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 29th April 2009, 12:32 PM   #161
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
In the jones' paper, if we look at fig 15 (after MEK sample), we clearly see a correlation between Si and O...

Is it silica (SiO2) ???
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 29th April 2009, 12:41 PM   #162
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,258
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I know this might be off-topic, but do you have a link to any data for this? The "meteorite" comes up in discussions now and then, but I'm not aware of any analysis and nor is anyone else. This above statement I don't think is true and no one has seen any evidence for this.
There is no evidence of this at all. The meteorites have unmelted rebar and other flammables - such as paper - embedded into them. They give every indication of having been formed by compression and other mechanical forces, and zero indication of having had any component originate from molten steel.

Here are a couple of quick links to a post and a thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...12#post4455112

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=106240

Best thing to do is to hit up the search and combine the word "meteorite" with "Gravy" (yes, Mark Robert's handle). That'll turn up decent threads and posts.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 29th April 2009, 12:50 PM   #163
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I'll have more of a response to the rest of your post, later, but for now:

Using your figure E (or is it R?), I measured 500 nm for the thickness of those platelets. (2 pixels wide / 40 pixels of the scale) * 10,000 nm.

Why don't you show us pictures of kaolinite with thickness around 70 nm?
Like this...
kao1.jpg

or this ?
Kao2.jpg


The Makoro kaolin deposit, southeastern Botswana:
its genesis and possible industrial applications
Georges Ekosse Applied Clay Science 16 2000.

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF KGa-1 B WELL-CRYSTALLIZED
KAOLIN SOURCE CLAY
ROBERT J. PRUETT 1 AND HAROLD L. WEBB 2
Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 41, No. 4, 514-519, 1993
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 29th April 2009, 03:30 PM   #164
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
In the middle of photo (a) we can clearly see these particles. Looking at the other photos it becomes self evident that these particles are thin sheet-like particles (platelets) and they have an hexagonal shape to them (c).

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.

Edited by chillzero:  I am sorry to remove this section of content, but unfortunately, posts in moderated threads must be strictly on topic, and this was off topic in a manner that would generate a derail.


Having said all that, some of the platelets in Fig. 8 (c) are indeed stacked, many deep. At a larger scale, that would imply artificiality. At such a small scale, in light of the kaolinite picture, and the fact that I can't think of any counter-examples, I would tend to think the opposite. I've only seen 4 photos of Si platelets (in the page I link to above), but I don't see any stacking.

Nevertheless, I will also reserve judgement on what to make of the fact that we can find lots of stacked platelets in the Harrit samples. I just don't know enough about this stuff, and you certainly haven't convinced me that the platelets are kaolinite, either - which is the only type of stacked platelet that I (now) know of.

Perhaps somebody can chime in with insights into what bulk powders of silicon nanopowders with platelet morphology look like? Do we see stacking, or not? Somehow, I don't think anybody can answer that question besides a very few people in the entire world - I'll guess 200.

Last edited by chillzero; 30th April 2009 at 05:42 AM.
metamars 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 29th April 2009, 04:18 PM   #165
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
In the jones' paper, if we look at fig 15 (after MEK sample), we clearly see a correlation between Si and O...

Is it silica (SiO2) ???
There is correlation between the two and the most likely compound is SiO2, but there is also a degree of Carbon associated too, not just with the Si and O, but also with Al.

I don't know what their eyes are telling them, but when they say,

Quote:
Furthermore, the data indicate that wherever silicon or iron is concentrated, oxygen is also concentrated. On the other hand, there also exist regions where the aluminum is concentrated but where the oxygen may not accompany it commensurately.
yet they don't mention Carbon when there is far more correlation between Carbon and Oxygen (and Aluminium) in the sample. (In Fig 15 there are two distinct "holes" in the maps.) This is ambiguous, but instead of presenting data on that sample with higher SEM magnification, redoing an XEDS map as they did before (Fig 10) as well as showing distinctly, which elements belong to which particle, they decide to do XEDS on areas of high concentration of Si, Al and Fe of their sample at a much lower magnification. This is worthless without closer inspection, because you cannot say exactly what is present and what particle it's present in. After MEK then we would expect a much "cleaner" sample. Why are they not providing us with evidence showing that the Zinc and Chromium in the pre MEK soaked sample was a contaminant?

Note that this XEDS map is taken at 50µm and the other at 1µm. I don't understand the difference if the idea was separation of aluminium particles. They don't even show any consistency and and have different magnifications in post-MEK - Fig 15 (a) and Fig 12 (b) and pre MEK - Fig 12 (a). If they claim Al separation then they should show the particles!

Remember that we don't have any idea what particles where present before or after the soaking in MEK, because none has been presented, all we have is Fig 15 (a) and 12 (a). We don't have the before XEDS map of this sample either so we can't say if anything has been separated.

Bearing in mind the massive discrepancy between the red layers of samples a,b,c,d and the sample that was soaked in MEK, then we can't say that the two are the same material. This is a huge inconsistency. So a test on one cannot be cross-read to the other.

I think that the MEK test is very dodgy, not only because of all of the above, but also the fact that they performed the same test on a paint sample yet didn't include details (or pictures for comparison) of that sample in the paper. I still cannot understand why anyone would want to try to separate out particles of Al when they have the very tool infront of them to see Aluminium particles. Doesn't make sense.

