Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[beachnut]

No thermite here! Why? What did Jones get wrong?

Jones paper on thermite is being used to imply thermite destroyed the WTC. There is no physical evidence thermite was used. Engineers and scientist studied and searched the steel from the WTC event for months and never found a trace of evidence that thermite was used.

911Truth will say they were not looking for thermite but the fact is if seen thermite damage would be clearly seen and thermite products would stand out and be seen. Termite products would leave a real big evidence path.

The products of a thermite reaction are unique and can be seen after the event -

The results of using thermite would stand out and be found right away. What a dumb idea to pick thermite which was not found on any of the steel to do a paper and skew the results to declare you found thermite.

The fact is the paper shows some elements in dust samples that are also in thermite; Fe, O, Al, but not exclusively. So the dust could be from anything.

Jones tries to imply thermite was used to bring down the WTC yet no one has found evidence of thermite being used and the steel was checked. There would be photos of thermite damage and thermite product would be present.

The paper has failed to make a case that the samples are thermite or nano-super-thermite. The people who did the paper and the people fooled by the paper into supporting it can't even answer the simple questions for practical use like: The kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the office fires in the WTC towers?

Gage has turned this paper into one of his pitches as he collects money from those too gullible to understand the fraud he presents.

It looks like all the thermite failed to touch the steel and blew away on the wind to be contaminated by other elements so Jones had to explain away each element to have his super thermite;

The super-thermite painted on the steel fell off when the planes impacted foiling the efforts to blow up the WTC with thermite which drifted off down the street to be collected by people in a vacuum cleaner or railings around the WTC.

Besides the chain of custody we have real proof thermite was not used to weaken the steel, the steel was studied after the collapse.

We are stuck with Jones being a scam artist who once said this was his thermite proof; a cleanup cut at the WTC after 911.

If Jones was willing to present this as his proof of thermite at the WTC what has changed as he waves his hands and eliminates contaminating elements from his sample of what he calls "super-thermite", the "loaded gun" for 911Truth to shoot the other foot.

 

[T.A.M.]

You seem to be upset but not to really get my point. If some source reliable (to you) gives Jones a sample, Jones can swap it with anything else and it wouldn't be noticeable. Or he could analayse it, photoshop the images, and still no one would know. Until at least somebody else does a study. That's all I am saying.

BTW Jones said he has requested several times official samples keeped by *can't remember the acronym for the relevant instution* but never got any. He came back with that claim after this article, saying he now needed larger samples to make quantitative estimation of how much red chips were initially in the building.

Now that's what he says. Feel free to check and tell us what you find ;-)

To T.A.M. : IMHO there is no realistic way you could prove any chain of custody from private samples to be valid 8 years later. No high profile review would accept to publish anything (truther or debunker) with such political implications without rock solid custody chain. Maybe they would accept if samples were coming from official sources but truther would remain sceptic, and that would make sense from their perspective, won't it ?



Yup, I can see you're very disconfident of him (and I guess, by extension, of everyone working with him). I am new here and don't know why, thus. His wikipedia notice certainly gives him some credits. I'd be curious to know why you think he's so unreliable ?


Indeed. I would aslo add most scientists get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes ;-)

The issue of my opinions of Jones, and how I arrived at them is off topic, and given the moderation status of this thread, not something I will discuss further here. Ask me again in another unmoderated thread or in the general discussion thread.

As for the "chain of custody" issue, I would say that he should have gotten some samples from labs who collected the samples within a few days of the collapse, and had been stored since, and used those, instead of samples DONATED TO HIM, I assume by fans or people who had heard of his investigating, 6 years after the fact, with little to no detail on where, when, and how the samples were collected, or how and where they were stored for the 6 years from collection to evaluation.

Any real scientist, WITHOUT AN AGENDA, would have gotten proper dust samples, with a known chain of custody. He/she would then have analyzed the dust particles on a macro level, then on a micro level. He would have then separated the particles into those readily identifiable, and those "unknown". From those that were not readily or easily known, he should have then determined a list of possibilities, and started ELIMINATING THEM rigorously and one by one. This SHOULD have included obtaining the paint primer used on the columns, as well as any paints used within the buildings.

