Sorry for letting you wait so long - I needed a big chunk of time to reply in a well structured way. I have made myself a private text document to summarize where we stand so far, and where I have marked which claims you agee with, and which you disagree with or qualify.
-----------------------
Allow me to first merely list the points of agreement:
1. The four dust samples that the Harrit-team studied did in fact originate from the collapse of the WTC buildings.
2. The red-gray chips
look like they could be paint.
5. The gray layer of all specimens is mostly (>>90%) iron and oxygen, and most likely some iron oxide(s). (However, plenty of remarks by JH which I will address below)
7. Therefore, (almost) all of the exotherm - the energy release and power - comes from a reaction(s) of the red layer (JH: "
...about the grey layer ... it s possible that it contributes to the reaction and possible it doesn't..." - I will discuss this below)
11. These 100 nm iron oxide particles are the reason that the red layer is red (JH: "
the hydrocarbon matrix may also be red without the iron oxide particles in it, however, I agree that in aggregate, the particles are red. Not an issue of real disagreement, but a note of epistemic caution". Noted, no futher remarks.)
14. Much of the organic polymer reacts when the chips are burned (JH: "
easy to ignite, gets hot fast, causes gas expansion, terminal temp, about 1000-1200C" - I am not sure I agree we
know those details)
16. The relevant thermite reaction that Harrit et al are talking about is: Fe2O3 + 2 Al -> 2 Fe + Al2O3 (Some reservation by JH which I will address)
18. For a significant thermite reaction to occur, a corresponding significant quantity of (elemental) Al must be present beforehand
19. When a significant thermite reaction has occured, then a significant quantity of aluminium oxide has been produced
20. Harrit et al do not quantify the Al-content
21. Harrit et al report no Al oxide (however JH: "
the aluminium oxide produced in a thermitic reaction is a fine particulate, which, being hotter than the ambient air, is ejected like a colloid in fluid. We would not expect to see a microsphere of AlO2". I disgree with the suggestion that A2O3 would be evasive - other researchers had no trouble finding and identifying it after nanothermite-reactions)
23. Harrit et al make no claim about what the Si is before any reaction, and what happens to the Si/Si-compounds during the reaction
25. It is highly unlikely that the MEK-soaked chip (Figures 12-18) has been tested in the DSC or otherwise burned
26. The four EDS-spectra in Figure 6 of the four specimens a-d are very similar
27. The four EDS-spectra in Figure 7 of the four specimens a-d are very similar
28. The BSE micrographs in Figure 8 of the four specimens a-d are very similar
29. I therefore assume that the four specimens a-d are indeed the exact same material
30. Harrit et al present no EDS-spectrum for the gray layer of the MEK-chip that we could compare to Fig. 6 (JH: "
Agreed. But the MEK-soaked chip was from sample 2, which corresponds to XEDS spectral graph (b) on page 13. Any reason that doesn't count?
Are you suggesting that the MEK chip may be of a different substance than the other chips, and therefore the analysis of it is moot?" -> I'll discuss this below)
32. Harrit et al present no BSE-micrograph for the red layer of the MEK-chip that we could compare to Fig. 8 to see if it has the same two kinds of particles embedded
34. Harrit et al mention several more chips that are in some ways different
------------------------
Next up some where I am not sure if Jay's reply applied to them, so I ask again: Agree or disagree?
3. Harrit define exactly two (2) criteria (neither more nor less) to select specimens from the dust samples to be included in the study:
i) They are attracted to a permanent magnet
ii) They have the outward appearance of "chips" that have at least one gray layer and one red layer
4. Throughout the paper, Harrit et al assume that
all specimens selected using the defined selection criteria are essentially the same material (or else results from different experiments run on different specimens could not be combined to form a conclusion on both; think apples and oranges)
8.
The red layer is some organic (hydrocarbon) polymer, which has smaller particles embedded in it
9.