Why didn't they perform a proper characterisation of the samples they had? I'm of the opinion that they think that anything separated from the dust by magnet which has a "red layer" is thermite, irrespective of whether the material shows different compositions for different layers; red as well as grey.

Ooops - sorry Moorea34 - got carried away.
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 30th April 2009, 03:24 AM   #166
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
I think also that this paper coulds be interesting...

http://www.rsc.org/ej/CC/2008/b810994j.pdf

Fe203 + carbon , 600 °C ....
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 30th April 2009, 04:31 AM   #167
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
For the carbon matrix I've found that :

Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society
versionPrint ISSN 0103-5053
Mesoporous carbons prepared by nano-casting with meso- or non-porous silica nanoparticles
J. Braz. Chem. Soc. vol.17 no.6 São Paulo Sept./Oct. 2006

(fig10a)

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=..._arttext#fg10a



(may be my precedent post was not so interesting.... sorry)

Last edited by moorea34; 30th April 2009 at 05:52 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 30th April 2009, 08:29 AM   #168
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
And for the DSC tests on coatings :

DSC evaluation of binder content in latex paints, C. Pagella*, D.M. De Faveri, Progress in Organic Coatings 33 (1998) 211–217

dsc.jpg

(3,5 kJ/g here)

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 30th April 2009, 03:15 PM   #169
Redford
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
Nice one. My first thought was "damn it's a match". But then after comparing with the same x scale :

w w w .ruppert-lesite.com/img/compare-1.jpg

(remove spaces)

... it appears we're still not there
Redford 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 1st May 2009, 02:41 AM   #170
240-185
Muse
 
240-185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
I'd like to add henryco's answer regarding the DSC performed in air:

Quote:
Les tests ont été réalisés à l'air car la courbe de référence de nanothermite avait aussi été réalisée à l'air. Il importait donc de procéder dans les mêmes conditions pour comparer. Donc pas d'erreur de méthodologie. Pour des gens qui comprennent les DSCs apparemment le fait d'imaginer qu'un constituant organique puisse générer des pics aussi étroits relève de la pure incompétence [...]
which means:

Quote:
Tests have been performed in air because the reference curve of the nanothermite was performed in air. So, it was important that we had to proceed under the same conditions in order to make a comparison. So, no methodological error. For people who understand DSCs, the fact that some people may imagine that an organic constituent may generate so narrow peaks reveals pure incompetence [...]
Looks like a stundie.
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh*

My 9/11 Crackpot Index
240-185 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 1st May 2009, 10:24 AM   #171
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Jones paper refers to this other paper (Tillotson et al.) for the DSC plot of nanothermite they are comparing with.

In that paper should be written whether the test was done in air, or using an inert gas.

anyone has access to the paper?
Julio 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 1st May 2009, 11:10 AM   #172
Redford
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.
Redford 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 1st May 2009, 12:27 PM   #173
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Redford View Post
Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.
Be careful with comparisons because the material in this paper is of a different nature to that in samples, a,b,c,d. The particles are much smaller and the Aluminium particles are high purity.

From the abstract -
Quote:
Nanocomposites of Fe2O3/Al(s), are readily produced from a solution of Fe(III) salt by adding an organic epoxide and a powder of the fuel metal. These materials can be processed to aerogel or xerogel monolithic composite solids. High resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) of the dried energetic nanocomposites reveal that the metal oxide component consists of small (3–10 nm) clusters of Fe2O3 that are in intimate contact with ultra fine grain (UFG) ~25 nm diameter Al metal particles. HRTEM results also indicate that the Al particles have an oxide coating ~5 nm thick.
In the Harrit et Al paper the Fe203 particles (let alone clusters) are a minimum of 100nm in diameter, so atleast 10 times larger. The Platelet particles are approximately 1µm (1000nm) in diameter and therefore 40 times larger than the Al particles. Those Al particles have an oxide layer of 5nm. They also state

Quote:
We believe that the sol–gel method will at the very least provide processing advantages over conventional methods in the areas of cost, purity, homogeneity,
and are therefore unlikely to contain any significant amount of Silicon or Oxygen or other element as opposed to the Jones' samples as evidence by this XEDS spectra.



I shall get to Metamar's comments about hexagons in good time. Once I've taken a few deep breaths and decided how I shall respond to his outrageous question on my professionalism and scientific integrity, not only in post #164, but also on another forum, whereby the comments weren't as well moderated, and try to respond within the spirit of the OP and continue as before.
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 1st May 2009, 01:04 PM   #174
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Redford View Post
Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.
The pre-print of that document is available here https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/242925.pdf. (5.05mb pdf) It doesn't contain any calorimeter data DSC or otherwise so I don't know if that data made it to print. They ignite their sample with a propane torch.
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 1st May 2009, 04:15 PM   #175
Redford
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Be careful with comparisons because the material in this paper is of a different nature to that in samples, a,b,c,d. The particles are much smaller and the Aluminium particles are high purity.
I am not sure I am getting this. Harrit et al are making the comparison at a point where they consider the thermitic nature of the material to be proven. From that point they're using the graph to show the ignition starts even lower than a reference nano thermite which ignites already at lower temperature than thermite. Thus concluding the material is rather nano thermite than thermite.

