Frederic Henry-Couannier? (trying to reproduce Jones' nanothermite analysis)

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, the purpose of having independent researchers look at the stuff wouldn't to be to have them replicate the DSC and EDX tests. That would be dumb by any measure. The purpose would be for them to use analytical methods that would actually reveal structure, such as X-ray Diffraction or X-ray Wavelength Dispersive Spectroscopy, for example. That way, nobody, whether "debunker" or advocate, would have any rhetorical wiggle room inherent in the subtleties of the proper interpretations of the current data. You wouldn't be simply working from a list of constituent elements and general physical characteristics, you'd have an output that says unambiguously "the aluminum is free" or "the aluminum is bound and you're looking at aluminosillicates".

Not that it isn't known already. Sunstealer has already very well shown what the material is, as well as what flaws were made in the analysis (a third example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6959549&postcount=536). In my paragraph above, I'm not saying that the material's identity is in doubt, not in the least bit. Rather, I'm saying that woo peddlers in general (including 9/11 conspiracy peddlers here) like to exploit the understandable ignorance that most in the general population have of topics such as spectroscopy, and physical/analytical chemistry, and set forth flawed analyses as if they're legitimate alternative possibilities. It's easy to gloss over and bypass the explanation given that clearly shows the associations between the silicon and aluminum (the first image in this post, plus the posted explanation), but it's a bit hard to ignore an output that even more clearly shows that the aluminum isn't free. Especially in conjunction with the things Sunstealer has pointed out in the already existent evidence.

So no, it'd be dumb to replicate experiments. All you'd end up with is yet another, identical list of elements present, a DSC exotherm, and a few micrographs. That wouldn't actually settle the question, since it'd just repeat what Jones and Harrit published as data. I'm already certain enough that the DSC exotherm is accurate and that there's no manipulation of the EDX spectra or micrographs because there'd be no need to mess with those. The deception by Jones, Harrit, and the rest is in the interpretation of that data, not the data itself. Instead, let them put their money where their mouths are, and allow the dust to be analyzed by alternate spectographic methods. If they're confident they're right there should be no objection to this.

 

[Gaspode]

Discussion on magnetic thermite and stuff split to new thread.

Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Oystein]

I want to revive this thread to compile a summary of the data from Henryco's study - with a particular view to the history of his samples.


A. Chronology

From what I have read on his site, and on this board, this seems to have happened, in sequence:

1. Henryco first became aware of SE Jones's WTC dust studies sometime during 2008, probably after Jones's first presentation of the red-gray chips on December 15, 2007 in Boston. Henryco first mentioned "nano-thermite" in his blog on 07/30/2008: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11 Septembre 2001.html

2. Someone, probably associated with R Gae or SE Jones, or both, seems to have passed around leaflets in NYC, probably at some time in 2008, asking folks if they have any dust collected on 9/11/2001 - along with contact information of "interested researchers".

3. On November 07, 2008, Henryco met Gage in Madrid. Gage carried with him a dust sample on that European tour, but did't give Henryco a bit of it (yet).

4. A month later, before December 18, 2008, Henryco had recieved via mail three dust samples, sent by three different individuals:
S1: From the windshield of a car in Fulton Street. Collected 09/15/2001. Stored in a jar. Apparently from someone named "Shane"
S2: From inside an apartment on Broadway, 400m from GZ. Collected late 09/2001 with a vacuum cleaner. Apparently from someone named "Aspiro"
S3: From a roof 2 blocks from GZ (Ann Street). Apparently from someone named "Gage"
One of the three samples (I don't know yet which!) didn't have the characteristics of WTC dust as established by the USGS. I suspect he is talking about Gage's sample!

5. On December 18, 2008, he first published some results from these three samples: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/News_english.html
Note that, in order to get these early results, he had extracted particles of interest with a magnet, and concentrated solely on microspheres and other only-iron-rich components - no mention of red or red-gray chips yet!

