JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[R.Mackey]

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?

The argument about salvage welding goes that, without starting at great height, a huge thermal plume, or the energetics of collapse, any iron microspheres created later are unlikely to have traveled from Ground Zero to their alleged recovery point. This is a tricky argument, but it does bias us away from post-collapse explanations.

However, as Dr. Greening correctly points out, there are numerous potential sources pre-collapse that have nothing to do with thermite. Dr. Jones is exerting both Assuming the Consequent and Special Pleading in his reasoning, as usual.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ah. That helps. Thank you, gentlemen.

 

[Max Photon]

Ambiguity around microspheres does not mean thermite was not used (so cool your jets)

Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.

That, good people, is but one of many reasons why thermite - hidden by jet-induced fires - was chosen as the ideal substance to demolish the towers.

Max

 

[SDC]

Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.

That, good people, is but one of many reasons why thermite - hidden by jet-induced fires - was chosen as the ideal substance to demolish the towers.

Max

I don't think your comments even represent some sort of special fallacy. This is simple wishful pleading, with the notion "You can't prove it wasn't X." No, but you can't prove it is, either (and your explanation is a lot more far-fetched than others).

There is an old statement: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." True. But some people, as you did here, want to argue that "absence of evidence is evidence of presence." Which is simply absurd.

Come on, Max. You can do better, I think.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Be careful about charging headlong into a forest/trees dichotemy, Max. Regardless of the microscopic evidence, the macroscopic effects of thermite are quite viewable.

 

[beachnut]

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!

nice summary

 

[Max Photon]

nice summary of the summary

 

[Max Photon]

...or for all of you mathematologists...

nice summary²

 

[deep]

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?

You made a baseless claim. I asked for a source. You haven't provided one. ..and you're telling me to go do research?

That's not how it works, sorry.

 

[R.Mackey]

Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.

This thermite of yours sounds rather like the dragon in my garage.

He leaves traces of sulfur. Sometimes. It's ambiguous.

He can melt steel, too. I've never seen it, of course, but he can. But it doesn't matter, because he doesn't have to melt it. He can only weaken it if he wants.

He starts fires, too, with his thermite-breath. See that fire? What, that's only a candle? Well, that could have been started with a thermite fuse. Maybe he lit the candle to confuse you about whether or not he's real.

All of this means that it's incredibly difficult -- if not impossible -- to differentiate my dragon from mental illness, at least for people unfamiliar with Affirming the Consequent.

 

[Gravy]

You made a baseless claim. I asked for a source. You haven't provided one. ..and you're telling me to go do research?

That's not how it works, sorry.

I gave you the source of that statement, and referred you again to it. I do so again for the third time.

It's your issue. What will you do? My money is on "absolutely nothing." Go ahead and prove me wrong.

 

[T.A.M.]

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?

Thanks for the civil response.

1. You misunderstood my question. I am asking for proof that Iron Spherules COULD NOT have come from a non-Thermite cause, one that could readily be accounted for by the fires resulting from the plane impacts and chemical processes occuring during the post impact and or/collapse (lets say such as fire plus steel plus other materials within the buildings such as PVC tubing, Wire Insulation, stored batteries, human bodies, etc....). The reason that this is important, is that if there are multiple possible causes for the spherules, then the more common, more expected causes should be considered the most likely, UNLESS compelling evidence to the contrary is presented.

2. NIST is irrelevant to my discussion at this point. If the iron spherules CAN'T be explained through expected reactions from the collapse as the official account describe, then they have some explaining to do. If the can be explained through such processes, then of what relevance are they (NIST) to this discussion?

3. As for a new investigation, as a Canadian I have no argument with it, except that it would be useless, cost a lot of money, and find nothing that would change the outcome or whom/what caused the collapses...so why waste such money and effort. However, it is Americans that have a legitimate beef so to speak, as it is THERE money that will be wasted on it.

---

Why not get Jones, Griffin, and AJ to put money together for such an investigation...I am sure if they can rally such support in the "academia" community, they can muster enough volunteer expertise and cash to get a new investigation going...right?

TAM

 

[beachnut]

nice summary of the summary

Unlike you, who makes up everything from scratch, Dr Greening took the time to do research on Dr Jones. He summarized many things in one complete package so you would not have to view the video of Dr Jones saying "smoking gun", as he posted slides of stuff I can find in my fire place 2000 miles from the WTC.

Where your remarks lack facts or support, Dr Greening did research to summarize Jones' paper. If you read Dr Jones paper and had done as much research as Dr Greeening, you could summarize as well if your fantasy world did not distort reality.

 

[Heiwa]

Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.

That, good people, is but one of many reasons why thermite - hidden by jet-induced fires - was chosen as the ideal substance to demolish the towers.

