Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper
- Thread starter The Big Dog
- Start date
The solution to shut everyone here up about it, is very simple.
Have Jones submit HIS SAMPLES to a DOCUMENTED, INDEPENDENT (free of any personal or professional connections to the authors) LAB for analysis of the dust. They could then compare those samples, in terms of composition, presence or absence of these amazing chips, and how the chips react, to known samples from the WTC dust, with known chains of custody, and no agenda.
If results came back from such a lab analysis indicating that these chips are thermite, and are present in samples collected from KNOWN SAMPLES OF WTC DUST, with a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY, then you would make me believe. If Jones and the rest are honest in their quest for THE TRUTH, they would do so, to quiet all critics.
TAM
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Isn't this similar to what he did back in Dec, 2007? There wasn't an answer to that one. Obviously, the results were not to his liking.The solution to shut everyone here up about it, is very simple.
Have Jones submit HIS SAMPLES to a DOCUMENTED, INDEPENDENT (free of any personal or professional connections to the authors) LAB for analysis of the dust. They could then compare those samples, in terms of composition, presence or absence of these amazing chips, and how the chips react, to known samples from the WTC dust, with known chains of custody, and no agenda.
If results came back from such a lab analysis indicating that these chips are thermite, and are present in samples collected from KNOWN SAMPLES OF WTC DUST, with a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY, then you would make me believe. If Jones and the rest are honest in their quest for THE TRUTH, they would do so, to quiet all critics.
TAM
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Irrelevant. Iron-rich microspheres are a normal product of coal combustion. There's nothing in the paper to differentiate Jones's microspheres from these.
Dave
911kongen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 363
Why dont Jones send one of his nano-chips AND a pice of WTCs paint to a independent company. Then they can prove if this is the same thing. Im afraid someone that sees something that has the same ingrediense as thermite, will say its a form of thermite. In a way it is!? The paint is a form of thermite! ? Just not the explosive or ekstreme sort.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
It's interesting how they call the spheres iron rich. Look at the 3 spectra below. Lots of other elements in there, notably O and Si.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Hello, henryco.
For me the MEK test is slightly strange and raises further questions with regard to the similarity between samples in the paper. The "red layer" of this chip is of a different material to samples a,b,c,d. Comparison of Figs 7 & 14 shows this. I don't think they can claim both are thermite.
There are no SEM pictures pre and post testing so it's difficult to see what has actually happened to the chip and confirm what they are claiming, that is "elemental aluminium". There is also no detail about the paint used for comparison.
I would like to see detailed SEM pictures of this red layer in the "MEK chip", because I think this would prove the difference as I suspect it contains talc and zinc chromate.
That would be very nice to find someone who can! I've no idea whether paint companies even look at the combusted product when producing data for Material Safety Data Sheets or any other research. /shrug. I think the best thing would be for an independent materials testing company (or two) to be given the samples without any information about the sample or their source and have those results free for all to see.
Nor mine - a necessary evil.
I'm currently working on WMD.
I agree with this [with my addition]. Unless someone has been dishonest, which I highly doubt, then it's a logical conclusion. We don't see the spheres in the SEM photos pre-ignition, but we do post-ignition. However, this in no way proves that a thermite reaction has occurred especially because the test was carried out in air.
Red paint contains Fe2O3. Red paint also contains aluminosilicates. Red paint also contains some form of organic binder or thinner. Red paint will also contain impurities, because the materials used are from natural sources. Red paint will also contain other elements due to propriety chemical make up. (Individual companies have their own recipes and even these recipes will have natural variance). We also know that similar microspheres occur in fly-ash, which isn't produced via a thermite reaction.
We also see lots of other post ignition material too, but this wasn't detailed in the paper. It wouldn't surprise me that paint of such a composition produces tiny metallic spheres on ignition and this is something I'm quite interested in and intrigued about. Energy requirements, surface chemistry and mechanics are not as predictable on the micro scale as on the macro. This is something I'm going to look into and ask a few colleagues about.
Oh yes. Reverberatory Furnace
There are different types of coal and it's best to use certain types for iron making. Whilst the blast furnace produces pig iron from ore, this material is a liquid and is "tapped off", so coal can certainly reach the required temperature. We use a coal derivative, namely coke, in blast furnaces.
Thanks for your interest.
Frederic Henry-Couannier :
Given your role as the scientist who "Independently" verified Jones results, care to show your data here, or point us to your paper on the matter?