There is no doubt to any LEGITIMATE scientist that the Jones' paper (which was written by a group of 9 people ALL of whom are affiliated with the 9/11 truth movement to some degree) was written with (A) a political agenda, and (B) with SEVERE confirmation bias/blindness.

TAM

 

[Lenbrazil]

I've seen 3 (or 4 depending on how you count) different explanations on this forum as to why some of Jones's chips didn't contain zinc. Though I think I found evidence which just about proves the forth I was wondering if the proponents of the 1st two still stand by them and what they and other think about the 'competing' theories.

1) The passage of time, events of 9/11 and/or the application of MEK caused the zinc to be removed. (I don't remember who proposed this)

2) The zinc is reading as sodium because they are very close to each other on the scale (TAM)

To frank as a layman these don't sound very likely to me but that doesn't prove much.

3) Some of the chips are the primer described by NIST but the zincless wonders are something else either

a) electronic shielding (Dr. Greening) OR
b) kaolinite (Sunstealer)

The latter seems most likely to me due to the very close EDS signature and similar structure which Sunstealer demonstrated a few times. The clincher for me, and I think Sunstealer missed this, is that the kaolinite w/gypsum spectra he has posted here is FROM A SAMPLE FOUND AT GROUND ZERO.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Just to make it 110% sure it would be good if we could find some references to the material being used at the WTC. I've done some googling but haven't found any yet. I however find another references to kaolin being founds there:

"“The agencies really didn’t know what they were doing,” says Kim Todd. “They seemed to not have a clue.” Residents, she said, did their own tests and came up with substances that the agencies couldn’t even identify, let alone certify as safe, says Todd. “I found something called kaolin. What is that?”"
http://www.neha.org/9-11 report/index-Part-3.html


SUNSTEALER - One thing I'm not sure of, do you think believe a product that was principally kaolinite was applied to the steel or do think it was an ingredient in a paint or primer that was mostly other substances?

I'm playing devil's advocate here one problem is that NIST indicates only one type of primer was used in the towers..

I'd also like if someone could verify my calcs for the zinc content of the primer. I don't think the vehicle would amount to much because NIST said "the paint was applied by the fabricators at the factory and given a low temperature (approx 120* C) bake to cure the paint and evaporate the suspending liquid" (pg 433 PDF pg 147 - http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3C Appxs.pdf)

The amount of zinc in the primer would have been small. It would have been present in two components of the primer (we aren't told what the ratio of pigment to vehicle is):
1) Tenemec was 33.7% of the pigment, Tenemec is only 2.98% zinc compounds by mass. Note that was zinc compounds not pure zinc. Thus the primer was 1% zinc compounds from the Tenemec
http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

2) Zinc yellow was 20.3% of the pigment. Zinc yellow is zinc chromate hydroxide ZnCrO4*. The atomic masses of these elements are**, zinc 65.4, chromium 52, oxygen 16, thus the atomic mass of 1 molecule is 181.4 and is 36.1% zinc by mass. Thus the primer was 7.3% zinc from the zinc yellow.
http://tiny.cc/zincyellow

http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/mass.html

Even if we presume the zinc compounds were 70% zinc the primer was 8% zinc.

 

[Lenbrazil]

I wonder how much of an issue the chain of custody is since they supposedly found the chips in several indepedantly gathered samples.

An unrelated point Harit et al dismissed the zinc found in one sample as surface contamination because the chip wasn't treated w/MEK. Wouldn't the obvious thing to do been soaking that chip in the solvent as well and then performed another spectra? And shouldn't they have done pre-MEK-soaking apectra of the others. They don't seem to have done either.

Another unrelated point, does anyone know the specific resistence of kaolinite?

 

[T.A.M.]

As the "suggester" of the second theory you have listed Lenbrazil, I would have to say that it was more of a question, in the form of "could the sodium spikes be, in fact, Zinc Spikes, misread due to their close proximity to each other on the spectra".

I have not seen anyone prove to me that it COULD NOT be so.

