Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Henry62]

Hi friends,
here is avaiable an English article about the last prof. Jones' paper:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html

ciao
Henry


-----------------------------

Visit the English section in my blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

 

[alienentity]

'Notice, also, that this dramatic drop of DSC peak temperature with decreasing particle size puts to bed the egregiously wrong notion that there's nothing special about nano-scale properties, which some people were proclaiming in the first JREF thread on this subject.'

This is of course a misrepresentation of the discussion on Nano-scale properties from the previous thread - I see Metamars also posted the exact wording on the 9/11 forum.

I still have not seen any scientific proof which shows that the combustion temp of real nanothermite is 430c or thereabouts. I also find it very, very strange and somewhat suspicious that Jones et al did not test:
1) actual WTC paint chips (identified properly as such)
2) real nanothermite with similar chemical composition to the famous red/grey chips for comparison

I can't help but feel this latest paper is not actually a very thorough effort to discover the truth except in a very half-hearted way, but is heavily geared towards producing a predetermined result with much ambiguity.

I mean, very simply put, it would have been necessary to demonstrate the chips were able to combust WITHOUT an external oxygen source. This was not attempted!! As definitive proof (to anyone who is slightly skeptical) it automatically fails.

Unfortunately what it DOES do very well is provide yet another source of rampant speculation for devoted conspiracy theorists. It seems this is the real audience the Jones et al are pandering to, and developing their careers and cottage industry from.

I guess you could characterize it as a sophisticated marketing effort at this point. I see very little chance that this paper will be much more than a curiosity for the established scientific community. Much more work will need to be done to 'prove' that nanothermites were used in the WTC disasters, IMHO.

 

[Sunstealer]

Now that we have a "specimen-test table" we can now do cross comparisons of each of the chips examined in the paper. I aim to look at each characteristic in turn but to start with it makes sense to look at the Visual Characteristics, the "Gray Layer" and then the "Red Layer" for each sample as described in Fig 4.

Visual Characteristics

Below are pictured the visual representations of 6 of the chips.

In observation we can clearly see that samples a, b, c and d match each other closely in characteristic. It is also plain to see that Fig 31 does not match any of the other chips. In addition it's "red layer" is far duller than that of the other chips and is sandwiched between the two darker grey, outside layers. None of the other chips exhibit these darker outer layers. Therefore we must conclude that this particular chip is significantly different and would not fit into the data set of chips a) to d). This chip should be examined and compared with samples a) to d) in order to find out why. If this comparison shows significant differences then we must conclude that the samples are from different materials or sources. If that is the case then this sample is not thermite.

Sample in Fig 13, "MEK chip" shows similarity in colour to samples a) to d) but there is no metallic "gray layer" shown nor is there a scale in order for comparison. Further on in the paper there is another optical photo of this particular chip and helpfully a SEM micrograph.

In the right hand image we can clearly see a "gray layer" but it is darker than that in samples a) to d) with no metallic reflection as seen in the "insert" in Fig 2d). We can say that this sample shares some general characteristics with samples a) to d), but further methods and analysis is required to confirm that they can be treated as one data set.

The left hand image is of the same sample with layers left to right comprising the "red layer" (which is post MEK testing therefore expanded), the "gray layer" and an unknown lighter fibrous appearing material. Now compare that sample with the SEM photo in Fig 4.

We can clearly see that the "gray layer" in Fig shows a sharp, crystalline and brittle layer. The "gray layer" in Fig 32 appears to have different characteristics. A higher SEM magnification should resolve whether this layer is identical to those in samples a) to d) but none is shown (which may well be due to space).

Note the possibility of a third layer in Fig 4 below and to the right of the roughly 90° corner in the "gray layer". Again this should be investigated because this may indicate other properties of the chip(s).

We also have images and data from a chip sent to a French investigator (and this will be referred to as to as the "French chip".

This French chip also shows three distinguishable layers with the third being of a crystalline fibrous appearance. The middle gray layer shares characteristics with both samples in Fig 4 and Fig 32. The paper states

In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red
and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by BSE imaging and XEDS.

Therefore we can see why Fig 32 and the French SEM photo differ from Fig 4 with respect to the "gray layer".

Whilst not conclusive we can say that this gray layer in Fig 32 looks like it is the same as that in Fig 4. An XEDS spectrum should confirm this - bear in mind the different magnifications in these photos.

