Frank Greening's Latest dust study.

[beachnut]

Contaminated dust?

The dust represents the amalgamation of the 9/11 WTC debris.

Of course it must have some contamination from local stirred up dust.

Given the proven thermitic nature of the red chips found in the 9/11 WTC dust, had Dr. Harrit et al only found those chips in a solitary sample of 9/11 WTC dust and not in their other three samples, it would have created quite a conundrum.

The fact is, they found thermitic red chips chips in all four samples (taken from four different locations), thus establishing their pervasive nature.

To date, no one has provided an alternative explanation for the ‘reduced’ iron microspheres produced by igniting those red chips that invalidates the finding of nano-thermite made by Dr. Harrit et al.

The thermite in the dust is a lie, or a fantasy of Harrit's delusional conspiracy theory of 10 tons to 100 tons of thermite planted in the WTC. Where is the iron from the 10 to 100 tons of thermite?

You were fooled by foolish old men who have delusional conspiracy theories.

The Harrit/Jones thermite fantasy paper proved if you make up a fake conclusion, a fringe few will believe. With the energy of the dust not matching thermite and the fact the office fires had more heat energy than 2,700 tons of thermite, Harrit is short on heat with his BS claim of 10 to 100 tons of thermite - the office fires beat the thermite liars, Harrit and Jones.

16 years of lies in a paper with a lie for a conclusion. Explain why the energy and DSC don't match thermite?

The reality based dust study... https://www2.usgs.gov/blogs/feature...he-dust-from-the-world-trade-center-collapse/

OOPs, 9/11 truth don't do reality (what is the goal, to be the last truther? )

 

[Criteria]

”By proportionally equivalent I mean that the amount of iron spheres believed to come from a thermite reaction, should be accompanied by a proportional amount of aluminium oxide, the proportion defined by said reaction.

That didn't happen.”

Your proof for that assertion?

”… The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles...."

 

[Oystein]

I don't fully buy the welding/cutting/grinding hypothesis, or the screeching steel one, for these quantities. The fly ash explanation sounds more compelling, and I'm not sure it explains the amounts found, ...

What amounts?
Has Greening quantified the amounts?
Or anyone else?

I think people, and truthers in particular, tend to overestimate the total amount of dust blown outside the debris field. People, especially truthers, also tend to overestimate the amount of fine particulate created by the collapses. Gypsum, yes, plenty. Concrete: Was certainly mostly left in larger size fractions. As Greening points out, mere distance enriches the smaller particles (and those with much higher surface:mass ratio, such as fibers). If the mechanisms that produce fly ash and the iron-rich residues of welding and grinding prefer a size fraction under 300 microns, and little of the dust that the collapse created is in that range, then indeed you would find welding and grinding residues significantly enriched, and you can't conclude from their prominence in those samples that they were as plentiful in the buildings pre-collapse.

 

[Oystein]

[snipped irrelevant blather]

Criteria, you certainly remember that you have been asked many many questions about many many aspects of the Harrit & Jones hoax, and you certainly remember that, when specifically asked to answer straight and honestly, you ran away pretty much every single time, such that dozends of questions we asked you remained unanswered. For years now.

Right?
Right!

You know of course that, had you ever answered these questions straight and honestly, you could not return here and make the same nonsense claims again, for you would have been forced to refute yourself.
None of us forgot that.
Neither have you.


I'll try again:
a) Did Harrit & Jones ascertain that this chip in Fig 17 (Fig 12-18, indeed, the "MEK" chip) was the same material as the four chips that they showed in Figures 5-11?
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is one short word: "No".

b) Did Harrit et al burn this MEK chip? Did it produce iron-rich spheres, or any of the other effects they talk about?
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is two short words: "No" and "No".

c) Judging from the data Harrit & Jones present about the MEK chip before mistreating it with MEK, did the chip contain a significant amount of Al, such that calling it "thermitic" is at least feasible? Remember that pure thermite is about 25% by weight Al.
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is one short word: "No".

d) Would the maximum possible amount of Al that the XEDS spectra in Figure 14 and Figure 7 allow explain at least 5% of the energy output recorded in Figure 19 for the DSC experiment?
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is one short word: "No".

e) Consequently, can any of the chips be called "thermitic", if the term is to be understood that a significant proportion of the heat generated by burning the chips comes from a thermite reaction?
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is one short word: "No".

f) They show a chip that contains significant lead (Pb) in Figure 31. Is this the same material as chips a-d (Fig 5-12), or the MEK chip?
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is one short word: "No".

g) They mention in passing that some chips have significant Cu (copper), some have significant Ba (barium). Are these chips the same material as chips a-d, or as the MEK-chip, or as the lead-rich chip in Fig. 31?
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is one short word: "No".

h) The specimen shown in Figure 23 and 26 is a chip they treated with an oxyacetylene torch, the flame of which easily exceeds the melting point of iron and iron oxides. Canj we be sure the spherical shape of the tip of that specimen is the result of a chemical reaction within the chip itself, as opposed to the result of heating the gray layer to far beyond its melting point with an external flame?
Hint: The honest and straight answer to this is one short word: "No".


