JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Viper Daimao]

I submit to you that Jones has decided to literally compare apples to oranges. He has chosen to compare the composition of ordinary building dust to ash from a building fire.

You mean figuratively right?

 

[DGM]

The process is described in section 4.5. Either way, the word approximate is the key here. They wouldn't have included that word if they had an exact number.

Regardless, the point is: NIST ignored all of this, despite numerous cues from USGS and FEMA. A new investigation is the only logical choice.

Why do we need to investigate this as more than just a naturally occurring oddity?

 

[Myriad]

The paper makes no such contention. The paper is not only about microspheres - it includes other observations from various sources that also suggest exceedingly high temperatures.

Horsefeathers. The authors know what their own paper is contending, do they not? Here's what their abstract says:

The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the
WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.
The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the
WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office
materials in the WTC buildings.

By "other observations" you are referring to the evaporation aka "swiss cheese" evidence? Here's what the paper says:

It is not clear to us that boiling of aluminosilicate is needed to produce the observed porous structure;
melting and evaporation of some minor component may suffice. But if the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is
indeed a result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the report suggests [1], we note the boiling
temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760 °C [11].

So the authors have no idea (and present no evidence) for what, if anything, was boiled and evaporated from the particle, but they "note" that if it was aluminosilicate, it would have had to boil at a high temperature. Well, great. And if it was rum, there might have been pirates present.

Either way, the conclusion is more or less that NIST completely ignored this evidence, as opposed to acknowledging it and explaining why it happened. The authors suggest a new investigation to find out "why". That's hard to argue with, even from your point of view.

No one's stopping them from continuing to investigate, least of all me.

Of course, if they want to expand their investigation to include experts in the subject matter at hand and real peer review, then they're going to have to start listening to what those experts and peer reviews say.

Please re-read section 4.5 of the paper for a description of how microspheres are most commonly created. The listed temperatures
correspond to that description.

But that description of bulk melted metal "sprayed into the air" is an unsupported guess. I have no reason to believe their assertion that that is how microspheres are "most commonly created" in fires. The presence of microspheres in fly ash, for instance, strongly suggest that they are formed in fires without spraying any melted metal into the air, and might also be already present at the wtc before the fires (as fly ash is a component of many concretes). Section 5 adds the "example" of "explosive chemical reactions" as a possible source of spherule formation. So, why have Jones et. al. not presented a comparative analysis of spherules formed from metal sprays and explosives? What's so hard about setting off some thermoit or whatever, and collecting samples from demolition sites, and showing us how similar the resulting particles are to the ones in their New York samples?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[T.A.M.]

truther deep44 and truther sizzler:

Please prove, in anyway that the iron rich spherules could not have been produced by the forces/chemical reactions/circumstances provided by the impact of the planes, fuel and office fires, collapse of the building.

In other words, all Jones has here are spherules that were LIKELY produced at high temperatures (although Greening and CC have presented arguments here on this forum that with certain materials present, such high temps were not needed).

Since I know you CAN'T provide proof that these spherules are caused by anything sinister, I'll give you a break and just leave the paper as it stands..."Much ado about nothing".

Like I said, unless Jones provides HIS SAMPLES to an independent lab to be analyzed, we have nothing to discuss, as I do not trust him or his truther fellow "scientists" as far as I could throw them.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

oh and for those MORON truthers who are stating noone can debunk the paper...give it time, I am sure someone will produce a paper on it...just as it took Jones and the boys a while to create their paper, it may take some time to produce a paper discussing it.

TAM

 

[deep]

The source is the same paper Jones cites. Oh, he didn't mention that part? I'm shocked.

That list already considers the "very high temperatures" that were necessary to produce the dust they analyzed. They made no such prediction prior to their analysis on the dust sample.

 

[The Almond]

You mean figuratively right?

On planet X, literally and figuratively mean the same thing.

 

[DavidJames]

I admit to not having the knowledge to understand the technical aspects of this discussion but how far off would I be saying this appears to be Jones simply throwing more **** against the wall hoping something will stick?

 

[Gravy]

That list already considers the "very high temperatures" that were necessary to produce the dust they analyzed. They made no such prediction prior to their analysis on the dust sample.

Valid conclusion: conspiracists need to learn more about the complex subject of combustion in large office building fires.

Invalid conclusions: There's evidence of wrongdoing; this is suspicious stuff; 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[deep]

Please prove, in anyway that the iron rich spherules could not have been produced by the forces/chemical reactions/circumstances provided by the impact of the planes, fuel and office fires, collapse of the building.

In other words, all Jones has here are spherules that were LIKELY produced at high temperatures (although Greening and CC have presented arguments here on this forum that with certain materials present, such high temps were not needed).

Since I know you CAN'T provide proof that these spherules are caused by anything sinister, I'll give you a break and just leave the paper as it stands..."Much ado about nothing".

Like I said, unless Jones provides HIS SAMPLES to an independent lab to be analyzed, we have nothing to discuss, as I do not trust him or his truther fellow "scientists" as far as I could throw them.

Well, TAM, it's a simple matter of probability. How much dust was there before the collapse, and how much dust was there after the collapse? Think about that, and then ask yourself where the dust most likely originated.

Can I prove that it originated from the collapse, as opposed to the fires or the plane impact? No, certainly not; however, there were at least three separate dust samples collected and analyzed, and they're all consistent to some degree (specifically, the presence of iron-rich microspheres).

