1)The inert grey layers also probably moderated the reaction to achieve exactly the same goal.
Optimize energy, reduce power as explained earlier by metamars just to
avoid the ejection of the hot material far away. As someone has also shown earlier in this thread up to nearly 50% of the heat could be focused toward the steel beam for specific types of thermites.
No -the grey layer is oxidised steel. This post proves that because it's directly compared with the FEMA oxidised samples. From post #92
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 from
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf - 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. In the FEMA sample we know that the steel material has been subjected to high temperature and exposure to air. This causes decarburization of the steel's surface, hence the lack of a C peak in the EDS spectrum for the subsequent oxide - anyone who doubts this just has to google decarburization to find out or read post # 159.
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.
This is why truthers miss the clues. They are far too intent on second guessing DSC traces which require great care
I wrote the instructor's manual for a 3rd year lab on DSC at McMaster University in 2004.
Yes, DSC in an inert atmosphere is a good idea, but DSC can be difficult to interpret and is subject to variable results especially from heating rate effects.
In addition, the thermal conductivity of the sample, its particle size and packing density, the nature of the sample holder and the cover gas are all factors in determining the energy density of a sample.
Heats of reaction are best measured with bomb calorimeters.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-75.html
instead of looking at the big picture.
There is zero elemental/free aluminium in samples a,b,c,d. If there was the data would show it, but it doesn't - we don't see particles of predominantly Al and some O, we see something far more intune with an aluminosilicate. Therefore these samples cannot have caused a thermite reaction in the DSC.
If you concentrate on the minutiae and speculate about inconclusive DSC results, speculate about this mysterious "gray layer", then it's not surprising that there is little time remaining to examine other data. Truthers are being highly selective and nitpicking when the bigger picture tells a different story. A story they cannot accept. The data in the paper indicates to the nature of these samples, but it is completely missed. This paper was never peer reviewed properly, it was published in highly dubious circumstances, in an unreputable journal of little note, which caused the editor of that journal to resign.
All of this nonsense and speculation by people unqualified and with zero relevant experience could be put to bed if Jones simply had his samples tested at a couple of independent laboratories and the results published publicly.
He will
NEVER do this because he will be shown to be the fraud that he is.
), somebody could take a SEM if it doesn't ignite, or only partially ignites.
Maybe some of his teaching did stick eh? 
We may differ on opinion, however, I respect your contribution.