We all know already that you will not answer a single question, let alone answer straight, let alone honest.
You know it.
We know it.
You know that we know it.
We know that you know that we know it.

Bye bye, Criteria! T'was nice not playing with you!

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by pgimeno
”By proportionally equivalent I mean that the amount of iron spheres believed to come from a thermite reaction, should be accompanied by a proportional amount of aluminium oxide, the proportion defined by said reaction.

That didn't happen.”

Your proof for that assertion?

Are the laws of chemistry good enough for you? 2 Al + Fe₂O₃ = 2 Fe + Al₂O₃

Did you take high school chemistry? By volume, there should be almost twice the amount of aluminum oxide as iron.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Contaminated dust?

The dust represents the amalgamation of the 9/11 WTC debris.

Of course it must have some contamination from local stirred up dust.

Given the proven thermitic nature of the red chips found in the 9/11 WTC dust, had Dr. Harrit et al only found those chips in a solitary sample of 9/11 WTC dust and not in their other three samples, it would have created quite a conundrum.

The fact is, they found thermitic red chips chips in all four samples (taken from four different locations), thus establishing their pervasive nature.

To date, no one has provided an alternative explanation for the ‘reduced’ iron microspheres produced by igniting those red chips that invalidates the finding of nano-thermite made by Dr. Harrit et al.

Wrong I can produce Iron microspheres, under an expoxy in an oxygen shielded environments, by reducing Fe 2O3 with carbon or other reducing agents.

There are tons of anti Rust coating on Equopment that contain yellow Iron and Aluminum in abundance.
Aluminum is used in red paint on magnesium rims.
Red grey chips should be found today in some of the spots the oridginal samples came from as trace contamination.

 

[Ziggi]

Even if you accept his unproven hypothesis that the proliferation of intact iron-rich microspheres were the result of welding and grinding that occurred 30 years ago, Greening's selective analysis fails to explain, or address, Dr. Harrit et als' observations that thermitic red chips pervade the 9/11 WTC dust.

Well, yes technically he should first explain why he thinks construction workers would not clean up the place and leave behind tons of iron spheres and other crap from construction, and also explain why these iron spheres would remain intact as iron versus rusting into iron-oxide and eventually turning into dust given 30 odd years in a salty wet next to the ocean rust factory climate. And then he would still have nothing because he neglected to mention we already know that the red material in those redgray chips formed at least some of those spheres so there is no challenge to Harrit et al.

Mr. Greening also assumes that the concrete had fly ash spheres even though he knows that it did not according to NIST and that he also knows that Dr Jones checked samples and found none. As he neglects to mention the redgray chips that debunk his welding spheres theory he simply neglects to mention these little details that debunk his work. This would be called out as scientific misconduct if any scientist bothered to respond to this crap. It is funny though seeing people here swallowing this BS without demanding he first publish it in some big name reviewed journal, as they do whenever anyone challenges their mantra. Behold, Greening says there be fly ash spheres in the concrete. Amen.

This paper is full of holes so big you could drive a truck through them, laughing all the way. It is ironic that the people he once called fanatical defenders of the official story are the only ones blind enough to not see them holes! So funny.

Mr Greening does though finally admit on paper that the iron rich spheres were created in 1500C plus temps, as truthers have been saying for years. Also very nice confirmation of Harrit et al conclusion of formation of iron spheres when redgray chips ignite means they reach temps over 1500C. But he neglects to mention all this, as he neglects to mention all the other things. Funny to think that some clowns on various forums and YouTube have been claiming otherwise for years. Red faces.

 

[Ziggi]

Contaminated dust?

.....

Oh yes, lets talk about the response Mr. Greening gave when asked why he neglected to mention the redgray chips, in an answer posted here and then deleted

Edited by zooterkin: <SNIP>
Edited for rule 7.
Do not post on behalf of banned members.