Also, seeing as you are here, and Jones is not, would you be ok with the samples of the WTC dust you were given, or the ones Jones has, being provided to another lab, one with no personal or professional contact to the authors of the paper, for an independent analysis of the dust, and the chips, where a comparison can be made to other known dust samples that have a known chain of custody?
Thanks
TAM
Given your role as the scientist who "Independently" verified Jones results, care to show your data here, or point us to your paper on the matter?
Also, seeing as you are here, and Jones is not, would you be ok with the samples of the WTC dust you were given, or the ones Jones has, being provided to another lab, one with no personal or professional contact to the authors of the paper, for an independent analysis of the dust, and the chips, where a comparison can be made to other known dust samples that have a known chain of custody?
Thanks
TAM
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello. BTW, you should check out the911forum.freeforums.org. Dr. Greening posts there. He is banned from JREF.
Also, I have speculated that the red chip material may ignite at a lower temperature than nano-aluminothermics due to the platelet morphology. "Normal" Al particles in aluminothermics have spherical oxide layers such that ultimate strength approached the theoretical maximum strength of 11.3 GPa, but flexural strength of Al-oxide is in the MPa range. See my post here. Granier's nanothermite thesis is here.
I dont have the right to write the link here because i'm new on this forum but i can send it to you via private email so you can post it here.
Of course i can and ready to share this dust with anyone. How can i be sure that there will be an independent check ? You also can acquire a sample (much easier for you in the USA ). Anyway, i could not perform the crucial tests: ignition, DSC and MEK so my results only confirm that there are microspheres and red chips in my samples with the same aspect and chemical signatures that Jones, Harrit and co have shown.
I understand that Iron can be melted in a furnace where the heat can accumulate and be concentrated but can a small piece of coal, dimension less than 100 microns melt a somewhat smaller piece of iron? i would say of course not since the dissipative process are much too effective at such small scales! So if you admit that some microspheres which are mostly iron (see Fig 21 and Fig 20) were produced from the chips in the DSC, what else than the reduction of Fe and oxydation of Al (released heat initially concentrated in the reactants ) could be responsible for that ? I can only explain this melted iron provided it participated in the reaction.
Clear evidence is also shown for the reduction of Fe: in the red layer it was Fe2O3, in the residues the iron content far exceeds the oxygen content!
Another point : i thought that a DSC could give an indication on how powerful a sample can be. May be this is only true for monomolecular explosive (TNT) or thermite where the reaction actually procedes in the whole volume...but may be not . can anybody comment on that ?
Since the power is related to the ability of a given volume of tested material to release its energy rapidly, the power indication given by the DSC is certainly not meaningful when applied to an organic compound which can only react at its interface with the surrounding air providing the oxygen.
So its power directly depends on its Surface/volume ratio i.e. its size!
So may be i have to admit that the DSC results are only reliable concerning the power provided there was not too much organic oxydation contamination.
However the other observations (melted iron microsphere, reduction of the Iron, hot material projections at ignition) are still providing an almost irrefutable evidence for a thermitic reaction.
Having taken spectra at various points both from the grey and red layers
i confirm tht there is always a variable contamination from place to place but the background (the elements which are always there) is easy to identify!
So the presence of such a small amount of Zn in the sample submitted to MEK is completely irrelevant since the chip has the same aspect as the others and since the authors have convincingly shown that most of the Aluminium is not associated with Si or O.
F H-C
Henry;
You seem somewhat reasonable, so I will be frank,
1. Most here on this forum, those considering themselves debunkers or skeptics, do not trust Stephen Jones. He has for many years now, shown himself to be driven beyond reason, by an obsession that the twin towers were brought down by elements of the USG. For this reason, anything he produces, scientific or otherwise, is suspect...to say least.
2. In this thread, you will see the issues we have with Jones' paper.
3. As you are known to him, at some level, personally, and are affiliated with proving "thermite" was in the rubble, we must hold your analysis, for now, also suspect.
4. As I have said above, if Jones wants to prove his case beyond a doubt, he needs to submit his samples to a truly independent lab for composition analysis, as well as analysis of the red chips. This data, must then be compared to known samples of WTC dust with a known chain of custody. If after all that, the conclusion is "superthermite was in the dust" then you will have this community at least "interested" beyond the usual.
TAM
You seem somewhat reasonable, so I will be frank,
1. Most here on this forum, those considering themselves debunkers or skeptics, do not trust Stephen Jones. He has for many years now, shown himself to be driven beyond reason, by an obsession that the twin towers were brought down by elements of the USG. For this reason, anything he produces, scientific or otherwise, is suspect...to say least.
