Hi Steen,
fiirst of all, slightly wrong thread, but no worries. I'll report it after I finish my reply, to ask a mod to move it to one of the Harrit-paper threads.
1. Concerning aluminum:
As far as I can see in the Nano-report, all Harrit's spectra show that Al and Si follow each other, thus confirming the Millette conclusion of aluminum silicate, except for one spectrum: Fig. 17 that shows a high peak of Al and very little Si. BUT is it not correct that:
A) We do not know whether this is just a single finding?
B) We do not know which chip it is, and it is perhaps none of the four mentioned (a-d)?
C) He says that it is a spectrum of a "region" of the chip, so there might be other regions of the chip that would point to another result, right? (I do not know how an XEDS spectrometer works, but the word "region" sounds like it is not a precise picture of what the chip as a whole contains.
D) Still, Harrit bases his claim of Al findings on that spectrum only, right? Or at least it is the only spectrum he CAN base anything upon, seeing that the other spectras show Aluminum-Silicate, right?
E) Whether Harrit's spectrum in fig. 17 is correct or not, it could not be replicated in the Millette tests, right? So Harrit would have to prove that Millette has ovelooked something or somebody else would have to replicate Harrit's findings, right?
A) Yes, this (Fig 17) is, as far as I am aware, the only
published finding that seems to indicate elemental Al, and certainly the only one in the Harrit-paper. From recent remarks over at 911Blogger by Steven Jones I would surmise that they really don't have any other data point for elemental Al, or else they would be screaming it from the roofs.
B) Not perhaps - we know for a certain fact that this chip, which is described in Fig. 12-18, is not one of chips a-d, described in Fig. 6-11, and probably also in Fig. 2-5. It is also clearly different from chips a-d: The red layer seems to be at least twice as thick, and the overall XEDS spectrum (Fig. 14) differs so drastically that surface contamination is no acceptable excuse, and the XEDS-Map (Fig 15). I am pretty certain that Jeff Farrer did the tests on chips a-d, and Steven Jones did the MEK-soaking test - most likely at different times, and perhaps independently. The quality of the former is much better than that of the latter. Jeff is the manager of the TEM (electron microspcopy) lab, and certainly knows how to do it, while Jones has no background in these matters.
C) The electron beam of an electron microscope can be set to focus very narrowly, or scatter more widely, and thus cover a smaller or larger area of the specimen. Fig. 14 shows the result from scanning a large portion of the surface of that chip, before MEK soaking, while Fig. 16-18 show the result of an electron focussed narrowly on some small spot on the surface (after soaking). It is customary to also provide an image of the specimen and indicate, typically as a little box, which spot they focused on for which XEDS spectrum.
An interesting case is Fig. 15, the XEDS-map: There, they have focussed on many spots, like pixels, and show which spots contain more than some threshold amount of the 5 elements they are interested in. You see that the signal for Al is concentrated very much on the steeply sloped "rim" of the chip. This is quite peculiar - how would the Al "know" to migrate there from the MEK soaking? Overall (Fig. 14), that chip contains VERY little Al - less than 1% by weight. I have some speculations about Fig. 15, but that would go tooo far here.
D) Yes, that is the only spectrum that shows so much Al and so little of everything else that at least some of the Al must be elemental - too little O to oxidize it all, no Si. But I have my doubts about Fig 17 as well...
In chips a-d, Al and Si are such even matches everywhere they look (especially Fig. 10 and Fig 11), with enough O thrown in, that Al-silicate is an obvious conclusion, especially given the kaolin-like look of the particles where this Al:Si signal is found.
E) Correct. Millette did one XEDS map, in a somewhat more sophisticated manner, looking specifically for a spot with a "mainly Al" phase, and found none. In addition, he found that Al and Si are indeed bound as Kaolin, an Al-silicate.
2. Concerning iron rich spheres:
Figure 21 reads a significantly higher peak on Fe versus O compared to all other spectras in the report. But is it not correct that:
A) This is just one of many spheroids in the residue and we have no knowledge of wether it is statistically representative, i.e. many or most other spheroids may contain more O that Fe?
B) Statistically, you would find spheroids with various amounts of Fe versus O in them and they would still be considered as Iron-oxide spheres, right?
C) This leads to the opposite question: How should the Fe versus O be balanced in order to call the spheroid elemental iron or iron-oxide? The strict answer would probably be: Elemental iron must contain only Fe. BUT realistically, if you, in fact, did ignite nanothermite at WTC, would the Fe not be contamined with all kinds of materials and thus rarely be pure Fe?
D) Another way to put it: Is it enough for Harrit to find just one pure Fe-spheroid to prove nanothermite and that a redox happened? Would he not have to find a whole lot of them and futhermore do some sort of a count or measurement to prove that they were abundant compared to other findings?
E) Even IF he did in fact find a whole lot of pure Fe-spheroids, he could not conclude thermite, could he? He would have to find a whole lot of (unignited) elemental aluminum and connect it to an equal amount of Iron-oxide, right?
A) Correct. Jones certainly wants to make it appear like it is a typical, representative sphere, but he shies away from stating that outright. Note that it is relatively small, at a few micrometers. Also, not that smooth a surface, could be from some sintering process rather from melting and re-solidifying. Other spheres are much larger, for example Fig 23 - why not XEDS those? Oh wait - he did: Fig 26, and there you have plenty of O, and thus mostly, of not entirely, iron oxide.
B) Not so sure. Yes, the Fe:O ratio would vary, but within not so great bounds. Mostly, you would find an atomic ratio between 1:1 and 1:1.5. Things get more compicated of course by the inclusion of other compounds (silica, silicates, soot, ...)
C) See above. But more problems if you go with XEDS only:
- You can't quantify the elements reliably with that method
- You can only guess at compounds. Iron could be oxide, but also carbide, hydroxide, perhaps silicate, etc. O can be bound with almost everything, so basically you speculate when you try to quantify those spectra and assign amounts to compounds or elements. The right way to go here would be other methods such as XRD and FTIR
- You are surely right that even if a thermite reaction had taken place, and elemental iron was thus produced, it would be very likely to quickly react with the oxygen from ambient air and re-oxidize at least partially. Another reason why they ought to have done it under inert atmosphere.
D) The also should have shown that before the reaction there was plenty of elemental Al, and after the reaction there was plenty of Al-oxide. They showed neither. So even if iron was reduced, elemental iron produced, that wouldn't prove a thermite reaction. Iron can be reduced by other means. For example, carbon monoxide (CO) and benzene would have the ability to do that. We know that the red layer was mostly organic, and that the organix matrix decomposed. It certainly is possible that this organic decomposition released some CO. Epoxy (remember: Millette proved epoxy by FTIR; and LaClede paint is epoxy-based) is a polymer consisting of intermeshed benzene rings. I don't know how epoxy decomposes thermally when heated slowly, but you can't rule out that it releases benzene as an intermediate product. So there are plenty of things that Harrit e.al. would have to rule out (and they didn't) before concluding that only a thermite reaction could have produced those few spheres that have a little excess in O.
E) See above: Along with elemental iron he'd have to show aluminium oxide; and that both weren't present before.
Let alone all the other necessities: Equipment to ignite, control and time the nano-blasts and a way to mount the equipment and smuggled all of it into WTC unseen. But let us stick to the physics and chemistry by now.
Let me hear your clever comments, please.
Kindly,
Steen
) of missing (not found) strontium chromate crystals in Jim Millette's red/gray chips:
). 