I aim to make conclusions after the red and gray layer analysis with regard to the samples, however, it is clear that the sample in Fig 31 does not share the characteristics of the others and therefore it must be concluded that it cannot form part of the data set.

So what is it and why hasn't further examination been carried out before continuing analysis with the other samples? We clearly have two different samples so which one is thermite? An anomaly such as this should be examined as a first priority because it questions the method used for extraction of the samples in the first place.

XEDS analysis of the gray layer in "chip - Fig 31" will also throw up anomalies and further questions.

 

[Sunstealer]

This post is to be read after and considered with the Visual Characterisation post - post #23.

Gray Layer Analysis

The following are XEDS spectra for samples a) to d) and sample "chip Fig 31" respectively. Note that there is no corresponding spectra from the MEK chip. This means that we have no way of knowing whether the gray layer in the MEK chip matches either of the following.

Please also note that we have EDS data from the "French chip", but there is problem with identifying exactly which spectra correlate with the sites identified on page 13 -

From what I can gather the gray layer in the French chip shows similar spectra to that of samples a) to d) in Fig 6 above.

It is clear and plain for all to see that the spectrum in Fig 33 does not match those of Fig 6 - the Fe peak is missing altogether and the C peak is far higher. We can safely conclude that the gray layers are completely different material and therefore that the chips are from different sources. This fact now throws up doubts with regard to the extraction method across the four samples of WTC dust. It's obvious that these samples are different so why is the sample in Fig 31 still considered to be thermite and not ruled out of the data?

Jones paper only touches on this and the rest of the paper lacks sufficient discussion of what these gray layers are and what they are for. How do they relate to these samples? Are these gray layers considered part of the thermite or not?

Why is there no spectrum of the gray layer in the "MEK chip"? In order for the sample "MEK chip" to be considered part of the data set that makes up samples a) to d) then it must be shown to share the same gray layer composition as samples a) to d) and also the same red layer composition. It must be shown that the "MEK chip" can form part of the data set otherwise testing on that chip cannot correlate data obtained from the 4 samples a) to d).

Examination of these grey layers both with XEDS and SEM throws up doubt as to the validity of the methods used to characterise these chips along with several questions that need to be answered in full.

Red layer analysis will continue after this one.

 

[Sunstealer]

I have not read the original post but I independently reviewed Jones' paper and concluded the following:

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud.
He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components.

His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data.

I share your conclusions. There are way too many unanswered questions that he needs to answer before he starts conducting DSC and Flame tests.

His paper states

Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust samples collected. An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.

I have just shown with my Visual Characteristic and Gray Layer analysis that they did not perform this characterisation thoroughly. They should have done this thoroughly, because their method of extraction from the dust sample, namely,

A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples

is going to collect anything that's attracted to a magnet (duh, I hear you all say). We've discussed paramagnetism and the different magnetic characteristics of iron oxides in another thread so why weren't these considered before that extraction method was chosen.

If it was then why do they not realise that their extracted sample is more likely than not to have material other than thermite in it? If they do then a thorough characterisation is required and it should be shown what the criteria are for rejecting and retaining chips for further analysis. Just collecting stuff by magnet and then declaring it all thermite chips is unscientific in it's method.

I've shown that Chip Fig 31 is a clear example of this improper method and shoddy characterisation. What are other peoples takes on this?

 

[Sunstealer]

Dr. G. informs me that sputtering is very expensive. (Page 3, here.) It would cost hundreds of dollars to coat just 1 teaspoon. I don't know about the practicality of depositing the Al via vaporizing it thermally in a vacuum, then gradually re-introducing air, but I have calculated that the energy input to vaporize 10 short tons of aluminum is only on the order of $4,000. (I assumed that oxygen to make a forced flame would roughly equal double the cost of the oil, which is a sheer guess.)

I would have commented but what you suggested re: sputtering, is quite far out there.

The only sputter machines I've used are for coating SEM and TEM samples.

 

[Sunstealer]

Very, very interesting admission by Jones et al upon questioning via email by Dr. Greening...



http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Yes you read it correctly, Jones seems to be back tracking, CONSIDERABLY, to declare that the last several years of thermite talk, has been for Explosive "FUSES"!!!!

I am speechless.

TAM

Also consider that thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite. It requires a very high temperature to start the reaction. Typically the material used is Magnesium ribbon.

