Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Oystein]

...
They have four dust samples each containing several red/grey chips, right?

Right, each sample (bag of dust) contains seveal or many chips.

But they only examine four chips (a-d) and one or two more that are not named.

There are more chips:

• Chips a-d: It isn't entirely clear, but seems most reasonable, that Fig. 2-11 are all from chips a-d. Certainly Fig. 6-11 describe the same four individual chips. They don't label them "a", "b", "c", "d", those letters are used to denote Figures, but it seems reasonable to assume that they used these letters consistently in Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and possibly 2. Fig 3 seems to show just some dust, and not any identifiable specimens. Not sure what Fig. 4 shows, could be a different specimen. Fig 9, 10 and 11 are from specimen "a".
• The MEK-chip: Fig. 12-18
• Four other chips from three dust samples were tested in the DSC (Fig 19) - those are not specimens a-d!
• Fig 20 has six photographs and apparently more than six specimens from DCS-testing. Impossible to say if the four specimens that gave rise to Fig. 19 are included here, and which they are.
• Fig. 21 and 25 are from one or two of the several DCSed specimens, impossible to say which, or perhaps yet another
• Fig 23 and Fig 26 show a chip that was subjected to a flame test, not DSC, so that's a different one.
• Fig 31 and 32 show two additional chips with different compositions, for whoich we have no red layer data, but the text makes it clear these are different from most of the others

So in the paper, there is data from at least 14 different specimens: The four chips a-d, the MEK, at least six in DSC, one in flame test, and two "different" ones.

In addition, the text mentions even more specimens in which they found other distinctive elements - with barium, with copper. So there were at least 16 specimens total, and these represented at least 6 different kinds of materials.

Why? I mean, would it not be more convincing if they examined 10 or 20 or more chips? It would indeed form a much better stastistical basis. Especially, if they did not differ that much.

It's my understanding that they tested more chips than they have data in the paper, and selected the data they found most interesting, or that was perhaps the clearest. It's alright to show only examplary data - the paper would grow too long if all the data were included, but I agree they should have somehow included what they left out at least in some sort of summary - tables, counts...

This is one of the weaknesses of the study, but perhaps not yet a fatal one.

The great problem seems to be, as you point out, that Harrit presents four samples (a-d) relatively alike but then bases his conclusion on a fifth very unlike the others.

Yes, and several more of which we can't know if they are more like a-d, or more like the MEK chip, or a third or fourth type, and that is a fatal flaw of the paper:

There were really several (at least 6) kinds of red-gray chips, but Harrit e.al. assume implicitly that result from one chip can be applied to others, which is a fatal Non Sequitur.

You mentioned that they should find aluminum oxide after ignition to prove reduction but is that possible? I thought that aluminum oxide was a gas that would evaporate? Is your point, then, that it is easy to show evidence of aluminum oxide in a lab experiment but quite impossible at GZ if, in fact, a thermitic reaction had occured there?

No, Al₂O₃ is a solid at room temperature, and liquid or solid at the temperature range where a thermite reaction may occur (melting point: 2050 °C; boiling point: 2980 ± 60 °C). It should condense to a solid immediately after the reaction has occurred with this melting point that's far above that of iron. Truthers love to claim, albeit without evidence, that somehow the Al₂O₃ would escape from the reaction as a fine powder and magically disappear, impossible to be found, but that is nonsense. In fact, the paper by Tillotson and Gash that they reference to compare their DSC result to says specifically that they couldn't tell from the DSC result if in fact the thermite reaction had occurred, even though they totally knew they had 90% thermite in their sample and an exotherm reaction. To prove it was the thermite reaction, they tested the reaction products (DSC residue) with a method called PXRD (Powedered X-Ray Diffraction), which unequivocally showed both Al₂O₃ (the compound, not just Al and O) and elemental Fe

In WTC dust, any amount of elemental, spherical iron they claim is there from a thermite reaction should be matched by an almost equal (by mass) or larger (by volume) amount of Al₂O₃. Of course that they never showed. No doubt the dust contains Al₂O₃, it is a very common mineral, but much less so than iron oxide.

 

[Oystein]

Oh, by the way, Oystein, your answer to this question still keeps me a bit in the dark:

"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?"

You answered this:
"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."


I understand your answer as a "yes". Can you confirm that?

Yes.

The red layer is a mix of several or many different chemical compounds, so depending on which spot you look at, you might see more or less, or nothing at all, of any element.

In particular, all sides agree that the red layers are composed of an organic matrix in which are embedded smaller particles of specific materials, and the whole quest here is to figure out the chemical nature of these particles:

• All agree that there are particles of Fe₂O₃ - we see them as "grains" ca. 100-150 nm small in Fig 8.
• We claim that chips a-d also contain particles of Kaolin, which has the chemical formula Al₂Si₂O₅H₉ (and may have some natural contamination with Ti, Ca, K and other common metals) - we see them as these platelet in Fig. 8. Harrit e.al. claim on the other hand that these platelets may somehow be a composite of elemental Al and some unexplained Si and O content. XEDS cannot prove that either way, as XEDS only sees the atoms as such, but not their chemical bindings.
• Ivan and I claim that there must be particles (pigments, probably needle-shaped) of strontium chromate in chips a-d, as we believe these are LaClede paint
• Sunstealer and I claim that the MEK-chip, since we believe it is Tnemec, would contain particles of silica (SiO₂), pigments of zinc chromate, and others.