2. In this thread, you will see the issues we have with Jones' paper.
3. As you are known to him, at some level, personally, and are affiliated with proving "thermite" was in the rubble, we must hold your analysis, for now, also suspect.
4. As I have said above, if Jones wants to prove his case beyond a doubt, he needs to submit his samples to a truly independent lab for composition analysis, as well as analysis of the red chips. This data, must then be compared to known samples of WTC dust with a known chain of custody. If after all that, the conclusion is "superthermite was in the dust" then you will have this community at least "interested" beyond the usual.
TAM
Are you stating this as a chemist? Are you a chemist? (you implied earlier you were not, but this statement implies you are since you left out reams of supporting information) Why do these constitute irrefutable evidence for you a non-chemist, and how can you state such an unfounded conclusion? Oh, you said, "an almost". Got it.
The energy in the samples is erratic which is irrefutable evidence it was not a thematic reaction like thermite for several reasons. Based on the fact you are not a chemist what do you say?
Do you agree with Jones that Hoffman's idea on how the thermite was placed in the WTC includes thousand of ceiling tiles with thermite in them?
Do you agree with Jones theory that thermite was used to bring down the WTC? Why is there zero products of thermite found at ground zero? Why is there zero evidence on any steel from the WTC of thermite?
The paper was used by 911Truth believers to imply this is it; the big loaded gun as Jones now calls it. Why have you not taken your confirmation and earn a Pulitzer Prize for this revelation Jones implies is proof of thermite taking out the WTC?
There have been complaints about the precision with which ratios of atomic species can be determined via XEDS, and also the ambiguity unnecessarily introduced by DSC done in air (which contains oxygen) as opposed to in vaccuum or inert gas. Please read the comments by Sunstealer and Greening (again, Greening's comments are at the911forum.freeforums.org).
Unlike debunkers here, I would urge you to share chips with people that you know, or people that people you know, know, etc., that have expertise and access to equipment that will nail this stuff down, better. What about your university? Preferably they are established, have a spotless record for integrity, etc.
I spoke to a physicist at a local university, looking to see if he could explain the difference between a DSC and micron level DSC (which measures in units of Volts/mass). He didn't even know what a DSC is! I think you really need to focus on searching out material scientists and physical chemists.
At the thread on this subject in the Science forum, somebody suggested McCrone Associates. Looking at their web site, however, shows that the US government entrusted them with making a copy of the Zapruder film (of the JFK assassination). That means I don't trust them.... I would guess that the chance that McCrone has no spooks (i.e., spies) on their payroll is zero.
In general, I think it's best to avoid any labs that do business with any Western government, and certainly if they do business with intelligence agencies. Who knows what secrecy/non-disclosure agreements they have signed - the existence of which they are not allowed to disclose? I would stick with tenured professors who, even if they are funded by their governments, do not do any sort of military work. Also, it's obviously ideal to have many, many researchers working on the chips.
Edited by chillzero:
Please note that I am allowing the above paragraphs as part of a response to a prior post. However, responses to this specific issue will not be allowed to derail the thread, and will probably not be approved (or may be removed after approval). A new thread can be generated in the main CT section, if you wish to explore this further.
If possible, please break any chips you have in half, and only send half out. If a third party returns with results that are outliers, you still have the other half to examine, to verify or disconfirm that they have committed fraud.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even 911 debunkers and chemists at the same time admit that no hydrocarbon combustion out in the open can reach the temperatures to melt iron and this is why they dont believe that the flowing liquid metal from the towers was iron but rather Aluminium. This is even more obvious in the case of a very small staff in a DSC since the dissipative effects increase when the ratio surface/volume increases : as a physicist i can certainly say that!
what is written in the article: the mass of the inert grey layer relative to the red one varies from chip to chip. I think the grey part is a moderator. The thermitic reaction had to be moderated to avoid projection and keep the hot material in contact to the steel. This is a personnal point of view: i believe thermite was not used as an explosive but only in charge cutters with sulfur (thermate) for the bigger columns and to heat the remaining columns at the level of the planes impact (small thickness of steel to heat, many layers of thermite applied)...for a natural initiation of failure.
I dont know, since the conductivity of steel is much higher than that of the surrounding air , the heat flow would be mostly toward the steel : efficient heating provided the molten metal is not projected away by a too explosive reaction.
Only for the initiation of the failure looking as natural as possible (not starting with huge explosions) . Afterward its another story, probably hydrogen thermobarics or something else...