TAM

 

[Lenbrazil]

From my penultimate post on this thread:

Kim Todd. [said] residents...did their own tests and came up with substances that the agencies couldn’t even identify, let alone certify as safe, says Todd. “I found something called kaolin. What is that?”


Someone I think it was Sunstealer said that for about $40 one could send samples to a lab and have them identify the actual compounds, thus it seems odd that Harrit et. al didn't do this. The irony that some WTC area residents did this but they didn't occured to me while I was walking my dog and...

 

[Lenbrazil]

As the "suggester" of the second theory you have listed Lenbrazil, I would have to say that it was more of a question, in the form of "could the sodium spikes be, in fact, Zinc Spikes, misread due to their close proximity to each other on the spectra".

I have not seen anyone prove to me that it COULD NOT be so.

TAM

What do you think is more likely
a) it was "NIST primer" with zinc misidentified as sodium OR
b) it was kaolinite?

As I said the fact that the USGS (and Ms. Todd) reported finding kalion(ite) in the dust pretty much settles it for me.

 

[Redford]

I wonder how much of an issue the chain of custody is since they supposedly found the chips in several indepedantly gathered samples.

An unrelated point Harit et al dismissed the zinc found in one sample as surface contamination because the chip wasn't treated w/MEK. Wouldn't the obvious thing to do been soaking that chip in the solvent as well and then performed another spectra? And shouldn't they have done pre-MEK-soaking apectra of the others. They don't seem to have done either.

Another unrelated point, does anyone know the specific resistence of kaolinite?

Actually that is the very sample they tested with MEK. That's one of the point I don't get, BTW. Sunstealer complain about that very chip being tested with MEK (because it is "contaminated") but OTOH amongst all the samples that is the most likely to actually be paint. From what I've read they didn't especially choose to do the solvant test on that chip (it looks exactly like the others) but once getting hte XEDS info they decided it was perfectly fine.

 

[Redford]

As I said the fact that the USGS (and Ms. Todd) reported finding kalion(ite) in the dust pretty much settles it for me.

Thanks, I remember now. Jones said several times that he requested samples from USGS and was never answered. I doubt there are plenty of other labs with samples with a better chain of custody so basically if Jones doesn't make this up, please USGS provides him those!

BTW T.A.M. if you read the articles the custody of each samples is detailed. Some of the samples have been send to seveal labs, not only Jones. So they're not all "fans". It's look more like people having the idea to keep it (explicitely for furether analysis, in the case of the sample used in the MEK test) and sending it when requested to. Now of course some have been taken with a vacuum, and all in all you can't be seriously sure about the custody. But the fact that there is four samples from different source that all features red chips leave only two credible hypothesis to me : either they're faked by Jones, either they're good.

Now Lenbrazil I must say while this is interesting (I noticed that so far no one mentioned any presence of kaoline in WTC materials ; you've changed that ) it certainly doesn't nail it to me. Most discuss here are detail after detail but if I take a look at the big picture :

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would ignite with material ejection. The article state that several paints they tested have just been "immediately be reduced to fragile ashes" under the flame. I'd like to see someone putting some paint under fire and getting something else.

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would have a DSC peak a 435°c. And let's not forget that metamars has shown that Kaoline also has an early peak below 100°c (found it by myself too here : books.google.com/books?id=rlcLQmcTADEC&pg=PA1260&lpg=PA1260&dq=DSC+kaolinite&source=bl&ots=yEk8D6MmSg&sig=GqawDvviT0aeKoCXZiX0E1Nh7_c&hl=en&ei=P4PiSZyYFMTVlQfek7HgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1260,M1 ).

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints will generate during heating iron rich sphere that requires way higher temperature to form.

- there's also a resistance test that I didn't see discussed here that's also said to rule out paint/kaoline

- and the MEK test for which Sunstealer's main answer is that the samples is completely different, which I find so far pretty unconvincing.

So while the super thermite may not be proven, Kaoline/other paints are still way further away from the spot to me. Hope to see that list (and just that list, I don't want to run into the BSE pictures because it's sounds like a lot of talk for little conclusion to me) checked by others, especially Sunstealer.