6. Apparently prompted by the publication of the Bentham paper, early April 2009, Henryco revisited his sample by again pulling a magnet through them, or at least samples 1 and 2, this time with a view to red-gray chips. He noted that he could extract far fewer magnetic particles than the first time, and that this is probably due to the sample already having been depleted of magnetically attracted particles when he first treated them in November/December 2008.
So as a result, he found only 1 red-gray chip. He also found a decent number of "red-only" or "red-red" chips.

7. On April 23, 2009 he first linked to his analysis of the red-gray chip and some red-only chips here: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf (not sure if this is still the original version, or if it has been appended after that date)

8. Later, before June 17, 2009, henryco received via mail a fourth dust sample from a Steve White, collected in a loft at 18 Warren street. This contained no red-gray, only red-red chips.
(Note the similarity of the name with Stephen White, who provided Harrit et al with their sample 4, but from 1 Hudson St).

9. On August 17, 2009, Henryco first linked to an analysis of red-only chips: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf (again, I don't know if this is still the original version)
It's unclear to me which sample or samples he used in this document. The Steve White one?

As far as I can see, this concludes the chronology of Henryco's lab work on paint chips - the rest is interpretation of the results


B. Results

a. Henryco confirms that red-gray chips that are attracted to a magnet exist - he found 1 specimen.

b. This red-gray specimen is roughly consistent with the chips that Harrit et al describe in the following regards:
b1. The gray layer is largely dominated by Fe and O in all spots. However in some spots, significant signals for Si, Ca, Al, S, Mg, K, Cr or Mn appear also.
b2. The red layer is largely dominated by C, O, Al, Si in all spots. However in some spots, significant signals for Ca, S and K appear also. Generally, the Si-peak seems to be higher than the Al-peak, making a 1:1 elemental proportion somewhat unlikely.
(Note that he neither cleaned not cut his sample, so all surface spots may be contaminated. Since Ca, S, Si and K appear as contaminants to various degrees in the gray layer too, it would be possible, for example, that the main surface contaminants are gypsum (Ca+S+O), silica (Si-O), some potassium compound, and/or potassium silicate (K+Si+O))
b3. The visual appearance both under visual light microscope and SE microscope are similar to chips a-d

c. Note though that the following tests were not done:
c1. No heating of the chip
c2. No EDS map
c3. No BSE or SE images at magnifications sufficient to discern the well known pigments of hematite and kaolin
c4. No MEK soak
c5. No resistivity test

d. Before heating, the "red-red" chips have EDS spectra roughly similar to those of red layers presented by Harrit et al (pages 10 an1 11 of redreds.pdf):
d1. All have C, O, Al, Si, Fe
d2. All also have large Ca-peak, and significant S - unlike chips a-d, but like the MEK-chip
d3. Chip 2 and 3 have Al almost as high as Si; Chips 1 and 4 have Si much higher than Al
d4. Chip 1 also has Mg and Na labeled (Na could be Zn!); it also has P, Cl and K. Fairly good match with MEK-Chip (Fig. 19)?
d5. Chip 2 would be a nice match for chips a-d, if it weren't for Ca and S. Gypsum?
d6. Chip 3 is dominated by S and Ca, and has little C and O compared to all other chips. ???
d7. Chip 4, too, has dominant Ca, lots of S, and apparently not so much C and O. It may have unlabeled peaks for Mg and Zn/Na.
Unfortunately, Henryco doesn't show any images of Chips 1-4.

e. Most, or all (?) of the chips aren't clean red, they have "shiny gray areas" on (or within?) their surface. Unclear what this is. Gypsum? Iron oxide? Iron?

f. Chips are not very stable. Difficult to handle them without fracturing them. (this is not from the PDF, but from his blog)

g. After heating, chips are still recognizable as chips, remain red, deform at most

h. But in EDS-spectra, while all other characteristics remain, carbon peak is greatly reduced

i. Sometimes gray particled, most probably those already visible on the surface, are "expelled". In one instance even a microsphere.


This concludes, as far as I can see, the description of Henryco's experimental data.

