Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Oystein]

Ok, I'm not getting the steel beam thing.

What does it matter which of the buildings the beams came from ?

Is it a case of implying that Wtc7 had thermite and 1&2 didn't ?
...

Jones analysed a paint sample from this monument, compared its elemental composition with that of some of their red-gray chips, and decided that "the" red-gray chip material (as if there was only one - there were in fact several) was not the same as "the" WTC primer paint (as if there was only one - there were in fact several).

So the interesting question is: What paint product did they scratch from the memorial? We might be able to find out if we knew where the steel member came from that they scratched some paint off of.
We know, from NIST documentation, that WTC1/2 perimeter columns were Tnemec 99 (Tnemec is a paint manufacturing company, and 99 one of their many primer formulations, or products)
We know that the WTC1/2 floor trusses were primed by Laclede Steel Company's usual shop primer at the time, The formulations of these two paints are known to some degree of exactness.
We don't know, but NIST assumes, that the WTC1/2 core columns were also primed with a Tnemec primer, arguing that this family of primer paints was very common at the time (late 60s/early 70s)
We don't know at all what primer or primers were used on WTC7, which was built a decade later.

Jones's red-gray chips came from 4 independently collected dust samples, one of which was collected before WTC7 collapsed. In each of the four samples, they found and demonstrated at least one red-gray chip such that all four had so nearly the same elemental composition as to warrant a conclusion that they are also the same paint formulation. So these chips quite likely all originated from WTC1/2, but not WTC7. If Jones compared a paint sample from WTC7 with these four chips, it would have been a fool's errand to start with. So if we find out that all the steel from that monument, or the piece from which they scratched the paint, was from WTC7, Jones is a fool.

So remo, by trying to convince us that we are looking at WTC7 steel, actually makes an argument that would, if true, invalidate Jones. (Of course, remo is here to derail the thread and divert attention away from the mass of evidence that disproves Jones in many other ways, or else remo would be addressing the on-topic arguments in this thread that have been offered as replies to his earlier posts.)

 

[Spanx]

Thanks Oystein, this clears things up for me.

In the first minute of this clip Jones talks of video footage of the sample collectors.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fucU3yq5KWE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Can anyone link to these videos ?

 

[carlitos]

Spanx: I read in the old article on 911Myths that Jones obtained not only primer paint samples from Clarkson 911 memorial, but also samples which should prove "molten metals" A quote:

"A monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is the source of previously-molten metal samples...

The samples were sent directly to Prof. Jones at BYU, and inspected by him and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer together, and analyzed by the BYU group."


So the same memorial was a source of some molten metal for Jones (personally I do not see any), as well as of (unburned) red primer paint, but not of nanothermite, which should create this molten metal by extreme temperature (?!). I stay confused

Anyway, also web 911Myths is/was not sure, as for the exact source of steel in Clarkson memorial. Perhaps (a quote) "N.Y. Clarkson alumnus Michael Bielawa, who supervised cleanup efforts at ground zero and donated three pieces of structural steel to the school" would know more...

"Previously molten" being when the beams were constructed in the 1960s? These guys are insane. To look at that memorial and call the metal "previously molten" ... It's just nuts. Molten metal isn't shaped like an I beam anymore. It's a puddle.

 

[Oystein]

"Previously molten" being when the beams were constructed in the 1960s? These guys are insane. To look at that memorial and call the metal "previously molten" ... It's just nuts. Molten metal isn't shaped like an I beam anymore. It's a puddle.

I don't think he means to imply that the entire beams were previously molten.

I vaguely remember from another video that either Jones or Farrer described in a little more detail how steel (big and small pieces) from the WTC steel arrived at Clarkson U. and that someone found some slag attached to some piece or pieces, and that is what they looked at in the very early days, 2005 or 2006, perhaps even before the micro-sphere tales started.

 

[chrismohr]

Ivan/Oystein,

I asked Millette what we can do to re-start the study, and asked him what he knows about LaClede.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan/Oystein,

I asked Millette what we can do to re-start the study, and asked him what he knows about LaClede.

