[Merged] Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Oystein]

Here is an interview (Part 2/3) with Niels Harrit from July 2009 which I had not seen before, making a statement about active and dead chips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrMIhVq-G0

[1:24]It takes some experience to find the active particles. Some of them are dead, some of them are active.

And he goes on to speculate that perhaps exposure to water is one way to deactivate chips.

A bit further in the interview, he talks about how NIST has heated steel columns and found that the Tnemec primer was "stable". Which kind of raises the question: Why did it not occur to Harrit that perhaps some of the "dead" chips could be Tnemec primer?


And this raises the questions:

• Did they study dead chips?
• Are they different, by morphology or elemental spectrum, from active chips?
• If yes: by what criteria can the dead chips be distinguished from the active chips? Did they apply these criteria before doing further studies on chips a-d, the MEK-chip, the multilayered chip or the chip whose resistivity is 10 ohm-m?
• If not: How did they make sure that the chips a-d, the MK-soaked chip, the multilayered chip or the chip whose resistivity is 10 ohm-m were active? Did they ignite them afterward?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Considering just Tnemec and Laclede primer paints, we could guess that Tnemec might be the material which is "dead" one for Harrit, since it contained considerably less of combustible polymer binder. On the other hand, it contained considerably more of strongly oxidizing chromate (zinc chromate), which can perhaps contribute to the speed of polymer oxidation/burning...

 

[Oystein]

Ivan,

I am not sure that dry Tnemec "contained considerably less of combustible polymer binder". The fact is, we don't know what the pigment:binder ratio is in that paint, but I think it can't be too far from the 28.5:71.5 ratio in LaClede - after all, it needs to be sufficiently viscous to be applied. The Tnemec pigments contain 36% iron oxide, the LaClede pigments 55%. One could guess that a similar density of red pigments might be a reasonble expectation, on the other hand, if LaClede can do with only 4% chromates in the pigment, and Tnemec needs 20%, one could with similar reason expect less pigment per binder mass unit. The proprietary portion of the pigments seems to be mostly filler - talc, silicates, aluminates, and thus plays, together with silica, the role of kaolin in LaClede. LaClede pigments are 41% filler, Tnemec pigments is 44% filler. LaClede is 59% color pigments, Tnemec is 56% color pigments. To get comparable cover and color intensity, this would speak for a similar pigment:binder ratio. Finally, my simulations of "contaminated Tnemec", and comparison with Jones's Tnemec sample, suggests a ratio of 61.6:38.4 - but I have lately grown more aware of The Almond's warning a long time ago that simulating C and O is a den of snakes, because peaks could be off by factors as high as 2.

Secondly, Tnemec isn't necessarily "dead" - depends on your definition of "dead". I am pretty sure it does react under 600 °C, just doesn't burn outright with an obviousl flame. Probably decomposes somewhat. It's just that it maintains cohesion rather than turning to ashes. And it stays red, because the iron oxide doesn't stay red. I have no doubt that at the time the formation of scales and the scaling sets in (650 °C, iirc), it's mass is already depleted.
Of course the same may apply to "dead" chips: That they don't burn with a flame, just decompose quietly and more slowly than the epoxy chips.

Another idea: That some of the red chips were from the fire zones where they already has experienced some heat (under 600 °C), causing them to partially decompose. Such chips would not react much when heated again to the same temp. Such chips could be expected to spall off more easily and more abundantly during the collapse. The chip in Fig. 32 and 33, with the carbon layer between iron oxide and red layer, could be such an example?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: OK, my guess that Tnemec contained considerably less of polymer binder was... no more than guess. I basically "derived" that my guess from the XEDS of Tnemec provided by S. Jones, in which carbon peak is low, but I should bear more in my mind how these "carbon data" are treacherous.

Otherwise, I agree: Harrit's "dead chips" can be those who just decompose "quietly", without flame. Of course, no paint chip with organic polymer binder can be really "dead" (non-reacting under air at high temperatures), this is a thing which I've repeated here x-times. Polymer binder is always combusted with some exothermic effects and does not basically exist anymore at temperatures above ca 600 degrees C.

 

[Miragememories]

"Here is an interview (Part 2/3) with Niels Harrit from July 2009 which I had not seen before, making a statement about active and dead chips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrMIhVq-G0

And he goes on to speculate that perhaps exposure to water is one way to deactivate chips.

A bit further in the interview, he talks about how NIST has heated steel columns and found that the Tnemec primer was "stable". Which kind of raises the question: Why did it not occur to Harrit that perhaps some of the "dead" chips could be Tnemec primer?


And this raises the questions:..."

Why the obsession with minutiae?

As Dr. Harrit himself said in a link you provided recently;

"...since you cannot put every basic control test image or report every bit of supporting data in a journal article. The articles would be so enormous that no one would bother reading them and no journal would possibly care to print them. There are some things that are implied."

Laypeople who are unversed in all the routine data-collecting that makes up laboratory research procedures, might mistakenly believe that a final report 'is the iceberg' and not the 'tip of the iceberg'.

MM

 

[DGM]

Why the obsession with minutiae?

As Dr. Harrit himself said in a link you provided recently;

"...since you cannot put every basic control test image or report every bit of supporting data in a journal article. The articles would be so enormous that no one would bother reading them and no journal would possibly care to print them. There are some things that are implied."

Laypeople who are unversed in all the routine data-collecting that makes up laboratory research procedures, might mistakenly believe that a final report 'is the iceberg' and not the 'tip of the iceberg'.

MM

Then maybe they should have stuck to the things that mattered. Did they not figure that out until later?

