Aluminum-rich sphereules, possible sources?

leftysergeant

Penultimate Amazing
leftysergeant
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
18,863
I was emptying wastebaskets at an office building that my wife and I clean and for some reason, it popped into my mind that at one time many recyclers would not accept carbonless copying paper because they were considered hazmat. I remembered having read that at one time they contained heavy metals, including nickel, which may have been erroneous information. So, when I got home, I googled carbonless paper and found it to contain some really ghastly organic compounds and one that I had not expected, kaolin. Kaolin is a clay formed by the decomposition by weathering of feldspar, an alumino silicate mineral. It is used in fine ceramics and as a coating on high-gloss paper. There had to be tons of it in one product or another in the WTC. And a lot of it was exposed to fire.

I then googled aluminum minerals of other sorts and found something I hadn't seen before. It seems that alumina powder is used as a "phosphor precurser" in flourescent lights. Hmmm....

Alumina is apparently also used in some sorts of powder coating. I will leave it to someone who knows a little more about metal working than I to come up with uses to which it might have been put in the towers. I'm sure there were many.

I am now wondering whether S. Jones' "aluminum-rich" sphereules were alumina, of perhaps some other coumpound. Did his analytical method test for specific compounds and elements, and could the material have been aluminum silicate? If so, we have a source for that that has nothing at all to do with thermite.
 
Leftysergeant:

The analytical technique used on WTC dust samples by Steven Jones and associates was EDS, energy dispersive (X-ray) spectrometry, sometimes also called EDAX or XRF. In these techniques an electron or X-ray beam is used to excite secondary X-ray (fluorescent) emission in the sample. The emitted X-rays are ELEMENT specific, not compound specific. Thus proper analysis of an X-ray spectrum can usually only give you elemental RATIOS. However, this is still very usefull since Cu2S (cuprous sulfide) can be differentiated from CuS (cupric sulfide) for example. However, the technique is not very reliable, for a variety of reasons, for the quantitative analysis of light elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Thus EDS would have trouble distinguishing ferrous oxide from ferric oxide. There are other techniques that could be used to get this kind of chemical information, (such as SIMS and Auger analysis), but I have not seen anyone use them on WTC dust.
 
leftysergeant said:
I am now wondering whether S. Jones' "aluminum-rich" sphereules were alumina
Click to expand...
it would be hilarious if they were, since alumina is a direct product of a thermite reaction (the hilarity would come from the fact that he hadnt noticed this)
 
cloudshipsrule:

The term X-ray fluorescence is the correct term. Fluorescence simply implies the re-radiation of absorbed energy. So sure, sodium vapor can be made to fluoresce, with emission of the D-line, if the vapor is excited by a source of visible light. However, if you bombard a sample of sodium with high energy electrons you can kick out a K electron and an L electron will take its place with the emission of a so-called K line. This emission process is called X-ray fluorescence. By the way, I forgot to mention that X-ray diffraction could be used to identify compounds (crystal phases to be precise), and could potentially identify alumino-silicates in WTC dust. But one important point about Jones' microspheres - they are iron-rich and magnetic.
 
leftysergeant said:
I was emptying wastebaskets at an office building that my wife and I clean and for some reason, it popped into my mind that at one time many recyclers would not accept carbonless copying paper because they were considered hazmat. I remembered having read that at one time they contained heavy metals, including nickel, which may have been erroneous information. So, when I got home, I googled carbonless paper and found it to contain some really ghastly organic compounds and one that I had not expected, kaolin. Kaolin is a clay formed by the decomposition by weathering of feldspar, an alumino silicate mineral. It is used in fine ceramics and as a coating on high-gloss paper. There had to be tons of it in one product or another in the WTC. And a lot of it was exposed to fire.

I am now wondering whether S. Jones' "aluminum-rich" sphereules were alumina, of perhaps some other coumpound. Did his analytical method test for specific compounds and elements, and could the material have been aluminum silicate? If so, we have a source for that that has nothing at all to do with thermite.
Click to expand...
So Jones is worried National Geographic was in the WTC.

Jones made up his ideas in a vacuum; then went looking for somewhere to preach his nut case ideas on 9/11. He lies and spreads misinformation on 9/11.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
I am now wondering whether S. Jones' "aluminum-rich" sphereules were alumina, of perhaps some other coumpound. Did his analytical method test for specific compounds and elements, and could the material have been aluminum silicate? If so, we have a source for that that has nothing at all to do with thermite.
Click to expand...

