ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories , Bentham journals , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , steven jones , thermite

Reply
Old 26th August 2012, 01:27 AM   #1001
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Wink

Senenmut: I'm not sure if you are still so confused or you are just trolling

Some remarks:

- We do not know the exact advices/rules given for the paint ashing in the norm ASTM 1610-02 (it must be purchased and it's expensive). Do you know them, do you have this document? Anyway, the purpose of ashing (getting-rid of organic binder) can be simply accomplished even at 400 degrees C, as shown by Millette (he only found some particles of soot, which were remnants of incompletely burned binder). No matter what the norm says. If you think that Millette did something wrong, send him your complaint

- Once again, the expected behavior of paint for dummies: at ca 400 degrees and above, paint binder is degraded, volatilized and finally evaporated, leaving sometimes some graphitic stuffs (soot, char). Inorganic pigments remain, but their morphology or even chemical composition (e.g. content of water) can be changed above 400 degrees (this stands for both kaolinite and iron oxide). Therefore, ashing should be done at the lowest working temperature in order not to change pigments.

- We do not know the highest temperature to which Basile's chip was heated. Remember that this chip burned with a visible flame, so this flame was able to increase the temperature even more, chip was "puffed" and gray layer was destroyed to the objects seen in Basile's micrograph. On the other hand, Millette heated chips only to 400 degrees, so gray layer was not changed at such a low temperature and without the influence of real burning (without the formation of flame).

- As for iron oxide: in all heated chips after heating, we still clearly see red layers. No matter if they were heated to 700 degrees C (Harrit), 900 degrees C (Henryco), or to unknown temperature allegedly above 400 degrees C (Basile). In all cases, this finding (unchanged color of iron oxide) proves that iron oxide did not reacted by thermitic reaction and only carbon stuffs (polymer binder) reacted/burned. And, no wonder when chips contained only kaolinite as a source of Si and Al signals in XEDS spectra (as shown by Millette, and by Harrit for chips (a) to (d).)

(Btw, here is a chapter in the book Fundamentals of Forensic Science, named Paint Analysis (Chapter 16))

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 26th August 2012 at 02:56 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 08:17 AM   #1002
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Senenmut: I'm not sure if you are still so confused or you are just trolling

Some remarks:

- We do not know the exact advices/rules given for the paint ashing in the norm ASTM 1610-02 (it must be purchased and it's expensive). Do you know them, do you have this document? Anyway, the purpose of ashing (getting-rid of organic binder) can be simply accomplished even at 400 degrees C, as shown by Millette (he only found some particles of soot, which were remnants of incompletely burned binder). No matter what the norm says. If you think that Millette did something wrong, send him your complaint
they are on the internet. you can also find them referenced in google books here and there. i did email him.
ftp://tetco-it.ir/ASTM%202004%20PART...Q0NTETUKVE.pdf


ftp://tetco-it.ir/ASTM%202004%20PART...0_RTE2MTA_.pdf


Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
- Once again, the expected behavior of paint for dummies: at ca 400 degrees and above, paint binder is degraded, volatilized and finally evaporated, leaving sometimes some graphitic stuffs (soot, char). Inorganic pigments remain, but their morphology or even chemical composition (e.g. content of water) can be changed above 400 degrees (this stands for both kaolinite and iron oxide). Therefore, ashing should be done at the lowest working temperature in order not to change pigments.
450C is the standard for the furnace ash and at that temp, it shouldnt "damage" the chip like sunstealer thinks. heck, even oystein thinks post reaction of chip 13 (basile) that the pinkish tint is iron oxide. even post dsc (jones) there is a pink tint here and there. you know the temp at which kaolin transforms.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
- - We do not know the highest temperature to which Basile's chip was heated. Remember that this chip burned with a visible flame, so this flame was able to increase the temperature even more, chip was "puffed" and gray layer was destroyed to the objects seen in Basile's micrograph. On the other hand, Millette heated chips only to 400 degrees, so gray layer was not changed at such a low temperature and without the influence of real burning (without the formation of flame).
well, he claims the gray layer was not destroyed and the red layer is the thermitic one. also, the slide says the pic is of the "inside" of the chip. he said he heated it alittle over 400C. you guys can nit pick this all you want and spin it however you see fit.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
- - As for iron oxide: in all heated chips after heating, we still clearly see red layers. No matter if they were heated to 700 degrees C (Harrit), 900 degrees C (Henryco), or to unknown temperature allegedly above 400 degrees C (Basile). In all cases, this finding (unchanged color of iron oxide) proves that iron oxide did not reacted by thermitic reaction and only carbon stuffs (polymer binder) reacted/burned. And, no wonder when chips contained only kaolinite as a source of Si and Al signals in XEDS spectra (as shown by Millette, and by Harrit for chips (a) to (d).)
so your saying the chips were not "destroyed" if one heats it above 400C? and you even admit that the polymer binder reacted/burned which is what we want to do in the furnace. of coarse dealing with the kaolinite, you are speaking of millettes chips and not of jones/basilie's chips. i offered millette cash to do the furnace test again at 450C according to astm standards.

so what do you say we try and get millette to do the furnace test at 450C per astm standards!
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 08:35 AM   #1003
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
they are on the internet. you can also find them referenced in google books here and there. i did email him.
ftp://tetco-it.ir/ASTM%202004%20PART...Q0NTETUKVE.pdf


ftp://tetco-it.ir/ASTM%202004%20PART...0_RTE2MTA_.pdf



450C is the standard for the furnace ash and at that temp, it shouldnt "damage" the chip like sunstealer thinks. heck, even oystein thinks post reaction of chip 13 (basile) that the pinkish tint is iron oxide. even post dsc (jones) there is a pink tint here and there. you know the temp at which kaolin transforms.


well, he claims the gray layer was not destroyed and the red layer is the thermitic one. also, the slide says the pic is of the "inside" of the chip. he said he heated it alittle over 400C. you guys can nit pick this all you want and spin it however you see fit.



so your saying the chips were not "destroyed" if one heats it above 400C? and you even admit that the polymer binder reacted/burned which is what we want to do in the furnace. of coarse dealing with the kaolinite, you are speaking of millettes chips and not of jones/basilie's chips. i offered millette cash to do the furnace test again at 450C according to astm standards.

so what do you say we try and get millette to do the furnace test at 450C per astm standards!
lol, even your sig is nonsense.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 08:36 AM   #1004
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post

so what do you say we try and get millette to do the furnace test at 450C per astm standards!

What would be the purpose of this test?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 09:54 AM   #1005
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
... so what do you say we try and get millette to do the furnace test at 450C per astm standards!
Quote:
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby (ironic, a made up quote, not really from Colby, to go with made up lies from Jones)
BS statement, means nothing unless backed by evidence. The same for thermite. Jones' paper makes up the conclusion of thermite, a BS statement not backed by evidence. I see a trend.

Quote:
Lawrence issued orders to his sub‑editors in which he threatened to fire any U.S. News employee who was found to have entered into a formal relationship with the Agency.
Some evidence, now you are stuck moving the goalposts for your fake sig, say U.S. News is not significant for your fake quote, thus making the delusion of Colby come true, which he never said. It could be said major media owns the CIA because they can take CIA input and use it to investigate stories - shadow the CIA.

The data in Jones paper does not match thermite. Jones made up thermite to satisfy his political bias, he blames the earthquake in Haiti on the USA. Something is wrong with Jones, he is ill or has aged into a politically bias nut who will say anything against the evil government. Jones was fired from his job, allowed to call it retirement. If Jones had found thermite, it is a Pulitzer Prize winning event. Where is the Pulitzer? It is not given for fraud.

Jones Fraud is fringe, exposing his fraud is not big news. Nuts like Jones are ignored by all significant news source because the CIA owns them, LOL. Why were you fooled by Jones' lie? Why can't you take the dust and do the study? You have no evidence to save Jones' Fraud. DSC trace does not match thermite. Why would you do a DSC for the dust to compare to thermite; it makes no sense. I don't think you have a clue what DSC is used for. The DSC in Jones paper does not match thermite.

Quote:
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material,
They found dust, stuff from the WTC collapse, wave their hands and declare thermite. It looks more like clay used for coatings, a better conclusion.

Why are you not overtly supporting thermite? Your posts don't rise to the level of supporting thermite. Why? Did Jones find the thermite that was used to destroy the WTC? No, fire destroyed the WTC. Jones found junk and made up nonsense to support his delusion. Jones believes thermite visited the WTC and Christ visited America. He is batting 1000.

Last edited by beachnut; 26th August 2012 at 10:42 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 12:55 PM   #1006
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
...
450C is the standard for the furnace ash and at that temp, it shouldnt "damage" the chip like sunstealer thinks ...
But Basile, Harrit and Farrer think it would.

If 450°C doesn't damage the chip, would 400 °C do?

Can you explain why furnace ashing is done, how it is done, and why the parameters are recommended as they are, particularly the 450 °C?

Can you then explain, in scientific terms, why doing it at 400 °C is wrong, given the actual results that Millette got? In what way are his results affected by a 50 °C lower temp?




At what temperature did Basile make his chip react? Was that a proper way to do it? What was the objective?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 11:03 PM   #1007
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Senenmut: OK, thanks for the links to the norm ASTM 1610-02. For unkonwn reason, it does not work today for me (perhaps the server is currently unavailable), but I basically remember some important points.

