Micro Spheres in world trade center dust solved.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

wait a min Frank posted about Fly Ash days ago here.

I cant find his post. maybe it was at blogger or was quoted in an email and posted somewhere. I KNOW i saw it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...90#post3269290


Money quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Thanks RedIbis....

I am not questioning Jones' data, I am questioning his interpretation of said data.

You need to take a look at Volume III of the famous "Particle Atlas" by Walter McCrone. This provides scanning electron micrographs and EDX spectra for thousands of common materials. The section from pages 760 - 780 is most interesting since it shows flyash microspheres from large domestic waste incinerators burning paper, wood and plastics as well as flyash from coal-fired furnaces. The EDX spectra show major peaks from Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe together with smaller peaks from Ti, S and Cl.

Jones' spectra are a perfect match for FLY ASH!

[FactCheck]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

The streets in Gravy's town are paved with Magnetite.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/cfa52.htm


However it is important to remember there are two types wet and dry, wet usually has the magnetite removed magneticly and is used in structural concrete.



IT is also important to remember it can also be used with sand and lime as a soil stabilizer.
OR by itself as fill for heavy machinery roads bases.
It is also very abundant and cheap in New York city, actually cheaper than sand.
Since it is a waste product that usually goes in a landfill.
http://www.rmajko.com/soilstab.htm

Sounds like a leading hypothesis to me. I would love to put this on my site. I can't wait to see the complete hypothesis.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

Sorry, but I'm at the limit of my knowledge. I inspected a plant once that made cinder block out of fly ash. I only know that, when wet, fly ash is like quicksand in it "suckability" (I stepped in some accidentally, and it pulled my shoe off my foot. )

I do know that burning coal fuel in boilers leaves slag deposits. Otherwise, I'll wait until y'all that are in on the secret feel it's OK to reveal it to us commoners.

Exactly that is why when mixed with lime it helps to stabilize loose soils. The alumina is very water absorbent like a sponge.
The magnetite in fly ash actually attracts charged Ions.

[Minadin]

Fly ash is often added to cement to make lighter-weight concretes. I'm not sure if any were used in the WTC floor pans or not. It's possible, since they were non-structural members (well, more or less).

[Max Photon]

I must be slow.

If there are numerous highly-credible non-CD explanations for the iron microspheres, what does that have to do with MAX-MIHOP? My model doesn't lean on the stuff.

In fact, I suspect part of the reason I got tossed from STJ911 is exactly because I said, in big bold letters, that the microspheres are going to be a dead end because of chain of custody issues, and because - as NIST so kindly warned us in FAQ #12 - thermite residue tests are inconclusive.


Sometimes I think I'm even more JREF NISTIAN than you guys.


Max They Hate Our Freedoms Photon

(How was that?)

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I must be slow.

If there are numerous highly-credible non-CD explanations for the iron microspheres, what does that have to do with MAX-MIHOP? My model doesn't lean on the stuff.

In fact, I suspect part of the reason I got tossed from STJ911 is exactly because I said, in big bold letters, that the microspheres are going to be a dead end because of chain of custody issues, and because - as NIST so kindly warned us in FAQ #12 - thermite residue tests are inconclusive.


Sometimes I think I'm even more JREF NISTIAN than you guys.


Max They Hate Our Freedoms Photon

(How was that?)

(From NIST's FAQ)


The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I must be slow.

If there are numerous highly-credible non-CD explanations for the iron microspheres, what does that have to do with MAX-MIHOP? My model doesn't lean on the stuff.

In fact, I suspect part of the reason I got tossed from STJ911 is exactly because I said, in big bold letters, that the microspheres are going to be a dead end because of chain of custody issues, and because - as NIST so kindly warned us in FAQ #12 - thermite residue tests are inconclusive.


Sometimes I think I'm even more JREF NISTIAN than you guys.


Max They Hate Our Freedoms Photon

(How was that?)

But Max... what does your model lean on? Certainly not evidence.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I must be slow.

Keen insight!

Originally Posted by Max Photon

If there are numerous highly-credible non-CD explanations for the iron microspheres, what does that have to do with MAX-MIHOP? My model doesn't lean on the stuff.

That's the beauty of your model, it doesn't "lean" on any facts therefore it's impervious to revelations like this.

Well Done Max

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Keen insight!
That's the beauty of your model, it doesn't "lean" on any facts therefore it's impervious to revelations like this.

Well Done Max

Max's model has grown too shopworn for the runway. She leans on the kindness of strangers at this juncture.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Minadin

Fly ash is often added to cement to make lighter-weight concretes. I'm not sure if any were used in the WTC floor pans or not. It's possible, since they were non-structural members (well, more or less).

In those concretes, the magnetite particles are undesirable, so water is added, and a magnet is used to remove the magnetite, Fe304.
So no those floor pans are unlikely to be the source of the micro spheres.
However Cement board, and tiles and other concretes might use it asphalts, and the sand and aggregates trucked in to make roads might just be.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I must be slow.

If there are numerous highly-credible non-CD explanations for the iron microspheres, what does that have to do with MAX-MIHOP? My model doesn't lean on the stuff.

In fact, I suspect part of the reason I got tossed from STJ911 is exactly because I said, in big bold letters, that the microspheres are going to be a dead end because of chain of custody issues, and because - as NIST so kindly warned us in FAQ #12 - thermite residue tests are inconclusive.