You make an interesting point here, if I may add to what Dr. Greening has already noted. EDAX is an energy specific method for identifying the composition of compounds, but not all compounds have completely unique energy signals. Aluminum, for instance, has only one energy line at 1.487 keV. Bromine, however, has two major energy lines, one at 1.480 and one at 11.922 keV. In my experience, many EDAX software packages misidentify bromine peaks as aluminum. Why is bromine important? A principle component of many fire retardants is bromine. Children's sleeping gowns, for instance, are doped with bromine as a fire retardant.
 
Until Jones decides to publish the details of his EDAX analyses of WTC dust we can only speculate on his partial results. I have asked Jones several times about this and I never get a straight answer. It would be nice if some other groups who still have WTC dust samples could do a magnetic separation of iron-rich particles and publish some analytical data on this.
 
Apollo20 said:
Until Jones decides to publish the details of his EDAX analyses of WTC dust we can only speculate on his partial results. I have asked Jones several times about this and I never get a straight answer. It would be nice if some other groups who still have WTC dust samples could do a magnetic separation of iron-rich particles and publish some analytical data on this.
Click to expand...

What groups still have the WTC dust samples?
 
The Almond:

I believe the USGS would still have samples, the US-EPA (possibly), the FBI(?), R.J. Lee Group, and probably some health agencies and labs in NYC.
 
Actually, wasn't there a still a significant question as to whether or not Jone's dust even came from the WTC? IIRC, it was brought to him by a third party (a citizen), quite some time after the towers had fallen, and she had pulled it from a windowsill. Anyone recall the details of this?

This would be another reason to test samples from a known source, if there are questions about the authenticity of Jone's sample.
 
Let me guess:

Jones still hasn't published his report because he is putting great effort into conducting a professional and scientific analysis.

NIST hasn't released their report on WTC7 because they are them.
 
Here's a couple of related questions, just for background, from a guy who's only experience with spectroscopy/spectrometry was in undergrad Organic chemistry (GC and NMR):

Why was EDAX specifically chosen to analyze such samples? I'm not trying to dig for details to hang suspicions on; rather, I'm genuinely curious as to what leads a researcher to choose one spectrometric method over another in cases like this, where you only have a small dust sample and limited knowledge of what it's supposed to contain. My recall of analytic methods is dim and faulty, and is also restricted to whatever we were taught in basic organic courses (which 1. Means that we were only shown results for very basic samples i.e. methane, ethane, alcohols, basic aromatics, etc... in other words, only the molecules you learned about in basic organic courses; and 2. Was restricted only to the two spectral analysis methods listed above: Gas chromatography, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy).

And, related: From what little I remember from those courses (God! It's been such a long time!), results in a given spectometric methods can be clouded or obscured due to various factors; while I don't remember the specific compounds, I clearly remember struggling with analyzing smeared peaks on sample NMR results on some exams. At any rate, what strengths does EDAX deliver over other spectrometric methods of analysis?

While I believe Apollo20 here would be the best placed to answer these basic questions, I'm open to an answer from anyone else who has better recall of their university days than I. :)
 
Going back to the use of alumina in powder coating, would any major steel components be built of steel that had such a powder coating? I know that red lead paint has fallen into disfavor for a lot of uses in the last decade or two. Would powder coating have been used in its place in some elements that required welding? This would account for aluminum-rich spherules that are also magnetic.
 
Plantfoam said:
Let me guess:

Jones still hasn't published his report because he is putting great effort into conducting a professional and scientific analysis.

NIST hasn't released their report on WTC7 because they are them.
Click to expand...

You seem to understand exactly.

:-)

However, I think Jones CANNOT publish an analysis from samples that have no colorable chain of custody whatsoever without becoming a laughingstock.

Oh. Wait.

He already is.

Never Mind.
 
leftysergeant said:
Going back to the use of alumina in powder coating, would any major steel components be built of steel that had such a powder coating? I know that red lead paint has fallen into disfavor for a lot of uses in the last decade or two. Would powder coating have been used in its place in some elements that required welding? This would account for aluminum-rich spherules that are also magnetic.
Click to expand...

Just a class-A office fire will make such things, Lefty Sgt.

All that is required is that you have some aluminum and some iron in close proximity and heat them high enough for the aluminum to burn, and it will take some of the iron with it.

But none of that matters at all, as Jones does not have any spherules from the destruction of WTC. He has some stuff from some chicks apartment taken long after the event, and he has some stuff from the so-called "meteorite" that passed though many hands and was displayed in the open air before he got to it.

Jone's samples are total frauds, therefore, and they could be made of pure Unobtainium and it still would prove exactly and precisely NOTHING.
 