Why use a material that is difficult to ignite as a fuse when something such as a Magnesium ribbon will do?

What explosives need a fuse that burns at 2500°?

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[BigAl]

Also consider that thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite. It requires a very high temperature to start the reaction. Typically the material used is Magnesium ribbon.

Why use a material that is difficult to ignite as a fuse when something such as a Magnesium ribbon will do?

What explosives need a fuse that burns at 2500°?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Footnote #20 in Active Thermitic Material Discovered points to this DoD/DARA literature that shows military applications of nano-material

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf​

Fuse-type applications seen to be there.

A Twoofer used this paragraph from that publication in support of the assertion t hat nano-termite soes something useful for him:

With regards to the latter application, nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, Particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

Ingredient hardly means that it is the major component of any munition.

Of course, the twoofer didn't know what "thermobaric" munitions do and don't do. They wouldn't demolish a glass and beam structure. They would just blow out all the glass.

Here's a neat DIY themobaric explosion.

DIY Thermobaric explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dU1P32n_o
​

Needless to say, nobody saw anything like that at WTC on 9/11.

 

[Sunstealer]

First off, I must point out again that I have very limitied knowledge and ability in these matters. I am presenting my observations as a very slightly educated guess, and not a strong assertion of fact.

If you look at p. 1260 of the Second Edition of the Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science you see two spikes, in the DSC graph of raw kaolinite, figure 4 (a). The first one, which is completely missing in the Jones' DSC plots, is at what looks like 50 C. The second spike is at about 525 C.

In figure 4(b), they show a DSC for Kaolinite-DMSO. There are still spikes at 50 C and 525 C. There is also a new spike at about 180 C. The key observation which I make is that adding crap to the kaolinite doesn't move or remove raw kaolinite spikes. Is this always true? I frankly don't know. But, if it is true, then the Jones' samples are not kaolinite.

I hope SunStealer will comment on this.

I understand what you are getting at. I don't think those two graphs can be compared with the DSC graphs in Jones' paper. The scales are completely different. On the one hand you have µV/mg (micro volts per milligram) and the other W/g (Watts per gram). I've no idea how you can convert from one set of units to the other in order to show a comparison and therefore scale of spikes.

Remember that the samples a) to d) also include a Carbon based matrix of unknown material. We also know that samples a), b) and d) do not show any Sulphur in their red layer spectra [ sample c) does but I've shown this to be associated with gypsum] so it's certainly not dimethylsulfoxide and water as per the link. We have two different materials and ours does not contain "Raw Kaolin". It's really a chalk and cheese analysis and indicates you are investigoogling to come up with something different to disprove Kaolinite.

The best was to disprove Kaolinite is to get Jones to perform XRD or find another substance which a) the morphology matches hexagonal platelets as seen in the SEM photos b) has a distinct EDS spectra that matches.

...the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.

Page 19 - 3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry.

The masses of the reactants appear to be different in that Jones' mass calculations contain a material that probably doesn't contribute.

See Gray Layer analysis for questions that are thrown up and need answering regarding the gray layer - if Jones considers the gray layer to be part of the thermite material then he can include it in the DSC graph. If not then he needs to redo the DSC calculations omitting the mass of the gray layer.

The paper has very little comment on the gray layer and it's suspicious in it's abscence.

 

[Sunstealer]

Footnote #20 in Active Thermitic Material Discovered points to this DoD/DARA literature that shows military applications of nano-material

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf​

Fuse-type applications seen to be there.

A Twoofer used this paragraph from that publication in support of the assertion t hat nano-termite soes something useful for him:


Ingredient hardly means that it is the major component of any munition.

Of course, the twoofer didn't know what "thermobaric" munitions do and don't do. They wouldn't demolish a glass and beam structure. They would just blow out all the glass.

Here's a neat DIY themobaric explosion.

DIY Thermobaric explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dU1P32n_o
​

Needless to say, nobody saw anything like that at WTC on 9/11.

Yes I'm well aware of thermobaric weapons and what they are capable of. The design is specific so that it doesn't destroy the structure. Unfortunately truthers will google some key words and then when they find what they think answers a specific question they will either link it or quote from it without understanding that it in no way applicable to the question in the first place (and often debunks them).