Sometimes I think I'm even more JREF NISTIAN than you guys.


Max They Hate Our Freedoms Photon

(How was that?)

Your model with respect to 9/11 rests on fantasy. I already know you have nothing to worry about, your ideas are so far removed from the reality of 9/11 you are safe from the micro spheres.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

In those concretes, the magnetite particles are undesirable, so water is added, and a magnet is used to remove the magnetite, Fe304.
So no those floor pans are unlikely to be the source of the micro spheres.
However Cement board, and tiles and other concretes might use it asphalts, and the sand and aggregates trucked in to make roads might just be.

I think the USGS had fly ash in the concrete from the samples they found around the WTC. They had sourced the Fe and fly ash to concrete. I look these things up once and do not file them. Back to the search, which the first time was on a thread far, far, away.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

In those concretes, the magnetite particles are undesirable, so water is added, and a magnet is used to remove the magnetite, Fe304.
So no those floor pans are unlikely to be the source of the micro spheres.
However Cement board, and tiles and other concretes might use it asphalts, and the sand and aggregates trucked in to make roads might just be.

Interesting, but since iron microspheres were sought by investigators as markers of WTC dust (in some cases at a considerable distance from the site), because they weren't present in background dust, I don't know where that leaves your idea.

[ref]

Interesting thread. Waiting for Frank to give his ideas, and some info about his e-mail conversations with Jones

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by beachnut

I think the USGS had fly ash in the concrete from the samples they found around the WTC. They had sourced the Fe and fly ash to concrete. I look these things up once and do not file them. Back to the search, which the first time was on a thread far, far, away.

Yes they did, however they did not say which concrete, magnetic magnetite separation has been going on since the 1960s with the bi product sold as sand blasting abrasive and for washing cleaning coal.
As well as many other uses.

Concrete board, tile, grout and asphalt products however use dry fly ash, until the mid 1990s no one had figured out a way to commercially remove the magnetite from it.

You basically have three grades of Fly Ash only one grade gos into structural concrete, or concrete flooring, that is Hydrated magnetic separated fly ash without micro spheres.

However Hydrated pond bottom fly ash un separated goes into grouts, concrete boards, tiles, or ceramics.

Non Hydrated Fly ash, goes into asphalt products, and road bed stabilization with lime or concrete.

That is why Dr. Jones found no fly ash micro-spheres in the concrete they were removed using the same technique that he used to search for them.
The micro spheres are one of the more valuable parts of the fly ash, and have been separated and sold for years before the fly ash goes into concrete.

[T.A.M.]

CC:

Great Work. Look forward to a complete Description/Discussion.

Max:

I do not think anyone here has been attacking your theory. There are lots of threads to do that in. Sit back and enjoy the discussion as a fellow JREF NISTIAN...lol

TAM

[Apollo20]

Steven,

I would like to contribute to this research, so I will answer your questions
about OXYGEN, etc.......

It is well known that oxygen is not well characterized by EDX, especially
EDX done on old instruments. In fact, if you look in McCrone's book, which
was published in 1973, none of the samples show oxygen peaks! Thus we have
entry 432 "Zinc Oxide" which only has peaks for zinc! Clearly, the absence
of oxygen peaks does not mean the absence of oxygen in the sample! The
spectra in McCrone's book were probably recorded with an electronic "gate"
to eliminate low energy X-rays entirely. This was done because so-called
pulse pile-up of low-energy X-rays in first generation EDX instruments
caused detector saturation. Thus the low-energy peaks were not recorded.
This is why the lightest element reported in any sample listed in McCrone's
book is Na with an X-ray at 1.04 keV. Nevertheless, McCrone's Particle Atlas
remains a very useful source of X-ray data of dusts, minerals, etc.

Even using a modern EDX instrument I would be very careful about quoting a quantitative oxygen number. Why is this? Well, light elements like carbon,
oxygen and nitrogen emit very low energy X-rays ~ 0.5 keV or less. These
X-rays are not very penetrating and have trouble escaping from the surface
of the sample and passing through the window of the detector. However,
oxygen also tends to chemisorb on the surface of many materials, enhancing
the oxygen peak. The net result is that oxygen is not reliably measured by
EDX. For this reason I used Auger electron analysis, with a touch of
argon-ion sputtering to removed chemisorbed species, to quantify elements
like C, O, N, in fly ash. This technique does not use X-ray emission to
detect elements.

Now as for the particular spectrum in McCrones's book I forwarded to you, it was just one example of a combustion-related material that has microspheres
and high iron. I will forward the spectrum of the incinerator ash as well.
It shows microspheres and iron is present in significant concentrations too.
But please remember McCrone's sample was NOT magnetically separated. I am
quite sure a magnetically separated ash sample, such as the one you have for
the WTC dust, would show high iron by definition!

And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile.

Regards, Frank

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Query

Frank,

1. As you read my query, you'll notice that I said I thought some sort of
cooperation could be worked out -- with you. When I made reference to those "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries I was not thinking about you , but rather two or three others, out of perhaps a couple hundred collaborators I have worked with. I learned to be very careful before forming
collaborations.

At the same time, it is true I would have to get to know you better before
establishing a full collaboration if such were desired.

