Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Sunstealer]

258g/mol from the french wikipedia for kaolinite (sorry still dont have the right to post web adresses here). You see a mistake ?

Thank you. I was looking for the exact same data and couldn't find it. I don't think you have made a mistake. I just wanted more information so that I could see how you have calculated the figure.

I did not calculate 1.5kJ/g: it's given earlier in the article for each one of the four tested chips. See the four DSC curves: the smaller peak curve was reported in the figure with the Tillotson DSC curve, i think...it's the same.

OK - I'll go back and check. Thanks. I'm not familiar with Watt/gram - kJ/g, Kcal/g, Kcal/mol and kJ/mol make more sense to me.

As for the 500°C, sorry: i didnt check that the temperatures in this paper was corresponding to the dehydroxylation temperature i had in mind from the website : Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science indicated by metamars (post 16 in this thread)...
The conditions are certainly not the same but i have no idea what is the main reason for the discrepancy between the two references...
The important infos we need about kaolinite are most of the time in scientific articles which are not in free access!

Thanks, I shall have a look at the link. It is annoying that alot of information is not free. I can get some of it at work due to our membership of some journals but the passwords are connected with the IP address for work machines so I can't use it outside of work.

As for the grey layers in between the red layers, i indeed can see on the photo of fig 31 not only the unusual light-grey but also several dark grey ones, one of them in between the red layers...

Yes. This is one of the reasons that I criticize the paper for. They do not seem to have performed a correct characterisation of the material that they have removed from the dust via a magnet.

My posts previously in this thread discuss that. See

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4613505&postcount=20
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4613728&postcount=23
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4613784&postcount=24
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4614382&postcount=36

What is annoying is they do not do what you did when taking XEDS analysis - that is show on the sample a cross marking the spot. Their SEM skills are poor imho.

I also made a mistake in the table which you helped point out - seems no one else checks any of my work and actually has the paper open when discussing or reading the posts on this thread so they make sure what is said tallies.

I've updated the table to take this into account.

How many people realise that there are atleast 10 samples discussed in the paper? Many of these samples are different in character.

Also you probably know that Harrit recently explained that knowing the composition of the red paint including the tnemec pigment one would expect 25% Zinc chromate and 20% magnesium silicates while we see no magnesium and only traces of Cr and Zn in one redchip!
So again even if there is kaolinite in these red stuffs where does it come from if not from this paint!

I understand the argument with regard to the Zn and Cr and how that will relate the chips to Tnemec red primer.

I want to write a sentence and I want everyone to read it out loud. If people can understand why I have written this sentence then they will understand how it relates to the samples. I shall then comment further.

"There is only one red paint in the world, it is manufactured by Tnemec, who have sole rights to produce this paint and they call this paint 99 red."

I want people to read it again. Out loud.

It's not true is it? There are hundreds and thousands of paints manufactured by many companies all over the world. Why would only one paint be used in all of the buildings that suffered damage or collapsed that day? We could be talking dozens of red paints painted on hundreds of surfaces. We should look at Tnemec red primer, but we shouldn't concentrate on that being the only source for paint.

Samples a,b,c,d, do not have the required elements in their red layers to match Tnemec red primer paint. Infact we would see talc particles and ZnCrO₄ in the paint if it was. That would be the tell tale sign and we would have XEDS data to match.

However, there IS another sample (luke, it's your sister ) that does have an XEDS spectrum with all of those elements in. I bet it's a pretty good match too. So which sample is it. In the above table it is labelled as the MEK sample.

I have corrected Harrit et al's XEDS spectra for that sample because they crucially miss out two element peaks, namely Mg and K. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4614382&postcount=36

and this does not match any of the following by a very long way

Therefore sample in Fig 13, what I call the "MEK chip" (because Harrit et al haven't bothered to label their specimens apart from a,b,c,d -another bad mark against them) is NOT the same as sample a-d.

Red layer MEK chip ≠ a, b, c, d.

We know that the MEK chip was looked at in the SEM. We know the composition of the red layer is vastly different. So why are we not shown a detailed SEM image that shows that this red layer is exactly the same as for chips a,b,c,d? They claim contamination, but provide no proof of contamination. This is not professional. We could easily rule out Tnemec paint as the source because this MEK chip would not contain talc or ZnCrO₄. We are not shown a detailed SEM image of this MEK chip's red layer, instead they claim it to be the same and wave anything else away as contamination. That's unprofessional. Show us the contamination with a SEM image.

I think that the best explanation is that the red layer in the MEK chip is Tnemec red primer paint. I think that the samples a,b,c,d are red paint, but not Tnemec red primer paint. I hope that makes it clear for everyone.