(of course, if you consider the thermitic nature of the material *not* proven at that point, Fig 29 is just something asking a question : "what ignites @ 435°C ? Kaoline ?")

Now if I get you right the reference nano thermite (red curve) is made of a smaller, purest mix. So I understand (as the layman i am ) than it would then be expected to actually react faster. If so, I suppose (nearly blind guess) that it will make the trace thiner, won't it ?

And if that so, the fact that the blue curve is even thiner is even more puzzling to me.
Redford 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 1st May 2009, 06:12 PM   #176
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,695
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.
Perhaps a little enlargement and histogram adjustment will help:

WilliamSeger 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 May 2009, 10:30 AM   #177
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.
Here are two pictures of Harrit Figure 9, which have been processed for edge detection, in Paint Shop Pro.

The one on the left was processed via:

Effects | Edge | Enhance More

The one on the right was processed via:

Effects | Edge |Find All


Even considering that this has Fe2O3 crystals mixed in with the platelets, it's pretty obvious that anything even suggesting a hexagon is rather rare.




Now, contrast these with the silicon nano-platelets in the center of the following photo:

metamars 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 May 2009, 10:53 AM   #178
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
The pre-print of that document is available here https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/242925.pdf. (5.05mb pdf) It doesn't contain any calorimeter data DSC or otherwise so I don't know if that data made it to print. They ignite their sample with a propane torch.
I have the full paper, and I don't see where they specify DSC in a neutral atmosphere or not. I would also speculate this is why Dr. Jones did it in oxygen -- he simply didn't know any better, and was cribbing off this paper to make his own work seem as similar as possible, in search of a similar result.
R.Mackey 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 May 2009, 11:27 AM   #179
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I have the full paper, and I don't see where they specify DSC in a neutral atmosphere or not. I would also speculate this is why Dr. Jones did it in oxygen -- he simply didn't know any better, and was cribbing off this paper to make his own work seem as similar as possible, in search of a similar result.
I had the full paper so and it was the same conclusion for me... Jones speak about thermite since 3 years but doesn't know anythng about it !
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 2nd May 2009, 09:53 PM   #180
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
...Jones speak about thermite since 3 years but doesn't know anythng about it !
No truer words have been spoken! Bravo!
Dog Town 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 May 2009, 01:19 AM   #181
Redford
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
I understand how this interpretation can be temptating... But even if we assume this guy with the achievment list reported by wikipedia has been able to make such a mistake, on such a long course, AND if we assume none of the co authors were able to notice it along the months it took them to write the article, AND if on the top of that we assume peer review was conducted by three monkeys on a typewriter.... Even with that assumption's armada we have someone trying to look like an article that doesn't mention if the DSC was conducted in air or in an inert gas, and we're asked to assume that for no reason he would come up by himself with the idea to write down in his article "conducted in air".

Why would he do that ? How could he even think about that ?
Redford 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 4th May 2009, 10:18 AM   #182
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
First off, I must point out again that I have very limitied knowledge and ability in these matters. I am presenting my observations as a very slightly educated guess, and not a strong assertion of fact.

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

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

I hope SunStealer will comment on this.
1)
According to
http://www.minersoc.org/pages/Archiv...9/19-4-653.pdf
the enthalpy corresponding to this endothermic peak at 500°C is about 40 kcal/mol thus ~ 0.65kJ/g
to be compared with 1.5 kJ/g for the peak registered with the blue curve (Fig 29): thus this endothermic peak would have been impossible to miss:
there is definitely no kaolinite in John's sample!
(On the other hand curves given earlier in this thread have shown that for another kind of thermite the tuning of the particles sizes allows to completely avoid the endothermic peak for Aluminum... since its possible i see no more reason why the absence of this peak in the chips DSC curves should be a concern anymore)


2) Because the authors was surprised that the paper by Tillotson was not clear on the conditions of the Tillotson DSC trace, it was necessary to contact him directly. Dr. Farrer contacted Tillotson directly ! : the red curve was registered in the air!

3) It'is quite obvious from the unusual profile of the aluminum rich particles that these was specifically designed not to meet the requirements of a high explosive but to provide efficient heat to the columns. The inert grey layers
also probably moderated the reaction to achieve exactly the same goal.
Optimize energy, reduce power as explained earlier by metamars just to
avoid the ejection of the hot material far away. As someone has also shown earlier in this thread up to nearly 50% of the heat could be focused toward the steel beam for specific types of thermites. I have no reason to doubt that the redhip nanothermite (nano because at least one type of particles , the Fe2O3 is ~120 nm) was also efficiently optimized and even better along this line, thanks to the inert greylayers and platelets Al and Si particles.

4) The ability of the combustion of an organic material to reach the temperatures necessary to melt iron is even worse at th microscopic scale than at the macoscopic scale, simply because at such small scales the dissipative effects are huge especially for the reactions that take place at the surface of the sample such as combustion with Oxygen in the air.
I'm really sorry but this is crucial point and for the time being the only feedback on this forum concerning that point sound like magical sentences.
And even on the JREF forum i dont want to discuss magical things...if you have serious arguments please expose them with references and computations

Thanks

F H-C

PS: The scientist standing just in front of a huge WTC "meteorite" in a well known video
says that it is molten metal and concrete fused together by the heat ... Is he a lyer or does he need another pair of glasses. Anybody can make the difference between distorted metal and previously liquid metal! A piece of molten metal from this meteorite was even sent to S Jones for analysis: he found it was mostly iron, previously molten iron! very low fractions of aluminium and sulfur (so not a corrosion process in this case!)