BTW: No one is really reading it anyway.

 

[DGM]

MM:
Your post is proof that the paper is no good. One aspect of a good paper is the results are repeatable by anyone reading it. It can't be done because the paper does not contain the information to do it. They don't even specify what chips a "thermetic" and which one are not.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

[Oystein]

"...There are some things that are implied." ...

Then can you please spell out the answers to the following questions, as far as they are implied in the paper:

• Did they study dead chips?
• Are they different, by morphology or elemental spectrum, from active chips?
• If yes: by what criteria can the dead chips be distinguished from the active chips? Did they apply these criteria before doing further studies on chips a-d, the MEK-chip, the multilayered chip or the chip whose resistivity is 10 ohm-m?
• If not: How did they make sure that the chips a-d, the MK-soaked chip, the multilayered chip or the chip whose resistivity is 10 ohm-m were active? Did they ignite them afterward?

Or, alternatively, point out which answers are not implied by the paper.

Thanks.

(MM, that's 4 question, requiring 4 specific replies; each replyis either "this is not implied - ask Dr. Harrit" or "this is implied, and the answer is...".

Prediction: MM will not deliver even one reply in that form, when four replies are required)

 

[Oystein]

Here is another paper with some insight on how epoxy with nanoparticles performs when heated:

Camino G, Tartaglione G, Frache A, Manferti C, Costa G: Thermal and combustion behaviour of layered silicate-epoxy nanocomposites. Polymer Degradation and Stability 90 (2005) 354-362
http://144.206.159.178/ft/864/569194/12251709.pdf

The interesting bit is the detailed description of how pure epoxy degrades, chars and oxidizes under nitrogen and under air at temperatures increasing from room temperature to above 700 °C, in Section 3.2.1
(Note that the TGA-curves in Fig. 4. do NOT coincide with positive energy release; they indicate mass loss from decomposition (endotherm) as well as mass loss from oxidation of solids (exotherm), which both yield gaseous products).

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Just to revive this thread a little bit...

Truther Ziggi Zugam aka Siggi published now a new article on Debunking the Debunkers, called "The Energetic Red Layer: The FTIR".

Ziggi wrote (among others):
"The best known example of a skeletal matrix is based on a fluorinated polymer, but the "debunker" known as Oystein states that it "is safe to assume that this [red layer]matrix is some form of organic polymer (or a mix of polymers), that contains no Fluorine or Chlorine," and his friend Kminek agrees, "since no fluorine was detected." The fallacy of their assumption becomes apparent when you realize that Harrit explained a long time ago that "one problem with the investigation which has just been done is that we cannot see fluorine because the response from fluorine lies under the iron response, which we see all the time."

Harrit was basically right in a sense that fluorine and iron XEDS signals below 1 KeV lie at very similar positions about 0.7 KeV.
But, if (hypothetically) the polymer binder in the red layers is fluorinated polymer, like Viton in known "superthermite", fluorine signal should be very high/much higher than Fe signal. Common fluorinated polymers have more of fluorine than of carbon in them. E.g., in Teflon (PTFE), the molar ratio F/C is 2:1, in Viton, this ratio is also much higher than 1. Wiki says "The fluorine content of the most common Viton grades varies between 66 and 70%."

Therefore, XEDS should clearly detect such fluorinated polymers (their fluorine peaks) in the red layers of red/gray chips.
After some googling, I have been able to find only this XEDS spectrum of Teflon:

(Do not look at Au peaks, they are not relevant for "our case")
Here, fluorine peak is even much higher than carbon peak (for reasons unknown to me). Anyway, this spectrum seems to indirectly indicate that if the polymer in Bentham chips (a) to (d) is fluorinated, this should be accompanied by very distinct fluorine peak in XEDS spectra, no matter that signal of this element lies at the similar position as the small iron peak

(I'm aware that fluorine with its atomic number 9 is a pretty light element and its detection by XEDS may be problematic. This was just my remark and better analysis of people knowing XEDS in more detail is welcome...)

 

[Oystein]

Ivan,

yeah I saw Ziggi's article, and it is full of flaws. He makes a few observations here, some suppositions there, throws in half-understood half-truths, and basically it is a divergent mess.

Yes, Fluor would show very prominently at 20 keV even in low concentrations and would not hide under the Fe L-alpha peak if there is 2 wt-% or more F in the mix.

At a molar ratio of F:C of 2:1, the F-peak will come out many many times larger than the C-peak - something like 20 times higher.
At F:C of 3:5, which is close to 1:1 by weight, the F-peak is 4x as high as the C-peak. Don't know why, that's just how it actually is.

All those fluorinated polymers have low specific energies and don't help to solve the problem with the 7.5 kJ/g release they measured for one chip.

Harrit's statement about fluor hidung under the Fe-signal just goes to show that Harrit is an amateur when it comes to reading XEDS graphs. I am sure Farrer would have cringed if he ever heard Harrit say such a thing.

 

[Redwood]

All those fluorinated polymers have low specific energies and don't help to solve the problem with the 7.5 kJ/g release they measured for one chip.

Harrit's statement about fluor hidung under the Fe-signal just goes to show that Harrit is an amateur when it comes to reading XEDS graphs. I am sure Farrer would have cringed if he ever heard Harrit say such a thing.

I was going to mention that, thanks. Every time a Harritite squeezes another supposition out of #2, a rumble is heard from the tomb of William of Ockham.

 

[jtl]

Kminek: I'm aware that fluorine with its atomic number 9 is a pretty light element and its detection by XEDS may be problematic.

How about FTIR?