2. "Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"

a. Where is the oxygen? Oxygen is a major component of almost all the
iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied -- often the PRINCIPAL component.

b. How do these "fly-ash" spheres form, given the high melting point of
iron (about 1530 C)? Do the incinerators use forced-air?

Thanks for your comments, which I will consider more tomorrow.

Steven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Frank,

1. The plot you provided is from burning COAL, not paper, plastics, wood
etc. Or are you saying there was coal in the WTC?

2. Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? The oxygen content is
significant, yet the spectrum appears to be skewed, cut off at low X-ray
energies... please explain -- how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be
present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown -- not
the case in the one example you provided!

All of the iron-aluminum spheres I have found in the WTC dust show abundant
OXYGEN. Often O is the principal element in the spheres.

3. Can you get a Fe-O-K-Al-Si spectrum (with oxygen, O) and sphere
production from burning office materials? A few examples please -- if you
can do it.

4. This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the
caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant
difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps
occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron
melts at 1538 C)


Steven J


Reply sent Dec 25th:

Steven,

So, Steven, may I review where we presently stand in this debate. You have carried out EDX analysis of samples of WTC dust and claim that two types of particles detected by you in the dust serve as evidence for the use of thermite/thermate incendiary devices during the destruction of the towers. These particles are microspheres and thin “chips” that are iron and aluminum-rich. Since thermite is essentially a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum, and spherical particles are evidence of melting, you believe that Fe and Al in microspheres can only be attributable to thermite residues. (Am I correct so far?)

Now here you have me at a disadvantage because you have not published or made any of your EDX spectra available to me. The best I have to work with are video clips of some talks you have given where you show some overheads of EDX spectra. If I am to really get to grips with your research I need to see copies of the spectra. And, by the way, I notice you immediately posted the spectrum I sent to you on 9//blogger, but did not post one of your spectra for comparison. Why not? My spectrum is from a book that is readily available in any good science library, but the same cannot be said about your spectra.

Anyway, to return to the debate, I have countered your argument that the WTC dust contains thermite residues with the suggestion that your particles are more likely to be fly ash from the combustion of materials in the Twin Towers. As evidence I have offered two examples of EDX spectra that I found in McCrone’s Particle Atlas. In one of my e-mails I gave you some approximate peak height ratios from these spectra as an indicator of the elemental ratios in the samples because the Particle Atlas does not give any quantitative analytical data.

I know full well that peak height ratios in EDX spectra are not directly proportional to the elemental concentrations in the sample. There are X-ray absorption and emission coefficients that need to be considered which are sample-matrix dependent. Nevertheless, peak height ratios do offer some approximate indication of the sample composition, especially for elements with similar atomic weights. Thus I have at least demonstrated that iron and aluminum-rich microspheres may be produced by the combustion of carbonaceous materials such as coal, wood, cardboard and paper.

Now I see you are quibbling about me sending you the spectrum of coal ash, asking me somewhat rhetorically: Was coal being burnt in the Twin Towers? Here, I would say you are missing my point which is that the mineral matter in natural carbon-based fuels forms an ash residue after the fuel is combusted that always contains Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe – precisely the most abundant elements, (after the ubiquitous oxygen), in your WTC samples as revealed by their EDX spectra!

And here it is my turn to quibble with a statement you made in your Boston talk of Decembe15th, 2007. In this talk you compare the EDX spectra of red chips and microspheres found in WTC dust samples with the spectrum from commercial thermite and claim that all the spectra are essentially the same because they show peaks from O, Al, Fe, K, and Si. Now this is indeed quite strange because Si is definitely NOT an ingredient of commercial thermite. What is even stranger is that in your Boston talk you do not mention S as a component of the microspheres. Yet sulfur was so important to you just a few months ago – you know, back when you claimed that S was a key ingredient in the thermate variety of thermite used to demolish the Twin Towers. Now apparently, S has undergone a transmutation into Si! Perhaps this is why in your Boston talk you use the word “thermite” in place of your usual “thermate”. So what is it Steven: thermite or thermate?

But the presence of Si in your samples is indeed very significant because Si is always found in the ash produced by the combustion of wood, paper or municipal waste. So let’s focus on ash from these materials because wood, paper and municipal waste would be quite similar to the office combustibles feeding the WTC fires. Furthermore, municipal solid waste MSW combustor ash is well characterized. See for example:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/mswcal.htm

Thus we see that MSW ash typically contains up to 21 % Si, 8 % Ca, 8 % Fe, 1 % K and 5 % Al. Spherical particles up to 60 microns in diameter have also been reported in MSW incinerator ash formed when this type of waste material is burned at ~ 1000 deg C:

http://suwic.group.shef.ac.uk/posters/p-ash.pdf

There is also considerable data available on the properties of ash from the combustion of pulp and paper waste. See for example:

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/o...32/MQ64248.pdf

Here we find that Si, Al, Ca and Fe are the main elements found in ash produced by burning pulp and paper wastes. In addition the major portion of the fly ash thus derived is formed as molten droplets of fused inorganic material found in the as-received pulp and paper feed. It is reported that fusion of minerals such as quartz, feldspar and clay results in the formation of glassy spherical particles.

So, Steven, I think you need to eliminate all of these naturally occurring spherical particles that are routinely formed in office fires – particles like your WTC microspheres that are rich in Si, Al, Ca, Fe, and K - before you start suggesting that such particles could only come from thermite, (themate?) combustion residues.