Hi, Chris, thanks)

I apologize for the rather "upset" post above, without you (and Jim Millette) we would be basically "armless" as for the origin of the red-gray chips

I'm not sure if the study should be "restarted", but at least, the "progress report" (preliminary?) should be somehow finished. Even such a final version (not really published in some scientific journal) would be great, I think. Remember that this is one of the remaining weapons of nanothermite truthers: "Report is preliminary, therefore means nothing". But this is just my current opinion, which may be wrong

(I remember that the "case of the WTC chips" was listed somewhere in the MVA Scientific Consultants web as one of the good/exemplary "case studies", so from this point of view, the company should be satisfied with it, as well as Jim Millette himself. I think)

 

[Ivan Kminek]

For the nerds like me: Since I'm now even able to past images here (after many months of attempts), once again a picture of "Clarkson 911 Memorial at Night":

Here, the American soldiers (?) represent some scale and they seem to be slightly behind the "flowline" of vertical columns.
Using my ruler: If such an average soldier measures 70 in (I hate these obsolete American units, but I can use them for now), the right vertical column should have width (brighter part) ca 16-18 in or less (since it is closer to the photographer than soldiers, I would say, but there is also some opposite distorsion given by the orientation of the "flowline" of columns; I consider basically square crossection of the right column, similarly to the left columns.).

- WTC1/2 perimeter columns had a crossection ca 14x14 in.

- WTC1/2 core columns at ca half of Towers should have crossection ca 36 x 12 in (or more for the "outermost rows of columns"), according to this secondary source.

- WTC7 interior column 79 (and similar) should have (at lower floors) a square crossection ca 26x26 in (according to this secondary source, and judging only from the dimensions of used cover plates).

From this set of "data" (my very rough estimate of the width of the "Clarkson" column can hardly be denoted as "data"), I would say that this column corresponds more to WTC1/2 perimeter column than to anything else.

But I can be very easily wrong in this regard

 

[chrismohr]

Jim Millette is buried in work this month but plans to return to the WTC dust study in November! No word on a final goal date for publication, but it is still on his to-do list.

 

[Oystein]

Good news, @ Chris! Thanks for the info.

@ Ivan: You nerd you!
I think they don't look like perimeter columns, but looks can be deceiving. Don't have time to look into details before next week

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Jim Millette is buried in work this month but plans to return to the WTC dust study in November! No word on a final goal date for publication, but it is still on his to-do list.

Thanks, Chris And "remember Laclede"

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks, Chris And "remember Laclede"

Oh, I remembered all right. Here is from my latest email to Jim Millette, which he answered by saying he'll get back to the research in November:

Here are two items about LaClede paint, which seems to be the consensus of what the red-gray chips are:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8675715&postcount=1214

Ivan on JREF also asks, "Can you inform us what Jim Millette actually knows about Laclede primer and its existence "discovered" here in JREF?
Once again: Jim Millette considered only one old WTC primer (Tnemec brand) as a material of red layers in his preliminary report, because he found its specification in NIST reports. But the specification of "Laclede primer" is presented in NIST reports as well and in a great detail! And many of XEDS spectra measured by Jim Millette (those which were taken on freshly cut chips) correspond to Laclede primer quite well, I think. Therefore, Jim Millette should really consider Laclede primer paint at least as a possible material of some of his chips, which is quite crucial in this falsification of Bentham paper."

 

[A W Smith]

For the nerds like me: Since I'm now even able to past images here (after many months of attempts), once again a picture of "Clarkson 911 Memorial at Night":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=929&pictureid=6749

Here, the American soldiers (?) represent some scale and they seem to be slightly behind the "flowline" of vertical columns.
Using my ruler: If such an average soldier measures 70 in (I hate these obsolete American units, but I can use them for now), the right vertical column should have width (brighter part) ca 16-18 in or less (since it is closer to the photographer than soldiers, I would say, but there is also some opposite distorsion given by the orientation of the "flowline" of columns; I consider basically square crossection of the right column, similarly to the left columns.).

- WTC1/2 perimeter columns had a crossection ca 14x14 in.

- WTC1/2 core columns at ca half of Towers should have crossection ca 36 x 12 in (or more for the "outermost rows of columns"), according to this secondary source.

- WTC7 interior column 79 (and similar) should have (at lower floors) a square crossection ca 26x26 in (according to this secondary source, and judging only from the dimensions of used cover plates).

From this set of "data" (my very rough estimate of the width of the "Clarkson" column can hardly be denoted as "data"), I would say that this column corresponds more to WTC1/2 perimeter column than to anything else.

