JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[DavidJames]

Right.

So next question-->why is there such a high percent of microspheres.

And-->by what process?

How about you do some research and come back and tell everyone. But please, for once, do your research outside of the CT sites.

Try genuine research and intellectual honesty on for size. You might like the fit.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

You forgot flyash from coal
http://www.inderscience.com/filter.php?aid=10643
which is a common additive to concrete.

 

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

Yes, I have seen the RJ Report giving that interesting result. But that is one number for a small sample..... Anyway, let's say it is nevertheless a representative sample so that, on average, the WTC dust contained 5.87 % of iron spheres. This would be 5.87 % of say 50,000 tonnes or 2935 tonnes of iron spheres in the total mass of WTC dust. This would be 1468 tonnes per tower or say 13.3 tonnes per floor.

That is a phenomenal amount of iron spheres!

Is that your point, Sizzler?

 

[Sizzler]

How about you do some research and come back and tell everyone. But please, for once, do your research outside of the CT sites.

Try genuine research and intellectual honesty on for size. You might like the fit.

Most of this paper is based on other research, outside of CT.

RJ Lee report states.

Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in "normal" interior office dust.

So this bring us back to the temperatures needed.

~1500C to over 2000C for various particles.

how are those temperature explained?

 

[DGM]

Right.

So next question-->why is there such a high percent of microspheres.

And-->by what process?

Is that a high percentage for a building fire? That's part of the problem with this paper. It really doesn't say a whole hell of alot.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler:

Yes, I have seen the RJ Report giving that interesting result. But that is one number for a small sample..... Anyway, let's say it is nevertheless a representative sample so that, on average, the WTC dust contained 5.87 % of iron spheres. This would be 5.87 % of say 50,000 tonnes or 2935 tonnes of iron spheres in the total mass of WTC dust. This would be 1468 tonnes per tower or say 13.3 tonnes per floor.

That is a phenomenal amount of iron spheres!

Is that your point, Sizzler?

Partly, but I do agree that is a very high number.

I think it serves more as a control for the presence of spheres prior to fire and collapse. ie, spheres must have been formed during the fire and collapse and are not simply pollutants in the dust prior to the event.

 

[Sizzler]

Is that a high percentage for a building fire? That's part of the problem with this paper. It really doesn't say a whole hell of alot.

It is if you consider the temperatures needed to create the particles reported.

~1500C to over 2000C

 

[Gravy]

how are those temperature explained?

D'ya think Jones should have asked experts that question before publishing his paper? D'ya think?

How about you, Sizzler? Since this subject is of interest to you, will you be pursuing answers with experts in relevant fields? Yes or no?

 

[Sizzler]

D'ya think Jones should have asked experts that question before publishing his paper? D'ya think?

How about you, Sizzler? Since this subject is of interest to you, will you be pursuing answers with experts in relevant fields? Yes or no?

Well, NIST and others, as reported in Jones' paper, cite maximum temperature of 1100C.

 

[Gravy]

Well, NIST and others, as reported in Jones' paper, cite maximum temperature of 1100C.

Maximum temperatures where?

I asked you two questions. Here they are again:

1) Do you think Jones should have asked these questions of experts before publishing his paper?

2) Since this subject is of great interest and import to you, will you be contacting experts?

 

[DGM]

It is if you consider the temperatures needed to create the particles reported.

~1500C to over 2000C

How can Jones know the temps without knowing the procceses involved? Hint, he can't without knowing how they were formed. He skips this step. Reread this thread this has been discussed. Also see Chainsaws posts on these spheres.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Besides for it's use as a concrete adjunct, I also have to wonder if there are any sources of fly ash microspheres in NY city.

Granted there will be some oxidation / breakdown of the spheres over time, we tend to under appreciate the huge amount of coal burning that used to take place in a city like N.Y.

 

[Sizzler]

Maximum temperatures where?

I asked you two questions. Here they are again:

1) Do you think Jones should have asked these questions of experts before publishing his paper?

2) Since this subject is of great interest and import to you, will you be contacting experts?

1)Yes. Do you know he didn't?

2)I will wait until it is in print. Remember, it has passed peer review and will be published in a mainstream journal.

 

[Sizzler]

How can Jones know the temps without knowing the procceses involved? Hint, he can't without knowing how they were formed. He skips this step. Reread this thread this has been discussed. Also see Chainsaws posts on these spheres.

I'm going to review CC's posts. I'll comment a bit later.