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 11:16 AM

Subject: High temps needed to form iron-rich spheres, meaning of ratios
"Only the very lowest melting substances form spheres." -- quoting directly from the figure caption of the spectrum you sent. I agree with THAT comment. The caption also mentions "metal foil" as part of the incinerated material, and I suspect melted aluminum would be present. NOT melted iron! Which leads again to the question I posed to you yesterday, based on the first spectrum you sent, which you seem to have thus far neglected:

4. This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron melts at 1538 C)

With regard to the lack of oxygen peaks in the older EDX machine you showed, I understand the difficulty these machines had -- and accept your explanation that an older EDX system was used for these spectra. The version I am using was installed very recently and is state-of-the-art. I will ask the lab director how good the oxygen percentages are in this new system.

Meanwhile, this new system does provide percentages of Fe, Al, Oxygen, etc.
So I have to ask -- what is the meaning of the ratios you provided, e.g.,

"Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"

When you answer this, we can make more direct comparisons with the percentages provided by the new EDS system. (Take your time as I'm traveling to be with family for Christmas. Merry Christmas! btw, and I wish you a speedy recovery as a friend tells me you had surgery recently.)

Thanks for the conversation.

Steven

PS -- some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Yes they did, however they did not say which concrete, magnetic magnetite separation has been going on since the 1960s with the bi product sold as sand blasting abrasive and for washing cleaning coal.
As well as many other uses.

You don't list sheetrock as a use of fly ash. Is there a reason for this for the purpose of this discussion?

http://www.wrashg.org/ccps.htm

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I must be slow.

If there are numerous highly-credible non-CD explanations for the iron microspheres, what does that have to do with MAX-MIHOP? My model doesn't lean on the stuff.

In fact, I suspect part of the reason I got tossed from STJ911 is exactly because I said, in big bold letters, that the microspheres are going to be a dead end because of chain of custody issues, and because - as NIST so kindly warned us in FAQ #12 - thermite residue tests are inconclusive.


Sometimes I think I'm even more JREF NISTIAN than you guys.


Max They Hate Our Freedoms Photon

(How was that?)

Sometimes, it's not all about you.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by BigAl

You don't list sheetrock as a use of fly ash. Is there a reason for this for the purpose of this discussion?

http://www.wrashg.org/ccps.htm

Read your link FGD does not have micro spheres in it.

It is mostly pure calcium-sulfate.

Here is some more very good reading.
http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/CCB2/1c.pdf

http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/CCB2/3d.pdf


http://www.imp.mtu.edu/abstracts.htm

[e^n]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Max They Hate Our Freedoms Photon

(How was that?)

I'm quoting you here Max but my reply is actually addressed to everyone.

We really shouldn't be so harsh with Max, he has an interesting personality and articulates his thoughts in an odd manner but he has yet to lie, fake evidence, ignore evidence or be intellectually dishonest in any manner I have seen.

Indeed he has 'admitted' (and then retracted) that his reason for constructing MAX-MIHOP is that he is taking all of the evidence with a presupposition of controlled demolition.

Max
While this may not be accurate of how you feel, it is consistent with the evidence you provide. You have essentially invented 'laser ignited thermite shock tube' with only a single piece of dubious evidence and trumpeted it as a complete theory. I have nothing against you and frankly nothing against your theory, it is even somewhat plausible but as I have said before you are lacking in one critical component.

If the WTC towers were strong enough that they required a catalyst to initiate collapse then evidence is required of this. You say that evidence could have been found by looking inside perimeter column bolt access holes, now assuming you have checked out all of NCSTAR 1-3 and still been left without evidence there is logically nowhere left to look for this specific piece of evidence. Given this, you must now begin the search for alternate evidence which can exist.

I am sure you are aware of the problems with inferring the 'best explanation' in any scenario and that you must have logical evidence based reasons for choosing a specific explanation. What you are asking us to do however is accept your theory based on the same inference. You have not presented any evidence of your theory which is not easily attributed to another source. If however you could provide evidence which either conflicts with another source or is entirely separate then we could logically choose your theory.

You must admit that even if you are right, without any solid evidence we cannot logically accept your theory? I hope you don't find this insulting because while I may have been a little aggressive and harsh to you you seem to be entirely honest and that is something I respect.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Steven,

I would like to contribute to this research, so I will answer your questions
about OXYGEN, etc.......

It is well known that oxygen is not well characterized by EDX, especially
EDX done on old instruments. In fact, if you look in McCrone's book, which
was published in 1973, none of the samples show oxygen peaks! Thus we have
entry 432 "Zinc Oxide" which only has peaks for zinc! Clearly, the absence
of oxygen peaks does not mean the absence of oxygen in the sample! The
spectra in McCrone's book were probably recorded with an electronic "gate"
to eliminate low energy X-rays entirely. This was done because so-called
pulse pile-up of low-energy X-rays in first generation EDX instruments
caused detector saturation. Thus the low-energy peaks were not recorded.
This is why the lightest element reported in any sample listed in McCrone's
book is Na with an X-ray at 1.04 keV. Nevertheless, McCrone's Particle Atlas
remains a very useful source of X-ray data of dusts, minerals, etc.