So what are the odds that all of the sampled dust existed prior to the collapse?

As for the cause being something sinister - that's not for me to decide or "prove". This is just another item that NIST "forgot" to mention in their report - it's tacked onto the end of a list full of all the toughest questions (post-collapse behavior, WTC7, etc). It's just another layer of icing on the "we need a new investigation" cake.

If you're so confident that NIST got it right the first time, why do you object to a new investigation? Why are you so afraid (to the point of hostility) of the answers to these unanswered questions?

 

[Furcifer]

I admit to not having the knowledge to understand the technical aspects of this discussion but how far off would I be saying this appears to be Jones simply throwing more **** against the wall hoping something will stick?

Kinda. But then he put the **** under a microscope, found large quantities of corn and implies that only someone from Iowa could have that much corn content.

 

[deep]

Valid conclusion: conspiracists need to learn more about the complex subject of combustion in large office building fires.

Where can I read about other office fires where a similar percentage of iron-rich microspheres were found in the dust? Is it a book? A webpage? Just provide your source, please.

note: I'm not looking for any more post-hoc rationalizations. Thanks.

 

[deep]

I admit to not having the knowledge to understand the technical aspects of this discussion but how far off would I be saying this appears to be Jones simply throwing more **** against the wall hoping something will stick?

This paper was peer-reviewed by scientists who are unaffiliated with the 9/11 truth movement. They made suggestions and the paper was modified.

So you could say that, but it would be with total disregard to reality.

 

[DavidJames]

This paper was peer-reviewed by scientists who are unaffiliated with the 9/11 truth movement. They made suggestions and the paper was modified.

So you could say that, but it would be with total disregard to reality.

What I meant by "throwing **** against the wall" was that he keeps putting out his **** without including a coherent discussion of what happened and how. He found ****, great, what does it mean and how did it get there.

Can you point out where is describes, in detail, what happened and how.

Thanks.

 

[Gravy]

Where can I read about other office fires where a similar percentage of iron-rich microspheres were found in the dust? Is it a book? A webpage? Just provide your source, please.

note: I'm not looking for any more post-hoc rationalizations. Thanks.

Post hoc? You don't seem to know what that means. Please refer to the paper I linked above.

For further research, I suggest you contact the authors of the papers Jones cites, and work your way to communicating with relevant experts from there. That's what Jones should have done.

Is basic research really so difficult that you need the process explained to you? It's your issue. Will you get to work?

Yes or no?

 

[Apollo20]

This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic!

Sure, Jones et al. do NOT mention thermite in their new paper, but Jones has spent the last two years talking about thermite/thermate at the WTC, so it is interesting that it is NOT mentioned in his latest paper.

Does this mean Jones no longer considers thermite/thermate was used to bring down the towers, or is he just "playing it safe" in his new paper? I suspect the latter, and I also suspect that the thermite, (or thermate!), theory will soon resurface......

But consider this: Jones' last public presentation, in Boston just before Christmas, included spectra of microspheres in the WTC dust and spectra of thermite residues prepared by Jones himself. And in Boston Jones claimed that the WTC microspheres and his thermite residues had essentially the same composition and both contained Si. But Jones was careful to say therMITE in his Boston talk, not his old favorite therMATE. Why? Could it be because at that time he was not seeing S in his spectra.

Now, in his new paper, Jones presents three spectra of WTC dust microspheres: one with no S, one with 0.2 at. % S and one with 3.6 at. % S. I call that "covering the bases."

But, as I said before, Jones' thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This PROVES the spheres came from MANY different sources. If some of these sources were present BEFORE 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires. If he cannot do this, his high temperatures mean NOTHING!

 

[R.Mackey]

Very well spoken.

 

[Max Photon]

As far as the eye can see

Ambiguity

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic!

Sure, Jones et al. do NOT mention thermite in their new paper, but Jones has spent the last two years talking about thermite/thermate at the WTC, so it is interesting that it is NOT mentioned in his latest paper.

Does this mean Jones no longer considers thermite/thermate was used to bring down the towers, or is he just "playing it safe" in his new paper? I suspect the latter, and I also suspect that the thermite, (or thermate!), theory will soon resurface......

But consider this: Jones' last public presentation, in Boston just before Christmas, included spectra of microspheres in the WTC dust and spectra of thermite residues prepared by Jones himself. And in Boston Jones claimed that the WTC microspheres and his thermite residues had essentially the same composition and both contained Si. But Jones was careful to say therMITE in his Boston talk, not his old favorite therMATE. Why? Could it be because at that time he was not seeing S in his spectra.

Now, in his new paper, Jones presents three spectra of WTC dust microspheres: one with no S, one with 0.2 at. % S and one with 3.6 at. % S. I call that "covering the bases."

But, as I said before, Jones' thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This PROVES the spheres came from MANY different sources. If some of these sources were present BEFORE 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires. If he cannot do this, his high temperatures mean NOTHING!

That definitely puts things in perspective. Thank you sir.

And if I may add: There were welding events after the collapse as well, in order to remove debris. Unless I'm missing something, post 9/11 events could also contribute to the formation of the spherules, correct?

Or were the samples confirmed to have been taken prior to major rescue operations?

 

[sleahead]

Or were the samples confirmed to have been taken prior to major rescue operations?

He makes that claim about one of the samples. See the appendix at the end of his paper.