This is the reason why characterisation of the chips is so important. Jones separated 69 red/gray chips and another 15 chips from the dust. He should have produced a proper paper characterising these chips before any further work took place.

Why did they pick certain chips to investigate and not others? Why was the chip in Fig 32 not used in the DSC test? They say it has a grey layer of C and O, not Fe, O and C. What was the reasoning behind choosing what they did?

In the Science forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140426 they hammer the lack of custody with regard to the samples and no wonder. I've shown people that there is a difference between chips yet Jones and his fellows use a simplistic idea to characterise the chips

Red layer = thermite
Gray layer = err dunno, needs more investigation.

And that about sums up the paper. The samples shown are not consistent between the red layers. The samples shown are not consistent in the gray layers. How can they then claim that they are all the same thermite?

We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding.

From their own paper.

This is astounding. How can they claim thermite and then say that?

Sorry for the long reply. I've got others to reply to and I suspect they will be long too.

 

[Sunstealer]

As I said above, I am not looking for samples from NIST to compare. I am asking that Greening collect/obtain/be given samples from other investigations/scientists that examined the dust, ones with known chains of custody (documented etc...) to compare to the Jones' samples.

He would definitely need to do this.

Jones has "chips" that do not match one another yet he claims they are all thermite. Even if Greening obtained chips from Jones then how on earth can he determine what he has been given if he cannot see the range of samples that Jones has. Jones has 69 and another 15 chips (some of them have been used for the Harrit et al paper) but because he hasn't performed a proper examination to characterise these chips then how does he know what he would give Greening and how does Greening know what he will receive?

 

[Sunstealer]

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

I've just posted replying to Henryco whereby I state that is exactly what I think. There is a possibility that the Zn is reading as Na but there is another Zn peak with a greater KeV and we would expect this to show if Zn is present. I think I've discussed this with TAM elsewhere.

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

Yes I know that spectra comes from Ground Zero dust. . It's from here

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading09

and you can get all of their spectra for the materials here http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/ along with some corresponding SEM images.

However, be careful. I'm only suggesting that the platelet particles found in the red layer of samples a,b,c,d are kaolin, remember that there are Fe2O3 particles and an unknown carbon rich matrix in those samples too so it's not a direct comparison with Greening. I hope that Jones and his team would put up on their website any SEM images that didn't make it into the paper.

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

Kaolin is in concrete so it wouldn't surprise me if people found that in the dust just as USGS do. The difference is that I'm saying it's contained within a sample and not the bulk sample itself. I hope that makes sense.

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 think it was an ingredient in paint in samples a,b,c,d. That paint is adhered to an Iron Oxide. The most likely scenario is that this oxide is from steel. When we look at other samples we actually see three layers as I've discussed before. The red layer, the gray oxide layer and then another layer that has all of the visual characteristics of a polycrystalline material namely a metal and the XEDS data from henryco shows that the candidate for this is steel.

However, as discussed above, I have shown that the Jones' chips are not all identical. The red layer differes across chips and the grey layer differs across chips. That would suggest multiple sources of different material. Therefore we can't rule out that the oxide layer is part of something else.

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

Your welcome. Yes they do. In my reply to Henryco I talk about different red paints. And we can discuss different steels with red paint on them in the building. Red paint on steel doesn't have to specifically be Tnemec red primer on A36 structural steel. It's easy to get sucked into just one small area.

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.

Which is why we would expect it to shown in any XEDS spectra. Samples a,b,c,d don't show this. But another sample does; the one subjected to MEK. See above post again.

I'll state it again - I'm of the opinion that samples a,b,c,d show a red paint attached to an iron oxide, but that paint is not Tnemec red primer paint. There is no kaolin in Tnemec red and we don't see any ZnCrO4 or talc in the SEM photos. This doesn't mean it's thermite all I'm saying is that it the data points to red paint adhered to oxidised steel. Hell it could be material from fire trucks for all we know (although I doubt it because paints on vehicles have very distinct multiple layers and this would be obvious but you get my point).

Unfortunately they don't provide us with a detailed SEM image of the "MEK chip", they just say it's contaminated. I'd love to see a few high magnification SEM images of this chip but I doubt we ever will.

Could it be electronic shielding? I don't know because I would need more info with regard iron oxide and it's purpose in that role.

I think we have multiple materials from multiple sources. This is why the characterisation is so important. It separates the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Sunstealer]

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?

It's not hard this science thing is it? Exactly, why didn't they do that. Infact what they should have done is broken that chip in half (as they had done to others) and kept one half as a control. By breaking the chip they could also look at the "uncontaminated" broken surface just as they did with samples a,b,c,d.

And shouldn't they have done pre-MEK-soaking apectra of the others. They don't seem to have done either.

The paper is all over the shop. Just look at the specimen table I've produced, it's a mess. It doesn't look like they have much of a method. They jump around all over the place.

It's one of the reasons why I like to use a specimen table before I do any work with multiple specimens. I then know exactly which experiments are performed on which specimen and how they relate to one another. Makes labelling of specimens easier too. This is basic pre-degree stuff.

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

No. I don't think that is a worthwhile objective either. When we look at the SEM images what percentage of the material is of the platelet form? There is far more Fe2O3 particles and carbon rich matrix so any data on kaolin isn't going to give you any idea when compared to the samples. The resistance test imho is bizarre. I've got no idea why they did that.

 

[Lenbrazil]

I looked up Kim Todd, the woman who said her WTC dust tested positive for kaolin. She still lives in lower Manhattan but her number is NOT listed so I sent her a telegram and will send her a postcard One of the delivery options I offered her was to drop it with or have it be picked up by a friend. I used to live in the city and have real world friends there but would rather not bother them with this nonsense. If she goes for it are there any volunteers?

I'm asking because if she is willing to send me a copy and that's the way she wants to do it i'd like to have someone lined up. PM me if interested. My box is full now but I'll free up space in a few minutes.

Len

 

[Sunstealer]

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

Well it's possible that it's a different paint that contains kaolinite and zinc that isn't NIST primer!

This is one of the reasons why qualitative analysis such as EDS is not always the best method to use for this type of work where we have no idea of the source of the sample and what's it's comprised of.

I don't think samples a,b,c,d are Tnemec (NIST) primer because the data doesn't suggest it is even if the Zn peak is mis-labelled as Na. Most anti- corrosion paints will contain Zn because it's there to do the same job as it does in galvanising of steel.

Really what is needed is a much better technique for the characterisation of the material. In the past I have suggested XRD. I've seen companies that will do the work quite cheaply and even at $100/hr it's not extortionate. The only problem with XRD is that you do need a big enough sample. However, Jones has over 70 samples and has broken some in half for analysis. The way to do it would be to contact a lab and discuss sizes.

There are also other techniques available such as SIMS, Auger microprobe, XPS so there are plenty to choose from. Much better than trying to figure out whether a Zn peak is Na or vice a versa.

 

[Sunstealer]

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")

No I don't think it's contaminated. Or certainly not to the extent that Harrit et al consider it. They broke chips in half and examined the clean face yet still found Na and K in Fig 11 and they also found Na, S, K and Ca in Fig 7c. So I don't see how these can be contaminants. We find similar elements in the "MEK chip's" red layer prior to soaking

corrected Fig 14

They also say underneath that figure

Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers.

but OTOH amongst all the samples that is the most likely to actually be paint.

Yes, it is! Specifically Tnemec red primer paint.

I've discussed it before but it won't hurt again. We see Zn and Cr which would tally with Zinc Chromate - ZnCrO₄ and we see Mg (now I've corrected the spectra) and Si and O which would tally with Talc - Mg₃Si₄O₁₀(OH)₂

That chip should have been broken in half and one used as a control the other soaked in MEK (if that floats your boat). High magnification SEM images would show talc or Zinc chromate particles. They did XEDS on it so they must have SEM photos too, just must.

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.

The whole MEK test just doesn't look too much of a useful test to me. They should have done it on one of the samples a,b,c,d.

The weird thing is they tested another chip with MEK! I didn't realise this until the other day when re-reading the paper due to Henryco and his post.

It's hidden under Fig 32.

Fig. (32). Close-up SEM image of the chip pictured on the right, the same chip but not precisely the same spot. This chip had been treated in MEK solvent so that the red layer has expanded and porosity is evident.

The soaking of this chip with MEK isn't mentioned anywhere else in the paper. There is an oddity with this chip because it has 3 layers and the gray layer doesn't contain Fe - Fig 33. This is an anomaly with all the other chips so why was this not investigated further before soaking or did they think they could dissolve the gray layer and remove the red one?

it's all so higgledy-piggledy. There is no method with regard to these tests.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

I have noted this before and I have previously said I do not think these are fakes or hoaxes.

The fact that four very similar looking chips with similar material characteristics have been found in more than one place highly suggests that they are linked with 11/9/2001. However, that does not mean that they are specifically from steel columns from WTC 1, 2 or 7. They could equally be from other parts of the buildings or indeed components within the buildings, painted metal furniture etc, etc.

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.

There was a 40+ page thread that did tried to discuss it and we've also discussed it with regard to the make up of concrete and wall board when talking about iron-rich microspheres being found in dust.

