YOU explain why the vast majority of the world's scientific community, after so many years

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

To T.A.M.

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

2. To me this sounds like varying degrees of the same reaction. Perhaps you can tell me how the two differ in this regard.

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

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

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

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

Dog Town

7th May 2009, 08:29 PM

Here's an interesting e-mail to said authors, by DR.Frank G. on Greg U's forum.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html

Dear All,

First off, if I have offended anyone it certainly was not my intention and I think the record shows that I have generally refrained from snide remarks, unlike some members of your group. You have to recognize that in this current round of e-mail exchanges I am one (lone) voice against nine, and I am at a severe disadvantage because I have no WTC dust samples and I have not seen all of your data. If I appear to misunderstand a point or two in your paper you should perhaps accept that parts of the paper are confusing, light on important details, or poorly written.....

Nevertheless, I do not accept that I have ever posted "nonsense" but, on the contrary, I have to say that I feel some of your views and the "science" you use to back up your claims with regard to what happened to the Twin Towers are in my opinion (and the opinion of many critics around the world) best described as "nonsense". Interestingly, you all dodge the question: How was your (alleged) nanothermite actually used? And when I start to ponder this question I soon find myself thinking that the whole idea is indeed nonsense. I have, as a mental exercise, even proposed my own conspiracy theory - that the WTC thermal insulation was laced with ammonium perchlorate (AP) - and have provided as much or more evidence for this hypothesis as your team has for nanothermite. Simply put, an AP theory makes more sense than your mysterious nanothermite ignitors which make no sense at all! And let's not forget that not so long ago Steven Jones was telling the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!

I would say that if you guys really believe you have "hit the mother lode" with nanothermite, you are approaching the dissemination of this discovery the wrong way. You should (probably with the help of lawyers) be writing to the FBI, Homeland Security, NIST, FEMA and to other law enforcement/ disaster mitigation agencies and inform them of your discovery. You shold be writing to the managers and scientists at National Labs such as LLNL, NASA, Los Alamos, etc. You should be writing to politicians, activists and the media. An article in an obscure Chemical Physics Journal is not going to influence anyone bacause most academics are ivory-towered, blinkered specialists who are indifferent to anything but their own careers and ambitions.

Finally, debating nanothermite on the internet is really the biggest waste of time of all. As we have seen, it's an exercise in BS and bombast for some and a source of entertainment for many others; this is really too bad, but as Shakespeare so aptly said about life: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Frank, I know you hated it here, but you're all right!

metamars

7th May 2009, 09:11 PM

How about hitting one with a hammer, and see if it ignites?

Of course, if it's super duper thermite, it may weld your hammer to what you rest the sample on. :)

According to this page (http://books.google.com/books?id=aZtEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=maximum+pressure+exerted+by+a+nail+hammer&source=bl&ots=QeFsVj1Cdu&sig=I9H0U9LBGMyUAlCZG4ghR_sMkAI&hl=en&ei=pZ0DStnlHd7gtgey1JWBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10) a 2 lb hammer swung at 20 feet per second, which drives a nail 1/2 inch into hard wood, would exert 521 lbs of pressure.

A typical nail head is much smaller than 1/10 of a square inch. So, maximum pressure of a hammer blow on a nail head will exceed 5,210 lb/in^2, or 35.9 MPa

Consequently, I predict that if you start a nail into hard wood, then glue one of the chips onto the head of a nail, then finally whack it once again, hard, if it's nano-thermite, it will ignite. (Recall that the yields of Al Oxide are in the MPa range. I don't remember exactly how many MPa, and am too lazy/tired to look it up. However, if it's not quite enough to ignite the chip, then I fully expect a sledge hammer to do the job.).

Of course, you should use a glue that doesn't have kaolinite. If it doesn't ignite, you can send the remains to Sunstealer. We wouldn't want him to be fooled by glue-kaolinite.

R.Mackey

8th May 2009, 09:30 AM

A typical nail head is much smaller than 1/10 of a square inch. So, maximum pressure of a hammer blow on a nail head will exceed 5,210 lb/in^2, or 35.9 MPa

Consequently, I predict that if you start a nail into hard wood, then glue one of the chips onto the head of a nail, then finally whack it once again, hard, if it's nano-thermite, it will ignite. (Recall that the yields of Al Oxide are in the MPa range. I don't remember exactly how many MPa, and am too lazy/tired to look it up. However, if it's not quite enough to ignite the chip, then I fully expect a sledge hammer to do the job.).

I'll probably get beat to the answer, but this kind of analysis is useless in this context.

Metal powder incendiaries are going to be extremely shock-insensitive. Their reaction is one with a high activation energy. A smaller-grain powder will be more sensitive, but only compared to coarser grained constructions tha will be even less sensitive because the reactants aren't even in contact.

Thermite in general is not shock-sensitive at all. Tillotson, in his paper -- one of the few that actually deals with nanothermite -- describes shock insensitivity as a feature. Other papers describe the reaction rate as being purely thermal in nature, rather than propagated through shock as in most ordinary high explosives. The low energy content of any thermite is also a clue that, since you are a low explosive, you need heating, not shock.

If the stuff is going to go off with a hammer blow, the energy to crack an oxide layer is not the correct activation energy. I can mix reagent-grade unoxidized aluminum powder and iron oxide at room temperature, and nothing will happen. Furthermore, the average pressure or impulse delivered by the hammer is not the right one to apply. At very small scales, physical pressure is dominated by geometry of nearby particles impinging on the one in question, and other mechanisms like abrasion will be more relevant.

Rather than look at it this way, if a hammer reliably ignited the stuff, it would probably be in the form of strain energy causing heating. You smack it with the hammer, it deforms, in doing so it captures mechanical energy as thermal energy, and if this reaches the activation temperature somewhere in the mixture you would get a reaction. We have no idea of the stuff's stress-strain characteristics, so we can't estimate this. Experiment would be the correct approach.

Having said that, if you set up a wedge, a highly granular and unyielding buffer that "pinched" the compount, I'm sure you could get it to ignite with physical pressure. Think of the "anvil" in a bullet primer. But, of course, this greatly complicates your approach, and I reject that you need or even want the stuff to be shock-sensitive to begin with.