 

[T.A.M.]

Thanks, I remember now. Jones said several times that he requested samples from USGS and was never answered. I doubt there are plenty of other labs with samples with a better chain of custody so basically if Jones doesn't make this up, please USGS provides him those!

BTW T.A.M. if you read the articles the custody of each samples is detailed. Some of the samples have been send to seveal labs, not only Jones. So they're not all "fans". It's look more like people having the idea to keep it (explicitely for furether analysis, in the case of the sample used in the MEK test) and sending it when requested to. Now of course some have been taken with a vacuum, and all in all you can't be seriously sure about the custody. But the fact that there is four samples from different source that all features red chips leave only two credible hypothesis to me : either they're faked by Jones, either they're good.

Now Lenbrazil I must say while this is interesting (I noticed that so far no one mentioned any presence of kaoline in WTC materials ; you've changed that ) it certainly doesn't nail it to me. Most discuss here are detail after detail but if I take a look at the big picture :

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would ignite with material ejection. The article state that several paints they tested have just been "immediately be reduced to fragile ashes" under the flame. I'd like to see someone putting some paint under fire and getting something else.

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints would have a DSC peak a 435°c. And let's not forget that metamars has shown that Kaoline also has an early peak below 100°c (found it by myself too here : books.google.com/books?id=rlcLQmcTADEC&pg=PA1260&lpg=PA1260&dq=DSC+kaolinite&source=bl&ots=yEk8D6MmSg&sig=GqawDvviT0aeKoCXZiX0E1Nh7_c&hl=en&ei=P4PiSZyYFMTVlQfek7HgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1260,M1 ).

- unless proven otherwise, neither kaoline based paints nor other paints will generate during heating iron rich sphere that requires way higher temperature to form.

- there's also a resistance test that I didn't see discussed here that's also said to rule out paint/kaoline

- and the MEK test for which Sunstealer's main answer is that the samples is completely different, which I find so far pretty unconvincing.

So while the super thermite may not be proven, Kaoline/other paints are still way further away from the spot to me. Hope to see that list (and just that list, I don't want to run into the BSE pictures because it's sounds like a lot of talk for little conclusion to me) checked by others, especially Sunstealer.

1. I have read the article.

2. The Chain of Custody is only described in any detail in one case. More importantly, in all the other cases no method of collection or storage is given. These samples were given to Jones by people (for some reason, I guess they heard of him), SIX YEARS after they were collected. Yet there is no mention in most cases of how they were collected, with what tools, and what they were placed in and stored in FOR SIX YEARS.

3. Who sent them to the other labs? The suppliers of the samples or Jones? Who were these labs? Were they truly independent (henry is a fellow truther, as is the other fellow the samples were sent to, that I know of) labs, or not? If you can provide me with an independent lab outside of Jones' two friends, great, I would love to see their analysis.

4. Like I said earlier, show me some samples with NO CONTACT to Jones, that display these red/grey chips, and fine, but until then, ALL ARE SUSPECT.

5. The request for samples was put out at a conference put of by the truthers. What kind of audience do you think responded?

6. The samples, according to the paper were sent to several members of the same research group...Jones' research group.

7. Page 8 and 9 of the Harrit/Jones paper discuss all of this.

I think you should read the paper again, as clearly you believe they sent the samples to other independent labs, and this IS NOT the case.

TAM

 

[Redford]

2. That's basically my point about chain of custody of private samples. You can never be sure that nothing went wrong and I wouldn't trust Harrit et al if they were trying to sell how sure they are those samples were collected and stored in a perfect way.

3. IMO you're using the wrong word. Jones or Henryco can be seen as independant as they don't risk their career (well, not anymore for Jones). And they're not paid by any conspiracy against governement unless proven otherwise. The word I'd prefer you to use is that they're biased. They've gone far enough that way to have something to loose if red chips are just kaoline.

BTW I consider JREFers to be biased as well (debunking seems more or less the moto here). I thought for a while that Dr G. was reasonably balanced but his latest comments and more examination of his website make me doubt that now. (fortunately it's ok to be biased if everyone tries to stay polite, avoid ad hominem, and is fair play.)