But perhaps my question was a bit too weak, as well, so let me be more direct:
Is it possible to manipulate the electron microscope to showing exactly what you hope to find? And could that be what they do? Simply find a "region" where the sample looks like it contains a lot more aluminum than it really does?

Whatever materials are in the focus of the beam, that's what you're going to measure. So if manage you focus on nothing but a bit of the diatomaceous silica that is contained on Tnemec and thus, I believe, in the MEK-chip, you would measure only Si and O (plus some C, as you can't totally avoid hitting some of the surrounding organic matrix; plus tiny fractions of natural contamination, since diatomaceous silica is a mined product from natural geological deposits) - Fig 16 could be an example of that, it has high peaks of Si and O, tiny ones of C and Fe, and nothing else.
If you focus elsewhere, on the iron oxide grains for example, you might get the high Fe and O that is characteristic of that compound.

It would, however, not be possible to focus such that you "miss" one of the elements in a compound, because the molecules we are talking about here are much much smaller than eben the highest resolution of the electron beam could differentiate (at least in SEM-modus). If all your aluminium is bound to, say, silicate, it would not be possible to get an XEDS chart that shows lots of Al but very little Si or O. If all your aluminium is bound as aluminium oxide, it would not be possible to get a chart with high Al but too little O.

And therein lies the significance of Fig 17: It seems that this chart has captured more Al, quantitatively in terms of number of atoms, than could be chemically coupled with the little O, Fe, Si, Mg, C that's also measured, and that would indeed imply that at least some of the Al is not chemically bound, i.e. is elemental.



Now a couple of words of caution: XEDS has a lot of inherent difficulties, owing to the somewhat complicated physical interactions of x-rays with different materials, and other reasons. Because of this,

• any quantification of the elemental composition from an XEDS measurement comes with degrees of uncertainty, stemming from absorption, reflection and other optical phenomena that depend on the geometry and chemistry of the specimen, and properties of the machine.
• the lightest few elements of the periodic table can't be detected at all (most significantly hydrogen)
• some elements are easy to miss because their main signals would be beyond the range of energies that the chart plots (notice: in most charts, the x-axis ends at 10 keV, and none show anything but noise beyond 9 keV), and their lesser signals may be too weak to rise above noise. Lead might be a candidate for this in the context of paints.
• some elements could be missed due to their small signal being too close to the larger signal of another element - the most important candidate in our discussion being strontium, which is prone to "hide" under the Si-signal
• and of course the experimenter could mishandle the machinery or the specimen and screw things up beyond repair

In fact, I suspect that Fig. 17 is the result of improper handling. The pedestal on which the specimen is mounted in the SEM-XEDS machine tyically is made of aluminium, and I suspect that somehow Jones picked up Al-signal from the pedestal when he focused on the very edge of the chip. Remember, Fig 15a shows Al peculiarly concentrated on that edge, and even shows lots of Al outside of the chip! Alternatively, the fact that these egdes are far from being oriented perpendicularly to the line of sight of the instrument is a problem - this geometric property influences the measurement in difficult to gauge degrees. Ideally, the surface that you scan ought to be flat, smooth and perpendicular to your electron beam or x-ray-detector's line of sight. None of this is the case here.

 

[Peter May]

Yes.

The red layer is a mix of several or many different chemical compounds, so depending on which spot you look at, you might see more or less, or nothing at all, of any element.

In particular, all sides agree that the red layers are composed of an organic matrix in which are embedded smaller particles of specific materials, and the whole quest here is to figure out the chemical nature of these particles:

• All agree that there are particles of Fe₂O₃ - we see them as "grains" ca. 100-150 nm small in Fig 8.
• We claim that chips a-d also contain particles of Kaolin, which has the chemical formula Al₂Si₂O₅H₉ (and may have some natural contamination with Ti, Ca, K and other common metals) - we see them as these platelet in Fig. 8. Harrit e.al. claim on the other hand that these platelets may somehow be a composite of elemental Al and some unexplained Si and O content. XEDS cannot prove that either way, as XEDS only sees the atoms as such, but not their chemical bindings.
• Ivan and I claim that there must be particles (pigments, probably needle-shaped) of strontium chromate in chips a-d, as we believe these are LaClede paint
• Sunstealer and I claim that the MEK-chip, since we believe it is Tnemec, would contain particles of silica (SiO₂), pigments of zinc chromate, and others.

Whatever materials are in the focus of the beam, that's what you're going to measure. So if manage you focus on nothing but a bit of the diatomaceous silica that is contained on Tnemec and thus, I believe, in the MEK-chip, you would measure only Si and O (plus some C, as you can't totally avoid hitting some of the surrounding organic matrix; plus tiny fractions of natural contamination, since diatomaceous silica is a mined product from natural geological deposits) - Fig 16 could be an example of that, it has high peaks of Si and O, tiny ones of C and Fe, and nothing else.
If you focus elsewhere, on the iron oxide grains for example, you might get the high Fe and O that is characteristic of that compound.

It would, however, not be possible to focus such that you "miss" one of the elements in a compound, because the molecules we are talking about here are much much smaller than eben the highest resolution of the electron beam could differentiate (at least in SEM-modus). If all your aluminium is bound to, say, silicate, it would not be possible to get an XEDS chart that shows lots of Al but very little Si or O. If all your aluminium is bound as aluminium oxide, it would not be possible to get a chart with high Al but too little O.