But I can be very easily wrong in this regard

Ivan, In the daylight photo you posted of the memorial, They all appear to be perimeter columns to me. The one on the right with the wide spandrel plate fragment would be from a location at the mechanical floors. The one on the left with what appears to be a narrower spandrel plate fragment laying against another column at an angle would appear to be a typical exterior column. The one it is propped against with the mushroomed top matches its cross section. So I believe it is also a perimeter column. I don't see any core columns, If the upside down beam above with the shear studs is in fact from the towers at all it must be from the core, a mechanical level or basement level. But I do not recall in any photographs or details seeing any shear studs at all in core or mechanical levels.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Spanx: I read in the old article on 911Myths that Jones obtained not only primer paint samples from Clarkson 911 memorial, but also samples which should prove "molten metals" A quote:

"A monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is the source of previously-molten metal samples...

The samples were sent directly to Prof. Jones at BYU, and inspected by him and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer together, and analyzed by the BYU group."


So the same memorial was a source of some molten metal for Jones (personally I do not see any), as well as of (unburned) red primer paint, but not of nanothermite, which should create this molten metal by extreme temperature (?!). I stay confused

Anyway, also web 911Myths is/was not sure, as for the exact source of steel in Clarkson memorial. Perhaps (a quote) "N.Y. Clarkson alumnus Michael Bielawa, who supervised cleanup efforts at ground zero and donated three pieces of structural steel to the school" would know more...

I found this 911blogger blog post by ProfJones:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-...-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction

(At point 7.) "We obtained asample of primer paint from a 9/11 monument at Clarkson College in New York..." - Steven Jones


ETA: Oops, I thought you said 911Myths was unsure of Jones' source of primer paint.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Ivan, perhaps to Jones, the "molten" metal in the memorial is the curved stuff you can see directly to the left of the man's face in the picture.

(To truthers, weakened = "molten".)

 

[remo]

In the houses of shadow everybody lies.

..

 

[remo]

In the houses of shadow everybody lies.

"Once again: Jim Millette considered only one old WTC primer (Tnemec brand) as a material of red layers in his preliminary report, because he found its specification in NIST reports. But the specification of "Laclede primer" is presented in NIST reports as well and in a great detail! And many of XEDS spectra measured by Jim Millette (those which were taken on freshly cut chips) correspond to Laclede primer quite well, I think. Therefore, Jim Millette should really consider Laclede primer paint at least as a possible material of some of his chips, which is quite crucial in this falsification of Bentham paper."

you think?
Speaking to the 'falsification'. Those NIST report specifications Dr Millette etal rely on.
Is that the same NIST report that gave us the 'new phenomena' shear-stud break differentials by NOT HEATING the concrete floor slabs in the model? NCSTAR 1-9:352
By NOT factoring 'conductivity' in a thermal expansion hypothesis? NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

 

[Oystein]

"Once again: Jim Millette considered only one old WTC primer (Tnemec brand) as a material of red layers in his preliminary report, because he found its specification in NIST reports. But the specification of "Laclede primer" is presented in NIST reports as well and in a great detail! And many of XEDS spectra measured by Jim Millette (those which were taken on freshly cut chips) correspond to Laclede primer quite well, I think. Therefore, Jim Millette should really consider Laclede primer paint at least as a possible material of some of his chips, which is quite crucial in this falsification of Bentham paper."

you think?
Speaking to the 'falsification'. Those NIST report specifications Dr Millette etal rely on.Is that the same NIST report that gave us the 'new phenomena' shear-stud break differentials by NOT HEATING the concrete floor slabs in the model? NCSTAR 1-9:352
By NOT factoring 'conductivity' in a thermal expansion hypothesis? NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

Are you suggesting a 2005 NIST document contains a forged 1967 paint specification tailored to refute a 2009 study on dust particles? A document that isn't even needed to refute that paper?

Remo, this thread contains many posts directed personally at you with scientific arguments that prove the red-gray chips are not thermite. All or most these arguments depend solely on the data provided by Harrit e.al, Basile and/or Millette. You never responded to any of these arguments. Why not? For example, scientific arguments in...