I asked Oystein before:

For the record, I really do wonder if you would really accept Harrit´s FTIR if it is consistent with superthermite...?

and Oystein gave the answer:

Yes, absolutely.

But he reads the following in an article, without mentioning it:

one member of the team has provided a little teaser; the snapshot of his FTIR spectra in this video(at 9m.25s) demonstrates that their result is consistent with the fluorine-infused superthermite in the Gash report.

 

[beachnut]

How about FTIR?

I asked Oystein before:


and Oystein gave the answer:


But he reads the following in an article, without mentioning it:

It does not match. That is funny, 911 truth is so darn gullible. Part of 911 truth spread lies and fantasy, the other part is the so darn gullible part. The video was funny, but why did it and the paper fail to earn a Pulitzer? lol

If you are sure, take this "evidence", team with a new paper, and apply for that Pulitzer, and show us all how it is done. Too bad you are stuck with nonsense and crazy 911 truth claims based on nothing.

Seriously, Jones made up his claim out of thin air by looking at some sparks spraying from a section of the WTC; no damage was found to any steel due to thermite, but Jones was upset politically, and made it up. He fools people who can't do science.

You can't be funnier if you tried. Most 911 truth followers figure out the fraud of Jones and leave, smarter for the experience.

 

[Oystein]

How about FTIR?

I asked Oystein before:


and Oystein gave the answer:


But he reads the following in an article, without mentioning it:

I actually did refute that FTIR "teaser", two posts above yours:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9075979&postcount=1651
The "teaser" pretends that the FTIR for the organic matrix is consistent with a particular experimental preparation by Gash et al. in 2002. Imn particular, with Viton-A.

Viton A is ca. 66% F by mass, less than 34% by mass C.

If this stuff was really in the red layer of the chips, there would be a HUGE peak for fluor in all of the XEDS-spectra, it would be many many many many many many many many many times larger than the C-peak, which is generally the highest in the spectra they show. And all the other peaks, including iron, would seem totally insignificant next to it.

I plan to write a response to Ziggi in my blog, but didn't have the time until today. Will perhaps take a few more days.


Bottom line: That FTIR-teaser, in isolation, proves nothing; it isn't published, it is void of useful context, and it is refuted by ALL of the other evidence we have. This is cherry-picked data, hence the sort of stuff that truthers love to believe if their gurus say so.


Would you join me in asking Kevin Ryan to release the full FTIR data?

 

[Sunstealer]

The fluorine idea is total nonsense. Anyone going down that route has no idea what they are talking about. Fluorine would show up on the EDX any way. This Ziggi person is talking rubbish. Having looked at the video and taken a screen shot it's obvious that the person who made that composite graph has absolutely no idea what they are doing with regard to FTIR.

Overlaying one graph on top of the other is stupid because you are not looking for troughs and peaks to match perfectly. What you are looking for is specific types of troughs (Intensity - weak, medium, strong and shape- broad, sharp) at specific wavenumbers which correspond to certain bonds and functional groups of bonds.

The FTIR library (which normally comes with the equipment) allows a computer program to match the unknown spectra to known materials anyway. There is no need to go superimposing random spectra over the top. To see how a professional does it then see Dr Millette's report.

Here's a screenshot.

 

[BasqueArch]

The fluorine idea is total nonsense. Anyone going down that route has no idea what they are talking about. Fluorine would show up on the EDX any way. This Ziggi person is talking rubbish. Having looked at the video and taken a screen shot it's obvious that the person who made that composite graph has absolutely no idea what they are doing with regard to FTIR.

Overlaying one graph on top of the other is stupid because you are not looking for troughs and peaks to match perfectly. What you are looking for is specific types of troughs (Intensity - weak, medium, strong and shape- broad, sharp) at specific wavenumbers which correspond to certain bonds and functional groups of bonds.

The FTIR library (which normally comes with the equipment) allows a computer program to match the unknown spectra to known materials anyway. There is no need to go superimposing random spectra over the top. To see how a professional does it then see Dr Millette's report.

Here's a screenshot.

I checked the link and it also looks like the above Gash formulation FTIR doesn't contain Al. They mention two formulations one FeO/Viton and another FeO/Al/Viton - this FTIR not shown.

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf

 

[Oystein]

The fluorine idea is total nonsense. Anyone going down that route has no idea what they are talking about. Fluorine would show up on the EDX any way. This Ziggi person is talking rubbish. ...

It is true - the fluorine (F) peak is pretty much at the same location as the L-alpha peak for iron (Fe), and so it's not implausible that one could masl the other.

However, F tends to respond very strongly to 20 keV. So if the idea that Ryan/Ziggi/jtl want to inject here is that somehow some of the red-gray chips contain Viton-A, like Gash's experimental formulation, then F would very much dominate C, as you'll soon see.

Viton-A is a co-polymer of Difluoroethylene (shorthand: VF2; sum formula: C₂H₂F₂) and Hexafluoropropylene (HFP; sum formula: C₃F₆).
Wikipedia says that Viton-A has a fluorine content of 66%, and I found that a mix of 2/3 VF2 and 1/3 HFP gives you 66.2% F by weight.

To give people an idea for how well fluorine shows on EDS-graphs, I ran a few simulations.

The first is Viton-A alone:

Huge F, small C. This will of course show in any mix!


Then, for reference, stoichiometric thermite (2 Al + Fe₂O₃) alone:

Notice how Fe has three peaks, of which the first and second are of interest here: In my simulation, the first peak (L-alpha) comes out ca. 50% of the height of the main peak, K-alpha.
Al is 25.3% of the mass here, and Fe 52.25%, but the Al-peak is by far the highest.