 

[WTC Dust]

B. Results

a. Henryco confirms that red-gray chips that are attracted to a magnet exist - he found 1 specimen.

b. This red-gray specimen is roughly consistent with the chips that Harrit et al describe in the following regards:
b1. The gray layer is largely dominated by Fe and O in all spots. However in some spots, significant signals for Si, Ca, Al, S, Mg, K, Cr or Mn appear also.
b2. The red layer is largely dominated by C, O, Al, Si in all spots. However in some spots, significant signals for Ca, S and K appear also. Generally, the Si-peak seems to be higher than the Al-peak, making a 1:1 elemental proportion somewhat unlikely.
(Note that he neither cleaned not cut his sample, so all surface spots may be contaminated. Since Ca, S, Si and K appear as contaminants to various degrees in the gray layer too, it would be possible, for example, that the main surface contaminants are gypsum (Ca+S+O), silica (Si-O), some potassium compound, and/or potassium silicate (K+Si+O))

This is not H-C's results, and shouldn't be included in a results section.

b3. The visual appearance both under visual light microscope and SE microscope are similar to chips a-d

c. Note though that the following tests were not done:
c1. No heating of the chip
c2. No EDS map
c3. No BSE or SE images at magnifications sufficient to discern the well known pigments of hematite and kaolin
c4. No MEK soak
c5. No resistivity test

This is not H-C's results and shouldn't be included in a results section.

d. Before heating, the "red-red" chips have EDS spectra roughly similar to those of red layers presented by Harrit et al (pages 10 an1 11 of redreds.pdf):
d1. All have C, O, Al, Si, Fe
d2. All also have large Ca-peak, and significant S - unlike chips a-d, but like the MEK-chip
d3. Chip 2 and 3 have Al almost as high as Si; Chips 1 and 4 have Si much higher than Al
d4. Chip 1 also has Mg and Na labeled (Na could be Zn!); it also has P, Cl and K. Fairly good match with MEK-Chip (Fig. 19)?
d5. Chip 2 would be a nice match for chips a-d, if it weren't for Ca and S. Gypsum?
d6. Chip 3 is dominated by S and Ca, and has little C and O compared to all other chips. ???
d7. Chip 4, too, has dominant Ca, lots of S, and apparently not so much C and O. It may have unlabeled peaks for Mg and Zn/Na.
Unfortunately, Henryco doesn't show any images of Chips 1-4.


e. Most, or all (?) of the chips aren't clean red, they have "shiny gray areas" on (or within?) their surface. Unclear what this is. Gypsum? Iron oxide? Iron?

f. Chips are not very stable. Difficult to handle them without fracturing them. (this is not from the PDF, but from his blog)

g. After heating, chips are still recognizable as chips, remain red, deform at most

Yes. This is the important results. NONE of the chips underwent the thermite reaction when heated.

h. But in EDS-spectra, while all other characteristics remain, carbon peak is greatly reduced

i. Sometimes gray particled, most probably those already visible on the surface, are "expelled". In one instance even a microsphere.

I'd like to review where he said this.


This concludes, as far as I can see, the description of Henryco's experimental data.

Mostly editorializing (in blue) and a strange lack of emphasis on the important result (in red). Mixing the important result in with so much editorializing and jargon is a way to hide it.

 

[beachnut]

Mostly editorializing (in blue) and a strange lack of emphasis on the important result (in red). Mixing the important result in with so much editorializing and jargon is a way to hide it.

Does this fooling around with the thermite delusion mean you have dropped the WTC turned to dust insanity?

 

[Senenmut]

5. On December 18, 2008, he first published some results from these three samples: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/News_english.html
Note that, in order to get these early results, he had extracted particles of interest with a magnet, and concentrated solely on microspheres and other only-iron-rich components - no mention of red or red-gray chips yet!

it is interesting if he indeed watched the boston video, the apex of the presentation IMO was the discovery of the red gray chips. im sure henryco would have been aware of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvRtJO5cNJs

6. Apparently prompted by the publication of the Bentham paper, early April 2009, Henryco revisited his sample by again pulling a magnet through them, or at least samples 1 and 2, this time with a view to red-gray chips. He noted that he could extract far fewer magnetic particles than the first time, and that this is probably due to the sample already having been depleted of magnetically attracted particles when he first treated them in November/December 2008.
So as a result, he found only 1 red-gray chip. He also found a decent number of "red-only" or "red-red" chips.