Was it deleted because quoting Greening is not allowed in a thread about his paper, or is it because his answer leaves certain people here with red faces and poo in their pants? The gist of his answer is that those chips could not be part of the dust because these tiny chips in the miliigrams are too big to have been blown away 200 to 600 meters, while them multi-ton steal beams were hurled up to nearly 200 meters or so. No big holes there.

And then also strange that Dr. Millete also claimed these same chips were actually part of the WTC dust. So Dr. Greening is debunking Millette and the ISF forum pet theory/mantra that these chips were WTC paint chips! So Oystein and Sunstealer et al would have to give up their mantra "the chips are WTC paint"..."LaClede paint!"....so they were all full of BS after all, if Greening is going to be accepted...

That is not why this comment got deleted, is it?

Red faces.

 

[JSanderO]

not steel was hurled 200 meters... that's rubbish

 

[MileHighMadness]

Again the fatal flaw...Thermite cannot not cut thru 1" to 4" steel plate.

 

[beachnut]

Oh yes, ...

while them multi-ton steal beams were hurled up to nearly 200 meters or so. ...

lol, more alt-facts from 9/11 truth followers who offer no evidence, but multi-tons of BS.

16 years of lies from 9/11 truth, what is next for the movement based on the overwhelming ignorance of the followers.

How did your fantasy bad guys plant the 10 to 100 tons of thermite Harrit has in his dumbed down fantasy of thermite? Who are the bad guys in your plot of woo, can't you name a few.

 

[Oystein]

...quoting Greening ...
The gist of his answer is that those chips could not be part of the dust because these tiny chips in the miliigrams are too big to have been blown away 200 to 600 meters, ... And then also strange that Dr. Millete also claimed these same chips were actually part of the WTC dust. So Dr. Greening is debunking Millette and the ISF forum pet theory/mantra that these chips were WTC paint chips! ...

I have not seen what the admin deleted (which, by he way, is perfectly in line with long-standing moderating practice, your usual vile innuendo notwithstanding: A banned member is bannend, and must not post - thus sockpuppets are banned as is members posting on behalf of banned members), but I agree with you that it would be foolish to argue that the red-gray chips are not part of the original WTC event dust mix.

In this dropbox gallery, I have reproduced several Figures from Millette's latest progress report:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dgkqksii33ltjuc/AAB-5TOgw5ix3IOS4MzjxcY1a?dl=0

Note Figure 01 - Millette's sample locations:
22 Cortland St is very close to WTC2, half a block only
The other three are farther away than Greening's location (Fulton St and Broadway)
And yet, if you study the Appx A (PLM of as-is dust) and Appx B images (paint chips pulled out with magnet), you couldn't really tell that the closer location would have larger particles. In fact, the Ann St sample, taken more than 500 m from the nearest corner of either tower, seems to have some of the largest red-gray chips.

Of course these paint chips, being mostly paint chips, have a lower density (under 2 g/cm³) and higher drag coefficient (on account of being flat plates) than the spheres and amorphous particles of the concrete aggregate - and thus settle out of a dust close more slowly.

 

[Oystein]

not steel was hurled 200 meters... that's rubbish

Again the fatal flaw...Thermite cannot not cut thru 1" to 4" steel plate.

How did your fantasy bad guys plant the 10 to 100 tons of thermite Harrit has in his dumbed down fantasy of thermite? Who are the bad guys in your plot of woo, can't you name a few.

Oh come on guys, this is a thread about a new study on dust. It has nothing to do with the movement of steel, the hypothetical capabilities of thermite, or who did 9/11. It's just a study on dust, and how certain particles got to where there were collected.

 

[Oystein]

Well, yes technically he should first explain why he thinks construction workers would not clean up the place and leave behind tons of iron spheres and other crap from construction,

I hilighted a strawman. it's not the only one.
You cannot disagree, can you, that welding, cutting and grinding was done on site at construction time, can you? <- Please give this a straight and honest answer!
And so you cannot deny that some fumes and sparks and dust were produced and released to the construction at that time, can you? <- Please give this a straight and honest answer!

You now want to claim that construction workers would have cleaned that dust after their work? Well, the burden is on you, as you bring it up: Is that what steel workers and welders do? Can you document that? <- This is a yes/no question, to which I expect an answer of either "yes" or "no".

and also explain why these iron spheres would remain intact as iron versus rusting into iron-oxide

Well, he found them in the dust, so why would he need to explain that they exist?

and eventually turning into dust given 30 odd years in a salty wet next to the ocean rust factory climate.

Inside the towers' walls there was a "salty wet next to the ocean rust factory climate"? Would you pay rent if your appartment or office had this sort of climate?