The gray layer is denser (higher weight per volume) than the red layer (two reasons: i) It appears brighter in BSE images, and brightness in BSE imaging scales with average atomic weight/density; ii) all iron oxides are denser than all suitable organic polymers)
10. The red layer of all chip specimens contains
particles of ferric oxide (iron oxide, Fe2O3) that are about 100 nm in all dimensions
------------------------
Then there were some replies that I could not classify as "agreed" or "disagreed", so we need to clarify:
6. Therefore, the
gray layer is most likely inert (does not contribute significantly to the exotherm in the DSC experiment, as the paper itself points out)
JH: "It s possible there's an interaction going on. It s possible it's inert. If one accepts that this stuff is a high-tech metamaterial, then we are looking at the material as intentional. But there isn't enough data to say one way or the other at this time. This is a point for future study."
I am not sure that Harrit et al. think of the gray layer as a "high-tech metamaterial", they just don't have any conclusions about it. However they write explicitly, on page 13, while discussing the DSC results: "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."
It is, in my opinion, possible, even likely, that "iron oxide" (which may actually be a mix of different oxides, and even some hydroxides) would react when heated - some Fe3O4 might oxidize to Fe2O3 at slightly elevated temps, or reduce to FeO at higher temps. Changes in the crystal lattice can be expected, which would show as endotherms or exotherms. But these reactions would pale compared to the burning of the hydrocarbon or (if there is any) of thermite (chemical reactions are most often more energetic than purely physical reactions).
So, Jay, can you at least agree that the gray layer is
probably inert, or
probably contributes only insignificantly to the DSC curves?
Or, if even that is too much, that Harrit et al. consider the gray layer to be essentially inert in the paper?
12. After chips habe burned, there is
still a significant amount of red material (see Figures 20, 23, 26)
and
13. The most parsimonious explanation for the red color after burning is that a significant amount of the 100 nm iron oxide particles are still there (have not reacted)
JH: "I agree that combustion in these tests was not 100% in all cases. However, where there is no longer a red layer, the gray layer also appears to have receded. Also, significantly, there's molten metal on the edges of these reacted chips. How can we ignore that?"
I think it doesn't matter much if the red material still forms a "layer" after heating. What matters is that there is
still a significant amount of red material left after the reaction. Do you agree that the red material does not react to completion? And that the most parsimonious explanation for the red color after burning is that a significant amount of the 100 nm iron oxide particles are still there (have not reacted)?
What happens to the gray layer is a different matter - and I agree an important one.
I disagree that the shiny material is "[previously] molten metal". Looking at Fig. 2 and 3, I see that, already before burning, the gray layer can appear shiny, and has some roundish surfaces, but there is no indication that it is metallic. Harrit et al think it's iron oxide (see #8 and page 13)
24. There is no indication that any of the chips a-d (those presented in Figures 2-11) have been tested in the DSC or otherwise burned (these four chips were selected from each of the four dust samples 1-4, while of the four specimens tested in DSC and presented in Fig 19, two came from sample 1, and none from sample 3)
JH: "This seems like a non-starter, or at least trivial in combination with the rest of the data. That is, even if this is correct, that they did not use the analysed samples in the DSC, we have good reason to believe in their ability to successfully identify other chips with the same properties.
Actually, no chips from sample 2 (Brooklyn Bridge) were used. Two from (1) and one each from (3, 4). There s no good explanation for this that I saw. For sure, more data is better. I would like to see data for chips in all the samples. But perhaps there was a technical consideration, like the chips were too small or whatever. But if there is no disagreement about the ubiquity of the chips in the dust, I don t see this as a good enough reason to throw out the conclusions of the paper, especially considering the comparative micrographic and spectroscopic data."
a) I think it is a starter, but we shall decide that in the end.
b) What good reason do we have "to believe in their ability to successfully identify other chips with the same properties"? I actually contend that they analyse chips with different properties! At least, I want to point out that it is not possible from the data presented that they do use chips with the same properties! That is a most significant step in my argument, and I want us to be clear on it! This has to be looked at in conjunction with #3 and #4 - the
objective selection criteria (absolutely necessary to replicate the study) and whether or not they are certain to yield the same material every time! So I would not simply want to "believe" in an ability, I want them to
show and objectively
describe that ability. This has not been done.