I think henryco would need to explain himself. are u trying to say that he discarded all the things of interest the first time around then went back with a magnet to collect more particles of interest?

from his presentation:

"not even one chip of the same kind from the 7 grams of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected from the authors of the public.)

 

[DGM]

it is interesting if he indeed watched the boston video, the apex of the presentation IMO was the discovery of the red gray chips. im sure henryco would have been aware of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvRtJO5cNJs

Would this mean you agree with the author that all of the chips separated this way are "thermetic"?

 

[Senenmut]

Would this mean you agree with the author that all of the chips separated this way are "thermetic"?

how many chips did NOT produce iron and silicon rich microspheres from the dsc experiment?

did millette follow the scientific method and replicate experiments to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres so we can say they are the same material?

 

[Oystein]

Mostly editorializing (in blue) and a strange lack of emphasis on the important result (in red). Mixing the important result in with so much editorializing and jargon is a way to hide it.

I agree that most of what you marked blue should go into a (later to be added) "Discussion" section. Consider this a draft. These "editorial remarks" serve more as a reminder to myself. I have mailed F-H-C and asked him to correct what I wrote there, or add information. He refused to, unfortunately.
I plan on expanding this (perhaps write a post in my bklog eventually, but I won't promise). If and when I do, I try to remember your advice and keep "results" and "discussion" separate. So thanks for that.

I also agree that the result "stayed red" is very important, and have no reason at all to hide it. The same is of course true for Harrit et al's chips.

 

[Oystein]

it is interesting if he indeed watched the boston video, the apex of the presentation IMO was the discovery of the red gray chips. im sure henryco would have been aware of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvRtJO5cNJs

Possible; I don't know if he watched the Boston presentation, but he was in contact at least with Gage in 2008, very probably with Jones, and I think with Ryan also (I have to check again - I copied a ton of notes into a yet unstructured document on my hard disc - the above post is just a summary), so I would guess that he should have been aware of the relevance of these chips.
BUT I note that, in December 2008, he in fact only showed spheres, no red or red-gray chips. And also, elsewhere, he stated explicitly that he couldn't find red-gray chips when he went through the samples with a magnet for the second time.

So my best interpretation at this time is that he was, for whatever reason, not interestes in red-gray chips in Nov/Dec 2008, and may have lost such chips on that occasion.

I think henryco would need to explain himself.

Right. I emailed him yesterday right after I sent that post, and am in an email exchange with him today - but he refused to comment on the post or answer a few specific questions I wrote in my first mail.

are u trying to say that he discarded all the things of interest the first time around then went back with a magnet to collect more particles of interest?

Yes, that is my best interpretation of various posts he wrote both on his own website and here at JREF.
I could be wrong, of course.

from his presentation:

"not even one chip of the same kind from the 7 grams of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected from the authors of the public.)

Yes. This is a finding, apparently, from the second time he went through the samples, probably in April 2009, after he had already pulled out stuff with a magnet in Nov or Dec 2008.
So it's possible he didn't find red-gray chips in April 2009 because those had all already been pulled out in Nov/Dec 2008.
You see, the gray layer is almost certainly the magnetic one: It almost certainly contains a significant proportion of magnetite (Fe3O4), and possibly some elemental iron, whereas none of the identified ingredients of the various red layers (hematite, kaolin, epoxy, silica) are much or at all attracted to a magnet.

 

[Gamolon]

did millette follow the scientific method and replicate experiments to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres so we can say they are the same material?

Did Harrit and his group produce iron and silicon microspheres from every single chip referenced in their Bentham paper to make sure they were all the same material?

 

[Oystein]

Would this mean you agree with the author that all of the chips separated this way are "thermetic"?

Please, not here. I posted in this thread yesterday to isolate discussion of the henryco results from discussion of the Millette results.

henryco believes that all the (red-only) chips that he separated are NOT thermitic. I agree. I don't actually care if Senemut agrees. I simply want to flesh out what we know objectively from henryco's studies, and not jump too much into interpretation too soon. I want to get some feedback first whether my "story" is factually correct.