...post 868 by me
...post 905 by me
...post 1019 by me
...post 1022 by Africanus
...post 1023 by Redwood
...post 1024 by Ivan Kminek
...post 1026 by moorea34
...post 1027 by me
...post 1039 by Sunstealer
..post 1048 by me
...post 1101 by Sunstealer
...post 1103 by me
...post 1119 by me

And while we are at it, further arguments about
...Harrit e.al.'s missig expertise

There are more posts here that address the issue of Jones and his red-gray chips that have largely been unanswered. None of the posts I quoted relies on the veracity of anything that NIST has posted.

remo, it's past high time for you to address the core of the scientific on-topic arguments, don't you think? This thread is not about NIST, it is about the bad science of ProfJones.

 

[beachnut]

"Once again: Jim Millette considered only one old WTC primer (Tnemec brand) as a material of red layers in his preliminary report, because he found its specification in NIST reports. But the specification of "Laclede primer" is presented in NIST reports as well and in a great detail! And many of XEDS spectra measured by Jim Millette (those which were taken on freshly cut chips) correspond to Laclede primer quite well, I think. Therefore, Jim Millette should really consider Laclede primer paint at least as a possible material of some of his chips, which is quite crucial in this falsification of Bentham paper."

you think?
Speaking to the 'falsification'. Those NIST report specifications Dr Millette etal rely on.
Is that the same NIST report that gave us the 'new phenomena' shear-stud break differentials by NOT HEATING the concrete floor slabs in the model? NCSTAR 1-9:352
By NOT factoring 'conductivity' in a thermal expansion hypothesis? NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

Why does Jones lie? Does he hate the USA? Is he paranoid, unable to apply physics to 911, so he uses political biases? Why did BYU fire him? Why did he create a woo journal to publish his work after being fired by BYU? Why did he make up thermite, because there were no sounds of explosives? Why does he have to pay to publish his fantasy?

Conductivity?
Steel - 34
Aluminum - 136
Copper - 231

Why do we make buildings from material that does not conduct heat efficiently? Image your computer with a steel heat sink... oops it burned up.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

"Once again: Jim Millette considered only one old WTC primer (Tnemec brand) as a material of red layers in his preliminary report, because he found its specification in NIST reports. But the specification of "Laclede primer" is presented in NIST reports as well and in a great detail! And many of XEDS spectra measured by Jim Millette (those which were taken on freshly cut chips) correspond to Laclede primer quite well, I think. Therefore, Jim Millette should really consider Laclede primer paint at least as a possible material of some of his chips, which is quite crucial in this falsification of Bentham paper."

you think?
Speaking to the 'falsification'. Those NIST report specifications Dr Millette etal rely on.
Is that the same NIST report that gave us the 'new phenomena' shear-stud break differentials by NOT HEATING the concrete floor slabs in the model? NCSTAR 1-9:352
By NOT factoring 'conductivity' in a thermal expansion hypothesis? NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

Remo : even you should admit that specifications of Tnemec and "Laclede" red primers were hardly "invented"/fabricated by NIST in its WTC reports
Remember that the specifiation of Tnemec paint was considered as "hard data" even by Harrit and Jones (later, after publishing the Bentham paper) just for the additional reasoning that red/gray chips in the dust are not "WTC primer paint"
Also, the specification of Laclede primer is simply "hard data" (this paint was apparently applied on WTC1/2 floor trusses) and you are perhaps the very first truther who tries to deny even this

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan, In the daylight photo you posted of the memorial, They all appear to be perimeter columns to me. The one on the right with the wide spandrel plate fragment would be from a location at the mechanical floors. The one on the left with what appears to be a narrower spandrel plate fragment laying against another column at an angle would appear to be a typical exterior column. The one it is propped against with the mushroomed top matches its cross section. So I believe it is also a perimeter column. I don't see any core columns, If the upside down beam above with the shear studs is in fact from the towers at all it must be from the core, a mechanical level or basement level. But I do not recall in any photographs or details seeing any shear studs at all in core or mechanical levels.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/image004.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks
Yesterday, I again looked at this "daylight image" here:

After the magnification and virtual "erection" rolleyes of the sitting lady, my "ruler-based" calculation again showed that the width of the vertical columns should be ca 13-17 inches. Which again implies perimeter columns of WTC1/2 as the most probable explanation.

As for the horizontal element, is that monument a kind of "sculpture" composed of the WTC steel from at least two various sources? Who knows, but probably yes...