Now what could be done as I think you stated above would be to send the anonymous dust to a random lab. But then the first question that comes to my mind isn't "why didn't Jones do it ?" (simple answer : because he couldn't have published anything that way). It is rather : why didn't anyone else ? Why didn't you ? Why didn't NIST ?

4. Then why even read a Jones analysis ? Sounds like an ultimate "whatever Jones says or does I've got a good excuse not to listen" argument to me...

5. The way I see thing everyone should be entitled to investigate this no matter what you think of them unless there is something to hide (or the storage of WTC dust is limitated). Now politically when more than 20% of the citizen are questionning the official version it is simply not reasonable IMHO to even consider not answering them. It's bad politic, bad communication and bad ethic. Especially if you publically admit you did'n't investigate on this matter yourself (as NIST did).

6. Don't know where I got it wrong but you're right. I remember reading about samples send to other labs but it's not in the article. Apologises.

 

[T.A.M.]

2. That's basically my point about chain of custody of private samples. You can never be sure that nothing went wrong and I wouldn't trust Harrit et al if they were trying to sell how sure they are those samples were collected and stored in a perfect way.

agreed.

3. IMO you're using the wrong word. Jones or Henryco can be seen as independant as they don't risk their career (well, not anymore for Jones). And they're not paid by any conspiracy against governement unless proven otherwise. The word I'd prefer you to use is that they're biased. They've gone far enough that way to have something to loose if red chips are just kaoline.

I guess it is semantics, so I will say that the only analysis I would trust is one done by scientists who have no affiliation with either the 9/11 truth movement, or support from the USG (though I would trust the latter over the former).

BTW I consider JREFers to be biased as well (debunking seems more or less the moto here). I thought for a while that Dr G. was reasonably balanced but his latest comments and more examination of his website make me doubt that now. (fortunately it's ok to be biased if everyone tries to stay polite, avoid ad hominem, and is fair play.)

1. I consider most JREFers to be bias AGAINST the truth movement...sure. I am as well. However, I have seen no evidence that the JREFers are working for the govt or stand to gain anything from proving the dust chips are NOT thermite.

2. If anything, Greening has shown to lean more towards questioning the Official account, as opposed to supporting it. I consider him fair on this matter, however, because he has always shown to be about THE SCIENCE first, regardless of what his political agenda may or may not be.

Now what could be done as I think you stated above would be to send the anonymous dust to a random lab. But then the first question that comes to my mind isn't "why didn't Jones do it ?" (simple answer : because he couldn't have published anything that way). It is rather : why didn't anyone else ? Why didn't you ? Why didn't NIST ?

Jones very easily could have done it. He could have performed his own analysis, and then COMPARED his results to those of the independent lab he sent his results to. He even claimed to have done so, but in the end, his "independent" labs, were merely more of his truther friends.

Why didn't I? I am a physician in Canada, the logistics would be too difficult.

Why didn't NIST? where was dust analysis considered part of their mandate, and if it was, show me where they fell short. NIST is not standing around waiting to counter truther theories. They did what was felt needed to explain the process leading up to collapse...EOS.

4. Then why even read a Jones analysis ? Sounds like an ultimate "whatever Jones says or does I've got a good excuse not to listen" argument to me...

I guess it is in hope that he can be revealed for the fraud i feel he is, so that maybe, MAYBE some of his ardent followers will see the snake oil as just that...SNAKE OIL.

5. The way I see thing everyone should be entitled to investigate this no matter what you think of them unless there is something to hide (or the storage of WTC dust is limitated). Now politically when more than 20% of the citizen are questionning the official version it is simply not reasonable IMHO to even consider not answering them. It's bad politic, bad communication and bad ethic. Especially if you publically admit you did'n't investigate on this matter yourself (as NIST did).

Who here has suggested he NOT be ALLOWED to investigate it? No one. We are not debating whether he should be allowed, but rather the validity and trustworthiness of his investigation and results.

