JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Sizzler]

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.

Yes the pentagon thread was a train wreck I must admit. I think a plane hit the building anyway so it doesn't matter in the end. I've calmed myself down now and feel a little more rational.

Forgive me for my past actions in that thread.

So how about 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

Are you suggesting that these temperatures were reached in the WTC fires?

And if you are, what is your source for temperatures from ~1400C to 2,700C?

ps. 40 replies later and no one has addressed these temperatures......is that squirming I hear?????

 

[Arus808]

sizzler, NOTHING NEW HAS BEEN presented IN HIS NEW paper.

why do you want us to rehash the same crap we've been sayng for the last 2 years? if you so want to see what we say about his claim,s SEARCH Stephen Jones on thsi forum.

Sorry, but your "truth" seeking is abhorantly absent. YOU have done nothing to do any research on your own, EXCEPT from the liars of the 911 truth movement.

How many times must it be said that the temperatures DID NOT Need to reach it to MELT STEEL! how many times must it be said that STEEL will FAIL at temperatures HALF of its melting point? DO YOU understand what FAIL means? YOU happen to do it with every post you make.

 

[leftysergeant]

Pigments and fillers used in plastics
Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper

Now there is a good source of aluminum and silicone, in that koalin, an alumino-silicate mineral is used as a filler in plastics, paints and gloss and self-duplicating papers.

Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities

That was the first thing that popped into my mind.

Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers

I guess if you run and alumino-silicate grinding whell over the iron bead on a weld, you will produce some iron-coated alumino-silicate objects at a high temperature. Grinding wheels are not impervious to wear, most working men would hasten to point out.

 

[MikeyMetz]

Putting my critical thinking skills to work...

I've just read the new article at JONES. Being a complete layperson in the field of science, I decided to consider the arguments in the paper with as open a mind as I possibly can given my bias, and then analyzing the comments from this thread and those at 9/11 Blogger and the Loose Change forum.

Upon reading, the first thing that stuck out to me was the original location and collection of the samples. It didn't click right away as to what was off, but I had my suspicions in the back of my mind through reading the paper. While Jones tried to be specific in giving the addresses where the samples were collected, he did not give a solid enough explanation of why he believed these samples truly reflected the conditions of the WTC at the time of its collapse, IMO. As a previous poster commented, why were control samples not used in this experiment? I think his "these samples are different from normal office dust" argument is rather weak.

As I was reading, the arguments of Jones et al. seemed reasonable. To sum it up, there were spheres found that MIGHT have been caused by significantly higher temperatures than NIST suggests were present in the building. (Of course, to make this argument work, he has to bring up the whole "fire can't melt steel" bunk in order to then cite the correct way it collapsed from the NIST report. I'm still wondering why he even dug up that strawman to begin with.)

Now, to a layperson reading this, it makes sense. But, Jones et al. leaves out other possible causes of the spherules, including those that occur naturally. Regardless of whether these other possible causes are correct, Jones' mistake is that he jumps to the conclusion that "something else (therm?te, cough, cough) must have been to blame, and that's why we need a new investigation!" Excuse me, isn't proving a hypothesis the function of a scientific paper? What's with the JAQing off?

I'd like to get into defenses of this paper, but its mostly a lot of "job well dones" from the sheep. Sorry if this was repetitive. Any criticism or corrections would be much appreciated.

 

[MikeyMetz]

To be fair, I'll address the pro-JONES arguments in this forum. (Just a clarification, really.)

Essentially, their best argument is that of the the paper-- how it should be impossible for the spherules to be present, as the fires were below 1500C. However, one must take into consideration that A) there was no control group to prove Jones' samples were indicative of the conditions present in the WTC and B) Jones has offered a conclusion without even addressing (or testing) other possible explanation for the presence of the spherules.

 

[DGM]

Yes the pentagon thread was a train wreck I must admit. I think a plane hit the building anyway so it doesn't matter in the end. I've calmed myself down now and feel a little more rational.

Forgive me for my past actions in that thread.

So how about these temperatures?



Are you suggesting that these temperatures were reached in the WTC fires?

And if you are, what is your source for temperatures from ~1400C to 2,700C?

ps. 40 replies later and no one has addressed these temperatures......is that squirming I hear?????

Jones dose not prove that any of these temps were actually obtained or needed. Others here (The Almond, Crazy Chainsaw) have formed the same type of spheres at a much lower temp by naturally occurring reactions.

Did Jones eliminate these possibility's? If not these temps are just unsupported speculation.

 

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

I have actually been given (by Dr. Jones) other EDX spectra (not included in his paper) of spherical particles from his WTC dust sample.

Now here's the rub!

They are all different!

In other words SJ has found all kinds of iron-rich spherical particles.