Even using a modern EDX instrument I would be very careful about quoting a quantitative oxygen number. Why is this? Well, light elements like carbon,
oxygen and nitrogen emit very low energy X-rays ~ 0.5 keV or less. These
X-rays are not very penetrating and have trouble escaping from the surface
of the sample and passing through the window of the detector. However,
oxygen also tends to chemisorb on the surface of many materials, enhancing
the oxygen peak. The net result is that oxygen is not reliably measured by
EDX. For this reason I used Auger electron analysis, with a touch of
argon-ion sputtering to removed chemisorbed species, to quantify elements
like C, O, N, in fly ash. This technique does not use X-ray emission to
detect elements.

Now as for the particular spectrum in McCrones's book I forwarded to you, it was just one example of a combustion-related material that has microspheres
and high iron. I will forward the spectrum of the incinerator ash as well.
It shows microspheres and iron is present in significant concentrations too.
But please remember McCrone's sample was NOT magnetically separated. I am
quite sure a magnetically separated ash sample, such as the one you have for
the WTC dust, would show high iron by definition!

And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile.

Regards, Frank

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Query

Frank,

1. As you read my query, you'll notice that I said I thought some sort of
cooperation could be worked out -- with you. When I made reference to those "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries I was not thinking about you , but rather two or three others, out of perhaps a couple hundred collaborators I have worked with. I learned to be very careful before forming
collaborations.

At the same time, it is true I would have to get to know you better before
establishing a full collaboration if such were desired.

2. "Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"

a. Where is the oxygen? Oxygen is a major component of almost all the
iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied -- often the PRINCIPAL component.

b. How do these "fly-ash" spheres form, given the high melting point of
iron (about 1530 C)? Do the incinerators use forced-air?

Thanks for your comments, which I will consider more tomorrow.

Steven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Frank,

1. The plot you provided is from burning COAL, not paper, plastics, wood
etc. Or are you saying there was coal in the WTC?

2. Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? The oxygen content is
significant, yet the spectrum appears to be skewed, cut off at low X-ray
energies... please explain -- how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be
present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown -- not
the case in the one example you provided!

All of the iron-aluminum spheres I have found in the WTC dust show abundant
OXYGEN. Often O is the principal element in the spheres.

3. Can you get a Fe-O-K-Al-Si spectrum (with oxygen, O) and sphere
production from burning office materials? A few examples please -- if you
can do it.

4. This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the
caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant
difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps
occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron
melts at 1538 C)


Steven J


Reply sent Dec 25th:

Steven,

So, Steven, may I review where we presently stand in this debate. You have carried out EDX analysis of samples of WTC dust and claim that two types of particles detected by you in the dust serve as evidence for the use of thermite/thermate incendiary devices during the destruction of the towers. These particles are microspheres and thin “chips” that are iron and aluminum-rich. Since thermite is essentially a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum, and spherical particles are evidence of melting, you believe that Fe and Al in microspheres can only be attributable to thermite residues. (Am I correct so far?)

Now here you have me at a disadvantage because you have not published or made any of your EDX spectra available to me. The best I have to work with are video clips of some talks you have given where you show some overheads of EDX spectra. If I am to really get to grips with your research I need to see copies of the spectra. And, by the way, I notice you immediately posted the spectrum I sent to you on 9//blogger, but did not post one of your spectra for comparison. Why not? My spectrum is from a book that is readily available in any good science library, but the same cannot be said about your spectra.

Anyway, to return to the debate, I have countered your argument that the WTC dust contains thermite residues with the suggestion that your particles are more likely to be fly ash from the combustion of materials in the Twin Towers. As evidence I have offered two examples of EDX spectra that I found in McCrone’s Particle Atlas. In one of my e-mails I gave you some approximate peak height ratios from these spectra as an indicator of the elemental ratios in the samples because the Particle Atlas does not give any quantitative analytical data.

I know full well that peak height ratios in EDX spectra are not directly proportional to the elemental concentrations in the sample. There are X-ray absorption and emission coefficients that need to be considered which are sample-matrix dependent. Nevertheless, peak height ratios do offer some approximate indication of the sample composition, especially for elements with similar atomic weights. Thus I have at least demonstrated that iron and aluminum-rich microspheres may be produced by the combustion of carbonaceous materials such as coal, wood, cardboard and paper.

Now I see you are quibbling about me sending you the spectrum of coal ash, asking me somewhat rhetorically: Was coal being burnt in the Twin Towers? Here, I would say you are missing my point which is that the mineral matter in natural carbon-based fuels forms an ash residue after the fuel is combusted that always contains Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe – precisely the most abundant elements, (after the ubiquitous oxygen), in your WTC samples as revealed by their EDX spectra!

And here it is my turn to quibble with a statement you made in your Boston talk of Decembe15th, 2007. In this talk you compare the EDX spectra of red chips and microspheres found in WTC dust samples with the spectrum from commercial thermite and claim that all the spectra are essentially the same because they show peaks from O, Al, Fe, K, and Si. Now this is indeed quite strange because Si is definitely NOT an ingredient of commercial thermite. What is even stranger is that in your Boston talk you do not mention S as a component of the microspheres. Yet sulfur was so important to you just a few months ago – you know, back when you claimed that S was a key ingredient in the thermate variety of thermite used to demolish the Twin Towers. Now apparently, S has undergone a transmutation into Si! Perhaps this is why in your Boston talk you use the word “thermite” in place of your usual “thermate”. So what is it Steven: thermite or thermate?