First of all, a quote from the section "Significance and Use": available on astm.org: "This document is not intended as a detailed methods description or rigid scheme for the analysis and comparison of paints, but as a guide to the strengths and limitations of each analytical method."


As I remember, the recommended temperature of muffle ashing is 450+/-25 degrees C. So as you can see, the norm doesn't require firmly 450 degrees C.

As I remember, the main goal of paint ashing in this norm is to provide data for gravimetric determination of paint pigments (mass of original paint - mass of paint after ashing = percentage of pigments). This is also why recommended starting mass of paint is high, ca 10 grams. Absolutely incomparable to the masses of tiny WTC chips. And it seems that the preservation of pigment particles morphology is not really goal here. But since I do not have the access to the norm, that's all for the moment.

As for your sentence "So what do you say we try and get millette to do the furnace test at 450C per astm standards!"

If you want, pay for it And I can tell you for sure in advance what will be found: again just chips with the red layers, in which polymer binder is burned out and inorganic pigments remain

As for your sentence: "Of coarse dealing with the kaolinite, you are speaking of millettes chips and not of jones/basilie's chips."
As for Basile's chips, we have no data as regards Si-Al pigment(s) morphology. We can only see XEDS of the chip "Lucky Thirteen", in which Al and Si peaks are of the similar heights (Al peak is slightly smaller), which indicates kaolinite (provided that only one such pigment is present). As for Jones'es chips, kaolinite was clearly found/identified in chips (a) to (d). In other cases, we do not have data. As for Millette, he found only kaolinite in his chips as a source of Al and Si XEDS signals, nothing else

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 26th August 2012 at 11:52 PM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 11:29 PM   #1008
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Senenmut: and finally as for your sentence: "well, he (Basile) claims the gray layer was not destroyed and the red layer is the thermitic one."

Could you provide me with the source/link/image? In the transcription of interview with Basile published in 911Blogger , I can only read: "But (gray layer) doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites." This claim does not mean that gray layer was not destroyed/dissintegrated during heating. It only means that it did not ignite, I think
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 03:03 AM   #1009
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Deleted...

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 27th August 2012 at 03:28 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 04:11 AM   #1010
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Senenmut: OK, thanks for the links to the norm ASTM 1610-02. For unkonwn reason, it does not work today for me (perhaps the server is currently unavailable), but I basically remember some important points.

First of all, a quote from the section "Significance and Use": available on astm.org: "This document is not intended as a detailed methods description or rigid scheme for the analysis and comparison of paints, but as a guide to the strengths and limitations of each analytical method."


As I remember, the recommended temperature of muffle ashing is 450+/-25 degrees C. So as you can see, the norm doesn't require firmly 450 degrees C.

As I remember, the main goal of paint ashing in this norm is to provide data for gravimetric determination of paint pigments (mass of original paint - mass of paint after ashing = percentage of pigments). This is also why recommended starting mass of paint is high, ca 10 grams. Absolutely incomparable to the masses of tiny WTC chips. And it seems that the preservation of pigment particles morphology is not really goal here. But since I do not have the access to the norm, that's all for the moment.
astm1610 does not mention furnace ashing. it does mention the low temp ashing but i can only find furnace ashing in astm 4451. once you do the furnace test at 450C and get to the pigments, one can easily do the tests.


Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
As for your sentence "So what do you say we try and get millette to do the furnace test at 450C per astm standards!"

If you want, pay for it And I can tell you for sure in advance what will be found: again just chips with the red layers, in which polymer binder is burned out and inorganic pigments remain
cool.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
As for your sentence: "Of coarse dealing with the kaolinite, you are speaking of millettes chips and not of jones/basilie's chips."
As for Basile's chips, we have no data as regards Si-Al pigment(s) morphology. We can only see XEDS of the chip "Lucky Thirteen", in which Al and Si peaks are of the similar heights (Al peak is slightly smaller), which indicates kaolinite (provided that only one such pigment is present). As for Jones'es chips, kaolinite was clearly found/identified in chips (a) to (d). In other cases, we do not have data. As for Millette, he found only kaolinite in his chips as a source of Al and Si XEDS signals, nothing else
they say elemental al you say no elemental al. ok.

Last edited by Senenmut; 28th August 2012 at 04:13 AM.
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 04:15 AM   #1011
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Senenmut: and finally as for your sentence: "well, he (Basile) claims the gray layer was not destroyed and the red layer is the thermitic one."

Could you provide me with the source/link/image? In the transcription of interview with Basile published in 911Blogger , I can only read: "But (gray layer) doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites." This claim does not mean that gray layer was not destroyed/dissintegrated during heating. It only means that it did not ignite, I think
from that interview you linked:
basile-
"But the gray layer basically seems to be largely iron, although there's some other stuff that's integrated into it too, it seems to have a fairly high carbon and oxygen content as well. But it doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites. I think if you had a big enough chunk of this, uh.. that I can envision that the gray layer would probably wind up getting consumed into this molten mass of iron that might be produced, but with these small chips you don't get the progression of the event to that level... But I can only speculate."

from what basile is saying and from the context of the sentence, the gray layer did not do anything.
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 05:17 AM   #1012
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Senenmut: OK. Btw, we have this set of still images from Basile's video available:



Gray layer is visible from the beginning to the end and it seem that it is somehow enlarged/deformed during chip burning, although not substantially (?). Therefore it is still possible that this layer was somehow dissintegrated during chip burning (since iron oxides forming gray layer are not flexible at all), but we don't see it.

Ad your sentence: "they say elemental al you say no elemental al. ok."
Only Harrit et al said: "elemental Al" (judging from one single XEDS spectrum of swollen MEK chip in Fig. 17). Henryco did not say it and also Basile did not find any aluminium.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 28th August 2012 at 05:22 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:36 AM   #1013
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
...
they say elemental al you say no elemental al. ok.
Who is "they"? Harrit e.al.?

Where exactly do they say "elemental al" - what specimen does it refer to - and in which specimems did they NOT find elemental al?

Did Basile find elemental Al?
How much total Al did Basile find? Would that amount be enough to make a thermitic material?
Did Basile find anything nano-sized?
What did Basile find? Please give a short summary of all of Basile's findings which are backed by and based on his actual measurements!
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2012, 08:44 AM   #1014
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Senenmut: OK. Btw, we have this set of still images from Basile's video available:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=6499

Gray layer is visible from the beginning to the end and it seem that it is somehow enlarged/deformed during chip burning, although not substantially (?). Therefore it is still possible that this layer was somehow dissintegrated during chip burning (since iron oxides forming gray layer are not flexible at all), but we don't see it.
thanks for that pic. ive been looking for that! as you stated, the gray layer is still there after ignition. the red layer expands. maybe the red layer under the gray layer is what made it deformed.



Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Ad your sentence: "they say elemental al you say no elemental al. ok."
Only Harrit et al said: "elemental Al" (judging from one single XEDS spectrum of swollen MEK chip in Fig. 17). Henryco did not say it and also Basile did not find any aluminium.
the scientist in the thermitic paper came to that conclusion. of coarse henryco did not find elemental aluminum since he heated his chips to 900C and they did not react. different type of chip, probably the same type as millette....the ones with a carbon matrix instead of silicon mixed into the matrix (jones/basile's chips).

here basile speaks of aluminum at 6:14.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq...layer_embedded
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2012, 03:16 PM   #1015
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
...
here basile speaks of aluminum at 6:14.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq...layer_embedded
Yes. He speaks about aluminium. Like what you can or can't buy at the locel five-and-dime.

Is there any data? Do you know of any data that Basile has produced concerning aluminium in the red-gray chips?

Like
  1. How much total Al was there in his red layer, and in his gray layer?
  2. Did he show any Al-rich particles? What were their sizes?
  3. Did he find any Al after the ignition?
  4. Did he determine if and how Al was chemically bound?

Senemut, please to answer all four questions. You will find that the answer you can give, as well as the answers that you can't give, indicate very strongly that Basile's own data speaks strongly AGAINST thermite.
For that matter, why did you ignore my previous post? The one where I asked the following questions:

Who is "they"? Harrit e.al.?

Where exactly do they say "elemental al" - what specimen does it refer to - and in which specimems did they NOT find elemental al?

Did Basile find elemental Al?
How much total Al did Basile find? Would that amount be enough to make a thermitic material?
Did Basile find anything nano-sized?
What did Basile find? Please give a short summary of all of Basile's findings which are backed by and based on his actual measurements!

Had you seriously and honestly attempted to answer these questions, you'd be much closer already to understanding that Basile did not find anything nano-tech, and did not find anything thermitic.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 11:29 PM   #1016
remo
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
The MIX

The patent clearly states reactive materials can be chosen from a large number of organic inorganic and reactive elements. carbon, aluminum, beryllium, titanium, copper oxide, lithium, zirconium and yttrium with all kinds of possible mixtures. Copper oxide, gallium oxide molybdenum oxide, nickle oxide cobalt oxide, tin oxide, germanium oxide. Remember, a particular embodiment of the invention as you argue it is only ONE of a multitude under invention. Processing procedures, changes, modifications are not intended to be limited. Those skilled in the art of manufacturing high end explosive/incendiaries do not intend to be limited in their material mix. USGS recorded organic carbon, sulfur, copper, lead manganese zinc barium titanium magnesium molybdenum spheroids as well as the aluminum iron silicon and calcium in parts per million in DUST samples all over Manhattan. Huge amounts of elemental sulfur. along with the 6% by volume iron rich spheroids.