 

[Senenmut]

henryco believes that all the (red-only) chips that he separated are NOT thermitic. I agree. I don't actually care if Senemut agrees.

that is probably a good guess since he heated his to 900C and they stayed red and did not produce iron and silicon rich microspheres whereas mark basile heated his chips to 430C ish and they did react.

one point that I wanted to make is henryco found only 1 red gray chip out of 7 grams of dust. manipulation...substitutuion???? only he can tell us if he through out 3 samples worth of things of interest attracted to a magnet???? one would think that one would hold onto such stuff. I cant find a number of how many grams millette had. maybe chris moyr can find out. millette found MANY red gray chips.

 

[Oystein]

that is probably a good guess since he heated his to 900C and they stayed red and did not produce iron and silicon rich microspheres whereas mark basile heated his chips to 430C ish and they did react.

Yes.

The best explanation for this is that the microspheres habe nothing to do with the red layer, and the red layer has nothing to do with thermite. They have everything to do with the gray layer (oxidized steel).

one point that I wanted to make is henryco found only 1 red gray chip out of 7 grams of dust. manipulation...substitutuion???? only he can tell us if he through out 3 samples worth of things of interest attracted to a magnet???? one would think that one would hold onto such stuff. I cant find a number of how many grams millette had. maybe chris moyr can find out. millette found MANY red gray chips.

Have you already completely forgotten what you wrote and what you read just hours ago???
Henryco went through his samples with a sample twice. After the first time, he had prpbably already pulled out much of the magnetically attracted material, which would include the red-gray "chips of interest". So when he tried it a second time, his dust may already have been severely depleted. There were still red-only chips, because the red paint is not magnetically attracted.

 

[Senenmut]

Have you already completely forgotten what you wrote and what you read just hours ago???
Henryco went through his samples with a sample twice. After the first time, he had prpbably already pulled out much of the magnetically attracted material, which would include the red-gray "chips of interest". So when he tried it a second time, his dust may already have been severely depleted. There were still red-only chips, because the red paint is not magnetically attracted.

you don't know that. he will have to speak for himself. the fourth sample did not contain any red gray chips as u stated above. how many grams was that sample.
the bentham paper states:
"In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the
fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen
small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted
from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable
glass and concrete fragments had been removed by
hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately
0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling
showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated
dust."



so he should have found about 70 red gray chips in a 7 grams of samples. manipulation...substitution??? instead he found 1 and lost it. sounds SHADY!

 

[Oystein]

you don't know that. he will have to speak for himself. the fourth sample did not contain any red gray chips as u stated above. how many grams was that sample.
...

I actually do know that for the first 3 samples, because he wrote about it.
Fair point about the fourth, and I don't know how large that was. It was collected "collected in a loft at 18 Warren street" - that's 5 blocks from GZ, and apparantly indoors. Assuming that windows were not broken there, the question is: How did the dust enter that loft; and, consequently, which fraction of the dust made it inside? Harrit et al have observed that the fraction of red-gray chips in the dust seems to decline with distance, and speculate (plausibly, in my opinion) that their higher density from the gray layer (oxidized steel) would make them settle out of the dust quicker. Perhaps a similar correlation applies to indoor vs. outdoor samples.

 

[Senenmut]

I actually do know that for the first 3 samples, because he wrote about it.

where does he say he threw all the things of interest away that was attracted via a magnet?

 

[Oystein]

you don't know that. he will have to speak for himself. the fourth sample did not contain any red gray chips as u stated above. ...

Actually, I do know that - see highlighted quotes below from June 2009.

where does he say he threw all the things of interest away that was attracted via a magnet?

See highlighted quotes below.