Now let us mix 90% thermite and 10% Viton-A! I choose this ratio because it's what Tillotson and Gash did in the paper with the DSC test. In that mix, we'll find 47% iron and 6.6% fluorine, and this is what the EDS comes out as:

We now have, to the right of O at ca. 0.7 keV, a peak jointly for F and Fe (L-alpha). This peak is now a good 70% of the height of Fe K-alpha - and this ratio you never really get to see for Fe alone. So even though you can't see F separately, you should already know it's there, because that 0.7 keV peak is too high relative to the 6.4 keV peak of Fe K-alpha.
But there is practically no C in that spectrum! So Viton-A cannot be the matrix here! And we need a higher C-peak than all of the metals! This cannot be done by adding more Viton-A, this can only be done by adding a fluorine-free organic polymer.


Let's jump ahead. I am now comparing two mixes:
In both, I have 20% stoichiometric thermite + 10% silica (let's not forget there is always as much Si as Al, or more!); but in the first simulation (blue graph) I filled this up with 70% of some generic organic polymer with a molar C:O ratio of 4:1 (epoxy could be an example of this), while in the red graph, I have 65% generic organic polymer + 5% Viton-A. Both contain 10.45 wt-% iron. The blue mix has 56% carbon, the red mix has 53.7% carbon and 3.3% fluorine.

As you can see: The peak at 0.7 keV is really dominated by fluorine, not by iron! No competent analyst would miss the presence of F here! (And I am sure that the software wouldn't miss it either).


You'd need a lot less than 5% Viton-A to make the fluorine disappear. But then, all the properties that might make a fluorinated polymer attractive for use in such a "superthermite" get diluted to a point where it is useless.

And again, we find that the mass of the chip, and hence its energy content, is far and away dominated by some ordinary, non-fluorinated, non-halogenic organic polymer!


Of course truthers like Ziggi, jtl or Senemut would never figure these things out by themselves. They put all their faith in their gurus like Ryan and Harrit. Critical thinking? Scepticism? Zero.

 

[Peter May]

It is true - the fluorine (F) peak is pretty much at the same location as the L-alpha peak for iron (Fe), and so it's not implausible that one could masl the other.

However, F tends to respond very strongly to 20 keV. So if the idea that Ryan/Ziggi/jtl want to inject here is that somehow some of the red-gray chips contain Viton-A, like Gash's experimental formulation, then F would very much dominate C, as you'll soon see.

Viton-A is a co-polymer of Difluoroethylene (shorthand: VF2; sum formula: C₂H₂F₂) and Hexafluoropropylene (HFP; sum formula: C₃F₆).
Wikipedia says that Viton-A has a fluorine content of 66%, and I found that a mix of 2/3 VF2 and 1/3 HFP gives you 66.2% F by weight.

To give people an idea for how well fluorine shows on EDS-graphs, I ran a few simulations.

The first is Viton-A alone:

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/XEDS-Sims/Viton-A_bulk_20keV_zpse2e44753.png[/qimg]

Huge F, small C. This will of course show in any mix!


Then, for reference, stoichiometric thermite (2 Al + Fe₂O₃) alone:

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/XEDS-Sims/Thermite_bulk_20keV_zps6bf6905b.png[/qimg]

Notice how Fe has three peaks, of which the first and second are of interest here: In my simulation, the first peak (L-alpha) comes out ca. 50% of the height of the main peak, K-alpha.
Al is 25.3% of the mass here, and Fe 52.25%, but the Al-peak is by far the highest.

Now let us mix 90% thermite and 10% Viton-A! I choose this ratio because it's what Tillotson and Gash did in the paper with the DSC test. In that mix, we'll find 47% iron and 6.6% fluorine, and this is what the EDS comes out as:

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/XEDS-Sims/90Thermite10Viton_bulk_20keV_zps59eb3cd1.png[/qimg]

We now have, to the right of O at ca. 0.7 keV, a peak jointly for F and Fe (L-alpha). This peak is now a good 70% of the height of Fe K-alpha - and this ratio you never really get to see for Fe alone. So even though you can't see F separately, you should already know it's there, because that 0.7 keV peak is too high relative to the 6.4 keV peak of Fe K-alpha.
But there is practically no C in that spectrum! So Viton-A cannot be the matrix here! And we need a higher C-peak than all of the metals! This cannot be done by adding more Viton-A, this can only be done by adding a fluorine-free organic polymer.


Let's jump ahead. I am now comparing two mixes:
In both, I have 20% stoichiometric thermite + 10% silica (let's not forget there is always as much Si as Al, or more!); but in the first simulation (blue graph) I filled this up with 70% of some generic organic polymer with a molar C:O ratio of 4:1 (epoxy could be an example of this), while in the red graph, I have 65% generic organic polymer + 5% Viton-A. Both contain 10.45 wt-% iron. The blue mix has 56% carbon, the red mix has 53.7% carbon and 3.3% fluorine.

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/XEDS-Sims/20Thermite10Silica_comparewith-without-Viton_bulk_20keV_zps628a1c99.png[/qimg]

As you can see: The peak at 0.7 keV is really dominated by fluorine, not by iron! No competent analyst would miss the presence of F here! (And I am sure that the software wouldn't miss it either).


You'd need a lot less than 5% Viton-A to make the fluorine disappear. But then, all the properties that might make a fluorinated polymer attractive for use in such a "superthermite" get diluted to a point where it is useless.

And again, we find that the mass of the chip, and hence its energy content, is far and away dominated by some ordinary, non-fluorinated, non-halogenic organic polymer!