ElMondoHummus:

I used to analyse mystery deposits found on nuclear pipework for a living. EDAX/EDS was a very popular technique because it was fast and easy to do and was non-destructive of the sample. However, it was prone to errors due to so-called matrix effects and has limited sensitivity for light elements like Na and Mg. If we wanted really accurate analytical data, especially for trace elements, we would use a destructive technique like atomic absorption spectroscopy in which the sample was dissolved in something like conc HCl (with a little added peroxide) and injected into the AA spectrometer followed by a certified standard. For example, to analyse for iron in the WTC dust you would use an iron emission lamp and compare the sample signal to say a 1000 ppm iron standard. You would then do Na, Ca, Al, Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, etc, using the appropriate lamp and certified standard. This was very time consuming and therefore expensive - say 10 times the cost of EDAX. We also used neutron activation analysis which is basically destructive of the sample. It's a great technique for some elements such as Co, V, Sb, but not so good for other elements like Ca, Mg, Si, etc.
 
Apollo20 said:
Leftysergeant:

The analytical technique used on WTC dust samples by Steven Jones and associates was EDS, energy dispersive (X-ray) spectrometry, sometimes also called EDAX or XRF. In these techniques an electron or X-ray beam is used to excite secondary X-ray (fluorescent) emission in the sample. The emitted X-rays are ELEMENT specific, not compound specific. Thus proper analysis of an X-ray spectrum can usually only give you elemental RATIOS. However, this is still very usefull since Cu2S (cuprous sulfide) can be differentiated from CuS (cupric sulfide) for example. However, the technique is not very reliable, for a variety of reasons, for the quantitative analysis of light elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Thus EDS would have trouble distinguishing ferrous oxide from ferric oxide. There are other techniques that could be used to get this kind of chemical information, (such as SIMS and Auger analysis), but I have not seen anyone use them on WTC dust.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've seen them before, but there are the links to the USGS WTC dust analysis incase any one wants read.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html
This one does mention the impossibility in distinguishing metals from metal oxides with qualitative EDS

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1073/pdf/OF2005-1073_508.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1031/pdf/OF2005_1031_508.pdf
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Here's a couple of related questions, just for background, from a guy who's only experience with spectroscopy/spectrometry was in undergrad Organic chemistry (GC and NMR):

Why was EDAX specifically chosen to analyze such samples?
Click to expand...

The scanning electron microprobe/microscope has two primary advantages in particle analysis:
1) The spot size of the electron beam is usually smaller than 5 micrometers in diameter, and often much smaller. This means that particles can be analyzed individually, even if those particles are only a few micrometers in diameter themselves. Techniques involving ion probes are difficult with such small particles. Bulk X-ray techniques, such as diffraction and fluorescence do not analyze the particles individually, but rather average the composition over the interaction volume.

2) EDX Spectrometry has enormous range in elemental identification and quantification. Particle quantification following either Small's or Armstrong's models can lead to very accurate results (+/- 1-3% relative or better). In truth, the only thing EDAX isn't really good for is identification of large polymers and hydrocarbons.

To summarize: You need an electron microscope to see the particles, and you're already getting the X-rays out of the particles as you're looking at them, so you might as analyze the X-rays in the process.
And, related: From what little I remember from those courses (God! It's been such a long time!), results in a given spectometric methods can be clouded or obscured due to various factors; while I don't remember the specific compounds, I clearly remember struggling with analyzing smeared peaks on sample NMR results on some exams. At any rate, what strengths does EDAX deliver over other spectrometric methods of analysis?
Click to expand...
I don't think you can necessarily compare spectrochemcial analysis techniques to each other. It's apples and oranges. When you're in an electron microscope, you have a couple of options:
1) Energy dispersive X-ray analysis
2) Wavelength dispersive X-ray analysis
3) Electron backscatter diffraction
4) Cathodoluminescence

Options 2 and 3 are difficult to do, though they are better for quantification and structural information. Option 4 won't work on particles, and only some materials are luminescent under an electron beam. So what you're left with for a relatively simple analysis that is accurate and doesn't require you to know too much about your sample, is option 1.

As I've said before, the primary problem with energy dispersive methods is that the characteristic X-ray lines overlap in some instances. Thus, when identifying aluminum, for instance, one must be careful to eliminate bromine from consideration. Were Jones a careful, honest scientist, he would have released his data for evaluation. He's not, so we're forced to assume that much of his work is based on his own interpretation of the data.

BenBurch, you're right, of course. Jones never bothered to establish where his dust came from. My own interest in this discussion was more to how the actual WTC dust was analyzed (disregarding the bulk of Jones's work).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom