JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Sizzler]

Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh.

One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2?

Jones from 911blogger

A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)

The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.

Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...

 

[T.A.M.]

and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

TAM

 

[Sizzler]

Why are you CTists obsessed with Gravy?

His sex appeal obviously.

 

[Sizzler]

and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

TAM

They have already been analyzed by other scientists, well before him.

Did you read the paper?

 

[T.A.M.]

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

you see I am not doubting but that one of those "brilliant" fellows listed at the top knows how to operate a spectrometer and what ever other equipment is needed.

It is all in the PARANOID Interpretation of what the results mean!!!

As Frank has said...no speculation or even entertaining of NON CONSPIRATORIAL causes of the microspheres...that sounds really scientific doesn't it.

PATHETIC!!!

TAM

 

[The Almond]

Jones from 911blogger

It's unfortunate that Jones didn't bother to send it to any electron microprobe chemists, materials scientists or forensic chemists. They would have pointed out the same mistakes I pointed out.

Edited to add:
When did Jones post the article you showed?

 

[Gravy]

So what did these morons get wrong?

What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark.

 

[quicknthedead]

This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to SJ about a month ago:

"Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!):

Pigments and fillers used in plastics
Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!)
NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources"

I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers.

The point of the paper is the fires were not hot enough to achieve the temperatures for the applicable melting points required.

It is remarkable the government did not address this.



From the paper:
---------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material
°C
°F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel
1,000
1,832

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)
1,450
2,652

To melt iron (spherule formation)
1,538
2,800

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)
1,565
2,849

To vaporize lead
1,740
3,164

To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)
2,623
4,753

To vaporize aluminosilicates
2,760
5,000

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



So, what is the source for the extreme temperatures indicated?

 

[boloboffin]

everything except their names.

TAM

The date! They rarely get the date wrong.

 

[Sizzler]

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

TAM

Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM. Gravy has pointed this out several times.

However what Gravy fails to address is:

they concluded that the fires were able to reach these temperatures:

From the paper:
---------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material
°C
°F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel
1,000
1,832

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)
1,450
2,652

To melt iron (spherule formation)
1,538
2,800

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)
1,565
2,849

To vaporize lead
1,740
3,164

To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)
2,623
4,753

To vaporize aluminosilicates
2,760
5,000

Gimme a break. Look at those temperatures.

 

[Sizzler]

What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark.

Um, a lot of what they did is confirmed by past scientists.

You even told me that silly.

Peep the temps in the paper.

Can you seriously argue the fires got that hot?

Read the paper Gravy.

 

[Sizzler]

SO NO SERIOUS CRITIQUE YET?

Not surprising actually.....

 

[LashL]

Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM.

No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler.

And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it.

 

[Sizzler]

No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler.

And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it.

I didn't claim the exact samples he has were released.

I claimed previous scientists analyzed other samples and found the same substances.

Read the paper smarty pants.

 

[Sizzler]

I'm going to make a bold assertion that no one can debunk this paper....

Who is gonna prove me wrong?

ps. my money is on Crazy Chainsaw if anyone.

 

[LashL]

I didn't claim the exact samples he has were released.

As I said, you failed to read for comprehension. It went like this:

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

They have already been analyzed by other scientists, well before him.

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al.

Either you utterly failed to comprehend TAM's posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Neither is acceptable.

I claimed previous scientists analyzed other samples and found the same substances.

Well, no, actually, you didn't. And, in any event, other samples are not at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

Read the paper smarty pants.

I did. I wasn't impressed.

I was, however, addressing the point about Jones not providing his samples for independent analysis and your apparent assertions to the contrary.

 

[Sizzler]

As I said, you failed to read for comprehension. It went like this:










Either you utterly failed to comprehend TAM's posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Neither is acceptable.



Well, no, actually, you didn't. And, in any event, other samples are not at all relevant to the discussion at hand.



I did.

Ok you are right. The exact samples Jones has were not analyzed by other scientists.

It doesn't matter though. Other scientists examined other samples and found the exact same particles.

Half of the paper is about the particles in the other samples analyzed by other scientists.

What specifically do you have problems with in the paper?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Sizzler must have missed the part where they listed all the other possible causes. And while THEY may think those temperatures cannot be reached in an office fire, doesn't mean they couldn't have been reached in the WTC. As well as ignoring that some of the possible causes would have nothing to do with the fires in the WTC.

But if it helps one to live out a fantasy by pretending something is not debunked (forget that it's not an issue of debunking anyways), then so be it. Kinda of like how Sizzler kept asking about the Pentagon security cameras yet kept ignoring all the posts that WOULD address his questions. Probably not intentional, but a common trend among people who are clearly hoping to find a conspiracy if possible.

 

[LashL]

Ok you are right. The exact samples Jones has were not analyzed by other scientists.

That's because Jones has not permitted anyone else to analyze them. Does it not give you pause to wonder why he would not want an actual expert in the appropriate field to analyze them?

It doesn't matter though.

Yes, it does matter, because it is these particular spherules that are at issue.

Other scientists examined other samples and found the exact same particles.

Again, it is Jones' particular samples that are at issue here, not any others.

Half of the paper is about the particles in the other samples analyzed by other scientists.

That's because Jones is trying to hitch his falling (fallen) star to others who may have more credibility than he does, but it's a poor attempt, as it is only his own samples that are actually at issue here.

What specifically do you have problems with in the paper?

1) See above
2) It fails to adequately describe its collection methods of the spherules.
3) It fails to adequately describe the locations and conditions in which those spherules were found.
4) It fails to adequately address the chain of custody of the spherules.
5) It ignores the myriad possible naturally occurring sources for the elements it claims to have found while simultaneously assuming something nefarious.
6) The samples have never been independently analyzed by experts.
7) It makes spurious and unsupported claims.
8) See The Almond's posts in this thread.
9) See the previous threads on the topic of spherules in this sub-forum.
10) The paper is written more like an internet post than a professional, scholarly article.

There are 10 problems that I, as a layperson, see with it. I suspect that those with relevant experience, knowledge and expertise can easily identify many more.

Now, here's a question for you, if you don't mind.

What is it about this particular paper that you find to be good, sound, accurate, and/or compelling?