But the presence of Si in your samples is indeed very significant because Si is always found in the ash produced by the combustion of wood, paper or municipal waste. So let’s focus on ash from these materials because wood, paper and municipal waste would be quite similar to the office combustibles feeding the WTC fires. Furthermore, municipal solid waste MSW combustor ash is well characterized. See for example:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/mswcal.htm

Thus we see that MSW ash typically contains up to 21 % Si, 8 % Ca, 8 % Fe, 1 % K and 5 % Al. Spherical particles up to 60 microns in diameter have also been reported in MSW incinerator ash formed when this type of waste material is burned at ~ 1000 deg C:

http://suwic.group.shef.ac.uk/posters/p-ash.pdf

There is also considerable data available on the properties of ash from the combustion of pulp and paper waste. See for example:

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/o...32/MQ64248.pdf

Here we find that Si, Al, Ca and Fe are the main elements found in ash produced by burning pulp and paper wastes. In addition the major portion of the fly ash thus derived is formed as molten droplets of fused inorganic material found in the as-received pulp and paper feed. It is reported that fusion of minerals such as quartz, feldspar and clay results in the formation of glassy spherical particles.

So, Steven, I think you need to eliminate all of these naturally occurring spherical particles that are routinely formed in office fires – particles like your WTC microspheres that are rich in Si, Al, Ca, Fe, and K - before you start suggesting that such particles could only come from thermite, (themate?) combustion residues.

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 11:16 AM

Subject: High temps needed to form iron-rich spheres, meaning of ratios
"Only the very lowest melting substances form spheres." -- quoting directly from the figure caption of the spectrum you sent. I agree with THAT comment. The caption also mentions "metal foil" as part of the incinerated material, and I suspect melted aluminum would be present. NOT melted iron! Which leads again to the question I posed to you yesterday, based on the first spectrum you sent, which you seem to have thus far neglected:

4. This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron melts at 1538 C)

With regard to the lack of oxygen peaks in the older EDX machine you showed, I understand the difficulty these machines had -- and accept your explanation that an older EDX system was used for these spectra. The version I am using was installed very recently and is state-of-the-art. I will ask the lab director how good the oxygen percentages are in this new system.

Meanwhile, this new system does provide percentages of Fe, Al, Oxygen, etc.
So I have to ask -- what is the meaning of the ratios you provided, e.g.,

"Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"

When you answer this, we can make more direct comparisons with the percentages provided by the new EDS system. (Take your time as I'm traveling to be with family for Christmas. Merry Christmas! btw, and I wish you a speedy recovery as a friend tells me you had surgery recently.)

Thanks for the conversation.

Steven

PS -- some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.

Frank at that time I did not know that magnetite was removed from fly ash used in concrete by magnetic drum separation.
Basically a big barrel filled with magnets that rolls over the fly ash, and picks out the magnetite so it can be sold.
Basically the same technique used by Dr. Jones. However there are certain uses of Fly ash that do not use magnetic drum separation.
Most of those use dry fly ash directly from the boilers.
They include addition of fly ash in slurry walls to increase the strength of those walls, and as drilling mud.
Filler and road base, soil stabilization, asphalt paving, and others, I also as you do believe the fires would have created micro spheres on their own from Chlorides and sulfates, similar to those in waste incinerators.
Dr. Jones has to show that the micro spheres are unique to thermite, or he has no evidence at all.
I am still working on a list of wire insulation plastics, Used in the towers, I would much rather research things that go boom when heated anyway.
That does seem to be what I am good at, well the next move is of course left up to Dr. Jones, he needs to show some evidence that he actually has any evidence.

[uk_dave]

Quote:

Micro Spheres in world trade center dust solved

Damn, that's a shame. Just as I was thinking about becoming slightly interested in the possibility of caring about the subject.

oh well.

[~enigma~]

Looks to me that Steven Jones perpetually changing therm?te vowel theory is ganz kaput

[T.A.M.]

Well it certainly seems to be headed that way. I think the only thing he can really do now, IF he is an honest scientist, is to make his samples, his data, available publicly for verification or refutation.

TAM

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Well it certainly seems to be headed that way. I think the only thing he can really do now, IF he is an honest scientist, is to make his samples, his data, available publicly for verification or refutation.

TAM

Do you also believe in fairy tales?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Well it certainly seems to be headed that way. I think the only thing he can really do now, IF he is an honest scientist, is to make his samples, his data, available publicly for verification or refutation.

TAM

OH the chips will now become the focus of the investigation I am sure of that, I just placed bets on them.

Anyone want to bet they are not the rare earth mineral
maghemite, combined with aluminumsilicates?

maghemite is a red rare earth mineral, formed from the oxidation of magnetite.
I have a hundred buck ridding on the chips he has found.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Well it certainly seems to be headed that way. I think the only thing he can really do now, IF he is an honest scientist, is to make his samples, his data, available publicly for verification or refutation.

TAM

An honest scientist would verify and confirm his findings BEFORE he presented them to the public.

The sad part of all this is Jones' information is already out there. Does anyone really think the "truth" movement will make any attempt to retract or correct any of these statements? It simply doesn't matter if the information is correct they will repeat it anyway.

The damage is already done.

[Max Photon]

Good God, finally they each moved a pawn.

Masterful. Simply masterful!