Last edited by Gaspode; 4th May 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason: Fixed link
henryco 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 4th May 2009, 12:41 PM   #183
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
1)The inert grey layers also probably moderated the reaction to achieve exactly the same goal.
Optimize energy, reduce power as explained earlier by metamars just to
avoid the ejection of the hot material far away. As someone has also shown earlier in this thread up to nearly 50% of the heat could be focused toward the steel beam for specific types of thermites.
No -the grey layer is oxidised steel. This post proves that because it's directly compared with the FEMA oxidised samples. From post #92

So lets look at the EDS spectra. Firstly I'll provide the spectra for the oxide layer that has formed on the samples in the above link Fig C-13 from http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf - locations 2 & 3, which we know were subjected to temperature in excess of the eutectic for FeS or Fe-O-S namely approximately 940°C and then compare with the gray layer of samples a-d), hence;




They are very similar in characteristic, shape aswell as elements identified. I've only roughly matched the x-axis scale but the correlation of shape is strikingly similar.

Firstly we must deal with the Carbon peak and the difference between the two spectra. In the first graph we see little to no Carbon and in the subsequent graphs a-d) we see a significant peak. This is easily explainable and any metallurgist will know why. In the FEMA sample we know that the steel material has been subjected to high temperature and exposure to air. This causes decarburization of the steel's surface, hence the lack of a C peak in the EDS spectrum for the subsequent oxide - anyone who doubts this just has to google decarburization to find out or read post # 159.


So what does that tell us? Well for starters, the gray material in Jones' samples, when analysed, had not been subjected to the same high temperatures as seen in http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf and that is why there is a different level of Oxygen in the spectra, but they are clearly from a similar source, namely a steel substrate and not only that, but a substrate that looks like A36 steel due to the Mn peak at @ 5.9KeV.

Jones et al do not comment in any depth with regard to the "gray layer", their paper pretty much ignores it, yet this layer is supposedly a constituent in their thermite hypothesis. This "gray layer", as the data provided by Jones et al, not only shows that this is not a constituent of thermite, but also provides a strikingly good match for iron oxide from a A36 steel that has not been subjected to temperatures above @ 430°C (and 650°C if my memory serves me with regard to the temperature at which steels decarburize).

Why have Jones et al not looked into this "gray layer" as they call it, which is characteristically distinct from the red layer and shows high similarity to an oxide layer of (a known) steel, which has been shown by comparison between their own XEDS and spectra from FEMA.

This additional analysis shows that Jones et al have never considered the "gray layer" as being part of a steel substrate. They claim the chips are thermite, yet have not been thorough enough to analyse the "gray layer" of their chips and either hypothesise nor determine their origin.

This is why truthers miss the clues. They are far too intent on second guessing DSC traces which require great care

Quote:
I wrote the instructor's manual for a 3rd year lab on DSC at McMaster University in 2004.

Yes, DSC in an inert atmosphere is a good idea, but DSC can be difficult to interpret and is subject to variable results especially from heating rate effects.

In addition, the thermal conductivity of the sample, its particle size and packing density, the nature of the sample holder and the cover gas are all factors in determining the energy density of a sample.

Heats of reaction are best measured with bomb calorimeters.http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...t-t150-75.html
instead of looking at the big picture.

There is zero elemental/free aluminium in samples a,b,c,d. If there was the data would show it, but it doesn't - we don't see particles of predominantly Al and some O, we see something far more intune with an aluminosilicate. Therefore these samples cannot have caused a thermite reaction in the DSC.

If you concentrate on the minutiae and speculate about inconclusive DSC results, speculate about this mysterious "gray layer", then it's not surprising that there is little time remaining to examine other data. Truthers are being highly selective and nitpicking when the bigger picture tells a different story. A story they cannot accept. The data in the paper indicates to the nature of these samples, but it is completely missed. This paper was never peer reviewed properly, it was published in highly dubious circumstances, in an unreputable journal of little note, which caused the editor of that journal to resign.

All of this nonsense and speculation by people unqualified and with zero relevant experience could be put to bed if Jones simply had his samples tested at a couple of independent laboratories and the results published publicly.

He will NEVER do this because he will be shown to be the fraud that he is.
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 4th May 2009, 01:30 PM   #184
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
I have a funny suggestion: may be kaolinite platelets were used as a substrate for the deposition of elemental Aluminum. When the vaporised Aluminum deposited at the surface it might have heated it sufficiently to trigger the dehydroxilation into metakaolinite and this would be the reason why we cannot see anymore the endothermic peak in the DSC...

Also remember that the article clearly demonstrates that the Aluminum fraction largely exceeds the Oxygen fraction in these platelets! Thus a
small fraction might be linked with Si and O in the substrate while the majority
would be elemental at the suface!
henryco 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 4th May 2009, 01:42 PM   #185
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
No -the grey layer is oxidised steel.
I thought it was oxidised steel from the columns...until i discovered that sometimes these grey layers are found in between red layers (see the photo in the article). So may be its oxidized steel but not originating from the columns!