Of course truthers like Ziggi, jtl or Senemut would never figure these things out by themselves. They put all their faith in their gurus like Ryan and Harrit. Critical thinking? Scepticism? Zero.

Dear Mr. Oystein,

“Curiouser and curiouser, Alice in Wonderland

If you don’t know the specific working conditions for the EDX, and how it was applied, you are really out on a limb as it where. They must have been using either a “Thin window, or “Windowless detector.
In general the smaller the specimen size, below 10 micro meters, ish, less Kv is required to avoid electrons getting out of the specimen, i.e. we want them to thrash about and produce X-rays, and not transit the material without any interactions. The surface topography is also causing problems, where a flap of material might have to be traversed before penetration the specimen proper for example. We just do not know!

Kminek: I'm aware that fluorine with its atomic number 9 is a pretty light element and its detection by XEDS may be problematic.
Not really, just depends what sort of EDX you are using, and the amount of current, not Kv, you can deliver onto the specimen for a given beam diameter, i.e. a tradeoff between the best possible resolution, and maximum count rate. This is the important factor at low Kv. We know the FEG SEM they used was hopeless at delivering significant amounts of current, and there are no published figures. So……………
Concerning the Flourine, I found this.

Fluorine resolution FKFWHM
The width of the peaks in a spectrum will
vary depending on the energy of the X-ray
line. In Fig. 8 this variation with energy has
been calculated to show how the resolution
should change with X-ray energy for Si(Li)
and HpGe detectors with different Mn
resolution specifications.

PM Note, the different types of semiconductor.for Si(Li) and HpGe

http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...HFcNReTK1eL4Hiy9VAslAn2tWBnA&sig2=mj9PQh4R6y-


It is very important to understand the advantages of real WDX Spectrometer.

 

[Oystein]

Dear Mr. Oystein,

“Curiouser and curiouser, Alice in Wonderland

If you don’t know the specific working conditions for the EDX, and how it was applied, you are really out on a limb as it where. They must have been using either a “Thin window, or “Windowless detector.
In general the smaller the specimen size, below 10 micro meters, ish, less Kv is required to avoid electrons getting out of the specimen, i.e. we want them to thrash about and produce X-rays, and not transit the material without any interactions. The surface topography is also causing problems, where a flap of material might have to be traversed before penetration the specimen proper for example. We just do not know!
...

Peter,

we actually do know that they are using a “Thin window, or “Windowless detector - an ultrathin window detector, according to this product description of the equipment they used (FEI XL30-SFEG):

http://www.kstreetstudio.com/science/experiments/files/FEI-XL30-SFEG.pdf

We know this is so because they have no trouble picking up C.

We also know a bit about the specimens: For Fig. 7, they cut chips that had red layers pf 15-30 µm thickness and tested the freshly exposed surface, which seemed quite plan, judging from Fig. 5. The depth of the layer was considerably larger than that - many tens of µm, if not hundreds. So we know the specimens are not below 10 µm.

And anyway, with my examples I am merely illustrating how the presence of even a little bit (3%) of F increases the count around 0.7 keV so much that an experienced operator could hardly miss it. If the hypothesis is that the matrix consists to a significant percentage of such a fully fluorinated polymer, AND they measure a lot of C (they do), then they MUST also measure a lot of F. Doesn't really matter if my peak heights are off by a factor of 2 here or there.

 

[jtl]

Peter May: If you don’t know the specific working conditions for the EDX, and how it was applied, you are really out on a limb as it where

The understatement of the month, maybe the year. Little old Harrit Chemistry PhD, with Max Planck Institute under his belt and decades of experience, says after actually doing the research(including all the little tests that are done for checks)that the XEDS will not detect the fluorine because they also have iron.

But oh no, Oystein and Sunstealer, two blokes who have no chemistry expertise, have not done the work in the lab, and dare not say anything using their real names, claim that Harrit is just wrong because he is an amateur poo-poo head.

After all, Oystein can get his signal using a computer simulation, and with all his expertise, he does not have to consider that the real world could present challenges, and without actual experiments he can give "the word of God" in this matter.

And what has happened to their old mantra of FTIR being the conclusive and competent test, while Harrits methods are "incompetent"? Of course now that they have Harrit FTIR that matches superthermite with fluorine, they ignore the FTIR and use the old "incompetent" XEDS to prove the FTIR wrong!

For God´s sake, you guys are impossible, but very funny in a tragic sort of way.

 

[beachnut]

... For God´s sake, you guys are impossible, but very funny in a tragic sort of way.

Harrit lied about thermite (his fantasy). He says there were hundreds of tons of thermite used on 911. An insane lie. Do you believe lies? You are missing the Big E in JREF.

Gullible people believe Harrit's claims. 11 years of failure; what is stopping 911 truth from the Big Pulitzer? lol, you have fantasy, a fake paper, and nuts like Jones and Harrit.

Have you tried 60 minutes? Don't show them the graphs that don't match; that was funny. Do all 911 truth believers need to take pattern recognition courses?

 

[Sunstealer]

4 years since the paper was published and they still haven't published the FTIR data. Frauds.

 

[Miragememories]

"4 years since the paper was published and they still haven't published the FTIR data. Frauds."

The ball is really in Dr. Millette's court.

Dr. Millette claimed his WTC dust red/gray chip samples were isolated by following the selection methods described by Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al in the 2009 Bentham Paper.

Since his work was referenced to the sample selection methods used by Dr. Harrit et al, it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Millette conscientiously read the 2009 Bentham Report before he undertook using its methods for finding red/gray chips of interest.