So, since everyone here is basically really stupid - as, in a stupor, not like stupid stupid - - allow me to translate:

Dr. Jones is asking how the iron microspheres - evidence of molten iron - which in turn is evidence of temperatures of at least 1536 C - were formed in the WTC fires. (Remember, NIST's little fire video game only had fires that reached 1000 C.) Following this line of thinking, the presence of the [once molten] iron microspheres means one of the following:

1. The WTC fires reached temperatures at least as high as 1536 C;
2. The debris field fires reached temperatures at least as high as 1536 C (from forced-air situations, or chemical reactions, or "thermate residue", or some other energy source);
3. Iron microspheres can form at temperatures lower that 1536 C.

So, here are some questions from the exchange thus far:

1. Are iron microspheres iron-clad indicators that temperatures reached at least 1536 C, or can iron microspheres form at lower temperatures?
2. If 1536 C were reached in the towers or the debris field, what generated this high temperature?

* * *

Apollo - Well written, sincere, ... who wouldn't want to work with you?

e^n - I know you have respect for me, so you never need qualify your posts. Perhaps our discussion would better fit on my thermite-in box-columns thread.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by DGM

An honest scientist would verify and confirm his findings BEFORE he presented them to the public.

The sad part of all this is Jones' information is already out there. Does anyone really think the "truth" movement will make any attempt to retract or correct any of these statements? It simply doesn't matter if the information is correct they will repeat it anyway.

The damage is already done.

Ahem...

The same can be said of the NIST Reports.

Tsk tsk tsk on the arson unvestigation.

Coulda shoulda woulda.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Ahem...

The same can be said of the NIST Reports.

Tsk tsk tsk on the arson unvestigation.

Coulda shoulda woulda.

Arson? You mean arson by aircraft?

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by DGM

Arson? You mean arson by aircraft?

Forget numerology, you said Arson by Aircraft - that is AA - proof of an inside job

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Good God, finally they each moved a pawn.

Masterful. Simply masterful!


So, since everyone here is basically really stupid - as, in a stupor, not like stupid stupid - - allow me to translate:

Dr. Jones is asking how the iron microspheres - evidence of molten iron - which in turn is evidence of temperatures of at least 1536 C - were formed in the WTC fires. (Remember, NIST's little fire video game only had fires that reached 1000 C.) Following this line of thinking, the presence of the [once molten] iron microspheres means one of the following:

1. The WTC fires reached temperatures at least as high as 1536 C;
2. The debris field fires reached temperatures at least as high as 1536 C (from forced-air situations, or chemical reactions, or "thermate residue", or some other energy source);
3. Iron microspheres can form at temperatures lower that 1536 C.

So, here are some questions from the exchange thus far:

1. Are iron microspheres iron-clad indicators that temperatures reached at least 1536 C, or can iron microspheres form at lower temperatures?
2. If 1536 C were reached in the towers or the debris field, what generated this high temperature?

* * *

Apollo - Well written, sincere, ... who wouldn't want to work with you?

e^n - I know you have respect for me, so you never need qualify your posts. Perhaps our discussion would better fit on my thermite-in box-columns thread.

And don't forget to mention that the WTC was made of Coal!

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Good God, finally they each moved a pawn.

Masterful. Simply masterful!


So, since everyone here is basically really stupid - as, in a stupor, not like stupid stupid - - allow me to translate:

Dr. Jones is asking how the iron microspheres - evidence of molten iron - which in turn is evidence of temperatures of at least 1536 C - were formed in the WTC fires. (Remember, NIST's little fire video game only had fires that reached 1000 C.) Following this line of thinking, the presence of the [once molten] iron microspheres means one of the following:

1. The WTC fires reached temperatures at least as high as 1536 C;
2. The debris field fires reached temperatures at least as high as 1536 C (from forced-air situations, or chemical reactions, or "thermate residue", or some other energy source);
3. Iron microspheres can form at temperatures lower that 1536 C.

So, here are some questions from the exchange thus far:

1. Are iron microspheres iron-clad indicators that temperatures reached at least 1536 C, or can iron microspheres form at lower temperatures?
2. If 1536 C were reached in the towers or the debris field, what generated this high temperature?

* * *

Apollo - Well written, sincere, ... who wouldn't want to work with you?

e^n - I know you have respect for me, so you never need qualify your posts. Perhaps our discussion would better fit on my thermite-in box-columns thread.

I agree, the important question is (A) does a temperature of 1536C have to be reached in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, to produce iron microspheres?

if not,
(B) what circumstances, benign or not, could produce said spherules at a lower temperature, and then (C) did these circumstances likely exist in the WTC prior to, during, or after the collapse?

if so,
(D) how was the temperature of 1536C reached? Could it have been through the fires that existed within the WTC prior to collapse, or the fires that persisted after the collapse underneath the rubble?

TAM

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by e^n

I'm quoting you here Max but my reply is actually addressed to everyone.

We really shouldn't be so harsh with Max, he has an interesting personality and articulates his thoughts in an odd manner but he has yet to lie, fake evidence, ignore evidence or be intellectually dishonest in any manner I have seen.

Indeed he has 'admitted' (and then retracted) that his reason for constructing MAX-MIHOP is that he is taking all of the evidence with a presupposition of controlled demolition.