Gravity sure does grind a Mighty HOT and a mighty FINE grind you would have to say.
remo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 11:55 PM   #1017
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Senenmut: last time for Basile's chip "Lucky 13" after burning.

Here is how this chip looked after burning:



We can clearly see that chip is dark/black because of incomplete burning of polymer binder (leaving char/soot).

Here is again a micrograph:



Although this image is messy, I would say now that blue/gray objects denoted as "iron droplets" by Basile may be parts of gray layer of rusted steel protruding from char/soot "environment", therefore they have rounded shapes. But this is just another working hypothesis, nothing more Anyway, judging from the set of images of burning, it seems that in this case, gray layer was not substantially dissintegrated (contrary to Haritt's chips heated in DSC machine).

Remo:
, OK, we already know, you found a patent. This is clearly a proof of inside job. Enjoy it

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 3rd September 2012 at 12:09 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2012, 12:43 AM   #1018
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by remo View Post
The patent clearly states reactive materials can be chosen from a large number of organic inorganic and reactive elements. carbon, aluminum, beryllium, titanium, copper oxide, lithium, zirconium and yttrium with all kinds of possible mixtures. Copper oxide, gallium oxide molybdenum oxide, nickle oxide cobalt oxide, tin oxide, germanium oxide.
Did Harrit e.al., Basile, or Millette, find any beryllium, titanium, copper oxide, lithium, zirconium, yttrium, copper oxide, gallium oxide molybdenum oxide, nickle oxide cobalt oxide, tin oxide, germanium oxide?
If not, why even mention it?

Does the patent mention iron oxide?

Originally Posted by remo View Post
Remember, a particular embodiment of the invention as you argue it is only ONE of a multitude under invention. Processing procedures, changes, modifications are not intended to be limited. Those skilled in the art of manufacturing high end explosive/incendiaries do not intend to be limited in their material mix.
So you are saying that whatever is found, it is covered by the patent? What a convenient view to take

Originally Posted by remo View Post
USGS recorded organic carbon,
Why is that interesting? Does the patent talk about organic carbon (answer: No. It talks about elemental, i.e. inorganic, carbon)

Originally Posted by remo View Post
sulfur, copper, lead manganese zinc barium titanium magnesium molybdenum spheroids as well as the aluminum iron silicon and calcium in parts per million in DUST samples all over Manhattan.
Can you explain which of these findings is remarkable, and why? If the USGS were to analyse dirt I scratch from under the concrete tiles on my terrace, would you think they would not find sulfur, copper, lead manganese, zinc barium, titanium, magnesium, as well as the aluminum, iron, silicon, and calcium "in parts per million"? (Answer all of these elements will always be found in at least trace amounts ("parts per million", ppm) in any dust in our city or natural environments. They are found in the earth's crust in average amounts of >10,000 parts per million (aluminum, iron, silicon, calcium, magnesium), >1,000 ppm (manganese, titanium), >100 ppm (sulfur, barium) and >10 ppm (copper, lead, zinc); all of these except barium have very specific uses in building materials)

Originally Posted by remo View Post
Huge amounts of elemental sulfur.
I don't believe this at all. Please provide evidence for that claim!

Originally Posted by remo View Post
along with the 6% by volume iron rich spheroids.
This is FALSE. The USGS did NOT find "6% by volume iron rich spheroids". No one found "6% by volume iron rich spheroids"; only RJ Lee found "6% by mass iron rich spheroids", the USGS along with all other research teams found around 2% by mass of the element iron, with no reference to particle shape; most of this iron would be oxides and other chemical compounds, only part of it found in spheroids.

Originally Posted by remo View Post
Gravity sure does grind a Mighty HOT and a mighty FINE grind you would have to say.
Dust was created in large amounts both from the very extensive fires (it's called "ashes" then) and from the >100 tons of TNT equivalent of potential energy that gravity converted to destruction.
What energy source do you have in mind that was responsible for the findings you have in mind



remo, your posts leave the impression that you are mightily impressed by latin words and scientific terms, even more so when they come in long lists and fat clusters, but don't even start to grasp what they mean. Most of what you write is totally irrelevant and does not even amount to an argument.

You NEVER respond to specific questions - why is that so?
Please go back to post 905 and give direct answers to the direct questions directed at you!
Please go back to post 868 and specifically address the specific arguments I raised there!

Not addressing arguments and questions makes it look like you are incapable of answering questions and understanding arguments!
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2012, 03:34 PM   #1019
remo
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
mix

AS is posted on 911blogger 9.8.2012 from Prof.Jones.quote:"The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust, sent to me by this scientist as a PDF file.

Dear [Interested Scientist],

Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]

Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).

Therefore, I am pleased that you propose to do DSC analyses along the lines that we preformed; as you noted, James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really, and I hope you will do better as you propose.

...

Edited by LashL:  Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and the source.

Last edited by LashL; 9th September 2012 at 01:48 PM.
remo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2012, 04:09 PM   #1020
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by remo View Post
.

Therefore, I am pleased that you propose to do DSC analyses along the lines that we preformed;
Does this mean they are going to release the data that shows what samples they actually used in the DSC?

What happens when it shows the exact same thing? Will you then believe their own data shows their was no thermite reaction?

Let me guess, you'll ask him what you need to think.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 8th September 2012 at 04:15 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2012, 04:20 PM   #1021
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by remo View Post
How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time. I hope you will not make the same mistake.
Kind of strange they refuse to share any of their material, huh?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2012, 04:46 PM   #1022
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by remo View Post
-The presence of reduced iron (less oxygen than needed for even FeO) in these spheres (see our Figures 20 and 21) implies that a transfer of oxygen has taken place, from iron oxide to aluminum. High temperatures are also needed for the formation of iron-rich spheres (spheres formed from liquid due to surface tension), further indicating a highly exothermic thermitic reaction.
This is not conclusive, as a second iron containing layer (the gray layer) was present.

Quote:
-When Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of the many tests he did to check things.
This is just a claim, no data were published to support this claim.

Quote:
-Later, we mixed up some ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide powders thus making a type of nano-thermite (but with no organic matrix). This was run in the DSC at BYU in an inert atmosphere up to 700C – and it did not ignite! We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.
Yes, Dr. Jones, oxygen is needed to burn an organic matrix. It's fine, that he finally grasps this basic principle of chemistry.

Quote:
Another key observation that we made:

3. Migration of aluminum in the red material as it was soaked for hours in MEK solvent, evident from Figure 15 in our paper.
No such observations were made, as we don't know the element distribution prior to the MEK experiment.

Quote:
-We performed experiments soaking epoxy paint chips in MEK as well. As we reported in our paper, the red material swells but remains hard under forceps after soaking for many hours. OTOH, the epoxy paint became very flimsy after soaking in the MEK for a similar length of time. This is yet another test which distinguishes the red/gray chips from paint!
Another unsubstantiated claim. Again no data were published.

Quote:
-Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .
Sorryy, but how do you determine the atomic ratio by TEM?

Quote:
Did Millette see an aluminum pattern demonstrating it occurs in the form of kaolinite?
Yes, he does. It was stated in Dr. Millette's progress report to. The following qoute is clearly cherry picking.

Quote:
-We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.
Then Dr. Jones should tell us the origin of the titanium in the microsphere depicted in Fig. 25 of his study.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2012, 08:36 PM   #1023
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Same BS, different key

Originally Posted by remo View Post

{Steven Jones quotes}
-You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats. Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air; which is why we did our tests in air also. Thus, we could make direct comparisons with the LLNL data on nano-thermite fabricated at the LLNL laboratory.
This is apparently a lie, but I'll concede the point if he provides the name of the scientist.
Quote:
-Later, we mixed up some ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide powders thus making a type of nano-thermite (but with no organic matrix). This was run in the DSC at BYU in an inert atmosphere up to 700C – and it did not ignite!
Thermite will even ignite under a vacuum. Jones's claim contradicts one of the few confirmed claims about nano-thermite, i.e. that it is easier to ignite.
But surely, at some temperature, Jones and Harrer's home-brew thermite will finally ignite.


Quote:
-Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .
Any experienced industrial chemist, such as I, could tell Jones that bulk industrial chemicals are not refined to analytical reagent grade, as it adds cost, with no improvement in performance. Traces of other clay minerals such as potassium aluminum silicate and magnesium aluminum silicate would be expected to be found in kaolinite. This would lower the aluminum/silicon ratio. And what is silicon doing in thermite, anyway, especially combined with aluminum? Is Jones claiming that this is some exotic, unnecessary aluminum-silicon alloy? Mr. Jones: It's clay. Get over it. Your BS is tiresome.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2012, 10:04 PM   #1024
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Talking

Originally Posted by remo View Post
AS is posted on 911blogger 9.8.2012 from Prof.Jones.quote:"The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust, sent to me by this scientist as a PDF file.

Dear [Interested Scientist],

Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]

Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).

Therefore, I am pleased that you propose to do DSC analyses along the lines that we preformed; as you noted, James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really, and I hope you will do better as you propose.
...
Remo: Africanus and Redwood summarized in short some of our objections, I will add some more comments.

- As for alleged migration of Al in MEK chip, this has been discussed ad nauseam many times here before: this chip is different from chips (a) to (d), it's probably Tnemec particle, therefore it shouldn't contain kaolinite.