I hate that term iron-rich simply because they are not and it gives a false impression. People see that and they automatically start thinking about the melting point of Iron at 1534°C then they throw that (ignorantly) into the mix when talking about the production of such spheres. O, Si and Mg are going to reduce that temperature by hundreds of degrees.

Most discuss here are detail after detail but if I take a look at the big picture :

I agree we should look at the big picture. However, one must look at the data to generate that bigger picture and that requires looking at some details.

Some would say that what we are doing is "gilding the lily" because there is no way that a 15-100µm layer of thermite, whether it be nano, super or regular (do you want fries with that?) can ever heat a steel column sufficiently to cause a degradation of the steel's strength, let alone melting it.

- 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.

Yes, but what sort of paint? This is the problem. We have no idea what paint to compare it to other than Tnemec red primer and we don't think it's that because of the lack of Zn, Cr, etc in samples a,b,c,d. We have absolutely no idea what they were burning in their ignition tests and neither do they! They don't say. I may sound overly critical but we already know that they don't see the difference between the red layer XEDS spectra in samples a,b,c,d and the "MEK chip". Their criteria is; if it's a red layer it's all the same. It's not. Again it's why I harp on about characterising the samples properly so as to not be burning rust with several layers of different paint or other material that had been scraped of the back of a chair by some random person who was renovating in it in their house.

I've just looked at that video for the first time and it's awful! Aaaaarggghhh. I want to scream. Why are they not using a proper laboratory set up when taking that video?

It's easy - you get one of these. Look at where the red arrow points to. That is a mount for a camera.

We've been using video cameras on such mounts to capture pictures for, well more than since I can remember and that was early 90's. Every lab has them, often we switch cameras with scopes. Why didn't they produce a proper resolution video with one of those? Amateurs!

Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

So even more unknown paint samples were tested! Christ my specimen table is going to end up enormous if this continues. Why are they not telling us exactly what type of paint was used? Why don't they even do some brief SEM work on their paint samples to see what's in them and compare them to samples separated from the WTC dust?

They are comparing chalk and chee. Well we don't even know if it's cheese do we?

The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately 1mm x1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive end product of the reaction was unsuccessful.

If you had a camera and it was pointed at me when I read that you'd get a really good face palm. One of those ones where you actually rub your face up and down in your hands.

High-speed ejection - Intense light - High temperature - hot particle. Bollocks more like. How can people write such stuff? It's pure speculation and looks like it's there to add drama. Infact it's the sort of thing I'd expect from someone describing particle collisions not ignition of a material. This is the sort of thing the truth movement lap up because they don't realise how false it all is. We see a spark in a very blurry video that moves.

These people should be embarrassed with that video. I've got no problem with an online paper referring to other online media. But come on that video is pathetic.

- 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 ).

If you've read some of the posts by Henryco and my correspondance then you'll realise that kaolinite undergoes a dehydroxylation over a range of temperatures. henryco links to a paper whereby this starts to occur as low as 369°C. In the paper you and metamars link to this occurs at 522°C.

The problem is metamars has not read or properly understood the above. What they are talking about is the intercalation of kaolinite using a specific solution, namely; dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO). They are comparing calorimeter data between raw Kaolinite and intercalated DMSO kaolinite or K-DMSO as they call it.

my written copy from the above link -

for raw kaolinite, the 4.5% mass loss observed at temperatures below 250°C is attributed to the loss of adsorbed/absorbed water molecules. After that, the dehydroxylation of kaolinite into meta kaolinite has been observed as an endothermic peak centered at 522°C

The K-DMSO phase (Fig. 4B) shows two endothermic peaks centered at 175°C, which can be attributed to DMSO elimination,

So the first peak and infact any data below 250°C is concerned with raw kaolinite and the loss of water molecules. Why would a processed kaolinite for use in materials such as paint retain adsorbed/absorbed water molecules? Kaolin may undergo a number of processes (e.g: calcification) before it's inclusion in a wide range of materials. Heat is usually applied. So if the water is removed why would we then expect to see a corresponding peak @ 100°C for a calorimeter trace in a material that contains a processed kaolinite which has no adsorbed/absorbed water molecules? This satisfactorily explains the lack of a peak and shows that one should be extremely wary when unqualified people propose data in links that they neither read nor understand.

The second at 175°C is attributed to DMSO elimination. The last is dehydroxylation of Kaolinite. Henryco has discussed this and I'm looking at it after I write all of the replies to posts in the thread - but please give me some time. Dehydroxylation of Kaolinite transforms it to meta-kaolinite and therefore, if that process has occurred prior to this material being used as a paint filler, then any calorimeter data will not show this dehydroxylation peak.