Max

One thing is sure - release of potential energy of a mass above buckled columns could and do not rupture or cut off all the steel columns and spandrels in WTCs to produce a sudden global collapse. I can cut steel using mechanical means, oxygas or plasma under water with good, controlled dimensional results. When I was in the defence forces 40 years ago we were taught how to cut steel quickly, e.g. to demolish a bridge. Big noise + smoke. Things must have developed since then. The 911 WTC perpetrators must have used latests technology to cut all these columns quickly and coordinated. A pity that FEMA never really studied the rupture surfaces of the rubble columns and just shipped it off. I have a feeling the metal particles found in the dust that could only have been produced at very high temperatures indicate some clever, new technology for cutting steel. No doubt it will sooner or later be available for peaceful means.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think it was one of the following...

1. Plasma weapons
2. Leprachaun Dust
3. Super Duper Steel-O-Solve(TM)

TAM

 

[Good Lt]

One thing is sure - release of potential energy of a mass above buckled columns could and do not rupture or cut off all the steel columns and spandrels in WTCs to produce a sudden global collapse.

Sorry to be the one to tell you, but reality does not conform to your conspiracy fantasies.

I can cut steel using mechanical means, oxygas or plasma under water with good, controlled dimensional results. When I was in the defence forces 40 years ago we were taught how to cut steel quickly, e.g. to demolish a bridge. Big noise + smoke.

This means nothing.

Things must have developed since then. The 911 WTC perpetrators must have used latests (sic) technology to cut all these columns quickly and coordinated. (sic)

Coordinated by who? Who were the perps? Spell check, please. And when you're done that, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS CLAIM.

I have a feeling the metal particles found in the dust that could only have been produced at very high temperatures indicate some clever, new technology for cutting steel. No doubt it will sooner or later be available for peaceful means.

Again, your feelings are irrelevant and are not "proof" of anything.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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!

1. I think this is a pretty strong indication of where the dust came from

It is worth emphasizing that both of the samples were collected indoors and shortly after the 9/11/2001 event. One sample was collected on an indoor window sill on 9/14/2001, just three days after the disaster while searching for survivors in the rubble was ongoing, and in a building four blocks from ground zero.The other sample was acquired inside a fourth-floor apartment (whose upper windows broke during the WTC collapse) a few days later.

If you add the results of the USGC reports to the findings as well and the WTC 7 steel corrosion, I think you have a pretty solid case about the temperature issue.

The other valid criticism would be to test the 'dust' from steel cutting operations to show a similarity or difference in the spheres chemical signature. It appears that they did do this test to rule out contamination from a different source as per your suggestion, Apollo.

We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are
unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch.

 

[beachnut]

1. I think this is a pretty strong indication of where the dust came from

If you add the results of the USGC reports to the findings as well and the WTC 7 steel corrosion, I think you have a pretty solid case about the temperature issue.

The other valid criticism would be to test the 'dust' from steel cutting operations to show a similarity or difference in the spheres chemical signature. It appears that they did do this test to rule out contamination from a different source as per your suggestion, Apollo.

F- … Your post is pointless. The corrosion in the WTC7 was a limited sample (the investigators found it interesting, not a smoking gun for your ignorant 9/11 truth ideas), you do not understand you have failed to make a point, due to shallow research. Pointless. Your need to flesh out your ideas unless you want to be just a spewing 9/11 truth hearsay point man.

Your lack of research is showing.

 

[Apollo20]

Swing Dangler:

May I suggest you look into the microspheres found in WELDING FUME and so-called MICROSPATTER.

A good place to start is the work of N.T. Jenkins who has many excellent articles on this topic in the WELDING JOURNAL.

Then there are these papers to consider:

D. Scott et al, "Spherical debris- Its Occurrence, Formation and Significance in Rolling Contact Fatigue" Wear, 24, 235 (1973)

J. Yuansheng et al. "Spherical Particles Generated During the Running-in Period of a Diesel Engine" Wear, 131 315 (1989)

Swing Dangler, why does Jones not address this kind of research?

Max Photon:

If you look closely I am sure you will find that in the context of microspheres in the WTC dust, most of the ambiguity you refer to is generated by Jones himself!

I wonder why..........

 

[The Almond]

1. I think this is a pretty strong indication of where the dust came from

If you add the results of the USGC reports to the findings as well and the WTC 7 steel corrosion, I think you have a pretty solid case about the temperature issue.

I have to disagree. The fact that the dust was collected inside an apartment 4 blocks away tells us three things about the dust sample:
1) The dust was was light enough to be buoyant or neutrally buoyant in air. This provides the first bias as heavier particles would naturally not travel as far.
2) The dust was collected from a contaminated site. The fact that it was collected by someone holding a PhD has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the test site. While I have no doubt that some of the particles included in the analysis were from the WTC, there is no way to tell how many or to differentiate the two.
3) There exists no established chain of custody or valid sampling criteria for the collection of the dust particles. Without these fundamental parameters, Jones cannot make statistical inferences on the nature of the WTC dust as a whole. He can only make inferences based on his sample.

The other valid criticism would be to test the 'dust' from steel cutting operations to show a similarity or difference in the spheres chemical signature. It appears that they did do this test to rule out contamination from a different source as per your suggestion, Apollo.

Why, then, have they refused to test natural ashes from fires of similar size and fuel sources? Why have they refused to test fly ashes, rice husk ashes or any other numerous ash sources?