Some have almost no Si, some have high Si. Some have no S, some have high S. Some have Ca, some have no Ca. Some show traces of common elements like K, Ti, Cr, Cu. Others show oddball elements like Ba.

However, even in SJ's new paper we have three DIFFERENT spectra. One is described as "typical" and one is amazingly described as "rather typical". Guess what? They are completely different!

So what does this tell us Sizzler? It tells us that there were MANY DIFFERENT souces of iron-rich microspheres.

Now we all know that SJ believes that thermite was used to bring down the towers. Well I guess that would mean that thermite was placed at strategic locations on the columns. The thermite would burn and generate microspheres of pretty much the same composition.

So how do you explain the Heinz 57 varieties of microspheres?

 

[peteweaver]

Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.

You'd make a very very funny stand up comedian.
That argument is ludicrous.
Even a small nuclear weapon would have levelled half the city.

 

[T.A.M.]

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?

It is of UTMOST and CRITICAL importance Sizzler. You sure have come a long way from your "Mark of Woo" performance when you first arrived here claiming to be agnostic, only asking questions...that is what's not surprising.

I do not trust any of the "scientists" that co-wrote that paper, and there fore short of an independent lab analyzing the ACTUAL SAMPLES that Jones et al have, I consider the results and interpretation completely bogus, and not worthy of my time to READ THE PAPER.

TAM

 

[ref]

Sizzler:

I have actually been given (by Dr. Jones) other EDX spectra (not included in his paper) of spherical particles from his WTC dust sample.

Now here's the rub!

They are all different!

In other words SJ has found all kinds of iron-rich spherical particles.

Some have almost no Si, some have high Si. Some have no S, some have high S. Some have Ca, some have no Ca. Some show traces of common elements like K, Ti, Cr, Cu. Others show oddball elements like Ba.

However, even in SJ's new paper we have three DIFFERENT spectra. One is described as "typical" and one is amazingly described as "rather typical". Guess what? They are completely different!

So what does this tell us Sizzler? It tells us that there were MANY DIFFERENT souces of iron-rich microspheres.

Now we all know that SJ believes that thermite was used to bring down the towers. Well I guess that would mean that thermite was placed at strategic locations on the columns. The thermite would burn and generate microspheres of pretty much the same composition.

So how do you explain the Heinz 57 varieties of microspheres?

That was interesting.

Basically, Jones has multiple varietes of microspheres, he chooses to analyze three different spectra in his paper, he then fails to explain why there basically are numerous different sources of microspheres even in his paper, and he also fails to analyze any natural explanations to any of his iron-rich microspheres.

That's a bad bad scientist.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That was interesting.

Basically, Jones has multiple varietes of microspheres, he chooses to analyze three different spectra in his paper, he then fails to explain why there basically are numerous different sources of microspheres even in his paper, and he also fails to analyze any natural explanations to any of his iron-rich microspheres.

That's a bad bad scientist.

The paper made me laugh,

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5402038-description.html


"The use of molybdenum for wire leads and other parts for electric lamps is old and well known to those skilled in the art. Molybdenum is used for such applications because of its ductility, conductivity, refractory properties and its thermal expansion properties which enable it to form hermetic seals with vitreous materials, such as glass and quartz. However, molybdenum is an oxidation sensitive material and rapidly oxidizes in an oxidizing environment (such as air) at temperatures of about 350° C. and higher. In the case of molybdenum used for outer lead wires and for foils for forming a hermetic seal with vitreous materials, such as a glass lamp envelope, this oxidation eventually results in an open electric circuit and lamp failure. In the case of molybdenum foil seals, the passageways or cracks formed during the sealing process permit oxygen to enter the foil area of the lamp seal as is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,918,353. Past efforts made to prevent the oxidation of molybdenum foils have included coating the outer half of the molybdenum foil with chromium (U.S. Pat. No. 3,420,944) and having the chromium coating wedge shaped (U.S. Pat. No. 3,793,615). Other proposed solutions to preventing oxidation of molybdenum outer leads consist of (i) covering the molybdenum with a coating or sleeve of nickel-plated brass (U.S. Pat. No. 4,015,165) and (ii) applying a sealing glass composition to the small space or passage between the outer leads and the lamp envelope (U.S. Pat. No. 4,539,509). "

Wonder why he does not give the oxidation and reduction temperatures for the metals for Fe that can be as low as 600c.

 

[Apollo20]

Ref:

This is what SJ says about his new paper over at 911Blogger:

"Given the level of activity with our 9/11 Investigation at this stage -- things are moving quickly now -- the authors decided to go ahead and submit the paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where it was accepted and quickly published following final reviews.
See what you're missing -- Journal of Physics!"

Given that two of the authors of the paper are the editors of JONES, it's no surprise the paper was accepted!