- As for swelling tests in MEK: this is perhaps the first explicit mention that Harrit et al. tested some epoxy paint for comparison (?). Here, expected behavior is: heavily crosslinked epoxy would only swell in a good solvent (more or less, depending on the degree of crosslinkking); in slightly crosslinked epoxy, some portion of polymer can be extracted by solvent and the chip could loose its coherence (e.g). So, it seems that Harrit et al chose slightly crosslinked epoxy in this case. Although such comparison is smarter and more specific than comparison with some mystical "ordinary paint", it still does not tell anything useful. If polymer binder in MEK chip was heavily crosslinked, its expected behavior in MEK solvent is only some swelling (or no swelling at all).

- As for Farrer's alleged broad DSC curve of epoxy paint (no data given): it may be that Farrer found a broad DSC. The thermal-oxidative degradation of epoxies is very complex process and published results distinctly differ for various epoxy resins and composites (and even for various experimental arrangements). I found sharp DSC peaks, as well as broad peaks in the literature, moreover peak temperatures can distinctly differ. Here is an example of a sharp peak (last curve):



- As for sentence "You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats." No, Prof. Jones, this idea has no "caveats". This is simply only way how thermite reaction can be proven and the oxidation/burning of polymer binder can be excluded as a main exothermic process.

- The claim of Jones that Al:Si ratio 0.92 rules out kaolinite (since it should be exactly 1) is just weird As well as a brave Jones' hypothesis that metallic aluminium could be non-crystalline in the samples and his chaotic sentences about titanium In both Millette's and Harrit's paper, some titanium was found in some chips. Perhaps these were just paint chips containing Ti, or chips contaminated with titanium stuffs, why not?

- Why Jones asks/doubts whether Millette proved kaolinite? Millette indeed proved kaolinite by XEDS (e.g. Si-Al ratio), by micrographs (typical kaolinite stacking platelets) and FTIR (typical IR bands of kaolinite are shown).

- As for electrical resistivities of the red layers, why they should be important or tell anything useful? Various paints would have dramatically different resistivities, depending e.g. on the content of comparatively conductive pigments like iron oxides (or e.g. metallic aluminium, like in "metallic paints").

Jones wrote: "There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material." Here, we can agree with Jones. Unluckily for him, "material" which he and his companion investigated more closely (chips (a) to (d) and MEK chip) and denoted as nanothermite are clearly paints, so any further study can only prove this, if conducted properly. But I personally highly doubt that Basile would organize any such additional study

Last edited by LashL; 9th September 2012 at 01:49 PM. Reason: Removed quote of moderated content.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 12:04 AM   #1025
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Congratulations to Remo on becoming one of Mr Jones's official whipping boys.


Let me know what the debunkers say to this letter (above), would you? this would include the guys at truthaction also...

A few years back, I tried to get onto jref so that I could speak there -- and they refused to allow me to join!

I appreciate people like you, sittingbull and others, who have the time and stomach to deal with the debunkers.

I'm a researcher, not a debater, but I will stand up for the truth and just wish I had more time.
Thanks again.
Steve
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 04:43 AM   #1026
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by remo View Post
-You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats. Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air; which is why we did our tests in air also. Thus, we could make direct comparisons with the LLNL data on nano-thermite fabricated at the LLNL laboratory.
It's a lie. Jones a liar.

Here the answers of Gash and Tillotson, the two first authors of an article about nanothermite for LLNL :


"Thanks for your interest in the paper. As you correctly point out DSC in an O2 atmosphere will combust the organic impurities and greatly add to the energy release. However the DSC in question was done in ultra pure nitrogen. Since that publication we have considered the effect that pyrolyzing (which is essentially what we are doing) the organics may cause the formation of organic char that may coat the inorganic particles, effectively passivating them and making them less reactive (e.g, less enthalpy). While that may or may not be the case over the years we have come to rely less and less on the enthalpy from DSC for irreversible reactions as an absolutely accurate value.

In irreversible high energy processes the solid is undergoing many changes that may lead to inefficient heat transfer tot he DSC sensor and thus an inaccurate heat flow measurement. At the time of publication, we had more faith in the absolute value of these measurements. That is not to say DSC is not useful, quite the contrary. It gives us a reasonable idea how energetic a composition may be, it identifies decomposition temperatures, and is very accurate for determining the enthalpy of reversible heat flow (e.g., phase transitions, melting etc..). Since the publication of that paper we have found that combustion calorimetry is a far more accurate way to determine reaction enthalpy. And yes, with our organic impurity we find higher enthalpies for sol-gel thermites than regular thermites (due to the combustion of the organic in O2).

You will find out that once you write a paper there are things you wish you had done differently and ways to improve your analysis and discussion. Rarely is a scientific publication definitive, such is the nature of the field. You publish to claim credit for your work and to solicit comment from your peers, they comment and you refine your theory methods etc… That is how science moves forward.

Thanks for your comments.

Alex"




"The experiment was performed as Alex described...in ultra pure nitrogen as is standard technique here at LLNL. If Mr. Farrer did contact me I can guarantee you that I did not respond to his questions.

Tom Tillotson"

Last edited by moorea34; 9th September 2012 at 04:45 AM.
moorea34 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 04:53 AM   #1027
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Hello remo,

Africanus, Redwood and Ivan Kminek have offered detailed and substantive criticism and discussion of the claims you copied and pasted as an errand runner and poster boy for Mr. S. Jones. I hope you will respond to that criticism and discussion by in turn addressing the specific and substantive points with specific and substantive replies of your own.

Please indicate here if you don't understand the science behind the argument and are thus incapable of participating in a reasond debate on the issue!


I have a couple of expansions on the good point already raised:

Originally Posted by remo View Post
...
-You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats. Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air; which is why we did our tests in air also. Thus, we could make direct comparisons with the LLNL data on nano-thermite fabricated at the LLNL laboratory.
As has been pointed out already, the first part of this paragraph is a lie. Jones is referring to a paper by then LLNL scientists Tom Tillotson, Alexander Gash and others. I have copies of email from both Gash and Tillotson in which they explain that
a) The opposite is true - they did their DSC test under an inert atmosphere of pure nitrogen, NOT under air
b) Doing it under air would obviously yield useless results as their nanothermite preparation contained ca. 10% organic material which would burn and screw the data (The "energetic" red layers of Jones's chips contain 70% and more organic substance, which would, and does, screw their DSC data even more, obviously)
c) They have ni recollection of having talked with Farrer.

However if you DO compare the Jones/Harrit/Farrer DSC curves with that presented by Tillotson and Gash at LLNL, they turned to be significantly different in any important aspect: Very different ignition points, very different energy yield (the yield of Jones/Harrit/Farrer is much to high, which, together with the low content of Al in the chips, makes it at an absolute certainty that >99% of the energy they measured cannot come from a thermite reaction).

Here is an overlay of the graphic results of both teams (Fig 19 and 29 of the Harrit paper):
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...-overlaid2.png

Originally Posted by remo View Post
...
-Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .
An "Al:Si ratio" of "approximately 0.92" means there is actually more silicon than aluminium in those platelets - which is a much bigger problem for Jones's thermite theory than for kaolinite. The former should have a lot more Al than Si (in fact, Jones, Harrot e.al. offer no explanation at all for the presence of Si!), or no Si at all.

Originally Posted by remo View Post
...-The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio.
Millette shows several TEM-EDS images taken from Al-Si-rich plates. They all show the Al- and Si-peaks almost equal, or the Si-peak being slightly higher than the Al-peak - just as Jones has them. So yes, Al:Si ratio would indeed corroborate that Millette was looking at the same material that Jones reports on.


Originally Posted by remo View Post
-I encourage you to do TEM analysis as we have done.
The obvios problem of course: Farrer and Jones have not published their TEM-data anywhere so that we could actually compare anything!

remo, would you please urge Mr. Jones to fully publish their TEM data![*]

Originally Posted by remo View Post
Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3.
Yes, we know that

Originally Posted by remo View Post
He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in any crystalline form, which surprised us. It may be that the aluminum was in a non-crystalline form.
This is patently absurd. The Al-Si-rich platelets are very obviously crystalline. Millette found the very same plateles that look exactly the same as the Jones/Farrer platelets in shape, size (all dimensions), behaviour (the sometimes form stacks), EDS spectrum, average atomic weight and relative abundance. Millette DID manage to get TEM-SAED crystal patterns from them. I'd suggest that Farrer isn't good enough at this.

Originally Posted by remo View Post
Did Millette see an aluminum pattern demonstrating it occurs in the form of kaolinite? His report does state:
-Millette report: "TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 20 and 21). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).”
Yes, Millette did "see an aluminum pattern demonstrating it occurs in the form of kaolinite".
Fig 16 of his prelim report shows a TEM image of the pigments in one of his samples. Fig. 16a shows a TEM-EDS spectrum of one pigments identified by shape and size as kaolin - it has almost equal Al- and Si-peaks, along with a corresponding higher O-peak, exactly like Fig. 11a in the Harrit paper of the same kind of pigment. Fig 16e finally shows a TEM-SAED crystal pattern of the same pigment.

So again, yes, Millette shows absolutely positively and competently that these platelets are kaolin and thus crystalline.

remo, you should start to entertain the possibility in your head that Farrer, Harrit and Jones are simply incompetent when it comes to analysing mineral pigments! Don't believe Mr. Jones just because he posts it on a board that share your own favorite delusions!