Consider all the evidence not just the one you like!
henryco 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 4th May 2009, 02:04 PM   #186
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
3) It'is quite obvious from the unusual profile of the aluminum rich particles that these was specifically designed not to meet the requirements of a high explosive but to provide efficient heat to the columns. The inert grey layers
also probably moderated the reaction to achieve exactly the same goal.
Optimize energy, reduce power as explained earlier by metamars just to
avoid the ejection of the hot material far away. As someone has also shown earlier in this thread up to nearly 50% of the heat could be focused toward the steel beam for specific types of thermites. I have no reason to doubt that the redhip nanothermite (nano because at least one type of particles , the Fe2O3 is ~120 nm) was also efficiently optimized and even better along this line, thanks to the inert greylayers and platelets Al and Si particles.
I am of the opinion that the most plausible uses of nanothermite are, in order of plausibilty (most to least)

1) incendiary, to make jet fuel turn into a fireball in about 1/3 second
2) slow CD, wherein a thin layer is applied to heat the columns, causing them to fail under their pre-existing loads
3) explosive CD

I asked Harrit, et. al. to hit one of these puppies with a hammer, and see if it ignites, as a means of exploring the viability of impact ignition in scenario 1).

If you have chips to spare, would you also do this experiment, and report back to us what happens? What would also be cool is if, after hitting a chip with a hammer (or sledge hammer, for really stubborn chips ), somebody could take a SEM if it doesn't ignite, or only partially ignites.

Remember, don't do this experiment near any tall buildings!
metamars 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 4th May 2009, 03:21 PM   #187
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
1)
According to http://www.minersoc.org/pages/Archiv...9/19-4-653.pdf
the enthalpy corresponding to this endothermic peak at 500°C is about 40 kcal/mol thus ~ 0.65kJ/g to be compared with 1.5 kJ/g for the peak registered with the blue curve (Fig 29): thus this endothermic peak would have been impossible to miss:
there is definitely no kaolinite in John's sample!
(On the other hand curves given earlier in this thread have shown that for another kind of thermite the tuning of the particles sizes allows to completely avoid the endothermic peak for Aluminum... since its possible i see no more reason why the absence of this peak in the chips DSC curves should be a concern anymore)
Could you please show how you have calculated from 40 kcal/mol to ~ 0.65kJ/g This would help me very much. What figure have you used for g/mol?

In the http://www.minersoc.org/pages/Archiv...9/19-4-653.pdf paper I see figures of ~ 37Kcal/mol at 642K (369°C) which agrees with the literature.

Quote:
In fact, the value of 37 kcal/mol obtained here is close to those reported in the literature (40--42 kcal/mol) and is in good agreement with the reaction enthalpy (38.8 kcal/mol).
Dehydroxylation occurs over a temperature range 362-412°C (635-685K) but only within certain parameters for calculation.

Quote:
The results in Fig. 2 and Table 4 indicate that the thermal dehydroxylation of kaolinite at temperatures ranging from 635 to 685 K shows behaviour intermediate between a first-order and a diffusion-controlled model for values of tr < 0.6.
You quote a figure of 500°C when the data is for 642K (369°C) - I presume that this is a miss-type.

I did a very quick look at Fig 29 and I think I agree with you on the 1.5kJ/g peak. (1.5kJ/g = ~ 0.65W/g between ) Could you show on Fig 29 where this is and how you calculate it.

Thank you very much.
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 4th May 2009, 05:00 PM   #188
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
I have a funny suggestion: may be kaolinite platelets were used as a substrate for the deposition of elemental Aluminum. When the vaporised Aluminum deposited at the surface it might have heated it sufficiently to trigger the dehydroxilation into metakaolinite and this would be the reason why we cannot see anymore the endothermic peak in the DSC..
He he - I have been looking at metakaolin too! Whilst I need more information about the DSC data in Fig 29 and how it could relate to the dehydroxylation of kaolin, (I await more information from you) metakaolin would explain a lack of a corresponding dehydroxylation exotherm peak in the DSC data in Fig 29 - blue.

I find this quite funny - I'm actually looking into areas that never previously interested me. My old head of Dept would be quite astounded that I have taken an interest in kaolin and clays, because I wasn't much interested at the time he was lecturing on the subject - the boring middle-aged <rule 10> Maybe some of his teaching did stick eh?

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
I thought it was oxidised steel from the columns...until i discovered that sometimes these grey layers are found in between red layers (see the photo in the article).
Do you mean Fig 31?



Originally Posted by henryco View Post
So may be its oxidized steel but not originating from the columns!
If it's not oxidized steel from the columns then why would there be a thermite material attached to it? Is there another reason why a thermite material would be attached to a steel material that was not a column or other significant structure in the WTC?


This is one of the many reason why I have big problems with the paper. Harrit et al do not really consider what this grey layer is! It differs between samples/chips! I think it is a very bad way to describe the specimens as having a grey layer rather than say the specimen has two layers.