Am I now proposing meta-kaolinite? No. I think we need more data and that data should come from the samples being examined via different quantitative techniques such as SIMS, XPS, Auger microprobe and my favourite XRD, if possible.

It's fine linking to other sources of information, but making sure they are relevant requires one to actually read the material and understand it. That comment isn't directed at you per se, but everyone.

Kaolin is a natural material and therefore has natural variation. This "red layer" material is not "kaolin based". It contains specifically hexagonal-shaped platelets 9some call this pseudo-hexagonal) that when taken together with the other data indicate that kaolinite is present. There is also an unknown carbon matrix material which just seems to get lost in the headlong rush towards DSC testing and Fe2O3 crystals (which is correct). A mysterious inert "gray layer" is also present which doesn't seem to be part of the reaction, or does it? What is it? The paper also says that this gray layer is also only C and O ( no Fe etc present) - see Fig 33 and 32. The paper ignores contradictions and the unknown and concentrates on thermite.

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

Well we don't know. Kaolinite is added to many many different paints as an extender. I don't think paints are based on kaolin. With respect to the temperature of forming microspheres (I think I shall call them that because tehy certainly are not iron-rich over say Oxygen rich) all I shall say is that we see other elements present in the spheres and this will drastically reduce the temperature required for formation. We also know that when we are dealing with particles of such small sizes and increased surface areas that bulk material properties such as the melting point of Iron cannot be applied. We have to be very careful when looking at reactions and temperatures on such a small scale.

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

Imho the resistance test is useless. When we look at the paper we can see that their own samples must vary massively with resistance due to the difference in the make up of the "gray layer". Fig 33.

compare that with Fig 6.

Why on earth would those two materials have the same resistance? Why do we not see data in the paper that shows similarity between these two materials?

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

Do you not see the difference between these?

Apologies for the lack of Y-axis scale in Fig 14 - Harrit et al decide that this is not important in many of their spectra.

 

[Sunstealer]

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

Fred

Sacrebleu! Ne pas le brûler, Henry!

Don't waste it in a Calorimeter test!

(In the UK we have a superb TV series called the "League of Gentlemen", which is a very dark sort of comedy and one of the characters (Babs) is a part of a duo who want to remain isolated with their shop and all outsiders are not welcome. One of Babs' all time best lines after burning an outsider was, "we didn't burn him!" when asked about someone who had gone missing - I think the whole series would translate across into French quite well. We also have the wonderful comedy series "Only Fools and Horses" whereby the lead character thinks that saying to his side-kick, Rodney, "bonnet de douche, Rodders" is somehow sophisticated). Anyway I digress.

I would suggest that if you have a sample that you submit it for independent analysis using XPS, SIMS, Auger microprobe, XRD. That costs €'s.

Perhaps you can get someone else to take good care of your sample and do an analysis?

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

The absolute last thing anyone with chips obtained from Jones should do is sacrifice them needlessly in a Calorimeter test. The reason I say that is because it is not going to show any conclusive data! Please. This an area whereby people with a grounded understanding, who know what is possible and understand that a burnt sample is of absolutely no use to anyone.

Metamars - state your qualifications and experience - state why in your honest opinion, which is based upon your experience, such a sample, which is nye on impossible to get a hold of, should be subjected to a destructive test when we know so little.

If the mods wish to split this because it's not on topic then I'm more than happy. The suggestion that a piece of material should be sacrificed upon a whim shows massive naivety and lack of experience. Such people should not be listened to.

It is far wiser to hold onto the sample, keep it as uncontaminated as possible, i.e. plastic zip bag out of the light, and look to have a proper examination that includes quantitative analysis (that doesn't require the sample to be destroyed). Perhaps other people might be interested in the sample and want to spend more money and time upon an investigation. Burning it in an experiment that will not prove anything, on the advice of, well umm, on the advice of an unqualified person isn't the best option.

 

[Sunstealer]

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

Greening is slaughtering them over the DSC traces and how Jones doesn't comprehend his own findings. I would never expect one person, in an unrelated field, to understand data from another field "off the cuff", but I do expect someone who has made a claim and supposedly had those claims tested, to atleast be able to understand the experiments that he himself has allowed to be conducted upon samples that he has produced and the data that he subsequently backs!

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

Bollocks. You get the sample from Mr X, you know all of the tests that Mr X wants performed as per the agreement, because Mr X is paying cash and you do your thing. If Mr X has asked the firm to do "x" amount for a certain budget then you look at the sample and do some preliminary investigation to see what sorts of techniques are required and how much that is going to cost. That goes back to Mr X and he makes the decision. The tech wallah knows next to nothing. (I consider myself an ex-tech wallah, so balls to all you who think it's racist or demeaning etc).

