I'm going to add a couple of things which cropped up - notably Bofors linking to the
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf and the subsequent EDS spectra, because I find it interesting and it's a source of data that I previously hadn't had time to compare, bearing in mind I've set out my stall and don't think that there is anything more to say until further data is provided by Jones et al that shows that the platelet particles aren't Kaolinite or show that the MEK chip's red layer doesn't contain talc or zinc chromate, but anyway this post will simply strengthen my argument.
Lets look at the the data in the link above anyway. We can clearly see material of approximately 3mm in thickness in Fig C-3 of the mounted and polished specimen and we can also clearly see a reduction in thickness of this material to approximately half (1-1.5mm). We know that a 10-20µm layer of thermite can't do that which has already been shown by Dr Greening, but lets press on.
The proposal is that a thermite material has caused this to happen.
So lets examine the EDS spectra of the surface of this steel bearing in mind the material in the thermite is Al and Fe203 that undergoes a redox reaction to produce liquid Fe and Al2O3.
The first thing we notice with regard to the spectra is the lack of Al present. We should expect to see Aluminium present even in small quantities as a by-product of the thermite reaction (in the form Al2O3). This is not the case. Where is this alumina? It's not there. Why not? (click the above link and look at the EDS spectra and show me Al).
Secondly when we examine Fig C-8 we clearly see EDS spectra for FeO and FeS. If thermite were responsible for this then we would expect to see a significant Sulphur peak in the EDS spectra from the red layer in Jones' samples a,b,c,d.
Where's the Sulphur?
We see a small peak in sample c) but this can be explained by other means and Jones et al only mention sulfur (sulphur) twice in the document and specifically say that
Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.
Which is a different material to the red layer in samples a,b,c,d.
Their own words dismiss Sulphur as a contaminant yet many truthers will say that the presence of Sulphur in thermite is to lower the melting point of steel. If that were the case (which is preposterous) then why do we see so little Sulphur in the red layer? Why, when Sulphur is detected, is it dismissed as a contaminant? You can't have your cake and eat it - This conundrum needs answering by truthers for it is a legitimate question.
So lets look at the EDS spectra. Firstly I'll provide the spectra for the oxide layer that has formed on the samples in the above link Fig C-13 - locations 2 & 3, which we know were subjected to temperature in excess of the eutectic for FeS or Fe-O-S namely approximately 940°C and then compare with the gray layer of samples a-d), hence;
They are very similar in characteristic, shape aswell as elements identified. I've only roughly matched the x-axis scale but the correlation of shape is strikingly similar.
Firstly we must deal with the Carbon peak and the difference between the two spectra. In the first graph we see little to no Carbon and in the subsequent graphs a-d) we see a significant peak. This is easily explainable and any metallurgist will know why, (but can people resist the temptation to press the spoiler button and think why? - hint: read the above link)
So what does that tell us? Well for starters, the gray material in Jones' samples, when analysed, had not been subjected to the same high temperatures as seen in
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf and that is why there is a different level of Oxygen in the spectra, but they are clearly from a similar source, namely a steel substrate and not only that, but a substrate that looks like A36 steel due to the Mn peak at @ 5.9KeV.
Jones et al do not comment in any depth with regard to the "gray layer", their paper pretty much ignores it, yet this layer is supposedly a constituent in their thermite hypothesis. This "gray layer", as the data provided by Jones et al, not only shows that this is not a constituent of thermite, but also provides a strikingly good match for iron oxide from a A36 steel that has not been subjected to temperatures above @ 430°C (and 650°C if my memory serves me with regard to the temperature at which steels decarburize).
Why have Jones et al not looked into this "gray layer" as they call it, which is characteristically distinct from the red layer and shows high similarity to an oxide layer of (a known) steel, which has been shown by comparison between
their own XEDS and spectra from FEMA.
This additional analysis shows that Jones et al have never considered the "gray layer" as being part of a steel substrate. They claim the chips are thermite, yet have not been thorough enough to analyse the "gray layer" of their chips and either hypothesise nor determine their origin.
Another mark against them.
), it's simply not true that chips which weigh in at 8 KJ/g have " nearly twice the energy density of pure thermite." Rather, their effective energy yield is about half of thermite's energy density.