c) Good catch, my mistake, yes, sample 2 is missing in the DSC
d) It's no problem that some sample is represented twice or that another isn't represented, as I agree that all four samples essentially contain dust from the same source. What I want to point out is that, contrary to what many people think, and what can easily be thought, chips a-d, seen in Figures 5-11, are not the same four chips that they tested to get the DSC-curves in Fig. 19. This is significant, again, in connection with my contention that the red-gray chips they studied at least
may have been different materials, and quite probably
are different materials. Chips a-d are the same, but the MEK-chip is rather certainly different (see below), and the four DSC-curves may very well represent at least two different materials (green and black curves are similar, and red and blue curves are similar, but blue and red are different from green and black in several characteristics).
e) Having said all that, I want to focus back on my question:
"
There is no indication that any of the chips a-d (those presented in Figures 2-11)
have been tested in the DSC or otherwise burned" - true or not true?
31. The EDS-spectrum for the
red layer of the MEK-chip (Fig. 14) is quite different from Fig. 7 in several ways (less Al relative to Si; lots of Ca, much S, significant signals for Mg and Zn, some Cr)
JH: "X-ray spectroscopy can only analyse the top layer to fractions of a mm. But as they document, that chip face was not cleaned nor broken to reveal a clean surface. It was a baseline of the contaminants and the explanation for the Ca and S makes good sense: that its from the wallboard as CaSO4. Zinc and Chromium are no surprise. But after soaking, there's no Calcium peak whatsoever, nor any Zn or Cr. Post-thinner soak, enter Phosphrous, Sodium, Magnesium and Chlorine. The MEK appears to have exposed other components of this material. It appears to be a bit more complex than at first glance.
Interestingly, we find more spectral corroboration for that Mg peak you pointed out at the beginning. Perhaps it was not artifactual."
I agree that surface contamination
may corrupt the reading (even though this has not been demonstrated or evaluated by Harrit et al. - it's merely conjecture), but the fact remains: The EDS-spectrum for the
red layer of the MEK-chip (Fig. 14) is quite different from Fig. 7 in several ways - true or untrue?
Fine gypsum dust no doubt permeated very much of the total dust and may explain at least some of the Ca and S (although the Ca-peak is relatively too high to be explained by gypsum
only), but why do you say "Zinc and Chromium are no surprise"? I am surprised, actually! Harrit et al. offer no explanation. What's yours? Mine is obviously: This chip is a primer paint containing zinc chromate (zinc yellow) - very possibly Tnemec red from perimeter columns, which did contain zinc chromate.
After soaking, they only show XEDS from small spots. Excluding C and O, which you find everywhere...
Fig. 16 has Si (trace of Fe)
Fig. 17 has Al (traces of Fe, Mg, Si) - since this was acquired at only 10 kV, Cr would be very unlikely to show
Fig. 18 has Fe, Si, Al (traces of S, Na, P, Cl)
This indicates that it is possible to not see an element that is clearly present elsewhere. Hence, not seeing Zn or Cr in those three spots can be a result of choice of spots. In a primer paint with zinc chromate pigments, pretty much all of the Zn and Cr will be found in those pigments. You point your XEDS beam on an area where there is no zinc chromate pigment, and you won't see any.
(A not so important note: You are mixing up magnesium/Mg, which is seen in the red layer of the MEK chip, Fig. 14, 17, with manganese/Mn, of which there may be a trace in the gray layer of chips a-d, Fig. 6. My explanation for the presence of Mg in the MEK-chip is that the Tnemec Red formulation contains talc, a hydrated magnesium silicate. My explanation for the presence of Mn in the gray layer of chips a-d is that the steel of the WTC floor joists was an alloy with roughly 1% Mn and also some C).
33. It is thus quite
possible that the MEK-chip is a material somewhat different from chips a-d
JH: "You are adding unnecessary complication to this. If you think they had the wrong chip to begin with, then you are inserting a third substance: it would be similar enough to the red-grey chips in sample 2 to be confused with the ones matching up in the imagery/spectral data, but, different enough that upon soaking in an organic solvent that reveals that despite the same expected peaks, shows a couple of unexpected ones. Therefore it's likely it's a different substance.