Henryco did respond to (a number of) my questions after all! A quick and unorganized reply, summarizing the pertinent parts of F-H-C's lates mail, together with other information we already know:

A) Size and quality of samples

The four samples I listed so far had the following sizes:

"Sample 1 (almost pure dust only): 2.8g
Sample 2 (collected with vacuum cleaner: many dead leaves and carpet residuals removed by hand, i lost part of this material during manipulations : 0.7g. Sample 2 was collected with a vacuum cleaner in an appartment by Richard L , Broadway
Sample 3 (very small sample with many quite big glass and concrete pieces i had to remove by hand ): 0.2g
Sample 4 (from Mr W, one small piece of concrete removed by hand, almost only pure dust, small fraction lost during manipulations) : 3.6g

Total: 7.3g "​

And then:

"But there was also a fifth sample received during the summer of 2009 as far as i can remember. Again nothing new so i did not speak about it and i was not able to find any reference to it in my emails so far..."​

He say that sample 3 was useless, Sample 2 had very little actual WTC dust, and plenty of -non-WTC material, so that was of limited use. I have no indication about the source, amount and quality of the last, fifth sample. So that leaves us with two useful and interesting samples: S1 and S4.


B) Sample 1

"All the material analysed from all samples has always been extracted with a magnet
...
Sample 1 (collected from a car windscreen on Fulton Street by James M) is really the first sample i got with a dust corresponding to the description of the very fibrous WTC dust given in the litterature

Sample 1 and 2 as far as i can reconstruct the history from my emails was received by me between october and december 2008 , sample 3 earlier [Oystein: from R. Gage who carried it around on his European tour, which was in November 2008, so Samples 1+2 could not have come in October, or F-N-C's recollection that Sample 3 came "earlier" is wrong].

I discovered the single red-gray chip i documented in sample 1 or 2 (dont remember which one)."

On June 8, 2009, Henryco had stated:

"It's also possible that i have lost the most interesting material when i first extracted a few monthes ago the more magnetic particles : the one i extract now are less magnetic (for instance i see much less iron microspheres than i did) and only a much more powerful magnet allows me to extract them."​

On June 11, 2009, Henryco had stated:

"yes [I found only one red-gray chip], but there can be a simple explanation. The first extraction of iron rich material with a magnet i did probably selected the most interesting material ... (microspheres and gray part of the chips very magnetic) . But i only used it to search for the microspheres. ..i thought i would just need to reextract later some more material to look for the chips...but i certainly lost the most interesting chips with this first extraction."​

Note that S1 is the only outdoor sample, as far as I can tell ("collected from a car windscreen on Fulton Street by James M"), while S2 ("collected with a vacuum cleaner in an appartment by Richard L , Broadway"^[*]) and S4 ("collected in a loft at 18 Warren street", see my long post 3 days ago that revived this thread) are indoor samples.
([*] Note: "Broadway" runs the full length of Manhattan, from Battery park to Harlem. It's closest distance ffrom GZ is 2 blocks)

S3, again, is very small and found by Henryco to be of no use ("Sample 3 had nothing that could be recognized as a property of WTC dust (a few pieces of concrete and very little dust) , It was collected on Ann street and brought to France By Richard Gage at the time of his conference trip in europe, he gave it to Reopen911 people in paris who sent it to my colleague JP Biberian and me. So let's forget sample 3."), and we have no useful information on S5.

The four samples that Harrit et al present in the Bentham paper were:

• Sample 1 MacKinlay: "113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St"; "the flowing cloud of dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break inward and dust filled her apartment. ... The building was closed for entry for about a week. As soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment, she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a large sealable plastic bag" -> Collected inside an apartment, but windows was broken and apartment wide open to the elements when the dust came in.
• Sample 2 Delessio/Breidenbach: "Brooklyn Bridge"; "on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic bag." -> Outdoor sample
• Sample 3 Intermont: "16 Hudson St"; "This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’ World Trade Center Towers, was collected from my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson Street on September 12, 2001" -> Indoor sample
• Sample 4 White: "1 Hudson St"; "On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of 1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm)." -> Indoor sample with limited exposure to the elements
• Not considered anonymous "Sample 5" (my numbering): "collected by an individual from a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC" -> Indoor or outdoor sill? What Potter St? I can't find no Potter St in New York, only a Potter Avenue inm Staten Island

We know that the MacKinlay sample yielded "Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg ... extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand" (page 23). Strangely, the second sample for which they quantified the number of red-gray chips bears no identification: "Another sampling
showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated dust." (ibid).