Originally Posted by remo View Post
-We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.)
This is plainly disingenous!

Jones ignores the fact that their Figure 25 (in the Harrit-paper) shows a clear and labeled peak for titanium found in post-DSC residue from one of their red-gray chips, proving that their red-gray chips sometimes do contain titanium!

Jones also ignores the fact that among the four chips in his preferred Figs. 6 and 7, only one (specimen c) has labeled peaks pf S, K and Ca - this however did not prompt them to conclude that specimen c is different from a, b and d. That's doubl standards. Much more crassly, the spectrum for the MEK-spoaked chip, Fig. 14, is totally different from those in Fig. 7, yet they handwave these differences by claiming all the differences are cause by contamination.

Jones also ignores the fact that their Fig. 7 has a small signal near the 4.5 keV location for Titanium, which they (or their software) didn't label.

Jones also ignores the fact that only some of Millette's chips show a signal for Titanium (many spectra in Appendix B for reference), and that these are all tiny, only barely rising above background noise. This suggests that Ti is never an ingredient of these chips, but always a contamination. And indeed, as others before me have told you, Ti is a common and known contamination of kaolin, typically accounting for <1% of the mass of kaolin (Al and Si each a little ove 20%), which is absolutely in line with both the Harrit and Millette data - the totally of all published spectra.
So while it is easy and probable to miss a small Ti signal, as both Millette and the Harrit team did, and while both teams also occasionaly did register tracers of Ti when doing bulk SEM, it is of course possible to find the occasional particle of TiO2 in kaolinite - it is expected. It speaks for the competence of Millette, and against the abilities of the Harrit team, that Millette was able to identifie all the pigments, even the contaminant ones, in the red layer, while the Harrit team identified only one.

Originally Posted by remo View Post
More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.
More and more it appears that Jones is either incompetent or dishonest when he comments on Millette's or even his own study.

Originally Posted by remo View Post
-Why would he not measure the electrical resistivity of his red material (discussed in our paper) right off? That's what gets me – he could have saved himself a lot of time. Finally he gets to TEM analysis, and finds that he has titanium oxide pigment! How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time. I hope you will not make the same mistake.

Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones"
Any self respecting and able scientist will be sure not to make the same mistakes and show the same degree of ignorance as Mr. Jones[**].




[*] Please note that while you, remo, are entirely free to post whatever you want in this, the JREF, forum, several of us suffer from severe censorship at 911Blogger! I would like to respond to Mr. Jones's statements directly there, however my posts are never accepted by the 911Blogger censors! Are you aware that your movement is so heavily engaged in disabling free speech and silencing dissent?

[**][/sup] I call Mr. Jones "Mr." and not "Dr." because of his obvious incompetence in the relevant science fields. Calling him "Dr." in this context runs the risk of making the false impression that Mr. Jones is scientifically competent here when he clearly is not.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 12:05 PM   #1028
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Watch out:
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-...-chip-analyses


Steven Jones wants to talk to us


He claims that he was not allowed to join the JREF forums. I'll ask Forum Management about that.




Hello Dr. Jones, I have news for you: It is not the JREF forum that is keeping people out and practicing CENSORSHIP - 911Blgger is doing that! I have had an account at 911Blogger for a while now, but my comments are NEVER allowed and approved by the 911Blogger censors! I'd gladly debate your post there where you made it. Would you be so kind and DEMAND from 911Blogger admins and mods that they stop censoring me? Thanks!



Hello remo!


I will later post a direct reply to Steven Jones here that I will kindly ask you to copy and paste at 911Blogger. Will you be so kind?



Edited to add:
Look: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...78#post8604978 I just asked Forum Management if Steven Jones is indeed banned from this forum, as he claims. remo, if and when you copy the link to this thread at 911Blogger, as ProfJones requested, please advise him to also be mindful of my question to Forum Management about his status here!

Last edited by Oystein; 9th September 2012 at 12:17 PM. Reason: ETA
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 12:50 PM   #1029
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by remo View Post
AS is posted on 911blogger 9.8.2012 from Prof.Jones.quote:"...? What a waste of time. I hope you will not make the same mistake.

Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones"

end
Dr Jones spreads woo, and those who can't think for themselves suck it up and repeat the insane delusion thermite was used to destroy the WTC. Is Dr Jones insane, his claim of thermite is?, he implies the earthquake in Haiti was a false flag operation, and never struck down wild speculation about the same. That is pathetic, spreading delusions about a disaster. Dr Jones is anti-Bush, or something, that had him make up thermite. Jones sees aluminum coming out the corner of the WTC, turning silvery as it cools, waves his hands, claims thermite.
He is so challenged he claimed cuts made after 911 were thermite cuts to bring down the towers.
. He spreads speculation made up due his bias or is he insane like the claim of thermite is?

Quote:
I hope you don't mind but I copied it over to a jref thread that has been liberally slandering your work.
Submitted by remo on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 5:35pm.
911 truth definition of truth - slander.

Quote:
I don't mind.
Let me know what the debunkers say to this letter (above), would you? this would include the guys at truthaction also...
A few years back, I tried to get onto jref so that I could speak there -- and they refused to allow me to join!
I appreciate people like you, sittingbull and others, who have the time and stomach to deal with the debunkers.
I'm a researcher, not a debater, but I will stand up for the truth and just wish I had more time.
Thanks again.
Steve
Why are some people who spread delusion so personable, not knowing they are spreading insane claims.

Dr Jones is spreading more lies, or is he unable to remember he never signed up!?

Mods say...
Quote:
The only reason we don't approve a registration is if they do not include the required information, so if someone provides the required information (which is first name, last name, country and state if in the USA) the account is approved (subject to the usual checks that we use to identify such naughtiness as sock puppets).
Dr Jones is not all there. He had to pay to have his paper published because it is BS. They study "dust", found a coating from the WTC or other buildings in the area, and declare it is super secret nano-thermite. It is so funny, it is sad.

Essentially we have Dr Jones and other paranoid conspiracy theorists who make up lies about thermite, and I can't wait for their explanation of Flight 77 and Flight 93, to see how insane those claims will be.

Jones endorsed the famous meth induced, thermite in the ceiling tiles insanity. Conspiracy nuts, Jones is an original. Gage made over a million dollars selling lies and promise of new investigation needed by idiots who sign up for nonsense and never read the hundreds of studies and investigations in the first place.

It is hilarious when 911 truth nuts claim this is plausible...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html
Jones thinks this is plausible. Wow
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2009-...ction-scenario
Nuts

Why do Pulitzer Prize winning claims not get a Pulitzer? That is right! Dr Jones claims are Pulitzer Prize winning claims if true. But his claims are backed with the same evidence Bigfoot believers have for their's; No Pulitzer, no newspaper will team with Jones or use his fake paper conclusions.

Jones had to make an on-line journal of woo because no one would publish his biased claptrap full of crazy claims. 11 years of failure. Jones spreads lies, and if he does not know it, he has problems. If he knows he is spreading lies why does he do it? Political bias? Why does he mislead people? Can't wait for his crazy claims on 93 and 77; how can he disrespect those on 911 more?

Loved it when Robertson called Jones' claims ridiculous.

Last edited by beachnut; 9th September 2012 at 01:22 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 01:06 PM   #1030
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Hello remo again!

May I kindly ask you to reply to ProfJones at 911Blogger and invite him on my behalf to the JREF? Thanks! You may copy and paste this text:


Dear Prof. Jones,

according to the JREF forum liaison and Administrator "Darat", there is no apparent reason why you shouldn't be allowed to join the JREF forum. So may I ask you to sign up now, and join us in reasoned and rational debate about the your science if 9/11? Go to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums

In this thread, you will find my inquiry about your status and Darat's reply:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=243618
I quote fully:

"The only reason we don't approve a registration is if they do not include the required information, so if someone provides the required information (which is first name, last name, country and state if in the USA) the account is approved (subject to the usual checks that we use to identify such naughtiness as sock puppets).

There is no "black list" of names of people that we won't allow to join (or anything like that).

We have had some people who go on and on during the registration process (via emails) and try to make a big deal of the process we use and want Lisa and I to dance to their tune, such folks get short shrift as Lisa and I have very little patience for such games."

The thread remo mentioned is found here (this link goes directly to the currently last page):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...140017&page=26

Prof. Jones, I signed up at 911Blogger several months ago and tried to post comments to several blog posts in my fields of interest, particularly regarding the topic of red-gray chips. You see, I am one of the sponsors of the recent Millette study: I donated money, and advised Chris Mohr on the science of red-gray chips - what problems I see with the paper you, Prof. Harrit and others authored, and what to ask an independent lab to look for, and what not to look for.

Unfortunately, the moderators of 911Blogger engage in heavy-handed censorship - not a single of my posts was ever approved and allowed to appear publicly. I hopy you are a champion of free speach and honesty and will try to intervene on my behalf at the 911Blogger moderator team.

In the meantime, I suggest we debate your most recent suggestions and advice at the JREF forum, a place where all sides if each issue are allowed and encouraged, provided you agree to and abide by the membership agreement, which basically boils down to:
1. Provide your first name, last name, country and state truthfully when you sign up (none of this will be publicly visible, but of course I think you would want to identify yourself in the forum voluntarily for a reasonable debate to occur)
2. Be civil and stay on topic.