Anyone know of an explosive that would require a temperature of 2500°C to work? Anyone know why the fuse mechanism would require to be 10µm thick and painted onto a 10-20µm layer of Fe₂0₃?

 

[Sunstealer]

A question about the post linked to in the original post: where does the kaolinite with gypsum spectrum come from?

Sure - it comes from USGS data fromParticle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust specifically http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/images/

 

[metamars]

Also consider that thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite. It requires a very high temperature to start the reaction. Typically the material used is Magnesium ribbon.

Why use a material that is difficult to ignite as a fuse when something such as a Magnesium ribbon will do?

What explosives need a fuse that burns at 2500°?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Nano-TNT?

But seriously, for use in creating a fireball, looks like it would work just fine. From the wikipedia page on flamethrowers:

The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside.

Hoffman's site states

(Jet fuel has) "an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F). "

 

[Sunstealer]

In response to 1st and 2nd posts of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140115

The "red layer" on the sample for MEK testing (Chip Fig 13) is of a different composition to that of samples a)-d) in the paper. Compare "red layer" EDS spectra in Fig 14 to Fig 7, a)-d).

Also notice how (Chip Fig 13) does not have any detailed SEM analysis, therefore we have no idea what the characteristics are of the particles that make up that chip. Therefore it is impossible to know what the MEK is doing to that chip.

It means that you cannot say that there are aluminosilicates in "Chip Fig 13" and that it does not represent any of the testing performed on samples a-d).

Without seeing the morphology and the EDS spectra of that chip then nothing can be determined from it in relation to any other sample in the paper - it stands on it's own.

It's becoming more obvious each time I do any work on the paper that samples a-d) are similar, sample "Chip Fig 13" is different material to samples a-d) and sample "Chip Fig 31" is different material again. There is no continuity amongst the samples therefore one cannot use data from the MEK chip and correlate it with data (DSC specifically) from samples a-d).

Which is ultimately what I'll show when I tie in "Red Layer analysis with Visual Characterisation and Gray Layer Analysis which should all come under Characterisation of Samples.

 

[metamars]

I understand what you are getting at. I don't think those two graphs can be compared with the DSC graphs in Jones' paper. The scales are completely different. On the one hand you have µV/mg (micro volts per milligram) and the other W/g (Watts per gram). I've no idea how you can convert from one set of units to the other in order to show a comparison and therefore scale of spikes.

I had noticed that, but figured that if the spike temperature coordinates weren't comparable, there wouldn't be much point to using a generic reference of "DSC".

This is a good example of why I hope you ask to move this thread to the science section. A forum with lots of scientists is more likely to have participant that can answer questions like this, hopefully with references that they can conjure up with very little effort.

 

[pgimeno]

I can't post links yet, but googling for "forensic paint analysis and comparison guidelines" (with or without the quotes) gives as first hit (here at least) an FBI page which explains why Jones et al. at the very least should have specified the particular kind of paint they ruled out:

Searching for differences between questioned and known samples is the basic thrust of forensic paint analysis and comparison. However, differences in appearance, layer sequence, size, shape, thickness, or some other physical or chemical feature can exist even in samples known to be from the same source.​

My bold. From section 5.2. Questioned and Known Samples.

I'm wondering, is any of the authors a forensic analysis expert?

 

[Sunstealer]

General Characterisation (Visual Characterisation, Gray Layer and Red Layer Analysis).

I've shown that sample "chip Fig 31" does not belong in the data set and asked why this chip wasn't analysed further or removed.

I'm now looking at the red layer data for comparison between samples as part of the characterisation process.

Red Layer Analysis

Below you can see XEDS spectra from samples a) to d) and the sample that is tested with MEK (MEK chip).

As anyone can see, the two sets of spectra are very different in nature. The MEK chip has a far busier profile especially at the lower values of KeV. If we take samples a), b) and d) as the base-level for what should be a spectrum for the red layer (I'll come to c) in a minute) namely C, O, Fe, Al Si, then we can see very clearly that we have additional labelled peaks of Zn, Cr, Ca, S which are very distinct and a far larger O peak. There is no way anyone can simply dismiss peaks of that intensity as possible contamination with wallboard or gypsum because we also have significant peaks of Zn and Cr.