Tons of molten metal at GZ! many evidences also from previous Jones studies
and FEMA (thermate slags , sulfidation etc...) ...but i dont want to discuss everything all together: i'm discussing iron dropplets here and i was quite surprised to read above in this forum that even some debunkers are ready to admit molten iron generated at the WTC (byproducts of redchips ignition in the WTC fires: we do see them in the DSC !) .
link to my study:
www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf
F H-C
Last edited by a moderator:
henry,
If there is to be any addressing of the Jones paper, and your evidence in support of it, by the scientific community as a whole, then the dust and chips need to be examined by a company or institution that has NO PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL association with the authors.
This would not normally be the case, but given all of the scientists that worked on the paper have openly admitted they believe 9/11 was an inside job, a theory that flies in the face of what is accepted by the current science community, there must be no doubts about bias or tampering with the samples. Any affiliation with the lab who analyzes it will come under suspicion if they are in any way connected to Jones or the other co-authors.
Now if there is a problem with suggested labs (McCrone Associates), then find another unconnected (to either the USG at the time of 9/11, or to the truth movement) lab, and suggest that one to Jones.
If this is not done, the paper will remain, as it is now, an unknown, untold of paper of little to no significance, and little to no impact.
TAM
If there is to be any addressing of the Jones paper, and your evidence in support of it, by the scientific community as a whole, then the dust and chips need to be examined by a company or institution that has NO PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL association with the authors.
This would not normally be the case, but given all of the scientists that worked on the paper have openly admitted they believe 9/11 was an inside job, a theory that flies in the face of what is accepted by the current science community, there must be no doubts about bias or tampering with the samples. Any affiliation with the lab who analyzes it will come under suspicion if they are in any way connected to Jones or the other co-authors.
Now if there is a problem with suggested labs (McCrone Associates), then find another unconnected (to either the USG at the time of 9/11, or to the truth movement) lab, and suggest that one to Jones.
If this is not done, the paper will remain, as it is now, an unknown, untold of paper of little to no significance, and little to no impact.
TAM
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Those are not crucial tests.
Crucial tests are the characterization of the compounds in the sample. This means XEDS is not good enough. There are many techniques that could be used for this absolutely crucial part of the investigation, for example
XRD, SIMS, Microprobe (Auger), XPS.
Only one of the spheres, namely the one examined in Fig 21, show a predominantly Iron Oxide spectra. Bearing in mind that Jones' samples have a gray layer comprised of Iron Oxide (which is most likely from steel - see post #92 above) and that the DSC test was carried out in an atmosphere containing 21% Oxygen, then no-one can specifically say what pre-DSC material the spheres come from. It's an ambiguous test and therefore worthless. All it does is cloud the issue.
Why does no one talk about this "gray layer"? If it's part of the thermite then it should react in the DSC but their own paper states on page 19
So their own data is seriously flawed. If they don't know the mass of the gray layer and the gray layer doesn't contribute to the reaction, but varies in thickness and therefore mass, how can their data be accurate? They are including an unknown mass in their calculations and this mass has nothing to do with the test. Crazy.
The time and money spent would have been better used sending their samples to a number of independent laboratories for analysis. That would be conclusive.
And that's the problem. The paper states on page 15 that,
Which really should read something more like.
"It is shown that the red layer comprises rhomboidal (rhombohedral) crystals of Fe2O3, approximately 0.2µm in diameter and thin hexagonal, plate-like, aluminosilicate particles with a minimum diameter of 1µm, in an unknown matrix material whose primary constituent is Carbon."
"intimate mixing" - I do bite my thumb, Sir.
There is plenty of Carbon in the matrix which suggests an organic binder. There is a good chance that this is flammable and will corrupt the DSC test. Rather than acknowledge this they say
And it's these things that really annoy me, because they have effectively said, before the samples have been analysed, that thermite is present.
Does anyone think that Jones et al could possibly ever write a conclusion that doesn't involve thermite? Imho, they can't. Doesn't matter what the sample data says they MUST describe it in terms of thermite otherwise it blows their entire theory away, hence the above statement without any examination to find out exactly what this material is - it's speculation and has no place in a scientific paper. They could examine any material in the world and they would still say it's related to thermite.
You cannot conclude that. The DSC tests where conducted in air, therefore any oxidation can be wholly explained. Secondly the XEDS spectra of the red layer show far too many other elements in the sample to conclude that α-Fe is present. Infact the only material containing Fe in the red layer is the rhomboidal crystals identified as Fe2O3, as shown in Figs 8,9 & 11. The only possible source for α-Fe or ferrite is from the gray layer, because it's from steel.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. I have shown that the sample submitted for MEK analysis has a completely different spectra for the red layer when compared to samples a,b,c,d. This proves the samples are not the same and therefore the MEK test is void and not only that but the paper is flawed because of it. They cannot handwave away data from their own spectra as contamination without showing the particles that make up this contamination. If they claim gypsum particles are present as a contaminant then they must show them. It's odd they claim contamination when
Please read post #36
They also do not correctly label the Spectrum and two elements namely K and Mg are also present. If you read post #36, it's clear that there is more data to associate the "MEK chip" to tnemec red primer paint than anything else.