Makes you wonder who the reviewers were......

 

[deep]

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.

Well, first of all, he didn't draw any such conclusion in this most recent paper. He concludes that the evidence suggests very high temperatures, and recommends a new investigation to understand why.

Additionally, the paper didn't only reference iron-rich microspheres - it mentions other types of microspheres (some of which require hotter temperatures, like Mo), as well as dust particles with a swiss-cheese appearance (a result of boiling & evaporation). So even if you choose to ignore the iron-rich microspheres because you feel they could have come from anywhere, how do you ignore the rest of the evidence they present?

They don't rely on one single source for any of their claims - so those of you concerned about where the dust samples came from are obviously unaware that the USGS dust samples corroborate their findings -- and their conclusion (USGS just never attempted to explain why).

 

[deep]

I'm getting the impression based on certain comments that many of you have chosen not to even read the new paper.

Just to clarify for those who believe the paper presents nothing new - a FOIA request was used to obtain additional information from USGS with regard to their 9/11 dust samples. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been covered anywhere else.

 

[deep]

That was interesting.

Basically, Jones has multiple varietes of microspheres, he chooses to analyze three different spectra in his paper, he then fails to explain why there basically are numerous different sources of microspheres even in his paper, and he also fails to analyze any natural explanations to any of his iron-rich microspheres.

That's a bad bad scientist.

Did you voice the same concern when NIST failed to even mention the microspheres found by USGS? If Jones is such a bad guy for doing what you described, I can't even imagine how you feel about NIST for ignoring them altogether.

 

[Apollo20]

Where has all the moly gone?

Chainsaw:

Yes, I thought you would be posting on this one!

On the question of the WTC dust containing molybdenum, or "moly" as its known to chemists, I suspect SJ is thinking about this:

Laser Ignition of Nanocomposite Thermites" by J. J. Granier et al. Combustion and Flame 138, 373, (2004).

"Thermite reactions are characterized by large heat release, which make some ideal for ordnance applications. In this study Al and MoO3 (molybdenum trioxide), react to form products:

2Al + MoO3 -> Mo + Al2O3.

Delta(H) = 4705 kJ/kg

"Thermites are traditionally considered a difficult class of pyrotechnic to ignite due to the large thermal stimulus required. This is because ignition is usually achieved by melting of one of the two components followed by a diffusion-controlled reaction. The melting point for bulk aluminum is 660 deg C and MoO3 begins to sublime at 750 deg C."

This is probably why some "bright spark" thought of using MoO3 as the oxidizing agent in thermite formulations.

But if this type of thermite was used, moly should be found in great abundance in the WTC microspheres. So, my question is:

Where has all the moly gone?

 

[deep]

I do not trust any of the "scientists" that co-wrote that paper, and there fore short of an independent lab analyzing the ACTUAL SAMPLES that Jones et al have, I consider the results and interpretation completely bogus, and not worthy of my time to READ THE PAPER.

You're in luck - the findings (and conclusion) are both corroborated by the USGS dust samples. The paper also contains interesting commentary on the WTC7 steel from Prof. Jonathon Barnett.

It's really a "must read" for someone like you who takes such an intellectually-honest & open-minded approach to understanding what happened on 9/11.

 

[DGM]

Maybe someone can explain to me. How can they state the temperatures required without knowing what processes were involved in creating the spheres?

 

[SDC]

I just don't get it. How is this weakly-presented case a smoking gun?

I suppose it represents just one more attempt to find those "anomalies" which, cumulatively, will pry apart the consensus model. (I.e., planes hit, fires started, buildings fell.) Actually, it's an interesting methodological point; does one look for such small-scale "anomalies," in an attempt to discredit the consensus, or does one go for the big picture, i.e., no planes?

I guess it depends on whether one is a lumper or a splitter.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I have a dumb question:

Why is Jones et. al. assuming the spherules were formed during the fires? And, as an associated question, what temperatures can be reached locally by welding? Jones's paper builds the thesis that the temps during the fires were not hot enough to account for the spherule formation, plus they were too hot to account for the local sources of sulfur to be involved. (correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I'm getting that from his sentence:

The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445
°C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that​

the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.

)

But, seems to me that welding events, either during the original construction of the towers, or afterwards during the rescue and debris dismantling might be a possible source of such spherules. Because the temperature during welding is very localized to the spot that the weld is occuring at, it seems to me that this might also be a possible mechanism for such formation.

That's just an off-the-cuff guess. Anything wrong with that thesis? Plus, how hot can the welding process get? I'm simply not informed enough about welding or construction to know if I'm on the right track with this or not, but it seems to me that, given that welding involves some melting of metals together, and given that steel's melting point is well above the temps Jones requires for his mechanism, that welding should also be considered.