just ignore the fact that the red grey chips were found in the dust...ohhh, i know..no chain of custody even though mark basile got a sample from one of the museums in the area and found them there too!
How the hell do these words in any way relate to what you quote from me. Here it is again
So you are going to take a brittle 20µm layer with another 15-20µm layer and roll it up!
Do you not think that rolling such a thin and fragile material is going to be problematic or are you just going to babble randomly?
How can you possibly say I'm ignoring the fact that these chips were found in the dust?
Have you ever seen me quibble over the chain of custody? I don't have a problem with the chain of custody, I have a problem with the incorrect interpretation of the data.
jwe dont know how many layers this stuff came in.
Yes we do. 1.
jthe point is that they found chips with multiple layers. how many layers was it before the towers collapsed....who knows.
OK, so lets do some analysis.
In the paper the words "multiple layers" occurs 3 times.
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers.
Here is Fig 31.
Significant Pb in this chip. Wow! Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Notice the scale in the picture? 500µm. Now measure the thickness of the red layer, the gray outer layer and the gray inner layer. Completely different to sampls a-d. Chalk and cheese yet they claim it's the same stuff. Notice how the outer gray layer has rusted. Now look at the EDX spectra (Fig 33) for what they call the gray layer (bit sandwiched inbetween) and then compare it with Fig 6. Different material. This is some sort of organic.
This chip is debris; a random piece of crap, but because it's magnetic,due to it's iron content, it was separated. They never characterised any of their samples removed by this method. You would expect random iron particles to be separated using the method but they never say "by the way the method also picked up random crap which we analysed and discarded as crap".
In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers, as seen in Fig. (32).
These people are so blind.
Henryco had some chips exhibiting 2 gray layers with corresponding EDX although I had difficulty due to the labelling - I'll have to go back and look at 2 year old data. The two gray layers are iron oxide and steel. You can clearly see this in fig 32. From left to right - paint > iron oxide > steel. If Harrit et al knew anything the would be able to see the difference between the two layers due to their appearance under the SEM. The gray layer has no purpose in the context of thermite. It's useless!
thats why i think it was probably pre fab stuff from a lab.
Right so you think that a highly engineered material from a lab contains such massive variation in composition?
So significant Pb doesn't send alarm bells ringing? Lead based paint? What about additions of potassium, barium and copper? All found in paint additives. From Fig 14.
Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers.
Wow, it seems your lab doesn't have very good quality control. They seem to allow any element in it.
So now we have a highly engineered laboratory produced thermite that also contains Pb, Zn, Cr, P, Cu and Ba. Not to mention Si. Starting to look a bit silly now isn't it. Why if this was produced in a lab do we find such a large variation in composition? Maybe just maybe they are analysing materials which are different yet they can't see that. If it's red it's thermite!
why do you think it should be there? but thanks for showing everyone that those chips were thermitic.
Could you please comment in context. We are talking about reaction products of thermite in relation to the high temperature corrosion observed. If thermite was the cause then we would expect to see alumina or Al in the examination of the corroded steel. Al will readily dissolve into a liquid slag at 940°C We don't. Hence no thermite.
this is what jones said about those pesky iron microspheres produced by those red grey chips when questioned by frank greening:
prof jones: "Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper:
Look again at the data (above) -- there is no Al in evidence.
Well that proves my point doesn't it? Not the other way around. No Al no thermite. Look at Fig 20. Notice how the gray layer isn't present anymore. Where did it go? Yep that's right it's the gray layer that is predominantly forming the microspheres.
Furthermore, the amounts of Si and Ca and especially S here is trivial. The melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C, yet the DSC reached only 700 C, insufficient to cause melting of iron or iron oxide."
Jones doesn't know how a DSC works.
The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C.
The plot on the x-axis is the heating rate upto a certain point not temperature produced by an exothermic reaction.
The equipment was calibrated to display the data in watts per gram. The plots were set to display positive heat flow out of the sample such that exothermic behavior of the sample would yield a peak and endothermic behavior a trough.
He's confusing heat with temperature. Quite amazing bearing in mind his background.
Well after searching the article I couldn't find it - it was in the comment section from none other than a Prof Jones. Where is the data for this experiment? Just because Jones says it doesn't mean it's true. Now I'm not accusing him of lying but bearing in mind he doesn't have a bloody clue as evidenced time and time again I will take it with a pinch of salt until I see the data. Why does he not back his claim with data?
they wanted to bypass the actual office/debris fire causing the eutectic to form in the first place.
Ofcourse! Why would you do anything otherwise when you are looking to establish whether sulphur can do this to steel at those temperatures? Are you expecting them to burn a whole building and then keep the rubble hot for days to try to get the same effect? How can you control that? The whole point of control is so you can determine the outcome. Doing experiments with out control is pointless - you'll never get any meaningful data from it!
at least you didnt say wallboard! a fire with office supplies should suffice.
So no need for thermite then?
ps why mention co when that would carburize the steel when the fema report showed it was decarburized?
I mention it because burning things usually gives off CO/CO2 as a point to show that other gases maybe present. How much and at what partial pressure is not known.
Now be very careful -
CO is carburising, CO2 is decarburising.
Yes a high partial pressure of CO will carburise steel. I will actually give you credit here because it looks like you learnt something.