And therein lies the significance of Fig 17: It seems that this chart has captured more Al, quantitatively in terms of number of atoms, than could be chemically coupled with the little O, Fe, Si, Mg, C that's also measured, and that would indeed imply that at least some of the Al is not chemically bound, i.e. is elemental.



Now a couple of words of caution: XEDS has a lot of inherent difficulties, owing to the somewhat complicated physical interactions of x-rays with different materials, and other reasons. Because of this,

• any quantification of the elemental composition from an XEDS measurement comes with degrees of uncertainty, stemming from absorption, reflection and other optical phenomena that depend on the geometry and chemistry of the specimen, and properties of the machine.
• the lightest few elements of the periodic table can't be detected at all (most significantly hydrogen)
• some elements are easy to miss because their main signals would be beyond the range of energies that the chart plots (notice: in most charts, the x-axis ends at 10 keV, and none show anything but noise beyond 9 keV), and their lesser signals may be too weak to rise above noise. Lead might be a candidate for this in the context of paints.
• some elements could be missed due to their small signal being too close to the larger signal of another element - the most important candidate in our discussion being strontium, which is prone to "hide" under the Si-signal
• and of course the experimenter could mishandle the machinery or the specimen and screw things up beyond repair

In fact, I suspect that Fig. 17 is the result of improper handling. The pedestal on which the specimen is mounted in the SEM-XEDS machine tyically is made of aluminium, and I suspect that somehow Jones picked up Al-signal from the pedestal when he focused on the very edge of the chip. Remember, Fig 15a shows Al peculiarly concentrated on that edge, and even shows lots of Al outside of the chip! Alternatively, the fact that these egdes are far from being oriented perpendicularly to the line of sight of the instrument is a problem - this geometric property influences the measurement in difficult to gauge degrees. Ideally, the surface that you scan ought to be flat, smooth and perpendicular to your electron beam or x-ray-detector's line of sight. None of this is the case here.

I have been following this thread with interest I hope the notes are of some help.

Some published papers do not go far enough when describing the particular SEM analyzer combination, and working conditions. This can be important when viewing the results.

A few points about the use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination.

When analyzing any sample, you really need to know your sample before you start.
Henno J. Nairis Swedish Geological Survey. A good friend.

The SEM conditions, and geometry for analyzing/imaging a given sample are important to obtain good results.
The systems generally used are, EDX, Energy dispersive X-ray (Analysis) which uses
a semiconductor material as the detector, and as the name implies, detects the X-ray energy from the sample. WDX, Wavelength Dispersive X-ray (analysis) uses a crystal and a gas filled “counter” to detect the X-ray wavelength. There are pros and cons associated with each. EDX gives a “quick” semi- quantitative analysis of all the elements in the sample, (within the detector range) (or windowless), but generally will not detect elements below Sodium, and if the concentration is less than about 0.5-1 percent. Modern EDX systems reveal excellent resolution of 150 eV and better, however getting these results depends more on the nature of the sample, and the EDX beam/chamber geometry than the quality of the detector. The WDX is slower, it only detects elements one, at a time, is more complex mechanically, and much more expensive, however the resolution is much better, typically 20 eV and can detect all elements. A combination of the two is better, but can introduce other problems.
Non conducting samples can be mounted on a carbon sample holder, and covered with a thin layer of sputtered carbon, this helps to prevent the sample “charging, this “charging” can deflect the electron beam from the point on the sample being analyzed, ideally the sample should be “potted” in a suitable resin and polished, if possible. A set of standard elements for calibration should be included, these are mounted close to the sample in the SEM sample chamber, and used to compare the count rate from a known pure element, with the sample under analysis. A sample current amplifier can be installed between the sample an earth, to monitor the current in the sample. The detector angle should be as high as possible to avoid absorption of the emitted X-rays by surface inconsistencies, i.e. lumps bumps, and holes, as pointed out by Oystein. Further, modern scintillator BSD backscatter detectors can be connected to suitable electronics
to give an approximate comparison between element number, and sample contrast, albeit with reservations. Secondary emission is not unknown and can arise where fasteners, or screws are in close proximity to the beam/raster, coating these areas with a colloidal graphite solution can help,
although advise should be sought before doing this.
The SEM beam diameter, or spot size. should be as small as possible, but still have enough current density to produce sufficient quantities of X-rays. Standard tungsten filaments do this well. If Al is present, where they should be non, or little, the analysis may have been performed in the scanning mode, thus exiting elements outside of the area. Ideally analysis should be performed with the raster switched off, or the magnification increased so none of the raster is outside of the area to be analyzed, but there are reservations. It may also be that the exited volume is large, even in spot mode and overlaps other elements close by, or even beneath the area of interest. Dangers everywhere.

A description of the operating conditions of the SEM and information on how the sample has been prepared, and SEM geometry would go a long way to avoid misunderstanding the results. In a word sample preparation is half the battle.
These few notes are not intended as a critique of articles in this thread, rather to complement some of the points already mentioned by Oystein, and pitfalls which can be avoided with adequate sample preparation, and optimization of the SEM.
There are few absolutes, rather, “horses for courses” the smart researcher should equip himself/herself with a competent SEM technician who is familiar with his SEM combination inside out.
So, if you have the cash, and the time, a dedicated WDX micro analyzer is essential, the more spectrometer the merrier, but with recourse to a EDX, especially if little is known about the sample.
The quality of the results obtained are not wholly, but by and large dependant the aforementioned criteria. One of the best Microanalysers ever was the Cambridge Scientific
Instruments GeoScan Mk. V.

References:

Notes on EDX
http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...hHmSPVB8B7qZ3f1Mg&sig2=7nS5NAZnaMOW12RQVEolQQ

Standards for X-ray microanalysis
http://www.macstandards.co.uk/about.html

WDX microanalysis
http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...f9Y0ljdhJHUuw0HkQ&sig2=NGQRXqjQITRo5s_OCZi6IA

 

[remo]

The MIX

@Peter May.
Peter. Briefly, In your opinion, how does the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appear procedurally?

 

[Peter May]

@Peter May.
Peter. Briefly, In your opinion, how does the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appear procedurally?

Well I have had some thoughts about the procedures they used, hence my post, but I will have to read the articles again.
However, what I can is that I’m not qualified to dispute the results they have published as I’m not a chemist, also it’s hard, not actually being there at the time, to see how they did it. but I can post some observations about their procedures.

 

[Oystein]

Peter,

before you respond to remo, I advise you to scan this thread, at least 10 pages back, and also split-offs of this thread in the Abandon-All-Hope subforum, to get a feel for how remo chooses to debate the thread topic. Here is how:

Not at all.

All his recent posts have been off-topic. He has received several infractions (yellow cards) for intentionally derailing the thread.

I recommend you specifically take note how remo refuses absolutely to answer questions or acknowledge responses to what he writes.



This said, I do however appreciate the technical advice you bring to the thread, and am actually interested in your assessment of Harrit e.al.'s workmanship. Hint: I believe the several SEM and EDS work in Harrit e.al. has been carried out by at least two different of the collaborating scientists, and it shows in the quality of the results.

 

[beachnut]

@Peter May.
Peter. Briefly, In your opinion, how does the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appear procedurally?

It is funny, even if Jones and Harrit are correct procedurally, their conclusion is nonsense. It is simple to see from their paper, they did not find thermite in WTC dust.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

It does not matter what Harrit/Jones did, there was no thermite used on 911. Interesting to discuss science, but Jones and Harrit use science to push lies and fool people.

Better questions for the people fooled by Jones.
Why did Jones make up the thermite fantasy?
Why does Jones support the delusional thermite in the ceiling tiles?
Why are people fooled by Jones and the thermite scam?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
Thermite claims are nonsense, it is more likely Christ visited America; thermite lies, the icing on 11 years of 911 truth failure. Where is Jones?

 

[Oystein]

It is funny, even if Jones and Harrit are correct procedurally, their conclusion is nonsense. ...

Yes, very important point for remo to understand:

The data presented by Harrit e.al. does not support their conclusions, it actually refutes their conclusions.


So it doesn't matter if procedures were excellent, medicre or lousy:

• If the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appears procedurally excellent, the data refutes thermite
• If the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appears procedurally mediocre, the data tends to refute thermite, or is bad and does not allow such a conclusion
• If the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appears procedurally lousy, the it can't be used to support any conclusion of thermite

So Peter's assessment of the workmanship can do nothing to save the invalid thermite conclusions.It's only interesting to get a feel if the data can be used to support another conclusion (such as: chips a-d are LaClede paint, MEK chip is Tnemec paint)

 

[BasqueArch]

......

.....Why are people fooled by Jones and the thermite scam?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
Thermite claims are nonsense, it is more likely Christ visited America; thermite lies, the icing on 11 years of 911 truth failure. Where is Jones?

Behold My Hands: Evidence for
Christ’s Visit In Ancient America.

And soon thereafter:

Behold My Costume: Evidence for
Christ’s Visit In New Orleans For Mardi Gras

 

[Peter May]

Yes, very important point for remo to understand:

The data presented by Harrit e.al. does not support their conclusions, it actually refutes their conclusions.


So it doesn't matter if procedures were excellent, medicre or lousy:

• If the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appears procedurally excellent, the data refutes thermite
• If the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appears procedurally mediocre, the data tends to refute thermite, or is bad and does not allow such a conclusion
• If the Harrit/Jones paper 'use of the SEM EDX/WDX combination' appears procedurally lousy, the it can't be used to support any conclusion of thermite

So Peter's assessment of the workmanship can do nothing to save the invalid thermite conclusions.It's only interesting to get a feel if the data can be used to support another conclusion (such as: chips a-d are LaClede paint, MEK chip is Tnemec paint)

I started out looking at Sunstealer post 1694, and then got a bit sidetracked.

A bit of historical perspective.

About 15 years ago I represented a British company Camscan. Part of my job was to contact potential customers and arrange demonstrations. We had one instrument installed in Stockholm, at the Sandvik Hard Materials Company. As part of a service package the customer agreed to provide limited use of his instrument for demonstrations. I always carried a selection of demo samples, one of which was kaolinite “clay” (diatoms). I can’t remember where I got the sample from, only that it was used for the filtration of beer. The diatoms where easy to image, and always impressed the customers. When I first saw (Sunstealer post 1694 kaolinite plates image) my reaction was that it didn’t look anything like the kaolinite I was used to seeing, (no diatoms). I understand now that kaolinite is not just diatoms, however in my search for kaolinite (diatoms), I found this image, which is interesting.

SEM image of iron sulfide framboid (greigite) in sheath of mineral clay (kaolinite) see fragment of diatom adhering to the framboid.
http://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm/journals/v47-50/data/049/049001/figs/0322_f1.jpg

The image above is similar to Harrit et al (fig. 21)

A search for an analysis of these iron sulfide framboids revealed this.
The attached EDAX analyses demonstrate that the major elements of the aggregates are Fe and S (Fig. 4 b), and minor elements include Al, Si, K and Ca, being principally derived from clay minerals adsorbed onto the aggregates
http://www.springerimages.com/Images/Geosciences/1-10.1007_s00367-005-0004-0-3

The spectrum (image b) above is a similar to Harrit/Jones et al (fig. 25) less the C, and O.
There is a small peak in front of the Ca, and if the big oxygen peak was not there,this might be resolved as K, there is no S peak of course. The acceleration voltage is about the same for both analysis, and the size of the spheroids are similar.
So, here we have naturally occurring spheroids containing Fe, S, K, Al, and Ca. It’s possible that Harrit/Jones et al where actually analyzing the iron sulfide framboids without knowing it. It depends on how much framboid material can be found distributed in kaolinite, and compared with typical framboid morphology. There may have been, as you say two or more different analysis performed, which have been confused.


About the FEI XL30-SFEG used in Harrit Jones analysis.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

This is a high resolution SEM which can produce resolutions of 1.5 nm at 10 kv or higher, 2.5nm at 1 kV. In easy to understand terms, this means one can see sample detail at 200,000time magnification, by comparison the Camscan S2 from 1990 could only manage 7nm at 30Kv with a tungsten filament at around 30,000 times magnification. However the Field Emission gun on the FEI XL30-SFEG does not produce a lot of beam current, i.e. the ability to produce significant amounts of X-rays at the sample, in the Camscan S2 the beam current was typically 300 microamps, i.e. about a third of a milliamp, the FEI XL30-SFEG can only manage about 40 microamps, about seven times less.
The FEI XL30-SFEG high resolution wasn’t really needed, as it was only producing images of just a few thousand times magnification. In fact, it was not the best choice of instrument considering it was the analysis which was important, not high resolution. This is consistent with the poor quality of X-ray mapped images, and the BSE detector results. But perhaps that’s all they had.

Kaolinite is a clay mineral, part of the group of industrial minerals, with the chemical composition Al2Si2O5(OH)4. It is a layered silicate mineral, with one tetrahedral sheet linked through oxygen atoms to one octahedral sheet of alumina octahedra.[4] Rocks that are rich in kaolinite are known as kaolin or china clay.[5]
Wikipedia

Conclusions:
Probably a lot more digging needs to be undertaken before any of the above
can be confirmed. It seems too good to be true, and probably is.

 

[Peter May]

At Oystein

Thanks, I understood what remo was driving at.

 

[Oystein]

Peter, you got me confused. I thought diatoms are fossile shells of pretty pure silica, and kaolin is Al-silicate? It sure might happen that the two occur together in deposits, but in industrial use, I think you have one, or the other.

Chips a-d have particles with picture-perfect kaolin - pseudo-tetrahedal platelets, with a tendency to agglomerate to stacks, and just the right EDS-signature (O>Si=Al). There is no excess Si in these chips to allow for any diatomaceous silica.
We here (Ivan Kminek) have offered the theory that these chips are LaClede primer from the floor trusses - an epoxy formulation with pigments of iron oxide (55%), aluminium silicate (41%) and strontium chromate (4% - Harrit has demonstrated in a speparate document that at least chip (a) has signals for both Sr and Cr).

The MEK-chip does not have this link between Al and Si - Jones found both a spot with just Si and O, and another with mostly Al and practically no Si.
We here (Sunstealer) have offered the theory that this chip is Tnemec 99 primer from the perimeter columns - a proprietory formulation that's known to contain, among other minerals, diatomaceous silica, calcium aluminate, talc (magnesium silicate) and zinc chromate, but no aluminium silicate, hence no kaolin. Unfortunately, Jones has failed to give us clear and good microimages of the pigments, but the EDS signature of that chip matches the EDS signature of Tnemec that Jones has presented at a conference in Australia fairly well.


So I would indeed be quite surprised to find both kaolin and diatoms in the same chip.


I don't see your iron sulfide framboids anywhere in the Harrit e.al. data. The roundish thing in Fig 21 has superficial similarity, but could be anything, and you have to subtract or add things from the EDS to make it match, so no, I don't accept that.

 

[remo]

In the houses of shadow everybody lies.

Peter. I want the truth. Thats all. I asked you, a voice reading without obvious cant, your opinion of procedure, Harrit/Jones FEI XL30-SFEG and you gave it. Thank you. Resolution high, analysis low:not the best choice of instrument in the circumstances. But procedurally ok. Your Kaolinite references add to the complexity.
I am not a chemist either; but remain convinced on balance of all probability explosive/incendiary demolition of WTC complex took place. And I have no doubt chips of primer paints were found in the dust of the atrocity, ground out like everything else. But the hypothesis contended here, that primer paint chips were the ONLY material such-like in samples investigated; given the existent explosive/incendiary chemical combination's and technologies available; that the 'chips' being 'miss-identified' by Professors Harrit/Jones to the extent an entire paper was constructed around them, has to be contested. I am NOT afraid of finding Harrit/Jones wrong. It is the method of finding either-way, within 911 truth/lie dichotomy, I am trying to fathom.

 

[beachnut]

Peter. I want the truth. ...

Reading Jones' paper, exposes there was no thermite in the dust. I cheated, I took chemistry and a Chem Eng course while getting my engineering degree. Jones made up thermite four years after 911, out of the blue, with no evidence, he just said so. Then Jones had to take his failed papers off BYU and he was fired/retired - started his on-line journal so he could publish false information on 911 because he hates Bush or something in the USA.

Jones work on evidence Christ visited the New World is more likely than Jones' thermite claims. Why are you so gullible? 11 years, why has Jones work not made the news. This claim is a sure Pulitzer for any newspaper, why have they failed to publish the work and take the Pulitzer? Why? Because Jones is full of BS, and thermite was not used to destroy the WTC complex. The heat from the jet fuel in the tow jets is equal to over 600 TONS of Thermite. Why bring thermite to office fires which the jet fuel fires were not significant, but great in heat energy to over 600 TONS of thermite. The heat from the office fires was over 7 time more then the jet fuel, means you are short Tons of thermite.

The funny part, Jones endorsed the thermite in the ceiling tiles, which is proof someone is insane. When will 911 truth think for themselves and join reality and see Jones' fraud?

Jones first paper, made up nonsense - he lost it, does he have problems with reality, or does he have some political bias that makes him spread fantasy, and lies?

WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)

8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

This article was posted on 9.16.05

You are gullible, you need to work hard to avoid being fooled by the fantasy Jones can't prove, or support. Posting here is not going to help Jones, what did CBS say? CNN? ABC? NBC? Did you call them?

911 truth, the do nothing movement of lies and fantasy.


Delusional paranoia; Jones is nuts? Wow.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.) Jones

Squibs? Air pressure. Jones failed, he did it many years ago. 11 years of perfected failure. The thermite paper is nonsense.

Being anti-war is good, being anti-intellectual and adopting Jones' lies is bad, self-critiquing. 19 terrorists did 911, all by themselves; it was easier than then planned, flying a 767/757 is easy. Why are you fooled by liars like Jones? Take some Chem Engineering courses before you post again with the silly titles.

In the houses of shadow everybody lies. Jones is the liar, and he is in the in those houses. Does Jones know he is a liar? Has he retracted his paranoid Chertoff statement?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Peter May: Thanks for your analysis)

Remo: Once again: all five chips closely analyzed by Harrit et al correspond well to two particular WTC red primer paints (Laclede, Tnemec).
All other chips look like some red paints as well, but Harrit et al did not provide enough details on their composition. Any reasoning that some of them may be thermites is just a pure speculation, without any experimental support.
Please try keep in mind that any pyrotechnic material, in which organic non-fluorinated polymeric binder prevails ("our case"), must contain proper oxidant for the polymer, to be effective as pyrotechnic. No such oxidant was found by Harrit et al (and Millette, Henryco or Basile as well) in their study.

The old good principle of Occam's razor must be applied here: several/many red paints were used in WTC, therefore all of them are clear candidates as materials of the red chips. On the other hand, you truthers have only one "argument" at hand: collapses of WTC towers looked like controlled demolitions at first glance, therefore they had to be controlled demolitions (extremely secret, still very apparent and very "public", which is a very clear nonsense/contradiction, I'd like to note)

The remaining "issue" as for "mysterious" red/gray chips is: what paint(s) was/were heated in DSC device by Harrit et al, and how these shiny microspheres were formed from the gray layers of rust attached to red paint layers? You know, we have some working hypotheses in this regard, but nobody has reported such processes for such paint samples in the available literature (simply since they are not interesting/important).
Here, imagine that Jim Millette heats some of his chips and finds some of these shiny, iron-rich microspheres in the ash. This would be a strong evidence that such chips were the same as heated by Harrit et al, but the formation of the microspheres would still not be scientifically explained in this way (would be just experimentally confirmed)

 

[Oystein]

...
And I have no doubt chips of primer paints were found in the dust of the atrocity, ground out like everything else. But the hypothesis contended here, that primer paint chips were the ONLY material such-like in samples investigated;

Your epistemoligy is not scientific.

No-one here is contending that there is evidence for NO thermite in the entire WTC dust and debris - but that's the old "you can't prove a negative" adage (unless you had sifted through the entire thousands of tons of dust and analysed every single speck of dust).

What we are contending is: "Chips of primer paints" is the ONLY positive identification that's possible as a conclusion from ALL the data anyone has ever presented on these chip (Jones, Farrer, Harrit, Basile, Millette). We further contend that the data of ALL researchers who ever have analysed these chips and presented data point that direction, and that NONE of it points to thermite (with the exception, of course, that iron oxide pigment would be a thermite ingredient, but that's trivial, and unconsequential without the presence of a corresponding amount of elemental Al)

given the existent explosive/incendiary chemical combination's

See, this is wrong: Nothing is explosive about these chips, they just burn when heated, like almost any organic stuff would. It's plastic! Calling something an "incendiary" just because it simply burns is reaching.

and technologies available;

Many technologies are available. As are midgets with saws. As are nukes. The mere existence of a technology that you happen to fancy doesn't make it probable that it was also used. That is a severely flawes epistemology.

that the 'chips' being 'miss-identified' by Professors Harrit/Jones to the extent an entire paper was constructed around them, has to be contested.