The serious work is in characterising all of the samples to see whether you've got paint scrapings from Mrs Miggin's favourite chair or the graffiti from some "artist" on a steel bridge or the possible nano-noona-super-duper thermites. Funnily enough that is what the tech wallah will do - the undergrad doing his final year dissertation would not be a bad example if you could convince the Universities dept to do something that doesn't actually support that department's research. Ytou certainly won't get a PhD out of it. Claiming that all red layers = thermite is not bright and that is what Harrit et al do.

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.

Who did you email and why? What were your questions? Why in the hell do you expect to email them and get any response? Do you expect them to just do it? It's not a Nike commercial FFS. They will just think you are batpoo crazy and ignore you if it's not relevant. The dept secretary will likely just bin the crazy. It's not too hard to spot the non-scientific. The likelihood is that you are not asking the right questions or the right people anyway.

I actually have some sympathy, because you are trying to find out on your own. That is damn well commendable and don't think I'm being patronising because I'm not. It's far more than a lot of people ever do. The thing is a PhD actually means not a lot in the great scheme of things, but it does matter in the field that someone earned that PhD in. Those fields are often broad, but the PhD very narrow, but that's what it's about. So just because someone is at a faculty with letters after their name doesn't mean to say they are in a specific area and have the time or interest to respond with 20 lines of text.

If I were looking to get answers from people then I would look to collate the relevant data from the paper I was interested in, into a concise form, no longer than two A4 pages and email that to people who looked to have a relevant qualification and teaching or research status. E-mailing it to Prof So and So whose dept might be a materials dept, but he specialises in solid state physics is going to get your request filed in the cylindrical cabinet.

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.

I'm sorry, but there are independent labs by the hundreds in the USA alone, let alone the rest of the world. Are you suggesting that they should work for free? I've shown that characterisation can be had for a few Dollars so why are you talking about motivated work and biases? If you just send the sample off the receiving lab is not going to do a whole test upon the person who has given them the sample.

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 ;-)

These are the words of someone who has never had experience in the sciences. This is exactly what you do not do. This sort of thing is not tolerated. How you can "wink" and say this exposes your ignorance. Independence is everything. Not a matey Cabal that corroborates your own findings. Pah!

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.

Mods? What were you doing when this drivel passed you bye? Wakey, wakey!

 

[metamars]

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

Fred

How about hitting one with a hammer, and see if it ignites?

Of course, if it's super duper thermite, it may weld your hammer to what you rest the sample on.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jesus, Sunstealer, you are waaaaay ahead of where I was when I skimmed that paper. I didn't even realize there were more than 4 samples.

Since the microspheres are heterogenous (iron, oxygen, and a few other elements), are you saying that they could indeed have been formed during the burning of the samples? My working thesis was that they were already present in the material, just not obvious in the images Harrit, Jones, and the rest provided, and were merely liberated when the samples combusted. But what you're saying is that they could indeed have been formed during the calorimeter test, just not from a "thermite" reaction. Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[Sunstealer]

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 ;-)

I'm more than prepared to take custody of any number of samples. I can have experienced people subject them to full SEM and quantitative analysis we have talked about in their own time using the various apparatus at work - that will require some pizzas and beer, the odd hedge trimming for free, the promise to polish all their Ti 6/4 samples to perfection for the next 6 months, etc, etc.. These people are not the same people that I have shown the XEDS data and some photos to as I have said in other posts. Sounds good doesn't it?

The thing is I know that these people would do a first class job, they always do - they are a match for your money anywhere else in the world. No messing. They do it day in day out. What's more, they would be able to give a professional report showing their conclusions and their further recommendations. It would take them approximately 20 hrs total for one or two samples given that a couple of machines were free.

The problem is

that's not independent!

It's of no use. I know that if I provided a sample to the other lads and just said, "look I know it's a bit spurious, but I need to have your opinion on this. What is it?" The old buggers would have a bit of a moan and grumble and then one of them would say, "well it doesn't hurt, it'll only take 5 minutes" and then they will be all over it like flies on ****, because that's their nature. And it's mine too.

They want to know. I want to know.

It would take them a maximum of a week to work it out (hell I've seen em do it inside 20 mins even with the bickering) and I'm sure that the amount of time is proportional to the amount of hedge cutting and lawn mowing I was prepared to do. This ratio of penance for favours wouldn't change too much with another bunch of pirates I used to work with, and the quality of work was as high - I should know I was one of them. My metallography rates are going up the tight <rule 10>.

But that isn't good enough. I may have the best intentions and they certainly do, but that isn't independent.

The samples must go to an independent laboratory that has absolutely no idea where these samples are coming from. No idea that 9/11 is involved.