Dr. Jones even posted his surprise about Dr. Millette not bothering to expedite the isolation process by using the described resistivity findings clearly described in the Bentham paper.

It begs the question as to whether Dr. Millette ever bothered to read any further than, "red/gray chips attracted to a magnet"?

Which means he sorted visually from a larger pile of chips.

Anyone who has ever drawn a strong magnet through sand or fine demolition debris has see how many chips are quickly collected.

The potential for collecting and testing red/gray chips that were actually primer paint was quite high using Dr. Millette's limited sorting method.

But primer paint chips were found to have very high electrical resistance compared to the very low electrical resistance of the chips that were found to be thermitic.

By only using chips that showed very low resistance, the chance of isolating thermitic red/gray chips is greatly enhanced.

And even if Dr. Millette steadfastly refuses to heat his chips to 430C, he could still repeat his original test method but instead use chips that have the similar low electrical resistance of those found to be thermitic.

It is not the more conclusive 430C heat test but at least we would have more agreement that Dr. Millette was likely looking at some of the right chips. Keeping in mind that there are likely red/gray chips showing low electrical resistivity that are not thermitic.

But we do not know why Dr. Millette, chooses not to check-off resistivity test box?

So to answer your question Sunstealer.

Until Dr. Millette bothers to get his paper approved for publication, there is no reason for Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al to make further argument by investing in published updates.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

Until Dr. Millette bothers to get his paper approved for publication, there is no reason for Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al to make further argument by investing in published updates.

MM

So, MM, you are perfectly content to ignore all the things that Jones and his crew said they were going to do, but never did and never will?

That is convenient.

I used to say that "thermite" was the punch line to Jones' failed career, but I hear he has recently gone even further off the rails so... Yay, MM?

 

[DGM]

The ball is really in Dr. Millette's court.

MM

As much as you like to pretend this is true, we all know it's not. The Harrit paper is only known in conspiracy circles (it's audience).

Perhaps you could show us the impact this has had outside of this venue?

ETA: To be fair, I think it was cited once outside in a study of fraud in "pay to publish" journals.

 

[Sunstealer]

The ball is really in Dr. Millette's court.

Not really, there has never been a game. The Harrit et al paper has had zero effect in the scientific world.

Dr. Millette claimed his WTC dust red/gray chip samples were isolated by following the selection methods described by Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al in the 2009 Bentham Paper.

Yes, and there is direct evidence that he did exactly that.

You obviously haven't read Dr Millette's progress report. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

Since his work was referenced to the sample selection methods used by Dr. Harrit et al, it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Millette conscientiously read the 2009 Bentham Report before he undertook using its methods for finding red/gray chips of interest.

Yes he did.

Dr. Jones even posted his surprise about Dr. Millette not bothering to expedite the isolation process by using the described resistivity findings clearly described in the Bentham paper.

You know the answer to this because it's already been aluded to several times in the other thread. You are simply being facetious and dishonest by ignoring the fact that resistivity testing was not part of the methodology for isolating chips. Stop lying. Jones is squirming because he knows he has been found out. He'll pull anything from his behind because he knows any competent study will show Harrit/Jones/Farrer etc for the incompetents they are.

It begs the question as to whether Dr. Millette ever bothered to read any further than, "red/gray chips attracted to a magnet"?

Stop lying. He obviously did. If you had read the progress report thoruoughly and understood the words therein you would know that Millette specifies a criteria based solely on the Harrit et al paper. How come Millette knows to look for EDX spectra containing Al/SiFe if he didn't read past the isolation by magnet?

Here it is:

Methods

In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light microscopy (PLM) according to the procedures described in Turner et al., 20054 (Figures 2 and 3). The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.6 The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a
magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).

2.Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.

3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 6).

4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 7 and 8).

Red/gray particles that matched the criteria (attracted to a magnet) and an
EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum) were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing.

It's all there MM but for some reason you are choosing to ignore Millette's own words written in black and white and instead chose to build a strawman.

This is wilfully dishonest.

Which means he sorted visually from a larger pile of chips.

A lie. See above. He used a very specific criteria. Stop lying.

Anyone who has ever drawn a strong magnet through sand or fine demolition debris has see how many chips are quickly collected.

Yes, funny how the Harrit et al paper never mentions any other material other than red/gray thermite chips being separated by magnet.

The potential for collecting and testing red/gray chips that were actually primer paint was quite high using Dr. Millette's limited sorting method.

You mean the exact same sorting method that Harrit et al used. The fact that Harrit et al found paint chips. Again you have been categorically schooled on this subject, but you aren't big enough to admit that you got it wrong.

But primer paint chips were found to have very high electrical resistance compared to the very low electrical resistance of the chips that were found to be thermitic.

Stop lying. You can't help it can you. No chips in the Harrit et al paper were considered to be paint and no paint chips were tested for their electrical resistivity in the paper.

Why do you continually lie? You know you'll be found out so why do you do it?

What the authors did was compare their resistivity reading from a single chip with data from a small number of paints.

By only using chips that showed very low resistance, the chance of isolating thermitic red/gray chips is greatly enhanced.

Another lie. Stop it.

There is absolutely no indication in Harrit et al that concludes that the red/gray chips or any other material separated by magnet isn't thermite.

What you are doing is trying to confuse matters because you know full well that Millette's study completely and utterly backs my initial analysis 4 years ago and debunks Harrit and the truth movement's silly nano-thermite nonsense.

And even if Dr. Millette steadfastly refuses to heat his chips to 430C, he could still repeat his original test method but instead use chips that have the similar low electrical resistance of those found to be thermitic.