Poor reasoning. It's much more likely that the MEK broke down the matrix material, revealing components not seen on initial scanning.
There were other variations documented, however, the people making the choices about which chips to use were motivated to use paradigm examples of the material, not the questionable ones."
I don't understand you here.
What is the importance of "sample 2" here? I think we agreed that all four samples contain dust from the same WTC event, and thus may likely share the same constituent dust materials?
I do NOT think that this MEK-chip is "matching up in the imagery/spectral data". You see,
if we are talking here about different red primer paints, they all would be red, they all would contain iron oxide pigments, they all would have an organic binder, they all would be painted on gray steel that, when spalled off, might be attached to a red paint layer and which would lend the chip its magnetic properties (Fe3O4 forms a mineral called "magnetite"), but they would still be different in other properties: For example, Tnemec Red would have zinc chromate, magnesium silicate hydroxide, calcium aluminates and silica, which all would be absent from the LaClede shop primer, which instead has aluminium silicate.
The important point I am trying to get across is this: We agreed on #26, #27, #28 where Harrit et al actually compare chips a-d according to three different criteria and show that these criteria yield essentially the same result for all four chips:
#26: EDX-spectrum of gray layer
#27: EDX-spectrum of red layer
#28: The two different kinds of particles embedded within the red layer
And I am pointing out that by none of these criteria could they show that the MEK-chip is ALSO the same material as chips a-d. Instead, the XEDS for the red layer looks very different.
AND we have agreed, via #34, that their basic selection criteria yield several different red-gray materials.
We therefore can NOT conclude, nor assume, that the MEK chip is of the same material as chips a-d! And hence my claim:
It is quite
possible that the MEK-chip is a material somewhat different from chips a-d. True or untrue?
35. We must presume that all the chips described in 34. have been selected by Harrit et al from WTC dust using the same two selection criteria layed out in 3.: Magnetic attraction + visual identification as "red-gray chip"
and
36. It follows that the selection method that Harrit et al actually used can and does yield chips that have chemically different compositions. This refutes #4.
JH: "How is this a "refutation" if they say there were several species of chips found yet after multiple tests, selected a set of very consistent chips? That's one of the things these tests confirmed: chemically indistinguishable material was found in all 4 samples, 3 of which were burned and produced the same by-products, and also some other samples with unusual characteristics.
They fit some of the criteria, but not all. Not necessary to include parallel analysis. Yet still worth mentioning, I think. There's no mutual exclusion here. No contradiction. No refutation. I think it further excludes the possibility (however absurd to begin with) that any evidence was "planted" by the most pointless hoax in history. There are other things in the dust whose composition and characteristics are unknown at this time. They may or may not be related to these known thermitic materials found in the samples."
This is how it is a refutation:
#3: "Harrit define exactly two (2) criteria (
neither more nor less) to select specimens from the dust samples to be included in the study:
i) They are attracted to a permanent magnet
ii) They have the outward appearance of "chips" that have at least one gray layer and one red layer"
#4: Throughout the paper,
Harrit et al assume that all specimens selected using the defined selection criteria are essentially the same material (or else results from different experiments run on different specimens could not be combined to form a conclusion on both; think apples and oranges)
36. It follows that
the selection method that Harrit et al actually used can and does yield chips that have chemically different compositions. This refutes #4.
You speak of "several species of chips found yet after multiple tests, selected a set of very consistent chips?" - but which "multiple tests", beyond the two I state on #4 and #35, did they in fact employ to "selected a set of ... chips"? Please name the tests, and for each test, tell me which chips of the set they used to form their conclusions that test was applied to!
----------------------------
Now there were some points that you
disagreed with more or less, but I'll leave them for later (my football team is leading at half time on the league leader's turf - that's more important now!). Just to number them:
15. Since the gray layer is considered to be inert, it (the iron oxide it consists of) is still there after the chip burned
17. For a material to be called "thermitic", we should expect that the thermite reaction is the "dominating" reaction; it ought to provide a "very significant" percentage of the exotherm/heat/power that is observed.
22. Harrit et al make no claim that the red-gray chips "explode" or are "explosive"