Because we don't know the exact source for the chips and the chips are comprised of different materials including the "gray layer" (see Figs 31,32, 33 and associated text) yet the paper's authors claim that all of the samples are identical, we can safely conclude that they haven't considered alternative sources, namely, non-WTC buildings or surroundings, nor do they seriously consider alternative materials such as paint. You would expect this when they state
It's well known that a number of bridges have been subjected to criticism and have been examined, including the Brooklyn Bridge, for safety reasons because of their state of repair. If Mr Delassio swept a handful of dust from a rail could he not also have dislodged paint or rust from the rail? I've seen photographs of parts of the bridge that show a red layer of paint or primer under the bridges white paint.
In effect their need to prove thermite blinds them with respect to performing the testing, the analysis of the results and the conclusion. An independent examination is paramount. They have plenty of material,
so why are they not sending it to independent laboratories?
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
This should be out of the question. I don't know why metamars is suggesting this because it's highly irregular and unacceptable. Independent means just that, independent from "debunkers" just as much as anyone else.
Yes, at an independent lab. The sample shouldn't be discussed if possible (they may need to talk about dimensions, etc, but source and composition should be a no no), the analysis techniques used are to be determined by the lab as long as they result in a proper quantitative analysis. The lab should say based upon their analysis what the material is and the whole lot should be publically available.
Edited by chillzero:
Please note that I am allowing the above paragraphs as part of a response to a prior post. However, responses to this specific issue will not be allowed to derail the thread, and will probably not be approved (or may be removed after approval). A new thread can be generated in the main CT section, if you wish to explore this further.
Whilst I acknowledge Chillzero's edit I'll comment, because I think it's relevant to the whole independent testing discussion - it either makes it in or not.
If the testing house doesn't know the origin of the samples, if the person requesting the analysis doesn't give them any background information about the topic (namely 9/11) or show them any previous analysis and if that person isn't connected with "9/11 truth", such as a third party, then how will any testing house possibly make a connection? If you send it to more than one company then how can they collude? That's what you do with independent analysis - contact the companies, give them as little info as possible, just enough to get a rough price quote and then send them the sample(s).
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
But isn't there is a difference between the macro and micro when it comes to the energy required for melting especially with regard to small particles and their stability? Can you not get coalescence of particles resulting in melting of the particle surface?
Could you explain the term "projection" please. Is that a term meaning that the gray layer is there to stop material (of the red layer) from being ejected away from the steel surface during the thermite reaction? If that is the case then you are suggesting that the "gray layer" is the outside surface and the red layer is "sandwiched" between it and the steel?
Can you comment on my post where I show that there is a high degree of correlation with this gray layer and a layer of oxidised steel as shown in the Limited Metallurgical Examination for FEMA? I am convinced that the gray layer is oxidised steel which has spalled (come away) from the steel's surface. See previous posts.
Firstly we observe next to no Suphur in the red layers of samples a,b,c,d as evidenced by Fig 7. Has Jones not found thermate?
In Fig 14 we do observe Sulphur, which is dismissed as a possible contaminant too, but given that so many other elements are observed this cannot be dismissed.
In your own examination of the red layer you say that the S and Ca are contamination on pages 14 & 15 (and again in the gray layer pages 16,17 & 18). If one is expecting thermate to be (one of) the material(s) then why do you dismiss Sulphur as a contaminant?
Dr Greening has performed calculations to show that steel would only be heated by 8°C based on the thickness of the red layer observed. How can such a thin layer of thermite possibly contain enough energy to heat a steel section 5mm in thickness let alone more to it's melting point? (5000 times thicker than 10µm)
Could you produce a calculation to show if it's possible or not? (He's a physicist so i think it is a reasonable question).
Yes I understand. Have a quick look at the spectra produced from the FEMA report, notably the oxide layer and compare it with the gray layers in samples a,b,c,d. I've done that in post #92 above. This also highlights issues with the lack of Sulphur in Jones' samples and the often made claims that Sulphur in the Fe-O-S eutectic comes from the material Jones has found.
Thanks - this was brought to my attention by another member of JREF and the link was posted in the original 40+ page thread that got closed. My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)
Thanks.