Steve Jones and WTC dust analysis

[davidsmith73]

I'm sure this will have been discussed here before but I am just plain lazy when it comes to reading through past threads so here goes.

The footage is from Youtube and has pretty bad sound but I was wondering if any people here could comment on the validity of the science behind what he is saying. Could there be any artifactual exlpanation for the peaks? Or does this mean that thermate must have been present in his sample? And the "oxidizing agents" bit at the end, is that valid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ2vAupmooU

[Gravy]

There is zero reason to believe that thermate was present at the WTC site. Jones points out the presence of elements that were expected to be there anyway. As has been pointed out here, his interpretations are amateurish. Here are some links after a quick search:

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=850410

[beachnut]

I'm sure this will have been discussed here before but I am just plain lazy when it comes to reading through past threads so here goes.

The footage is from Youtube and has pretty bad sound but I was wondering if any people here could comment on the validity of the science behind what he is saying. Could there be any artifactual exlpanation for the peaks? Or does this mean that thermate must have been present in his sample? And the "oxidizing agents" bit at the end, is that valid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ2vAupmooU
He is a nut case. All the chemicals are in the WTC. To set up a thermite cutter in the WTC would be seen. This guy makes up stuff and talks. He never knew thermite was not used in CD. He lies about cuts made during clean up and said they are proof of thermite.

People have no clue; they listen and believe, and clap. No wonder he was fired. You do know he had to start his own journal to publish this junk?

[T.A.M.]

It is similar to astronomers finding a planet that has water on it, and then stating that this is proof of igloos built there...lol

TAM:)

[The Almond]

I'm sure this will have been discussed here before but I am just plain lazy when it comes to reading through past threads so here goes.

The footage is from Youtube and has pretty bad sound but I was wondering if any people here could comment on the validity of the science behind what he is saying. Could there be any artifactual exlpanation for the peaks? Or does this mean that thermate must have been present in his sample? And the "oxidizing agents" bit at the end, is that valid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ2vAupmooU

In terms of artifacts, yes. Jones, in his infinite wisdom, has misidentified iron as fluorine in his electron microscopy studies. Beyond that, you have a pretty strong confirmation bias in his research, wherein everything he discovers seems to have some connection with thermite and controlled demolition. Jones makes no attempt to establish baseline performance or characteristics, and he certainly makes no significant attempt to standardize or report his data in a scientifically valid way.

[Apollo20]

Jones, based on what he says in his talk, did not check for surface contamination. This is very important since the spheres were immersed in WTC dust prior to his magnetic separation technique. I would have analysed one set of particles "as received" and subjected another set to cleaning in an ultrasonic bath with a solvent such as methanol. (I used this technique all the time to analyse things like flyash which also contains spherical particles.)

I suspect the second set of "cleaned" particles would have eliminated loosely adherent dust and the resulting spectra would have been closer to pure iron. Interestingly, the EDAX spectra of the iron spheres analysed by the USGS show only very small or essentially no peaks from S, K, Al - peaks that are so evident in Jones' spectra. Even though Jones talked about the USGS analyses he did not show their spectra - I wonder why!

Another way to go in characterizing the WTC spheres would be to use scanning Auger electron analysis with argon-ion sputtereing. That would show you if the iron spheres were coated with surface oxide, as I suspect they were. Auger analysis, unlike EDAX, also gives a reliable oxygen analysis and could even distinguish between hematite and magnetite.

Finally I would look at the Mn/Fe ratio in the spectra using sputter depth profiling. This could tell you a lot about the origin of the spheres....

[Aggs]

It is similar to astronomers finding a planet that has water on it, and then stating that this is proof of igloos built there...lol

TAM:)



Ha! I'm gonna use that one! (Am I required to name my source?)

[The Almond]

Jones, based on what he says in his talk, did not check for surface contamination. This is very important since the spheres were immersed in WTC dust prior to his magnetic separation technique. I would have analysed one set of particles "as received" and subjected another set to cleaning in an ultrasonic bath with a solvent such as methanol. (I used this technique all the time to analyse things like flyash which also contains spherical particles.)

That's a good point. Depending on his beam conditions, he could be generating X-Rays from a significant portion of his contamination layer.

I suspect the second set of "cleaned" particles would have eliminated loosely adherent dust and the resulting spectra would have been closer to pure iron. Interestingly, the EDAX spectra of the iron spheres analysed by the USGS show only very small or essentially no peaks from S, K, Al - peaks that are so evident in Jones' spectra. Even though Jones talked about the USGS analyses he did not show their spectra - I wonder why!

Indeed. Elements common with contamination by soil, concrete, sand, etc. are not amenable to his conclusions. Science is awesome if everything that doesn't support your thesis is quietly shoved under the rug.

Another way to go in characterizing the WTC spheres would be to use scanning Auger electron analysis with argon-ion sputtereing. That would show you if the iron spheres were coated with surface oxide, as I suspect they were. Auger analysis, unlike EDAX, also gives a reliable oxygen analysis and could even distinguish between hematite and magnetite.

Finally I would look at the Mn/Fe ratio in the spectra using sputter depth profiling. This could tell you a lot about the origin of the spheres....
Another option might be focused ion beam milling and analysis in a TEM or STEM. But then again, the topics and questions you raise are those of a career scientist with legitimate interests in the truth. Jones doesn't exactly fall into that category.

[pgwenthold]

Another option might be focused ion beam milling and analysis in a TEM or STEM. But then again, the topics and questions you raise are those of a career scientist with legitimate interests in the truth. Jones doesn't exactly fall into that category.

You know, I have a problem with this. Whereas all the techniques you are mentioning could indeed establish what the stuff is, it does not address the real question: where its from.

The best analysis equipment in the world could establish they are steel sphericuls, but that still wouldn't say anything about a thermite demolition of the WTC towers.

[Apollo20]

The Mn/Fe ratio is key! I believe it could tell you something about the source of the particles....

[T.A.M.]

Ha! I'm gonna use that one! (Am I required to name my source?)

I'll sue your ass if you don't cite me each and every use...lol

TAM;)

[Apollo20]

Auger electron analysis with sputter depth profiling of iron-rich spherical particles has been reported for welding fume and may be compared to analytical data reported for WTC dust.

[The Almond]

Auger electron analysis with sputter depth profiling of iron-rich spherical particles has been reported for welding fume and may be compared to analytical data reported for WTC dust.

Do you have the reference for that? I'd be interested in comparing Jones' data to that.