They are misidentified.
It's not important whether Harrit e.al. made the conclusions up and built a paper around the invention, or truly believe in them.
They are just plain wrong. Their conclusions do not follow from the data; instead, their own data refutes the conclusions (which is why we don't need to repeat the experiments).

I am NOT afraid of finding Harrit/Jones wrong. It is the method of finding either-way, within 911 truth/lie dichotomy, I am trying to fathom.

We don't see evidence of you actually trying - you ignore everything that says "Harrit/Jones wrong" - you never respond, you never acknowledge. You appear to be in denial.

 

[Peter May]

Peter, you got me confused. I thought diatoms are fossile shells of pretty pure silica, and kaolin is Al-silicate? It sure might happen that the two occur together in deposits, but in industrial use, I think you have one, or the other.

Chips a-d have particles with picture-perfect kaolin - pseudo-tetrahedal platelets, with a tendency to agglomerate to stacks, and just the right EDS-signature (O>Si=Al). There is no excess Si in these chips to allow for any diatomaceous silica.
We here (Ivan Kminek) have offered the theory that these chips are LaClede primer from the floor trusses - an epoxy formulation with pigments of iron oxide (55%), aluminium silicate (41%) and strontium chromate (4% - Harrit has demonstrated in a speparate document that at least chip (a) has signals for both Sr and Cr).

The MEK-chip does not have this link between Al and Si - Jones found both a spot with just Si and O, and another with mostly Al and practically no Si.
We here (Sunstealer) have offered the theory that this chip is Tnemec 99 primer from the perimeter columns - a proprietory formulation that's known to contain, among other minerals, diatomaceous silica, calcium aluminate, talc (magnesium silicate) and zinc chromate, but no aluminium silicate, hence no kaolin. Unfortunately, Jones has failed to give us clear and good microimages of the pigments, but the EDS signature of that chip matches the EDS signature of Tnemec that Jones has presented at a conference in Australia fairly well.


So I would indeed be quite surprised to find both kaolin and diatoms in the same chip.


I don't see your iron sulfide framboids anywhere in the Harrit e.al. data. The roundish thing in Fig 21 has superficial similarity, but could be anything, and you have to subtract or add things from the EDS to make it match, so no, I don't accept that.

Oystein,
Thanks' for you reply.
I am searching for information on industrial kaolin before replying.

Regards
Peter.

 

[Peter May]

Peter. I want the truth. Thats all. I asked you, a voice reading without obvious cant, your opinion of procedure, Harrit/Jones FEI XL30-SFEG and you gave it. Thank you. Resolution high, analysis low:not the best choice of instrument in the circumstances. But procedurally ok. Your Kaolinite references add to the complexity.
I am not a chemist either; but remain convinced on balance of all probability explosive/incendiary demolition of WTC complex took place. And I have no doubt chips of primer paints were found in the dust of the atrocity, ground out like everything else. But the hypothesis contended here, that primer paint chips were the ONLY material such-like in samples investigated; given the existent explosive/incendiary chemical combination's and technologies available; that the 'chips' being 'miss-identified' by Professors Harrit/Jones to the extent an entire paper was constructed around them, has to be contested. I am NOT afraid of finding Harrit/Jones wrong. It is the method of finding either-way, within 911 truth/lie dichotomy, I am trying to fathom.

Hello remo.
A couple of small corrections, insignificant perhaps, but non the less, important in terms of context.
I mentioned the SEM used by Harrit Jones was a High resolution instrument, meaning it is capable of high resolution. I made no mention as to the quality of their analysis results. I did mention the poor quality of the X-RAY mapping, and BSD images, which is not the same thing. Having said that, I reserve the right at some future date to refute their analysis results despite the preponderance of evidence which already exists, refuting the validity of their claims.
.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I started out looking at Sunstealer post 1694, and then got a bit sidetracked.

A bit of historical perspective.

About 15 years ago I represented a British company Camscan. Part of my job was to contact potential customers and arrange demonstrations. We had one instrument installed in Stockholm, at the Sandvik Hard Materials Company. As part of a service package the customer agreed to provide limited use of his instrument for demonstrations. I always carried a selection of demo samples, one of which was kaolinite “clay” (diatoms). I can’t remember where I got the sample from, only that it was used for the filtration of beer. The diatoms where easy to image, and always impressed the customers. When I first saw (Sunstealer post 1694 kaolinite plates image) my reaction was that it didn’t look anything like the kaolinite I was used to seeing, (no diatoms). I understand now that kaolinite is not just diatoms, however in my search for kaolinite (diatoms), I found this image, which is interesting.