We see different types of "gray layer" as shown by Fig 33 and also Fig 31. Why would you paint an incendiary material directly onto some steel parts yet on other parts paint a carbon based material like an epoxy on first and then paint the incendiary material? It just doesn't make sense to me. A better explanation is that similar types of paint were used on a steel structure, some of which was bare (had rust on) and some of which had another layer of paint/primer or epoxy layer on.

One of the problems I have with the paper is that they do not label the chips properly. See this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=20

I think I am going to have to update this table because I think that Fig 33 is not connected with Fig 31. Fig 32 is connected with Fig 33 and it's "gray layer" which it has two of. This chip has also been subjected to MEK so why isn't it mentioned in the main body of the paper? Damn - and I thought I had read the paper thoroughly! Why didn't anyone see that mistake? Does no one read my posts.

Quote:
In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers, as seen in Fig. (32). The red-mesoporous material is on the left in this view, with the touching dark-gray layer next and a lighter-gray material on the right as seen in a photograph of the same chip (right hand image in Fig. (32)). The gray layer in contact with the red layer has the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig. (33) in which iron is not seen, while the outer gray material had an XEDS spectrum just like those displayed in Fig. (6). Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material.
Given that we don't know anything about this chip prior to it's soaking in MEK then i don't know why it's in the paper.

A full cross characterization of all the "chips" removed by magnet would have been worth it. And by that I mean an analysis of all chips separated from the dust and only those that are similar in character and found in atleast 3 locations be considered for further testing.

Quote:
One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive.
Yes, but why would a nano-engineered, state of the art material be painted directly onto steel in one case but need an adhesive in another?

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Consider all the evidence not just the one you like!
I fully agree. I am more than prepared to be proven wrong over my conclusion that kaolin, in some form, is present in the platelets commented upon by Harrit et Al.

Henry - thank you very much for writing in this forum again. Your English is far, far superior to my "schoolboy French" We may differ on opinion, however, I respect your contribution.
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 4th May 2009, 06:10 PM   #189
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I now have a bit of time to get around to this post as promised although I can't give it the fullest response, because I was hoping someone else would notice the obvious.

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.
I can fully understand the dissatisfaction with any reader, who, upon looking at images, whereby I delineate certain structures, do not agree or see a difference especially when they compare it with other photos. I'm used to looking at structures and components at extremely high magnification as per the SEM examples shown. It's not an everyday occurrence and a few weeks or so may pass, but at some point I'll end up in the SEM room either operating one of the two during my own line of work or sitting in on something or just being a nosey beggar and learning bits and bobs from a couple of lads who are, well lets just say invaluable - I've got a lot to learn. (but then so have they when it comes to producing a perfectly polished Ti 6/4 )

When we look at the paper we notice that there is a distinct difference in the quality (noted by the sharpness) of the different SEM images. Readers will notice that a better quality SEM photomicrograph is usually accompanied by the "black bar" in the image, which has all of the corresponding data upon it, however, when we compare Fig 8 (a) with Fig 9 then it is clearly obvious that this is an image taken from the same point, just with a different configuration.

When you look at Fig 10 (a) rotate it approximately 80° and then compare it with Fig 9 and fig 8a you can obviously see a comparison - it's the same sample at the same point. Lazy Bs.

Fig 10a (rotate 80°clockwise) = Fig 9 = Fig 8a

Why has nobody spotted that one amongst all the examination? Hardly surprising to claim a lack of a certain shaped particle when 3 of the photographs are of the same damn spot - what not?

Metamars - how did you not spot this?
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 4th May 2009, 11:57 PM   #190
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Some background: Dr. Greening recently wrote a long email to the Harrit team, that I was cc'd on. I suggested to everybody that Dr. Greening be sent a couple of the chips, provided he could hook up with a scientist at a nearby Canadian university who had some of the requisite instruments, so that they could study the chips, themselves. Dr. Greening was receptive to that idea, and indicated that he had a contact at a university. No reply, yet, on that specific point, but the following reply from Professor Jones is relevant to the subject of this thread.



Quote:
The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point.

Now this is the point that is critical to the fact of a rapid reaction, which the paper emphasizes and James re-iterates and Frank Greening ignores:
The formation of iron-rich spheres of micron+ sizes DURING the ignition,
Shown in Figs 20 and 21 AND 25.


The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures and is more important, IMO, than the narrowness of the DSC trace. We carefully examined the red/gray chips in each case BEFORE ignition and there were NO spheres of micron+ sizes in the pre-ignition samples.

Yet Greening ignores these data -- let's see if he will now address them, correctly, and not as he misunderstood Newton's Third Law.

Steven J
(emphasis follows that of Jones in his email)
metamars 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 5th May 2009, 12:32 AM   #191
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Very interesting :

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...-t150-105.html

And he's an expert in DSC (see above)....
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 5th May 2009, 04:08 AM   #192
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I think getting Dr. Greening to have them analyzed, while not a perfect solution (no offense to him), is an excellent compromise, PROVIDED, that he is able to get some dust samples with a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY from other researchers, etc..., to compare the dust to (controls if you will).

I would like to see if all the other dust samples taken from the WTC site contain these red-grey chips, or were the four Jones samples the ONLY ONES to contain such.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 5th May 2009, 04:58 AM   #193
Redford
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
Pretty surprising how he comes back with the "energetic" argument. Nearly everything is less energetic than carbon or gasoline ; that's actually why both are used as source of energy all over the world (and not dynamite...). The paper discuss the w/g data once and only once it has demonstrated the nano thermitic reaction, and only does with caution as it admits the figures are not very significant to that regards.

