Look, I need to state this outright before someone brings up the EDX analysis again (Sunstealer and others with chemistry &/or physics backgrounds, you can skip this; it's just basic info rehashing for new folks/lurkers, etc.): What does EDX reveal? The elemental composition of a sample, and the rough amounts of each element present. What does it not - indeed, can it not - reveal? Structure and stoichiometry
. Why is that important? Because if one wants to cite Jones's EDX spectra
(not his whole paper, just the EDX spectra by themselves) as evidence establishing the presence of thermite, one is claiming that his spectra establishes more than just the relative amounts of iron, oxygen, sulfur, etc. is present, it's claiming that the relative amounts are stoichiometrically correct and
that they're present as their individual elements, and not contained in other molecules (iron, sulfur and oxygen, for example, can either be present in either their straight elemental forms, or in various combinations - FeO, Fe2
, FeS, FeS2
, and so on - and any possible mix of those molecules with elemental iron, sulfur, and oxygen would return the same peaks on an EDX analysis). So what's the problem? Well, someone needs to point out where in Jones's paper
he does indeed establish this from the X-EDS spectra.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The whole problem here is that when conspiracy peddlers cite Jones's work, they inevitably end up claiming that the EDX work shows the presence of thermite. It does not. It cannot
. All it establishes is the presence of various elements and a rough idea of their general amounts relative to each other. Nothing else. If he uses EDX to demonstrate the presence in a sphere of iron, oxygen, sulfur, he doesn't establish what in the towers contributed those elements. And that
is why citing EDX analysis does not establish the presence of thermite. All it does is establish the presence of certain elements. And those elements are fully expected
to be present.
So, what's the importance of Jones's work then? Well, for the conspiracy believers, it's merely a starting point to establish the presence of certain elements in the microspheres, and to make the argument that because office fires don't get hot enough to melt steel, there's something suspicious here. And to point out that, in other spheres taken in another sample, the presence of another element - aluminum - indicates that those were made in conditions where steel didn't melt, yet the spheres from the WTC, which did not have aluminum, indicates that they were made from molten steel.
Now, stop and parse that last paragraph. He says that the spheres from the WTC dust were made from molten steel, then argues that because the fires weren't hot enough, the official story is missing something. Sounds logical, right? Well, where does he establish that the spheres were indeed made that day, let alone from molten steel
?? Answer: He doesn't. And that's
the central deceit in his paper. He brandishes EDX work establishing presence of elements, and then long-jumps to this argument without establishing when
those spheres were created. He leaves us to assume that because he collected them in an apartment across the street that they must have been formed on 9/11. There's no consideration of the fact that they were more likely created either during construction or deposited over the lifespan of the towers and liberated
from the structure on that day. Welding certainly produces the melting necessary, and would of course not lend itself to aluminum contamination. So would the internal friction of metals in diesel engines; such wear would be really highly localized, and sure, would contribute only a trickle overall, but there would be some small amount from diesel exhaust, and the towers did stand for several decades, being exposed to such the entire time. And those are only two potential sources out of God knows how many. Yet Jones wants us to believe they were made on 9/11 from some "mysterious" combustion that was capable of melting not just microscopic amounts of steel, but whole box columns.
Anyway, this is why Jones's work is flawed; he makes unsupportable leaps. And getting back to the original point of this post, it's also why it's erroneous to point at his EDX spectra as evidence of thermite. They are no such things.