20% of the population will question just about anything. 20% I suspect believe in Bigfoot, aliens visits, moon hoax, etc... 20% of the population, on average, are not smart enough to know any better.

6. Don't know where I got it wrong but you're right. I remember reading about samples send to other labs but it's not in the article. Apologises.

no problem. It was probably in a talk Jones gave. The link to it is somewhere on the gigantic web forum...

TAM

 

[metamars]

2) Because the authors was surprised that the paper by Tillotson was not clear on the conditions of the Tillotson DSC trace, it was necessary to contact him directly. Dr. Farrer contacted Tillotson directly ! : the red curve was registered in the air!

Dr. Greening has complained about the overly simplistic comparison with Tillotson here. However, I suspect these complaints won't amount to much.

As you have some of the chips, is there any chance that you could sacrifice a few to "stress test" them, to see if they react violently? By "stress test" them, I mean run the DSC at faster and faster rates of heating until you get a violent reaction. In this case, the DSC will not just have a sharp peak, but a sharp peak that comes to a sharp point, as in Figure 8.5: 40Kpm violent reaction of 80nm-Al+MoO3 in Granier, p. 131 (p. 152, total).

I'll try and post the Granier picture of the violently reacting nanothermite, later. Typically, the increase in heating rate during the Granier nanothermite DSC's were slow enough that the nanothermite reaction did not become appreciatively self-sustaining, or just stopped, completely.

 

[Redford]

We agree on nearly everything and that's good to write. Just about that part:

Jones very easily could have done it. He could have performed his own analysis, and then COMPARED his results to those of the independent lab he sent his results to. He even claimed to have done so, but in the end, his "independent" labs, were merely more of his truther friends.

In theory I would agree but practically analysing this stuff requires some serious work. So you can't just find someone in the field and ask him "please sir be kind and do it". I personnaly emailed several scientists the last two weeks with very short questions on the topic and rarely had any answers. All in all I feel safe to assume than finding one unbiased scientist/lab BUT motivated enough to do what you're asking would be an unreasonable task. So to me it makes sense to get backedup by people that you know and who are volunteer to do it. And let's be honnest : it works like that most of the time anyway ;-)

Ah, and I disagree on NIST mission. Let's look at the "they didn't walk on moon" conspiracy theory. I remember reading very well explained answers from NASA. That certainly sold the case for me. So I am really annoyed to see that US administration quite obviously did all that was needed to make sure the popular questions wouldn't be answered. I believe in democracy, I dont accept "the 20% of ppl thinks Elvis is alive" because I think you can't compare polls about matter without consequences and poll about matter with consequences (and that's why when there's an election you dont have 20% seriously dumb votes either)(although you could argue with that :lol.
All this taken into account, I dont see any sustainable reason not to spend the few dollars needed to show you care and give a proper answer. Any private company would do that in a similar situation BTW.

 

[Redford]

Oh and BTW : henryco is a physicist in south of France (a bit further from NYC than you then ) and still managed to get some dust samples and investigate those. So you see, nothing's impossible!

I understand you may claim that you don't have that kind of motivation but at the end of the day the one's trying harder are at least more fitting the popular image of a truth's seeker ;-)

 

[henryco]

As you have some of the chips, is there any chance that you could sacrifice a few to "stress test" them, to see if they react violently?

Unfortunately there's no available DSC around in the labs of my campus...for the time being...

Fred

 

[Lenbrazil]

Oh and BTW : henryco is a physicist in south of France (a bit further from NYC than you then ) and still managed to get some dust samples and investigate those. So you see, nothing's impossible!

He got it from Jones.

Are you sure Jones asked for access to USGS or other USG samples I don't rember seeing this mentioned before.