So far I had a lot of interest for Greening views but he now seems to me to be twisting the things he's commenting. :-/
Redford 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 5th May 2009, 05:16 AM   #194
Redford
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I think getting Dr. Greening to have them analyzed, while not a perfect solution (no offense to him), is an excellent compromise, PROVIDED, that he is able to get some dust samples with a KNOWN CHAIN OF CUSTODY from other researchers, etc..., to compare the dust to (controls if you will).

I would like to see if all the other dust samples taken from the WTC site contain these red-grey chips, or were the four Jones samples the ONLY ONES to contain such.

TAM
Let's be clear: chain of custody will never be good enough to convince everyone. In Harrit et al's case you can't be sure the samples are note made up (not even speaking about conservation). But that's not all : they can fake datas in ways that peer reviews wont double check. So basically, if you're conviction is that Jones & co are a fraud, and making a conspiracy to manipulate world's citizens / get rich / get chicks / whatever, then don't even bother reading. Because basically it would by like reading the protocol of sion and trying to figure out if there's anything true in it...

Note that it also works backside. If NIST suddenly wake up and make an analysis that says "actually, we didn't even find red chips", truthers would immediately yell "NIST's fraud" (they already do anyway...).

So anyone thinking an "abosulte proof" will come out of all of this he's IMHO dreaming awake.

What's possible thus is to just see what we can learn on the matter and see if it change our conviction. So we can read with interest, neither as a bible or as a fraud but as the work of human beings Harrit et al article, assuming they're not cheating (because the mobile for such assumption would have yet to be determined) and that they're not complete idiots (because they have a career that says otherwise).

BTW, if Jone isn't making up the "in air" Tillotson's quote, then a lot of people here have made very affirmative and very wrong statements and should take them away if they care about being honnest.

Additionnally, it would proove lack of competence to be existing on this very forum and therefore should entice everyone to stay cautious and avoid attacks on harrit et al's competence. Mind the backdraft!
Redford 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 5th May 2009, 07:20 AM   #195
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,534
Sure. There are LOTS of ways to establish chain of custody on dust from there.

One simple one that comes to mind; Show me an envelope that was sealed and mailed in Lower Manhattan on that day or the day or two following, and I bet we can find dust in the seal, and I think the provenance of the sample would be convincing to just about anybody.

Ditto of you have autopsy samples of fallen firefighters or others; That preserved sample would likely preserve dust (if it were external or lung) and the source of that dust would not seriously be questioned. Even lung samples taken from exhumed remains and collected in the future could pass the test.

I also recall reading that the Smithsonian preserved relics of the buildings and those could be examined for dust if they have been kept isolated enough.

But what the "truthers" present to us is about the most highly questionable set of samples they could have come up with.

Now, why do you suppose that is? Are there records of Jones appealing to the coroner for samples and being turned down? Have any relatives of the fallen been asked to allow an autopsy on their exhumed loved ones? Has the Smithsonian actually been asked to allow dust sampling of their artifacts? Have philatelists been consulted on the envelope seal question? (Stamps too would trap dust.)

How about it? Go find yourselves some colorably honest specimens and come back with THAT analysis. OK?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch 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 5th May 2009, 08:47 AM   #196
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Redford View Post
Let's be clear: chain of custody will never be good enough to convince everyone. In Harrit et al's case you can't be sure the samples are note made up (not even speaking about conservation). But that's not all : they can fake datas in ways that peer reviews wont double check. So basically, if you're conviction is that Jones & co are a fraud, and making a conspiracy to manipulate world's citizens / get rich / get chicks / whatever, then don't even bother reading. Because basically it would by like reading the protocol of sion and trying to figure out if there's anything true in it...
1. Jones' etal know who they got their samples from. In one case the have some idea of where and how and when the samples were collected. I chastise them for not being more detailed and more vigilant in obtaining what chain of custody their may have been.

2. I suspect there may very well be red/grey chips in the independent samples (not from NIST. There were several samples used to analyze for the purpose of toxins etc...surrounding the breathing issues around GZ). If there are not, then the Jones' samples are HIGHLY suspect. If they are present, then the question has to be asked, why did they not create a stir when found by other valid scientists...I suspect because they are ordinary paint primer and corrosion.

Quote:
Note that it also works backside. If NIST suddenly wake up and make an analysis that says "actually, we didn't even find red chips", truthers would immediately yell "NIST's fraud" (they already do anyway...).
As I said above, I am not looking for samples from NIST to compare. I am asking that Greening collect/obtain/be given samples from other investigations/scientists that examined the dust, ones with known chains of custody (documented etc...) to compare to the Jones' samples.

Quote:
So anyone thinking an "abosulte proof" will come out of all of this he's IMHO dreaming awake.
I would settle for "pretty good" proof.