 

[Gravy]

1)Yes. Do you know he didn't?

If he did, I would expect him to include those questions and answers in his paper, since that's what Jones is supposedly investigating. Yet no mention is made of contacting any such experts, and no such work or contributions are cited.

2)I will wait until it is in print. Remember, it has passed peer review and will be published in a mainstream journal.

No, it was returned by the journal as being outside its scope. You're referring to a different paper, written seven months ago, the contents of which we don't know.

So are you content to let this issue rest until that paper ever gets published?

And you didn't answer my question: maximum temperatures where?

 

[MikeyMetz]

1)Yes. Do you know he didn't?

2)I will wait until it is in print. Remember, it has passed peer review and will be published in a mainstream journal.

Sizzler, could it be that Jones' claim about peer review and publishing in a scholarly journal could be complete BS?

Stephen Jones: "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!"

Hmm... What could he possibly mean by, "See what you're missing -- Journal of Physics"?

 

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

The REAL problem with Jones' paper, and why I would not view it as being truly "scientific", is to be found in the first sentence of the RESULTS section of the paper. Here Jones et al. tell us that "We found an abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape in the WTC dust samples."

Jones does not tell us how he "found" these solidified droplets or what percentage of the sample(s) they represented. As far as I can tell, Jones offers no further quantitative estimate of the concentration of these "droplets" in the WTC dust. All we ever get is the vague term: "an abundance".

Interestingly, in his previous work, Jones attests to needing magnetic separation to extract his iron-rich microspheres. However, with Jones' latest effort we are left wondering if specialized sub-sampling techniques were used by Jones and why no QUANTITATIVE CONCENTRATION DATA, (in mg/kg for example), were acquired for important elements in the dust samples like Fe, Mn, Al, O, Fe, S, Si, etc, instead of relative EDX abundances of some elements in the microspheres.

It is this lack of attention to experimental detail that makes Jones' latest paper ambiguous and deceptive. Jones should know his research needs to meet recognized scientific standards of reproducibility, but perhaps not, especially when this paper has no section labeled "CONCLUSION".

 

[Sizzler]

If he did, I would expect him to include those questions and answers in his paper, since that's what Jones is supposedly investigating. Yet no mention is made of contacting any such experts, and no such work or contributions are cited.

No, it was returned by the journal as being outside its scope. You're referring to a different paper, written seven months ago, the contents of which we don't know.

So are you content to let this issue rest until that paper ever gets published?

And you didn't answer my question: maximum temperatures where?

Yes, sorry, not this exact paper. A different "version" perhaps, and yes, its contents remain unknown.

The fire temps are for the pre-collapse fire.

If you are suggesting the rubble pile fires contributed to the dust clouds that were emitted during the collapse, I'd like to know how.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler:

The REAL problem with Jones' paper, and why I would not view it as being truly "scientific", is to be found in the first sentence of the RESULTS section of the paper. Here Jones et al. tell us that "We found an abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape in the WTC dust samples."

Jones does not tell us how he "found" these solidified droplets or what percentage of the sample(s) they represented. As far as I can tell, Jones offers no further quantitative estimate of the concentration of these "droplets" in the WTC dust. All we ever get is the vague term: "an abundance".

Interestingly, in his previous work, Jones attests to needing magnetic separation to extract his iron-rich microspheres. However, with Jones' latest effort we are left wondering if specialized sub-sampling techniques were used by Jones and why no QUANTITATIVE CONCENTRATION DATA, (in mg/kg for example), were acquired for important elements in the dust samples like Fe, Mn, Al, O, Fe, S, Si, etc, instead of relative EDX abundances of some elements in the microspheres.

It is this lack of attention to experimental detail that makes Jones' latest paper ambiguous and deceptive. Jones should know his research needs to meet recognized scientific standards of reproducibility, but perhaps not, especially when this paper has no section labeled "CONCLUSION".

I think you make a very valid point.....I've got a few questions for you but I am running short on time.

Check back in a bit and I'll post.

 

[Gravy]

The fire temps are for the pre-collapse fire.

Ah, but where? Over broad areas. But what about localized higher temperatures? For instance, NIST believes the exceptionally bright flame in the NE 81st floor of the south tower was due to metal burning. How high could those temperatures have been? Would Steve Jones like to know? Would you? None of you truthers seem interested in actually learning about what you claim is of vital importance. Is JAQing off really that pleasurable?