No one has heated their chips to 430°C only. Again you have been told this over and over yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this fact.

Again you use the red-herring of electrical resistivity testing that you made up in your head. Stop doing it. You have already been shown to be wrong by the very authors of the paper!

It is not the more conclusive 430C heat test but at least we would have more agreement that Dr. Millette was likely looking at some of the right chips. Keeping in mind that there are likely red/gray chips showing low electrical resistivity that are not thermitic.

Let's see if you will answer some simple questions. I'll start with only one because there is no point in asking more than one simple question when your record of refusing to answer is so complete.

In the Harrit et al paper fig 7 has EDX spectrums of the red layers for samples a-d.

Do you agree with the paper's authors that the red material in samples a-d is the same? yes/no.

I predict that you will refuse to answer this.

But we do not know why Dr. Millette, chooses not to check-off resistivity test box?

I know and everyone who has read his progress report along with the Harrit paper knows.

It simply isn't required and was never a stipulation for isolating red/gray chips.

You make yourself look very childish, stubborn and silly by continuing to push this non-existent resistivity testing meme that you have simply made up and that Jones uses to try and deflect the truth. It doesn't wash - drop it.

So to answer your question Sunstealer.

Until Dr. Millette bothers to get his paper approved for publication, there is no reason for Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al to make further argument by investing in published updates.
MM

No that is not what my post is about. It has nothing to do with Dr Millette. It was a simple statement of fact.

MM - Has Harrit or any other author reported the FTIR results? yes/no

You will ignore this as well because you know the answer is no.

The authors promise to do so and that was expressly stated in their own paper.

From the Harrit et al paper, Page 26, paragraph 4, 3rd sentence:

The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.

So 4 years later and they haven't reported the FTIR data anywhere. My statement stands.

When will they do that and why aren't you asking them to release the data?

What have they got to hide? I predict that we will never see the data.

 

[Janadele]

Posters in this thread may be interested to know that Dr. Jones is scheduled to talk about 9/11 research on 22 April (3pm-6pm), on K-talk, 630AM radio.

 

[beachnut]

Hit and run, no comment? Jones on LDS myths and 911 truth myths - a pattern of woo

Posters in this thread may be interested to know that Dr. Jones is scheduled to talk about 9/11 research on 22 April (3pm-6pm), on K-talk, 630AM radio.

LDS myths and thermite? The radio might esplode. Is it ethical to make up science to support LDS myths? Jones faked the thermite study, is he faking the LDS myth stuff too? Is Jones insane, or what?

 

[jtl]

Sunstealer:

So 4 years later and they haven't reported the FTIR data anywhere. My statement stands.

When will they do that and why aren't you asking them to release the data?

What have they got to hide? I predict that we will never see the data.

They did release their data, and even you have seen it and commented on it on this very thread. But you go on acting like Clinton; deny; deny; deny
It is so funny to watch

4 years since the paper was published and they still haven't published the FTIR data. Frauds

Oh so publishing does matter after all. It is good seeing you admitting that fact Sunstealer, and maybe you can now demand in public that Millette validates his paper by publishing it, or obviously he is a fraud by your own standard.

In the Harrit et al paper fig 7 has EDX spectrums of the red layers for samples a-d.

Do you agree with the paper's authors that the red material in samples a-d is the same?

OH really? You mean the EDX is actually used to identify the chips?
Oh gosh, but haven´t you heard, your buddies all say this fancy smancy EDX is not relevant at all, and NOT used to identify the chips, so why are you asking?

 

[The Big Dog]

Sunstealer:

Oh so publishing does matter after all. It is good seeing you admitting that fact Sunstealer, and maybe you can now demand in public that Millette validates his paper by publishing it, or obviously he is a fraud by your own standard.

You do know that the word "publish" can have more than one meaning, right? Publish means "make it available to the public."

Cool use of bolding though, champ, that way people just scanning the thread can easily note where you **** the bed.

 

[Redwood]

It's a Sin to Tell a Lie.

Sunstealer

So 4 years later and they haven't reported the FTIR data anywhere. My statement stands.

When will they do that and why aren't you asking them to release the data?

What have they got to hide? I predict that we will never see the data.

Sunstealer:

They did release their data, and even you have seen it and commented on it on this very thread. But you go on acting like Clinton; deny; deny; deny
It is so funny to watch

I call meadow muffins on you, JTL. Show us where Harrit or Jones have published their FTIR data, and I will retract. But for now, I'm calling you a liar. (Show us that you credulously believed someone else who said that the data had been published, and I'll retract "liar" for "fool".

 

[Oystein]

Sunstealer:

They did release their [FTIR] data,

Liar.

...seeing you admitting that fact Sunstealer

Liar.

Oh gosh, but haven´t you heard, your buddies all say this fancy smancy EDX is not relevant at all,

Liar

and NOT used to identify the chips,

Liar


What do you hope to achieve by lying?

so why are you asking?

Just answer the question: Do you agree with the paper's authors that the red material in samples a-d is the same, based on the similarity of their EDS spectra and everything else?

 

[BasqueArch]

......

MM - Has Harrit or any other author reported the FTIR results? yes/no

You will ignore this as well because you know the answer is no.
The authors promise to do so and that was expressly stated in their own paper.

From the Harrit et al paper, Page 26, paragraph 4, 3rd sentence:
Quote:
The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.

So 4 years later and they haven't reported the FTIR data anywhere. My statement stands.
When will they do that and why aren't you asking them to release the data?
What have they got to hide? I predict that we will never see the data.