Quote:
What's possible thus is to just see what we can learn on the matter and see if it change our conviction. So we can read with interest, neither as a bible or as a fraud but as the work of human beings Harrit et al article, assuming they're not cheating (because the mobile for such assumption would have yet to be determined) and that they're not complete idiots (because they have a career that says otherwise).
There is a 3rd option, not CHEATING/FRAUD, not IDIOCY, but rather CONFIRMATION BIAS/BLINDNESS. I suspect that Jones' et al are so blinded by their agenda, their NEED to prove there was thermite used, that they purposely ignored other possible sources for their chips, or PURPOSELY did a whitewash/bare minimal investigation of a couple of potential sources.

Quote:
BTW, if Jone isn't making up the "in air" Tillotson's quote, then a lot of people here have made very affirmative and very wrong statements and should take them away if they care about being honnest.
Take them away would be hard, they are a permanent part of the forum now...

Perhaps a retraction in spirit.

Quote:
Additionnally, it would proove lack of competence to be existing on this very forum and therefore should entice everyone to stay cautious and avoid attacks on harrit et al's competence. Mind the backdraft!
There is a large difference between ones gut suspicions, ones speculation, and ones competence as a scientist.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 5th May 2009, 09:43 AM   #197
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Could you please show how you have calculated from 40 kcal/mol to ~ 0.65kJ/g This would help me very much. What figure have you used for g/mol?
258g/mol from the french wikipedia for kaolinite (sorry still dont have the right to post web adresses here). You see a mistake ?

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
You quote a figure of 500°C when the data is for 642K (369°C) - I presume that this is a miss-type.

I did a very quick look at Fig 29 and I think I agree with you on the 1.5kJ/g peak. (1.5kJ/g = ~ 0.65W/g between ) Could you show on Fig 29 where this is and how you calculate it.
I did not calculate 1.5kJ/g: it's given earlier in the article for each one of the four tested chips. See the four DSC curves: the smaller peak curve was reported in the figure with the Tillotson DSC curve, i think...it's the same.

As for the 500°C, sorry: i didnt check that the temperatures in this paper was corresponding to the dehydroxylation temperature i had in mind from the website : Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science indicated by metamars (post 16 in this thread)...
The conditions are certainly not the same but i have no idea what is the main reason for the discrepancy between the two references...
The important infos we need about kaolinite are most of the time in scientific articles which are not in free access!


As for the grey layers in between the red layers, i indeed can see on the photo of fig 31 not only the unusual light-grey but also several dark grey ones, one of them in between the red layers...

Also you probably know that Harrit recently explained that knowing the composition of the red paint including the tnemec pigment one would expect
25% Zinc chromate and 20% magnesium silicates while we see no magnesium and only traces of Cr and Zn in one redchip!
So again even if there is kaolinite in these red stuffs where does it come from if not from this paint!

Best

F H-C
henryco 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 5th May 2009, 10:41 AM   #198
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
i thought this was interesting when someone brought up adhesives:

"The original fireproofing on the fire floors was mostly Blazeshield DC/F, but some of the fireproofing on the flooring has recently been upgraded to Blazeshield II, which is about 20 percent denser and 20 percent more adhesive. [National Institute of Standards & Technology, 9/2005, pp. xxxvi, 83"

anyone know what blazeshield II is made of?

http://www.historycommons.org/search...on&dosearch=on
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 5th May 2009, 10:55 AM   #199
Redford
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
How about it? Go find yourselves some colorably honest specimens and come back with THAT analysis. OK?
You seem to be upset but not to really get my point. If some source reliable (to you) gives Jones a sample, Jones can swap it with anything else and it wouldn't be noticeable. Or he could analayse it, photoshop the images, and still no one would know. Until at least somebody else does a study. That's all I am saying.

BTW Jones said he has requested several times official samples keeped by *can't remember the acronym for the relevant instution* but never got any. He came back with that claim after this article, saying he now needed larger samples to make quantitative estimation of how much red chips were initially in the building.

Now that's what he says. Feel free to check and tell us what you find ;-)

To T.A.M. : IMHO there is no realistic way you could prove any chain of custody from private samples to be valid 8 years later. No high profile review would accept to publish anything (truther or debunker) with such political implications without rock solid custody chain. Maybe they would accept if samples were coming from official sources but truther would remain sceptic, and that would make sense from their perspective, won't it ?

Originally Posted by T.A.M.
I suspect that Jones' et al are so blinded by their agenda
Yup, I can see you're very disconfident of him (and I guess, by extension, of everyone working with him). I am new here and don't know why, thus. His wikipedia notice certainly gives him some credits. I'd be curious to know why you think he's so unreliable ?

Originally Posted by T.A.M.
There is a large difference between ones gut suspicions, ones speculation, and ones competence as a scientist.
Indeed. I would aslo add most scientists get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes ;-)
Redford 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 5th May 2009, 11:10 AM   #200
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
metamars stated-
" However, in a "slow CD" scenario where you are merely weakening the steel, so that it fails gradually, one can envision putting a thin layer of nanothermite over a column segment (say 4 mm thick) and covering that over with fire proofing. Would the 13.5% energy loss to gas production (Table 6) be sufficient to make the gasses blow off the fireproofing? If not, would the remainder of the energy production not be so great that it quickly melted or burned the fireproofing? "

this made think about this fireproofing that dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl saw:
He says that, in some places, the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue.” [New York Times, 10/2/2001]

http://www.historycommons.org/search...on&dosearch=on
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
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 04:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.