SEM image of iron sulfide framboid (greigite) in sheath of mineral clay (kaolinite) see fragment of diatom adhering to the framboid.
http://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm/journals/v47-50/data/049/049001/figs/0322_f1.jpg

The image above is similar to Harrit et al (fig. 21)

A search for an analysis of these iron sulfide framboids revealed this.
The attached EDAX analyses demonstrate that the major elements of the aggregates are Fe and S (Fig. 4 b), and minor elements include Al, Si, K and Ca, being principally derived from clay minerals adsorbed onto the aggregates
http://www.springerimages.com/Images/Geosciences/1-10.1007_s00367-005-0004-0-3

The spectrum (image b) above is a similar to Harrit/Jones et al (fig. 25) less the C, and O.
There is a small peak in front of the Ca, and if the big oxygen peak was not there,this might be resolved as K, there is no S peak of course. The acceleration voltage is about the same for both analysis, and the size of the spheroids are similar.
So, here we have naturally occurring spheroids containing Fe, S, K, Al, and Ca. It’s possible that Harrit/Jones et al where actually analyzing the iron sulfide framboids without knowing it. It depends on how much framboid material can be found distributed in kaolinite, and compared with typical framboid morphology. There may have been, as you say two or more different analysis performed, which have been confused.


About the FEI XL30-SFEG used in Harrit Jones analysis.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

This is a high resolution SEM which can produce resolutions of 1.5 nm at 10 kv or higher, 2.5nm at 1 kV. In easy to understand terms, this means one can see sample detail at 200,000time magnification, by comparison the Camscan S2 from 1990 could only manage 7nm at 30Kv with a tungsten filament at around 30,000 times magnification. However the Field Emission gun on the FEI XL30-SFEG does not produce a lot of beam current, i.e. the ability to produce significant amounts of X-rays at the sample, in the Camscan S2 the beam current was typically 300 microamps, i.e. about a third of a milliamp, the FEI XL30-SFEG can only manage about 40 microamps, about seven times less.
The FEI XL30-SFEG high resolution wasn’t really needed, as it was only producing images of just a few thousand times magnification. In fact, it was not the best choice of instrument considering it was the analysis which was important, not high resolution. This is consistent with the poor quality of X-ray mapped images, and the BSE detector results. But perhaps that’s all they had.

Kaolinite is a clay mineral, part of the group of industrial minerals, with the chemical composition Al2Si2O5(OH)4. It is a layered silicate mineral, with one tetrahedral sheet linked through oxygen atoms to one octahedral sheet of alumina octahedra.[4] Rocks that are rich in kaolinite are known as kaolin or china clay.[5]
Wikipedia

Conclusions:
Probably a lot more digging needs to be undertaken before any of the above
can be confirmed. It seems too good to be true, and probably is.

Peter, I have overlooked this your post, sorry
But I basically agree with Oystein.

It has been speculated for years that "infamous" spheroids seen in Bentham paper (Fig. 20) could be originally present in the chips. But it’s just speculation.
As for non-heated chips, we do not see any such spheroids/framboids not only in Bentham paper, but in Millette’s report as well. They could be in some other chips (e.g. in those which were burned in DSC device), but we have no evidence.

In fact, all detailed micrographs of unheated chips show just these kaolinite platelets and nanosized iron oxide (and some other minor stuff, but not spherical and so "large"). (Btw, one can judge from this that all those chips could be particles of our beloved Laclede primer - or some similar very abundant WTC red paint(s) with kaolinite, which remain(s) unidentifed.)

Framboids on images you linked are mostly iron sulfide. Since there is only small S peak in Fig. 25 (Bentham), do you suppose that sulfur was "burned out" from the spheroid during heating (if it was originally such framboid)?

In short: (not making here difference between known WTC paints) we do not see any such spheroids/(framboids) in any unheated chip, but we see them in the heated chips; so we can hardly conclude that they were originally present before heating as iron sulfide framboids. We have to stand on available evidence. Looking again at Fig. 20 (Bentham) I would again estimate that these spheroids are basically remnants of the gray layer of the chips

 

[Peter May]

Peter, I have overlooked this your post, sorry
But I basically agree with Oystein.

It has been speculated for years that "infamous" spheroids seen in Bentham paper (Fig. 20) could be originally present in the chips. But it’s just speculation.
As for non-heated chips, we do not see any such spheroids/framboids not only in Bentham paper, but in Millette’s report as well. They could be in some other chips (e.g. in those which were burned in DSC device), but we have no evidence.

In fact, all detailed micrographs of unheated chips show just these kaolinite platelets and nanosized iron oxide (and some other minor stuff, but not spherical and so "large"). (Btw, one can judge from this that all those chips could be particles of our beloved Laclede primer - or some similar very abundant WTC red paint(s) with kaolinite, which remain(s) unidentifed.)

Framboids on images you linked are mostly iron sulfide. Since there is only small S peak in Fig. 25 (Bentham), do you suppose that sulfur was "burned out" from the spheroid during heating (if it was originally such framboid)?

In short: (not making here difference between known WTC paints) we do not see any such spheroids/(framboids) in any unheated chip, but we see them in the heated chips; so we can hardly conclude that they were originally present before heating as iron sulfide framboids. We have to stand on available evidence. Looking again at Fig. 20 (Bentham) I would again estimate that these spheroids are basically remnants of the gray layer of the chips

At Oystein and Kminek
Thank you for your replies.

My reasoning was, Kaolinite…..framboids……spheroids …Jones et al, low resolution, low quality noisy imaging, although this is due in part because they could not coat the sample, see charging effects in image (b) bright, white areas, .….perhaps they where not aware of what they where analyzing? I understand now that the occurance of framboids in industrial Kaolin is low, the Sulphur is also a problem.....so there seems no sense in pursuing this further.
Best regards,
Peter.