My hilite
[FONT=&quot]Forms of scientific misconduct

The U.S. National Science Foundation defines three types of research misconduct: fabrication,[/FONT] falsification[FONT=&quot], and plagiarism[9][10][/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Falsification[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.[/FONT]

· [FONT=&quot]Suppression/non-publication of data[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, [/FONT]failure to publish[FONT=&quot], or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Such cases may not be strictly definable as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of results is not present. However,[/FONT] in such cases the intent may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher. ....
· [FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct[/FONT]

 

[jtl]

Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher. ...

This is the perfect description of Millette´s situation. Mohr had announced that the paper was about to get published, but then Jones and others tear it to shreds, and Millette won´t publish because it would undermine the sponor´s(JREF) desire to debunk. And as Sunstealer has indicated, the guy is a fraud if he does not publish, which is true. But Sunstealer can´t demand that Millette publishes and clears his name, because he knows the paper is bunk.

 

[Spanx]

This is the perfect description of Millette´s situation. Mohr had announced that the paper was about to get published, but then Jones and others tear it to shreds, and Millette won´t publish because it would undermine the sponor´s(JREF) desire to debunk. And as Sunstealer has indicated, the guy is a fraud if he does not publish, which is true. But Sunstealer can´t demand that Millette publishes and clears his name, because he knows the paper is bunk.

God you come out with some ****

 

[Redwood]

Is Jtl another "suicide by mod"?

 

[Spanx]

Is Jtl another "suicide by mod"?

I guess he must have got to close to the truth and the mod must have seen his/her bonus going out the window.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Is Jtl another "suicide by mod"?

I guess he must have got to close to the truth and the mod must have seen his/her bonus going out the window.

Maybe he was about to provide a link to Harrit's published FTIR data:

Originally Posted by Redwood
Show us where Harrit or Jones have published their FTIR data, and I will retract. But for now, I'm calling you a liar. (Show us that you credulously believed someone else who said that the data had been published, and I'll retract "liar" for "fool".

NOT!

 

[Miragememories]

Not really, there has never been a game. The Harrit et al paper has had zero effect in the scientific world.

Yes, and there is direct evidence that he did exactly that.

You obviously haven't read Dr Millette's progress report. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

Yes he did.

You know the answer to this because it's already been aluded to several times in the other thread. You are simply being facetious and dishonest by ignoring the fact that resistivity testing was not part of the methodology for isolating chips. Stop lying. Jones is squirming because he knows he has been found out. He'll pull anything from his behind because he knows any competent study will show Harrit/Jones/Farrer etc for the incompetents they are.

Stop lying. He obviously did. If you had read the progress report thoruoughly and understood the words therein you would know that Millette specifies a criteria based solely on the Harrit et al paper. How come Millette knows to look for EDX spectra containing Al/SiFe if he didn't read past the isolation by magnet?

Here it is:

It's all there MM but for some reason you are choosing to ignore Millette's own words written in black and white and instead chose to build a strawman.

This is wilfully dishonest.

A lie. See above. He used a very specific criteria. Stop lying.

Yes, funny how the Harrit et al paper never mentions any other material other than red/gray thermite chips being separated by magnet.

You mean the exact same sorting method that Harrit et al used. The fact that Harrit et al found paint chips. Again you have been categorically schooled on this subject, but you aren't big enough to admit that you got it wrong.

Stop lying. You can't help it can you. No chips in the Harrit et al paper were considered to be paint and no paint chips were tested for their electrical resistivity in the paper.

Why do you continually lie? You know you'll be found out so why do you do it?

What the authors did was compare their resistivity reading from a single chip with data from a small number of paints.

Another lie. Stop it.

There is absolutely no indication in Harrit et al that concludes that the red/gray chips or any other material separated by magnet isn't thermite.

What you are doing is trying to confuse matters because you know full well that Millette's study completely and utterly backs my initial analysis 4 years ago and debunks Harrit and the truth movement's silly nano-thermite nonsense.

No one has heated their chips to 430°C only. Again you have been told this over and over yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this fact.

Again you use the red-herring of electrical resistivity testing that you made up in your head. Stop doing it. You have already been shown to be wrong by the very authors of the paper!

Let's see if you will answer some simple questions. I'll start with only one because there is no point in asking more than one simple question when your record of refusing to answer is so complete.

In the Harrit et al paper fig 7 has EDX spectrums of the red layers for samples a-d.

Do you agree with the paper's authors that the red material in samples a-d is the same? yes/no.

I predict that you will refuse to answer this.

I know and everyone who has read his progress report along with the Harrit paper knows.

It simply isn't required and was never a stipulation for isolating red/gray chips.

You make yourself look very childish, stubborn and silly by continuing to push this non-existent resistivity testing meme that you have simply made up and that Jones uses to try and deflect the truth. It doesn't wash - drop it.

No that is not what my post is about. It has nothing to do with Dr Millette. It was a simple statement of fact.

MM - Has Harrit or any other author reported the FTIR results? yes/no

You will ignore this as well because you know the answer is no.

The authors promise to do so and that was expressly stated in their own paper.

From the Harrit et al paper, Page 26, paragraph 4, 3rd sentence:



So 4 years later and they haven't reported the FTIR data anywhere. My statement stands.

When will they do that and why aren't you asking them to release the data?

What have they got to hide? I predict that we will never see the data.

Do you really expect a reply to such raving?

I am not lying.

Dr. Harrit et al, to the best of my knowledge, are not lying, and I see no motivation for them to misrepresent their work by lying.

But why should I waste my time thoughtfully replying to garbage.

MM