Nice and useful find, Ivan! You are the greatest finder of things here
I don't see a date when Jones held this lecture, but it was before the upload date 01/21/2011, and after the AE911T petition reached 1,000 signatures, which was in january 2010. By january 2011 they had over 1,400, so I would intuit that this was closer to the earlier date, in the first half of 2010.
The first useful information in the video is that
Professor Jones personally argues that the chips are not paint because their spectra don't resemble that sample from the Clarkson memorial. This implies an answer to
what he asked me recently at 911Blogger:
The answer is:
ProfJones, you logically implied such a claim in a lecture you gave in 2010, recorded in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fucU3yq5KWE
And here is why:
At 1:44 in the video:
"
Perhaps it [the red-gray chips] is just paint, an in particular primer paint, which was applied to the WTC steel, which has a red-orange color, similar to the color that we see here. So, we finally found a sample of the primer paint."
"A" sample of "the" primer paint, both singular, logically implies one paint only.
Jones goes on and describes how someone scratched this sample from the steel at Clarkson University, and presents its chemical signature. He then explains, starting at 2:55, showing the image that Ivan produced above:
"
What we have is the analysis of the paint on the bottom plot, and, for comparison, the ... elemental signature for the red chip material on the top plot."
(Note that this singular "the material" implies only one material which red-gray chips are made of - another false assumption on his part. He continues
"
You can see that they are distinctly different. The paint shows a very strong signal of Zinc. There is no zinc in the red chip material."
(We all know why: Because he compared with only one of the several red chip matrerial
s. Another, represented by the MEK-soaked chip, has a clear Zinc-signal)
"
There are other differences that you can see: The Calcium peak is enormous in the paint, for example."
(Yes, and it is also enormous in Fig. 14, the MEK-soaked chip!)
Jones concludes: (3:31)
"
Now, when we look at the red material, this anomalous - now we can call it anomalous because it doesn't behave like paint, certainly very distinct from the primer paint actually used in the WTC."
ProfJones should now admit that he drew that conclusion based on the assumption that all the primer paint actually used in the WTC had the characteristics of that sample from the Clarkson memorial, such as Zinc and Calcium content.
ProfJones should now concede that he was unaware of the existence of at least one
other primer paint actually used in the WTC that does
not contain Zinc and Calcium, namely the LaClede primer paint on the floor joists. Clearly, the Clarkson memorial is made of steel from the core columns, not the floor joists, so he can't validly conclude that "the" red material is "very distinct from the primer paint actually used in the WTC" - he didn't compare with any other primer paint actually used in the WTC.
Here is a comparison of Jones's red material, from chip b, with a primer paint actually used in the WTC, the LaClede composition (according to the published composition; note that I scaled Fig 7b, bottom, such that its Si-peak has the same hight as the Si-peak in the LaClede simulation, top):
[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/LaClede/Sim_vs_Fig_7b.jpg[/qimg]
These signatures are virtually identical. ProfJones, please acknowledge!
) If I lived in New York, I would definitely visit this monument and measure the dimensions of these steel elements
But I'm/we are still reliant just on such "detective work on distance". Anyway, it's still a kind of a weird fun for me