One advantage of becoming a JREF member is that the Membership Agreement protects YOU from being abused and talked to uncivilly in the forum

Kind regards

Oystein, JREF forum member.

Last edited by Oystein; 9th September 2012 at 01:08 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 02:04 PM   #1031
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by remo View Post
that have the capability of considerably more heat than organic explosives ...
LOL

This means thermite has the same heat, thermite had before. Did the fancy claims fool you? If you area fooled by Jones, you might not be a chemistry major, but you might be a paranoid conspiracy theorist. It is chemistry, fooled by Jones, take chemical engineering courses and chemistry. Regain the ability to repel woo.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 03:25 PM   #1032
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hello remo,

Africanus, Redwood and Ivan Kminek have offered detailed and substantive criticism and discussion of the claims you copied and pasted as an errand runner and poster boy for Mr. S. Jones. I hope you will respond to that criticism and discussion by in turn addressing the specific and substantive points with specific and substantive replies of your own.

Please indicate here if you don't understand the science behind the argument and are thus incapable of participating in a reasond debate on the issue!

remo, you should start to entertain the possibility in your head that Farrer, Harrit and Jones are simply incompetent when it comes to analysing mineral pigments! Don't believe Mr. Jones just because he posts it on a board that share your own favorite delusions!
You forgot about "dishonest".
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 04:12 PM   #1033
remo
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
The MIX

It appears both subscribers are banned from each others sites? Why is that? Less ad hominem over on blogger than here tho. Why would that be a surprise? I ask jref admin. to allow the URL below on even tho I have only 9 postings. This is important to the matter.

Quote: further:From Prof.Jones:

"Neils Harrit recommended that I make a modification for clarity -- which I have done. Here is the revised portion:

"I encourage you to do TEM analysis as we have done. Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example [not allowed post URL/Please refer comments/Blogger/Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses submitted by Prof Jones/perpezko/html]. I'll leave it at that for now. I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings."

The reference here speaks of amorphous aluminum alloys; I have found that even the existence of this amorphous form relating to aluminum is surprising to some scientists who somehow had not heard of it.

Remo, you may wish to call attention to this revised section, this edit.

It may be that the debunkers will simply ignore this essay; I hope not. Nothing yet at truthaction that I can see.

I encourage replies that are "to the science" and evidence-based, rather than hollow and slanderous ad hominem ("to the man") attacks."

end.
quote:'One advantage of becoming a JREF member is that the Membership Agreement protects YOU from being abused and talked to uncivilly in the forum.' Not my experience at all. About as accurate as the illusioNIST report.
remo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 04:12 PM   #1034
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Watch out:
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-...-chip-analyses


Steven Jones wants to talk to us
...
Uh-oh - the 911Blogger censors put ProfJones's thread on moderation now...
It still shows when you click the link above, but isn't listed on the 911Blogger homepage.

Most recent comments - for posterity:

Originally Posted by ProfJones
I don't mind.

Let me know what the debunkers say to this letter (above), would you? this would include the guys at truthaction also...

A few years back, I tried to get onto jref so that I could speak there -- and they refused to allow me to join!

I appreciate people like you, sittingbull and others, who have the time and stomach to deal with the debunkers.

I'm a researcher, not a debater, but I will stand up for the truth and just wish I had more time.
Thanks again.
Steve
Submitted by ProfJones on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 5:43pm
Originally Posted by ProfJones
Neils Harrit recommended

that I make a modification for clarity -- which I have done. Here is the revised portion:

"I encourage you to do TEM analysis as we have done. Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...ezko-0203.html . I'll leave it at that for now. I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings."

The reference here speaks of amorphous aluminum alloys; I have found that even the existence of this amorphous form relating to aluminum is surprising to some scientists who somehow had not heard of it.

Remo, you may wish to call attention to this revised section, this edit.

It may be that the debunkers will simply ignore this essay; I hope not. Nothing yet at truthaction that I can see.

I encourage replies that are "to the science" and evidence-based, rather than hollow and slanderous ad hominem ("to the man") attacks.
Submitted by ProfJones on Sun, 09/09/2012 - 6:22am
Originally Posted by Jon Cole
I also appreciate....

...all those with differing natural abilities spreading the truth. Each of us has our own strengths and weaknesses, and whether it's critical research like what Prof. Jones does, or making presentations, debating, street actions, writing, music or whatever, it all helps.
And I think like the Hippocratic oath in medicine, ("first, do no harm") the important thing is to avoid intentionally (knowingly) spreading disinformation, or expressing excessive internal arguments, which could do more harm than good to the "patient" of truth...and exactly what our distractors want.
Submitted by Jon Cole on Sun, 09/09/2012 - 12:23pm
Originally Posted by zica
jref thread

Hi remo,

Could you post the URL for the jref thread?

Thanks!
Submitted by zica on Sun, 09/09/2012 - 12:44pm
Originally Posted by ProfJones
Very well said, Jon.

I have much appreciated your clear and instructive videos of your experiments.

A friend of mine has told me about how the truthaction group has gone over to the side of vehemently attacking co-workers in the 9/11 truth-seeking movement in ad hominem fashion. It is sad; this for instance from a 3 Sept 2012 posting there:

"I've gotten nothing but anger from know it all activists claiming Jones was legitimate - and DRG - and Gage - and Legge - "

as he goes on in various posts attacking us. Kevin Ryan is also attacked (e.g. Snowcrash post 6 Sept 2012). I'm called a "liar" and a "fraud" there, but without backing up those slanderous epithets that I can see.

I have a great deal of respect for DR Griffin, Richard Gage, Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan, and these vehement personal attacks are bewildering, coming from fellows who claim to be a 9/11 truth activists themselves. And they probably are -- but why cannot they RESPECTFULLY deal with others in the 9/11 truth movement who like to use SCIENCE to advance the truth, or with whom they may disagree for some reason? Why must they attack us with epithets and divide the movement?

I would like to see JohnA and Snowcrash and a few others at truthaction respond fairly and scientifically to my letter above. And re-think their attacks on those who take a scientific, evidence-based approach to challenging the official story of 9/11.

--Steven Jones
Mr. Jones, if you happen to come across this thread, please note: The 911Blogger moderators are censoring the truthaction guys! They were too critical, they pointed out the many flaws, holes and inconsistencies in the whole thermite story, after Gage, AE911Truth and 911Blogger blatantly and shamelessly misrepresented the conclusions of the Millette study.
I am glad, Mr. Jones, that you will now call on the 911Blogger censors to lift the censorship and allow debate!
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 04:29 PM   #1035
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by remo View Post
'One advantage of becoming a JREF member is that the Membership Agreement protects YOU from being abused and talked to uncivilly in the forum.' Not my experience at all. About as accurate as the illusioNIST report.
Can you show how you have been "abused"? I bet you won't.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 04:32 PM   #1036
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by remo View Post
... quote:'One advantage of becoming a JREF member is that the Membership Agreement protects YOU from being abused and talked to uncivilly in the forum.' Not my experience at all. About as accurate as the illusioNIST report.
wow, illusioNIST - wow. A baseless claim, kind of makes your claims more crazy. Jones has to claim all NIST scientist and engineers are in on the big conspiracy he can't define. Jones is very personable, but sure does spread crazy claims - he fooled you. Don't worry, if you do this right it will only cost you some humble pie - whereas many cons involve thousands of dollars lost.

Your claims might make that claim, but you are a fine person, fooled by idiots in 911 truth. You fall for lies and you don't seem to care you have been fooled. The claim of thermite is idiotic, nothing to do with you; you were fooled.

Jones waves his hands and claims thermite, you believe him. Cool.

Why are you gullible? Bet you can't explain it, because in your heart (use your head next time) you know you are right.

Who did the thermite? Cheney?

Are the nuke guys right too, the far right wing of 911 truth? Nuke exist. Thermite exist, we all know that. Then you post the existence of really neat thermite, but have no idea your post proves that thermite was not used.

Funny, you guys should be looking for evidence of thermite fused to the steel, and not one single sample of WTC steel was found with termite products fused to the steel. It is funny, the 911 truth videos with thermite cutting steel, have iron fused to the steel; not found on 911 or during clean up. And scientist were looking for interesting pieces of steel. The best example is the two samples which showed corrosion at temperature 1,000 C and below. No steel show signs of thermite heat! 11 years and you picked a fantasy to believe.

Don't take the truth too hard, most of us have been conned by some claims, it is your turn.

Where is your Pulitzer? Need help finding your evidence? Check with Jones. I can find you a newspaper to team with, we can be famous. lol


This is a skeptic forum, your claims are not true, even cloaked in the 1984 like name, 911 Truth.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 05:01 PM   #1037
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by remo View Post
It appears both subscribers are banned from each others sites? Why is that? Less ad hominem over on blogger than here tho. Why would that be a surprise? I ask jref admin. to allow the URL below on even tho I have only 9 postings. This is important to the matter.
...
See my posts, to which I expect you to reply substantially: I have linked to the thread at 911Blogger. Also, I have already asked the JREF administration if Steve Jones is banned here at JREF - no, he is not banned, he is free to sign up!

It is however true that I have so far been completely censored at 911Blogger (not banned) - the 911Blogger censors have never ever allowed a post submitted by me (I think I had tried about 15 over the course of the last several months). All were respectful and refrained from personal attacks - I addressed the topics in a substantial, reasoned way. This is apparently a no-go at 911Blogger.