 

[Sunstealer]

Here it is (bottom DSC):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/161764a01dbdbd8bac.png[/qimg]

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? .

No.

 

[Redford]

Thanks for the extensive replies, Sunstealer. Some notes:

Yes, but what sort of paint? This is the problem. We have no idea what paint to compare it to other than Tnemec red primer and we don't think it's that because of the lack of Zn, Cr, etc in samples a,b,c,d.

... which also invalidate to me all the critics about "specify the paint!". There's thousands of paints. It's reasonable to test Tnemec, because it's supposed to be there. It's also reasonable to test a random variety of paints, which they did. Now would the exact list of those paints be relevant enough to feed an article that is already 25 pages long ? I don't think so, because that list in itself would still let untested nearly all other paints. It is just here to say : "if I pick a few paints randomly, it supports what I am saying, not proving it but making it sufficiently likely for us to continue"

I think I am asking something simple. Paper's says no painter would react this way to the flame, and as it can't be experimentaly proven, (although common sense considering safety for fire building could do the trick IMO), they just do the show with a few paints to support their affirmtion.

OTOH all of your hypothesis imply at a point that you can get this reaction to the flame with Tnemec or some other paint. And I don't see how you can skip proving that. Especially since you seems to know how to get us even better pictures ;-)

High-speed ejection - Intense light - High temperature - hot particle. Bollocks more like.

That's your interpretation. Last time I've checked, use of word to describe a reaction is a part of scientific writing. You can't put number on it, but number doesn't say it all either. Now if I look at the (yes, awful) video they took, I can see all of that frame by frame. It's not huge on the screen, but it's still quite noticeable considering the size of the sample. I know for sure I wouldn't get that with any materials.

Well we don't know. Kaolinite is added to many many different paints as an extender. I don't think paints are based on kaolin.

Here's a serious source of confusion to me. We're looking at small pieces of materials called "red chips". You think, by the datas, they're kaolin. When they produce, at low (430°c in the DSC) temperature a reaction generating iron rich sphere (sorry no better word), you're now saying "that must be due to other component" of the supposed paint supposedly featuring the kaoline you suppose to be here (no pun intended, although it may sounds so, I admit ). And that paint has to be in the red chip for this to work.

So what I don't get is that the rest of the chip is also supposed to be known. Why can't you formulate, knowing all that you already know, at least a credible hypothesis, compatible with paint, for the reaction ? I feel there's a need for this because without it, it seems like a very long way to assume "well, maybe it could happen, one way or another. Hot paint melting iron."

Also while it's true that melting point of iron get lower with smaller particles, here we are speaking about more than one thousand degrees. So it seems they're is a huge margin to me before you can explain what's been observed.

Imho the resistance test is useless. When we look at the paper we can see that their own samples must vary massively with resistance due to the difference in the make up of the "gray layer". Fig 33.

Ok, there I must ask you for vulgarization I am no scientist and I can't jump from a ohm-m measure to XEDS curve and get reasoning on this. Can you explain a bit furter ?

Do you not see the difference between these?

Of course I do, but if it's completely different material as I understand you state, it's a hell of a coincidence that everything in a,b,c and d also is in fig(14). That's why although I see your point as interesting, to me it doesn't prove wrong Harrit et al interpretation that sample from fig 14 is same to the other + contamination.

The whole MEK test just doesn't look too much of a useful test to me. They should have done it on one of the samples a,b,c,d.

BTW unless I missed something you didn't reply to my point : if MEK sample is Tnemec (or paint), it wouldn't have behaved the way it did with MEK, would it ?

it's all so higgledy-piggledy. There is no method with regard to these tests.

I won't detail but for the sake of ASII economy I must let you know I am completely closed to that sort of argument. Nothing personal, I hate it in truther's mouth too ;-)

 

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for the extensive replies, Sunstealer. Some notes:



... which also invalidate to me all the critics about "specify the paint!". There's thousands of paints. It's reasonable to test Tnemec, because it's supposed to be there. It's also reasonable to test a random variety of paints, which they did. Now would the exact list of those paints be relevant enough to feed an article that is already 25 pages long ? I don't think so, because that list in itself would still let untested nearly all other paints. It is just here to say : "if I pick a few paints randomly, it supports what I am saying, not proving it but making it sufficiently likely for us to continue"

I think I am asking something simple. Paper's says no painter would react this way to the flame, and as it can't be experimentaly proven, (although common sense considering safety for fire building could do the trick IMO), they just do the show with a few paints to support their affirmtion.

A few paints? A random variety of paints? Did I miss this part of the paper? Ok, so if that is the case, then it should be as simple as an email to someone, to send a list of the paints (I am almost sure I read they tested ONE paint) they tested to examine the components of said paint(s).