Are you, Ziggi, not a bit ... excuse me ... silly to say such nonsense?

And then he would still have nothing because he neglected to mention we already know that the red material in those redgray chips formed at least some of those spheres so there is no challenge to Harrit et al.

Harrit et al show only 2 kinda roundish things in their hoax paper that come from incompetently heat-treated paint chips:
One is a conglomeration of red iron oxide pigments after needlessly wasting a chip in the pointless DSC "experiment" - much of the organic material burned away to gasses, and some small residue of soot and tar was much enriched with the unaffected pigments. Jones sold one such ball of pigments as a "sphere".
The other is the tip of a bit of gray layer rust which, inexplicably, they tortured with an oxyacetylene flame, which easily exceeds the melting points of both iron and rust by a comfortable margin - and ever since they have danced a happy dance because that bit of rust did - gasp! - experience a bit of melting! What morons - or what fools!? <- Your choice - though this time, I expect no answer.

Mr. Greening also assumes that the concrete had fly ash spheres even though he knows that it did not according to NIST

Citation?

As he neglects to mention the redgray chips that debunk his welding spheres theory

How? What on earth have the paint chip got to do with welding fumes?

This paper is full of holes so big you could drive a truck through them...

Please point them out!

 

[pgimeno]

”By proportionally equivalent I mean that the amount of iron spheres believed to come from a thermite reaction, should be accompanied by a proportional amount of aluminium oxide, the proportion defined by said reaction.

That didn't happen.”

Your proof for that assertion?

One proof: The RJ Lee report. It mentions significant amounts of iron spheres, but given that there should be approx. double the volume of aluminium oxide vs iron spheres supposedly coming from a possible thermite reaction, as Redwood notes, if their origin was a thermite reaction then there should be another remarkable amount of aluminium oxide. That wasn't reported; the closest the report includes is aluminosilicates (clay).

Another proof: the lack of reports of molten aluminium oxide pools post-collapse, despite the reports of molten iron, despite the fact that they should be there in twice the quantity.

Another proof: the fact that "truth-seekers" have not identified any significant amount of aluminium oxide in the dust in any report or analysis.

”… The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles...."

That applies to the unprofessionally handled MEK-soaked chip. We don't know much about the actual composition of the chip pre-soaking, since they claim it was contaminated, but a likely hypothesis is that it was Tnemec paint containing aluminates.

But I'm talking about the post-thermite-usage dust. Or are you claiming that no significant amount of burnt thermite ended up being in the dust? Was none ignited? What's nefarious about something that wasn't used?

 

[pgimeno]

What amounts?
Has Greening quantified the amounts?
Or anyone else?

AE911T say that "RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2."

Assuming that as much as 3% came from a thermite reaction, there should be a report of a significant amount of aluminium oxide, easier to find due to its volume. There is none.

Particle distribution isn't that important for these considerations.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Mr. Greening also assumes that the concrete had fly ash spheres even though he knows that it did not according to NIST and that he also knows that Dr Jones checked samples and found none. .

No need to assume, the concrete used glassy particles from the fly ash at Lansing New York to replace lime stone.
That is why it was termed Light weight concrete, Da.
It is the glassy particles Frank refers to as added fly ash, after the magnetic separation process used to separate the valuable magnetite from the Glassy component of the fly ash.


Also most of the microspheres would be captured and contained, in the floor pans under the concrete in a protected environment with the sparks microspheres from welding the rebar reinforcements, common in concrete flooring.

 

[JSanderO]

Greening's other theory I recall was hair brained... I wouldn't bother to pay too much credence to anything he does. Sorry.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

AE911T say that "RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2."

Assuming that as much as 3% came from a thermite reaction, there should be a report of a significant amount of aluminium oxide, easier to find due to its volume. There is none.

Particle distribution isn't that important for these considerations.

RJ Lee's samples appear to be simple contamination from cutting and hauling,
Nothing more not produced in the fires at all but from oxygen Lances, and vehicle traffic, that collected inside the building do to the broken windows.
The event RJ Lee was referring to was the damage to his Clients building.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Greening's other theory I recall was hair brained... I wouldn't bother to pay too much credence to anything he does. Sorry.

His hydrogen theory was wrong but that was because he was mislead by the scientist conducting experiments with Aluminum salts not pure Aluminum.

He is a PHD. Chemist, JSO, and this is quality work in Chemistry with tools he has used in his profession for decades.

He is an honest scientist who sometimes does make mistakes, but he admits them when he does, and never tries to intentionally deceive, unlike members of the truth movement.