So, to summarize:

1. Henryco was sure in June 2009 that he had lost most of the "interesting" magnetic particles from S1 when he had first extracted magnetic particles months earlier and was only interested in microspheres, not in chips.
2. S2 was an indoor sample heavily contaminated with normal household dust
3. S3 was of no use
4. S4 was collected from inside a loft, no idea if any windows were open, and how the dust entered the loft
5. S5 was not used, and we have no usable information on it

In contrast
6. The MacKinlay sample is known to have originated from a location that was open to the elements such that many dust fractions were free to enter. This is the only identified sample on which Harrit et al report the amount of red-gray chips they found. It is essentially an outdoor sample.
7. The other sample they did a count of chips on could have come from an outdoor location (Delessio/Breidenbach) or from an apartment with window somewhat open (mostly indoor; White) or from an indoor sample (Intermont), or from a sample where location and indoor or outdoor status are unclear (anon., "Potter St")


In my mind, Henryco not being able to find more than one red-gray chip can plausibly explained without recourse to any manipulation:

• He had depleted 2 or 3 of his samples of magnetic particles before he even searched for red-gray chips and finds it possible that he thus lost such chips
• Some of his samples were dubious to begin with
• One was from an indoor location, which larger and denser particles like nice red-gray chips might not have entered in sufficient quantitiy. We can't deduce from the Harrit et al paper if indoor samples had a large or small proportion of such chips. (I remember that someone from the Harrit team believed that red-gray chips may be more plentyful in locations closer to GZ, but I don't remember where I read or heard that).

 

[Senenmut]

On June 8, 2009, Henryco had stated:
"It's also possible that i have lost the most interesting material when i first extracted a few monthes ago the more magnetic particles : the one i extract now are less magnetic (for instance i see much less iron microspheres than i did) and only a much more powerful magnet allows me to extract them."
On June 11, 2009, Henryco had stated:
"yes [I found only one red-gray chip], but there can be a simple explanation. The first extraction of iron rich material with a magnet i did probably selected the most interesting material ... (microspheres and gray part of the chips very magnetic) . But i only used it to search for the microspheres. ..i thought i would just need to reextract later some more material to look for the chips...but i certainly lost the most interesting chips with this first extraction."

did you ask if he know about the red gray chips at the time of the first magnetic sweep? that would be important to know.

did you ask what he did with the stuff of interest that was attracted to the magnet the first time around? did he just throw it away after he got the microspheres out. if he was looking at the "stuff of interest" under a microscope, he sure would have seen the red gray chips along with the microspheres. are u gonna fail to pin him down on what he actually did with the stuff of interest after he got the microspheres out?



it would be hard to believe he threw away his red gray chips if he knew about jones presentation in boston at the time.

 

[Oystein]

did you ask if he know about the red gray chips at the time of the first magnetic sweep? that would be important to know.

did you ask what he did with the stuff of interest that was attracted to the magnet the first time around? did he just throw it away after he got the microspheres out. if he was looking at the "stuff of interest" under a microscope, he sure would have seen the red gray chips along with the microspheres. are u gonna fail to pin him down on what he actually did with the stuff of interest after he got the microspheres out?



it would be hard to believe he threw away his red gray chips if he knew about jones presentation in boston at the time.

Why? He was asked 4 years ago how it came that he couldn't find red-gray chips, and he clearly said then:
"i certainly lost the most interesting chips with this first extraction"

What difference does it make whether he threw them away intentionally, or forgot where kept the rest, or lost it in a puff of wind blowing over his desk? He doesn't say he "threw away his red gray chips", he says he "certainly lost" them.

What difference does his state of mind at the time make and whether he knew, or did not know, about red-gray chips, when he clearly states:
"i only used it to search for the microspheres"
So far whatever reason, he was not interested in red-gray chips at that time, AND "thought [he] would just need to reextract later some more material to look for the chips". Well, he found later he was mistaken, and couldn't find much more magnetically attracted stuff.


Why are you asking such questions? Do you believe that any answer today could alter the reality of 2009 that he "certainly lost the most interesting chips with this first extraction"? Do you believe in time travel and magic?