A line or two to list the names of the paint(s) (exact) they allegedly tested WOULD NOT be much to add to a paper, whether it be 2 or 22 pages long. To say otherwise is a HORRIBLY FLIMSY cop out...sorry.

OTOH all of your hypothesis imply at a point that you can get this reaction to the flame with Tnemec or some other paint. And I don't see how you can skip proving that. Especially since you seems to know how to get us even better pictures ;-)

That's your interpretation. Last time I've checked, use of word to describe a reaction is a part of scientific writing. You can't put number on it, but number doesn't say it all either. Now if I look at the (yes, awful) video they took, I can see all of that frame by frame. It's not huge on the screen, but it's still quite noticeable considering the size of the sample. I know for sure I wouldn't get that with any materials.

You just said earlier that "papers" (I am not sure where you got this info, what papers said it?) stated that no paint could produce that reaction. What a crock. If they cannot provide references to these "papers" then it is simply their opinion, which is not worth a whole lot.

Here it is in a nutshell. The vast majority of the world, in particular the science community, DO NOT believe thermite was used, they believe the collapses were the result of the impacts, the fires, and the removal of fireproofing. Therefore, Jones et al are the ones with the BURDEN OF PROOF to show otherwise.

So, given we know that paint was a common element in the buildings, and given that paint could present with Spectra similar to what Jones et al have produced, IT IS UP TO THEM, to prove that the chips are NOT PAINT. Therefore, it is up to them to prove that PAINT CHIPS with CORROSION attached COULD NOT cause such a thermic reaction.

TAM

 

[metamars]

The absolute last thing anyone with chips obtained from Jones should do is sacrifice them needlessly in a Calorimeter test. The reason I say that is because it is not going to show any conclusive data! Please. This an area whereby people with a grounded understanding, who know what is possible and understand that a burnt sample is of absolutely no use to anyone.

Metamars - state your qualifications and experience - state why in your honest opinion, which is based upon your experience, such a sample, which is nye on impossible to get a hold of, should be subjected to a destructive test when we know so little.

If the mods wish to split this because it's not on topic then I'm more than happy. The suggestion that a piece of material should be sacrificed upon a whim shows massive naivety and lack of experience. Such people should not be listened to.

Trust me when I tell you, if it's indeed the case that more calorimeter tests would be a waste of chips, then that's the last thing that I would want.

I make no pretense of being qualified to know what is the best way to analyze the chips, though I understand that one of the constraints is money and access. So, I think it's fair to say that the tests I've proposed are cheap, even if useless! I have an undergraduate degree in physics and math, but am "over the hill" in physics. Alas, had the economy not fallen apart, I might well have been in graduate school by now, but such is not the case.

I emailed experts in nanothermite, yesterday, with a copy of the thermitic paper, and I pointed them to the appropriate thread at the911forum.freeforums.org.* I got an encouraging response, in which I was told by one individual that they had not been aware of the paper, previously, and I can expect to hear back, shortly, after they've read it. IMO, many qualified people should be looking at the chips. No offense to Henry, but even being a gravitational physics genius is not an ideal background, either.


* JREF is too rude a place to invite serious scientists to actually participate - at least those that I don't know personally, and am confident have a thick skin. Also, how many scientists want to waste their time with strident individuals who don't know what their talking about? (Not talking about you, here.) I've been cc'd on emails between the Harrit team and Greening, which are not always pleasant, but at least they're substantive. Too bad I only have permission to quote Professor Jones.

 

[metamars]

No.

Dr. Greening has voiced some skepticism about simplistic interpretations of DSC spikes, ito reaction rates. I have argued that the spikes point to a lower bound of reaction rates. By running the DSC are faster heating rates, you can narrow the spike (if it's really thermite), perhaps to the point where the only known materials with the same chemical species, which give such spikes, are known nano-thermites.

One way that an expert in nanothermite could help is by advising at what temperature rate to run a DSC on a red/gray chip so that a sharp and very narrow peak, such as Granier observed in Figure 8.5 (above) (though not quite that sharp - his "violent reaction" lead to the crucible and lid being thrown from the sample carrier) should be observed.

If you can observe this by only sacrificing one chip, and if the nanothermite experts agree that this would be a significant test, to begin with, then smiles all around. Of course, if your friendly, neighborhood nanothermite experts tell you that this is not a useful test, then there's one waste of time and material that could be avoided.

What's your guess, Sunstealer, as to what a survey of nanothermite experts would reveal, regarding the desirability of more DSC tests? One thing's for sure - they seem to be done, all the time, in studying known nanothermites.