It appears that the 911Blogger censors are currently in the process of censoring ProfJones's thread: http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-...-chip-analyses
Originally Posted by 911Blogger censors
The post has been submitted for moderation and won't be listed publicly until it has been approved.

Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses
Submitted by ProfJones on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 1:30pm

[...]
This could be due to ProfJones having appended his initial post:

Originally Posted by ProfJones
Note added, based on comments received 9-9-12 from Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.
1. Dr. Farrer contacted Dr. Tillotson of LLNL regarding the LLNL production and ignition of nano-thermite; Dr Tillotson said the experiments were likely done in atmosphere. After publication of our paper, others have suggested that the experiments in the LLNL publication were performed in an inert atmosphere; so the picture is not clear to us at this time and further contact with the LLNL scientists is advised. It would be best to run studies in both atmosphere and in an inert gas.
2. The DSC run with the ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide (which did not ignite in atmosphere) may have been heated to approximately 800 degrees centigrade. Jeff will check his notes.
3. It would be desirable for the interested scientist to do more tests in the DSC of the type we did with epoxy paint. We have a sample of actual primer paint used on the World Trade Center, available for testing. The XEDS analysis shows that this WTC-paint has a chemical signature which dramatically differs from that of the red material we reported on (Figure 7 in our paper).
4. The interested scientist is encouraged to do the MEK-soak test along with SEM analyses.
5. With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity. The interested scientist is encouraged to use standards for the TEM/XEDS so this ratio can be pinned down definitively.
6. Jeff notes that in his TEM analyses he observed “very small (nanometer-scale) Pb particles in the TEM samples” as well as strontium and chromium in small amounts. (Much of the TEM analysis was performed at higher magnification than used in the SEM analysis done in the paper.) Thus, red/gray chips which match ours will show these same elements under TEM analysis. I have searched Millette's plots (as presented so far) and see no indication of strontium (Sr) or lead (Pb) in his samples.
I have a few quick comments on these points - remo, again I would appreciate if you could copy and paste these to 911Blogger when (and if) the Jones post is re-approved:

1. The text of two emails by Tillotson and Gash have been posted today by Moorea: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1026

2. This is quite irrelevant, as nobody, not even Farrer, Harrit or Jones, claims that such a material was used at the WTC. Remember that supposedly the "energetic material" of the red layer is mostly organic matrix - any useful test of the thermodynamics would have to take that organic matrix into account

3. Professor Jones, I am highly disturbed to learn that you STILL don't know that
a) There were at least two different kinds of primer paint used in the WTC twin towers: Tnemec for the perimeter columns (of this I understand you have a sample), LaClede Steel Company's shop primer on the floor joists, and possibly further, yet unknown primers on the core columns (NIST sppeculates the core columns could also be Tnemec, but apparently no documentation exists, and no test has been done to determine this).
b) Your 2009 paper at Bentham publishers clearly shows and talks about at least six different kinds of red-gray chips, which can be differentiated by their different characteristic elemental compositions.
Please familiarize yourself with LaClede-primer - the chips represented by Fig. 2-11 of the Harrit paper may very well be LaClede. See this blog post: Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html)
Please also consider the differences between red-gray chips: Why red-gray chips aren't all the same (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html)
It seems possible that the MEK-soaked chip (Fig's 12-18 in the Harrit e.al. paper) is actually Tnemec (it is most definitely different from chips a-d in Fig 7), and you, Professor Jones, provided the data to prove it: Steven Jones proves primer paint, not thermite (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html)

4. We understand that Dr. Farrer has done TEM tests, and also that your team has done FTIR tests. FTIR and TEAM-SAED are competent tests to identify chemical bonds and crystal structure. Why has your team, or Dr. Farrer, never published the results of these tests? Millette has done them now - and proven that all the Aluminium is actually bound as silicate.
Professor Jones, one huge problem of the Harrit e.al. paper is that you didn't account for the fact that there are different kinds of red-gray chips in the WTC dust (in fact, you now find it probable that Millette looked at a different kind than your team did, which logically implies that there ARE different kinds), but unfortunately the paper gives not the slightest clue which type or types of chips were tested in the DSC. For this reason, the DSC test portion of your paper cannot be replicated!

5. Agreed.

6. Thank you for these highly interesting and useful comments, Professor Jones!!
I have no comment ad hoc on Pb, and would like to see Dr. Farrer's detailed notes on that.
However, what I wrote above about the chips a-d of Fig. 7 in Harrit e.al. being LaClede standard primer is in fact the explanation for why Farrer found traces of Sr and Cr: That primer contains as one of its pigments a small amount (4% of the pigment, ca. 1.14% in the paint) Strontium Chromate, (along with 55% iron oxide and 41% aluminium silicate such as kaolin)! In fact, it turns out that the XEDS spectrum one would expect for the LaClede formulation is an almost PERFECT match with the spectra in Fig 7!
Niels Harrit published a letter in May 2009 titled "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT". That letter contains a version of Fig 7a with higher resolution - and it has labeled signals for both Cr and Sr!
The reason why Sr never shows up in SEM-XEDS spectra of whole chips is that the edge energies of Strontium are at inopportune locations: The K-alpha level is above 14 keV, which is never shown in your paper (but in Harrit's letter), and the L-alpha level is so close to the K-alpha of Si that a very small Sr-signal gets lost under the strong Si-signal.
I am very happy that you have now confirmed that some red-gray chips have traces of Sr and Cr!
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2012, 05:27 PM   #1038
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
By the way: Thanks, remo, for posting over there on my behalf
I posted the same text (without your comments, obviously ), but, as expected, I got censored, you didn't.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2012, 07:48 AM   #1039
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Dr Jones
The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust, sent to me by this scientist as a PDF file.
Dear [Interested Scientist],

Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]

Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).

Therefore, I am pleased that you propose to do DSC analyses along the lines that we preformed; as you noted, James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really, and I hope you will do better as you propose.
Dr Millette had no need to perform DSC. The exercise is one of materials characterisation, i.e. I have an unknown material, what is it?

It is therefore imperative that the correct techniques and methodology is employed to do just that. Dr Millette uses Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy and TEM-SAED to definitively analyse the material.

These definitive techniques show categorically that Epoxy, Kaolin and iron oxide pigment are present.

His methodology of separating these specimens was the same magnetic technique that you used. The EDX spectra for the red/gray chips matched the specimens a,b,c and d in the Bentham paper.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
The presence of reduced iron (less oxygen than needed for even FeO) in these spheres (see our Figures 20 and 21) implies that a transfer of oxygen has taken place, from iron oxide to aluminum. High temperatures are also needed for the formation of iron-rich spheres (spheres formed from liquid due to surface tension), further indicating a highly exothermic thermitic reaction.
Your specimens contained a carbon based matrix which is readily shown in your paper.

Why is this carbon material not considered for the reduction of iron oxide?


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
When Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of the many tests he did to check things.
Which epoxy based paint? Do you have the material data sheet? The paper makes mention of testing on epoxy paint but never states what that paint is.

It took questions from debunkers for it to finally emerge that this paint was scraped from a sports stadium at BYU.

The DSC testing is a red-herring. It is not required to determine exactly what the materials in the red/gray specimens are.

In fact because there are two distinct materials in the specimen, namely paint and oxidised steel, then the DSC is a poor test to use. The reason for this is you cannot determine what is reacting by weight. Again your own paper points this out.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material.
Another red-herring that would never have made it into the paper had it been peer reviewed by a materials engineer. There is no point in carrying out a straight forward test and then waste valuable text in a paper if that test doesn't add to the exercise of characterisation.

Why include it when a definitive test is available and was actually used?

FTIR spectroscopy is a straight forward test. I understand that this was performed on your specimens, but the results never published. Why was definitive information not published? Will the results ever be published?

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats. Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air; which is why we did our tests in air also. Thus, we could make direct comparisons with the LLNL data on nano-thermite fabricated at the LLNL laboratory.
Already answered by Moore34.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Later, we mixed up some ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide powders thus making a type of nano-thermite (but with no organic matrix). This was run in the DSC at BYU in an inert atmosphere up to 700C – and it did not ignite! We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.
Atmospheric oxygen is not required to get the reaction started. I cannot fathom why such educated people could not have performed the most basic research to see that such a conclusion is fundamentally wrong. Thermite is famous for not requiring external atmospheric oxygen to produce the reaction.

What was the (mean) particle size of your aluminium and iron-oxide powder?

There is a general correlation between ignition temperature and particle size. Tillitson produced particles far smaller than anything observed in the red/gray specimens yet his ignition point is far, far higher than that observed for the red/gray specimens. That alone should have sent alarm bells ringing, suggesting that it wasn't the reaction between particles occurring but burning of the (unidentified) carbon matrix.

DSC destroys the original sample, but does not yield definitive information about the material itself. It's not a good test to perform in this case.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
You say that the exothermic peaks we observed in the DSC (our Figure 19) could be due to burning of epoxy paint. Not according to our experiments -- that is, when Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peaks in Fig 19. Igniting paint in the same DSC is one of many tests performed to double-check our experiments, and I urge you to do similar tests.
There are thousands of paint formulations so testing one will not give any indication of a trend.