We should also note, that in Fig 14 there are two other distinct peaks that have not been labelled. There is a peak at 1.3KeV which indicates the presence of Magnesium (Mg) and another at 3.4KeV which indicates the presence of Potassium (K). These should have been picked up upon but were not. Once again, to dismiss such obvious peaks as contamination is to conclude wrongly.

So we now have additions of Zn, Cr, Ca, S, Mg and K. Unless it can be shown that these elements are definitely from contamination then they must be considered as part of the spectra for the MEK chip's red layer.

If that is the case then in no way can the MEK chip be considered as part of the data set that includes samples a) to d). The MEK chip must stand on it's own and therefore the MEK test must stand only for that chip.

In order for this chip to be considered part of the data set that samples a) to d) make up, then a detailed SEM analysis of the red layer must be undertaken so as to show that this chips red layer contains the same particle characteristics as those in samples a) to d). That is it must be shown that there are rhomboidal Fe₂O₃ particles of approximately 0.1µm and >1µm platelets with the same XEDS spectrum as that seen in Fig 11a).

The MEK test is essentially void if used as an indication of what would happen to samples a) to d) if subjected to the same test. The red layer of the MEK chip is not of the same material as that of samples a) to d) (unless shown otherwise).

So lets put in the correct labelling for Fig 14.

What could this red layer be? Why is it different to the other samples?

From http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...3C Appxs.pdf (link not working properly )

and the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf and http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/MSDS/F010.pdf show that the composition is

We can see that the above XEDS spectrum for the red layer of the MEK chip shows sufficient data to suggest that the material may contain

Talc - Mg₃Si₄O₁₀(OH)₂
Zinc Yellow - ZnCrO₄

as well as the common oxides, aluminates and silicates.

I've shown in other posts on other threads how the platelets in Fig 8 and 9 have a large probability of being Kaolinite. Talc on the other hand has a different structure and XEDS data will show a different spectra too.

In order for the MEKS chip to be accepted as part of the data set of samples a) to d), these anomalies must be sorted out. The quickest way of doing this is to examine the MEK chip in the same detail as samples a) to d) - specifically looking at the morphology of the various particle structures and then performing XEDS on each particle to rule out talc as an a component of the red layer. Similarly ZnCrO₄.

My subsequent General characterisation shows that samples a) to d) can be treated as one set, however, "sample Fig 31" cannot be part of that set and nor can the MEK chip which looks increasingly like it has a form of paint separate to the paint observed on chips a) to d). In effect there are 3 different samples in this paper, all of which were extracted using the same method, all of which are claimed to be thermite. I've shown that cannot be possible.

 

[leftysergeant]

Searching for differences between questioned and known samples is the basic thrust of forensic paint analysis and comparison. However, differences in appearance, layer sequence, size, shape, thickness, or some other physical or chemical feature can exist even in samples known to be from the same source.

Jones' chips shpw spme variation in color and composition and structure. This is consistant with paint, according to the FBI standards.

Thermite, an engineered product, needs to be uniform in structure and composition to work.

The chips are, thus, in at least this aspect, more paint-like than thermite-like.

And it just occured to me that we may be making an error in assuming that all red paint chips are structural steel coatings. Think metal furniture.

 

[alienentity]

.

And it just occured to me that we may be making an error in assuming that all red paint chips are structural steel coatings. Think metal furniture.

This is a good point. Dr. Greening at first seemed to be critical of the JREF thread because it was focusing on paint, but (correct me if I'm wrong) he also started making references to red primer!

My question still is how to explain the fact these little chips turned up in so many dust samples - in my view this would indicate they were a very common material in the towers. Paint still seems the most likely candidate for that reason as well....

Another curiosity is that Jones' paper doesn't indicate the presence of actual WTC paint remnants - this is remarkable. Wouldn't we expect to see at least SOME paint?

 

[Sunstealer]

If you read my 3 large posts you'll see that I allude to the fact that the samples in Jones paper are not all one and the same and also that they can't all be from the same source.

There are literally thousands of sources for paint in NY. The only thing that makes me think that samples a) to d) came from the WTC buildings is that samples a) to d) match and they were found in 4 separate places.

I have no idea why they didn't screen for paint during characterisation of samples removed from the dust samples. Maybe they did but they don't say.

 

[pteridine]

I point out again that DSC in an air stream will show combustion. The peak could be the carbonaceous binder burning in air. Thermite is a redox reaction and to show anything like it would require DSC in an inert stream, such as Argon.