 

[Lenbrazil]

Resisitivity of kaolinite

I haven't studied science since I was in high school back in the early 80's so please excuse any mistakes confusion regarding scientific notation

I did some Googling concerning the resistivity of kaolinite. I imagined that it would be close to that of the Jones chip i.e.. "a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m" but this chart seems to indicate it is was equal to or above what he and his colleagues said was the typical value for paint i.e. "over 10^10 ohm-m"

From: http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume 12/12-1-29.pdf


I previously speculated that their result might have been in error and they read the chip as too conductive because of the proximity of the sensors (the chip was only 0.5mm x o.5 mm) or other error. Is it reasonable to assume testing such a small chip is likely to induce error? It seems they measured their chips as being MORE conductive than copper which is the 2nd most conductive element. The resistivity of copper is about 0.0000000168 ohm.m / 16.8 nOm / 1.68 × 10-6 Omega cm
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/BridgetRitter.shtml

Another question, can anyone calculate based on its composition what the resistivity of the primer described by NIST would be? They didn't say what the spectra of the tested chip was

This article, from the same site as the chart above, may be of interest to those with better science backgrounds
http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume 21/21-5-295.pdf

 

[T.A.M.]

We agree on nearly everything and that's good to write. Just about that part:



In theory I would agree but practically analysing this stuff requires some serious work. So you can't just find someone in the field and ask him "please sir be kind and do it". I personnaly emailed several scientists the last two weeks with very short questions on the topic and rarely had any answers. All in all I feel safe to assume than finding one unbiased scientist/lab BUT motivated enough to do what you're asking would be an unreasonable task. So to me it makes sense to get backedup by people that you know and who are volunteer to do it. And let's be honnest : it works like that most of the time anyway ;-)

I agree it would not be easy. I guess it all depends on how much effort he wishes to put into LEGITIMIZING his work versus just getting it out there. I personally think he doesn't want to have a truly independent analysis of his dust, because he is afraid they will not come to his conclusions. He did more than get "people he knows" to back it up. The people he sent it to, were also members of his 9/11 truth site Scholars for 9/11 truth and justice. They clearly have at the very least a bias, at the other extreme, an identical agenda...not going to cut it here, or with most legitimate scientists I am afraid.

Ah, and I disagree on NIST mission. Let's look at the "they didn't walk on moon" conspiracy theory. I remember reading very well explained answers from NASA. That certainly sold the case for me. So I am really annoyed to see that US administration quite obviously did all that was needed to make sure the popular questions wouldn't be answered. I believe in democracy, I dont accept "the 20% of ppl thinks Elvis is alive" because I think you can't compare polls about matter without consequences and poll about matter with consequences (and that's why when there's an election you dont have 20% seriously dumb votes either)(although you could argue with that :lol.
All this taken into account, I dont see any sustainable reason not to spend the few dollars needed to show you care and give a proper answer. Any private company would do that in a similar situation BTW.

Personally, I do not have the desire, as I do not consider his questions or query legitimate enough in the first place, to waste my personal money, that I would much rather spend on my family, to obtain his dust, have it analyzed, etc...If you do, go ahead.

As for NIST, I am merely stating that they had a mandate to investigate the cause and mechanism of the building collapses, and they did that. Anything you feel they SHOULD have done, is your opinion, and is not really relevant to them or their mandate. If you feel strongly about this, then sent them off an email demanding they do more.

Oh and BTW : henryco is a physicist in south of France (a bit further from NYC than you then ) and still managed to get some dust samples and investigate those. So you see, nothing's impossible!

I understand you may claim that you don't have that kind of motivation but at the end of the day the one's trying harder are at least more fitting the popular image of a truth's seeker ;-)

JONES SENT HENRY THE SAMPLES!!!!

I also do not invest money to prove that pictures of bigfoot are faked.

TAM

 

[metamars]

I'll try and post the Granier picture of the violently reacting nanothermite, later.

Here it is (bottom DSC):

Gentle DSC's of 80 nm Al+MoO3, at 5 Kpm - 20 Kpm (top)
DSC of violently reacting 80 nm Al+MoO3, at 50 Kpm (bottom)

(Top is Granier Fig 8.1)

Get the point?

Typically, the increase in heating rate during the Granier nanothermite DSC's were slow enough that the nanothermite reaction did not become appreciatively self-sustaining, or just stopped, completely.

Oops. What I meant to say is that when the heating was stopped, then the nanothermite reaction typically did not become appreciatively self-sustaining, or just stopped, completely.