Again DSC testing is a red-herring. It simply is not required in this case to characterise the material. Far better definitive methods were available and known to have been used, namely FTIR spectroscopy. Concentrating on DSC when other methods will actually give a definitive answer is unwise.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Please keep these facts in mind as you undertake DSC studies – which I welcome! Yes, I was surprised that James Millette did not even perform DSC studies.
He didn't need to. His methods determined exactly what the material consisted of without DSC.

Why would you need to perform DSC when you know what the material is? Wasn't that the whole point of the exercise? Once you have identified the material there is no reason to continue with arbitrary testing.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Another key observation that we made:

3. Migration of aluminum in the red material as it was soaked for hours in MEK solvent, evident from Figure 15 in our paper.

If you compare frames c) aluminum and e) silicon in Fig. 15, you will see regions where the aluminum is clearly separated from the silicon. This argues against the red material being kaolinite as you and Millette suggest.
The chip soaked in MEK was not the same material as specimens a, b, c and d in the Bentham paper.

If you look here I show that is the case. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=536

Your own data, namely the EDX spectrum of Tnemec red primer paint in your talk, which wasn't included in the paper for comparison, shows an excellent correlation to the EDX spectrum in Fig 14.



The hypothesis that this chip is contaminated is wrong. The very scientific instrument used to examine this specimen is capable of resolving the suggested contaminant particles. You would literally see them on the SEM image adhered to the specimen's surface. Secondly because the electron beam is so small and can be manipulated in size and penetration, not to mention area scanning mode, it would be trivial to avoid contaminant particles during the EDX examination.

You will also note the materials data sheet for Tnemec red. In fact Niels Harrit even went to length to show a difference between Tnemec Red and the red layer of specimens a, b, c and d. http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf

Unfortunately he didn't consider the chip soaked in MEK as being Tnemec red, which your own data shows.

Lastly Tnemec Red contains no kaolin. It contains Aluminates. It contains silica and calcium silicates. What you were doing by soaking the Tnemec Red paint in MEK was separating these individual aluminates and silicates.

Unfortunately because an assumption was made that this MEK soaked chip was the same material as chips a, b, c and d, this separation has been read across to assume that the hexagonal platelet material contained Si and Al that was not chemically bonded. This is incorrect.

You actually magnetically separated out more than one material but didn't realise it. A proper characterisation would have shown the flaw.



Originally Posted by Dr Jones
We performed experiments soaking epoxy paint chips in MEK as well. As we reported in our paper, the red material swells but remains hard under forceps after soaking for many hours. OTOH, the epoxy paint became very flimsy after soaking in the MEK for a similar length of time. This is yet another test which distinguishes the red/gray chips from paint!
As I've shown above you didn't realise you had two different paints in your red/gray samples.

Soaking the specimens in MEK is unfortunately another red-herring. It's simply not required because other, better techniques can and should have been used to characterise the material.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .

The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio.
Already answered by Redwood.

Kaolin or china clay is a natural material mined all around the world. As such it will not be pure.

I wouldn't do such a thing I would concentrate on specifically on materials characterisation techniques that give definitive answers to what the material actually is.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
I encourage you to do TEM analysis as we have done. Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3.
Rhombodedral Fe2O3 is easily determined because of the particle shape. TEM would only confirm what would already be known by a quick look at the particle in the SEM.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us.
He's not familiar with kaolin.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
There are possible explanations for this; see for example http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...ezko-0203.html . I'll leave it at that for now.
No, it's kaolin.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings. Did Millette see an electron diffraction pattern demonstrating that aluminum occurs in the form of kaolinite? His report does state:

Millette report: "TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 20 and 21). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).”
Yes he did. See Fig 19. There are also pages 48-51.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.
Millette used your exact same methodolgy using a magnet to separate chips from the dust.

Millette examined the separated specimens and used a criteria to ensure he was examining the same material.

Quote:
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.
So he was comparing the EDX of the red layer of his specimens with yours.

In the Bentham paper samples a, b, c and d are identified as being the same material. What criteria was used to determine this?

From the paper we can see that:
  • All samples can be separated with a magnet.
    Light microscopy shows similarity between specimens a-d.
    Low magnification BSE images show consistency across specimens a-d.
    EDX spectra for the red and gray layers are identical in specimens a-d.
    High magnification BSE images show consistency of the matrix and particle shape and size across specimens a-d

It is safe to say that specimens a, b, c and d are identical material.

So if we look at Millette's preliminary report we can see that he is already using two of the criteria, namely separation using a magnet and EDX spectra that match specimens a-d.

Upon further reading it is readily apparent that the specimens that Millette is examining using the above criteria share criterea that was used to determine that specimens a, b, c and d are identical in the Bentham paper.
  • Light microscopy shows high correlation between specimens a-d and Millette's specimens.
    Low magnification BSE images show consistency across his specimens and match that of specimens a-d in the Bentham paper.
    Bright white particles of the same morphology, size and EDX spectrum as those found in the Bentham specimens a-d are observed.
    Hexagonal platelets with identical EDX spectra containing Al, Si and O to those found in the Bentham paper's specimens a-d are observed.
    A carbon based matrix which exhibits a similar morpholgy to that found in the Bentham paper's specimens.

There is an extremely high degree of correlation of characteristics between Millette's specimens and those observed in the Bentham paper.

If you believe that specimen a=b=c=d then you must conclude that a large proportion of Millette's specimens are the same material. I would politely suggest that doing otherwise is at best weak.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Why would he not measure the electrical resistivity of his red material (discussed in our paper) right off? That's what gets me – he could have saved himself a lot of time.
No, the electrical resistivity test is unimportant and not required one bit if you want to characterise the material properly. In fact doing so IS wasting time (which is why Millette didn't do it) because you could have used that time to perform a better test that would give definitive answers (which is exactly what Millette did).


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Finally he gets to TEM analysis, and finds that he has titanium oxide! How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time. I hope you will not make the same mistake.
I hope that you use your own experience and expertise to make a judgement for yourself based upon methods and techniques that will actually characterise the material properly rather than using techniques such as DSC, MEK soaking and Electrical Resistivity measuring that don't.



Originally Posted by Dr Jones
Note added, based on comments received 9-9-12 from Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.
1. Dr. Farrer contacted Dr. Tillotson of LLNL regarding the LLNL production and ignition of nano-thermite; Dr Tillotson said the experiments were likely done in atmosphere. After publication of our paper, others have suggested that the experiments in the LLNL publication were performed in an inert atmosphere; so the picture is not clear to us at this time and further contact with the LLNL scientists is advised. It would be best to run studies in both atmosphere and in an inert gas.

2. The DSC run with the ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide (which did not ignite in atmosphere) may have been heated to approximately 800 degrees centigrade. Jeff will check his notes.
Why bother? Why not use a technique that will definitively prove what the material contains.

By all means put a known sample of red paint which is what the material is, in the DSC but it's at unnecessary expense and time.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
3. It would be desirable for the interested scientist to do more tests in the DSC of the type we did with epoxy paint. We have a sample of actual primer paint used on the World Trade Center, available for testing. The XEDS analysis shows that this WTC-paint has a chemical signature which dramatically differs from that of the red material we reported on (Figure 7 in our paper).
You certainly do, it's called Fig 14 in the Bentham paper.

If you actually have a sample of Tnemec Red available then you should understand that this material is the same as that in Fig 14 of your paper. Secondly you will know that the Aluminate and Silicate particles contained therein can be separated with MEK.



Originally Posted by Dr Jones
4. The interested scientist is encouraged to do the MEK-soak test along with SEM analyses.
Why bother? What does that test achieve?

I would advise the interested scientist to use proper materials characterisation techniques that will ultimately give a definitive answer as to what the material is.


Originally Posted by Dr Jones
5. With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity. The interested scientist is encouraged to use standards for the TEM/XEDS so this ratio can be pinned down definitively.
I'll leave the reader to judge this one.

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
6. Jeff notes that in his TEM analyses he observed “very small (nanometer-scale) Pb particles in the TEM samples” as well as strontium and chromium in small amounts. (Much of the TEM analysis was performed at higher magnification than used in the SEM analysis done in the paper.) Thus, red/gray chips which match ours will show these same elements under TEM analysis.
Strontium and Chromium eh? Why would strontium and chromium be present in thermite?

Do you realise that there was another red paint widely used on the WTCs? This paint is called LaClade Red Joist Paint and is acknowledged in the NIST report.

Here is the relevant materials data sheet.



Notice the presence of Strontium Chromate? Coincidence?

There is a whole topic on it at JREF here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...t=origin+paint

Originally Posted by Dr Jones
I (Dr. Jones) have searched Millette's plots and see no indication of strontium (Sr) or lead (Pb) in his samples, but he does report titanium (Ti) which we do not see. Thus, his samples do not appear to be the same material as what we reported on.
You won't see strontium because Sr exhibits K alpha and K beta peaks at 14.1 and 15.8 KeV respectively, which is off the scale in Millettes spectra. Infact you don't see Sr in the spectra of specimens a-d in the Bentham paper, however, we know they are there because your own data shows you.



The KeV scale isn't large enough and the resolution of the spectrum isn't sufficient (just as in Fig 7 of the Bentham paper) to see Sr.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2012, 12:27 PM   #1040
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Once again, a few simple questions for Jones, Harrit, Farrer et al:

Have you found any actual paint chips in your dust samples?

If "yes", how do they differ from your putative thermitic material? Submit data!

If "no", to what do you attribute the absence of paint chips in the dust samples?
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.