Max
While this may not be accurate of how you feel, it is consistent with the evidence you provide. You have essentially invented 'laser ignited thermite shock tube' with only a single piece of dubious evidence and trumpeted it as a complete theory. I have nothing against you and frankly nothing against your theory, it is even somewhat plausible but as I have said before you are lacking in one critical component.

If the WTC towers were strong enough that they required a catalyst to initiate collapse then evidence is required of this. You say that evidence could have been found by looking inside perimeter column bolt access holes, now assuming you have checked out all of NCSTAR 1-3 and still been left without evidence there is logically nowhere left to look for this specific piece of evidence. Given this, you must now begin the search for alternate evidence which can exist.

I am sure you are aware of the problems with inferring the 'best explanation' in any scenario and that you must have logical evidence based reasons for choosing a specific explanation. What you are asking us to do however is accept your theory based on the same inference. You have not presented any evidence of your theory which is not easily attributed to another source. If however you could provide evidence which either conflicts with another source or is entirely separate then we could logically choose your theory.

You must admit that even if you are right, without any solid evidence we cannot logically accept your theory? I hope you don't find this insulting because while I may have been a little aggressive and harsh to you you seem to be entirely honest and that is something I respect.

Sure it is funny/ironic as he switches sides when he thinks things have changed. Making up stuff with no facts, and blaming others for 9/11. Now without research or understanding he will mess up the spheres one way or another with his lack of paying attention and zero research on the real subject (oops he sounds like me, save the ...)

His obtuse approach and his attitude "9/11 is a Joke", revolt me and make see he is disrespectful and fact less person on 9/11. His MILDEC is most revolting. He supports a perverted fantasy he obtusely presents day after day. This would be neat in a sci-fi board on non real events. But the implication of his are vile and revolting as he clearly (though how can your know after all the cute crap) implicates WTC workers, the military, and unknown entities of murder on 9/11. Not the terrorists but fellow humans did 9/11 if you follow Max's madness on 9/11. Someone blaming you for 9/11. His ideas are on the entirely stupid side of 9/11 truth; we should encourage his expert thermite, 9/11 is a joke, MILDEC, posts to proliferate so he with his superior intellect can feel good in his own superior mind and say "Sure, the mosquitoes are kind of thick at times, but only at dusk and dawn". He may not see you as an insect, but I think he places me in the Order of Diptera.

[Apollo20]

I do not believe that a temperature of 1536 deg C (or higher!) is necessary to form iron-rich microspheres. These type of particles are formed in incinerators that never get above 1200 deg C. In fact most of the chemistry involved in forming microspheres takes place in the temperature range 600 - 1000 deg C, well within the range of temperatures expected for the WTC fires. Think about it, if a waste incinerator gets above 1536 deg C the incinerator walls, which are usually made of carbon steel or low alloy steels, will melt!

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Yes they did, however they did not say which concrete, magnetic magnetite separation has been going on since the 1960s with the bi product sold as sand blasting abrasive and for washing cleaning coal.

Were the towers ever cleaned using sand blasting or similar techniques either during construction or after completion?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

I do not believe that a temperature of 1536 deg C (or higher!) is necessary to form iron-rich microspheres. These type of particles are formed in incinerators that never get above 1200 deg C. In fact most of the chemistry involved in forming microspheres takes place in the temperature range 600 - 1000 deg C, well within the range of temperatures expected for the WTC fires. Think about it, if a waste incinerator gets above 1536 deg C the incinerator walls, which are usually made of carbon steel or low alloy steels, will melt!

That is why his next move will be maghemite, combined with aluminum-silicates, in theory, It should form at higher temperature and be red and gray bilateral, eggshell like.

All that is necessary to form the spheres is the oxidation of iron in combination with a sulfide or chloride.
I have made such particles in my hand wearing only a rubber glove, at room temperature.
Fe304. From Ferric Chloride.
IN boilers it is the degradation of Pyrite-Iron Pyrite -iron sulfate, simular to fools gold that does it, as Apollo stated at 600c.

What Dr. Jones fails to understand is that the oxidation of the Iron, http://www.thermolance.com/Thermolan...ygen_lance.htm
produces the necessary energy-heat to form the sphere from the irons own oxidation. Sulfur or chrlorides just lowers the oxidation point by weakening the Iron to Iron bonding. Since sulfide and chlorides are found in the buildings in organics the reaction occurs.

The down side to this is the same chemical reactions ignite the floor pans along the electrical conduits if conditions are right creating increased air flow though the floor slabs fire place grate effect, increasing the temperature around the Critically loaded columns.

I can not say at this time if the eletrical conduits live decking ignited, however if it did because the conduits were not insulated that was a major design flaw.
I would have to do more experiment, and have more information, before I can come to a conclusion on that.
However as I am only interested in going where the
science points.

I have done the experiment on the spheres now it is just time to sit back and enjoy the parade, so to speak.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by [B

Crazy Chainsaw[/b] ]
Yes they did, however they did not say which concrete, magnetic magnetite separation has been going on since the 1960s with the bi product sold as sand blasting abrasive and for washing cleaning coal.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Were the towers ever cleaned using sand blasting or similar techniques either during construction or after completion?

Just for clarity, everyone should be careful with their terms. Perhaps "abrasive blasting media" is a better term than "sand blasting abrasive" and "abrasive blasting" better than "sand blasting" (unless of course, you are refering to the use of sand (silica) as the abrasive blasting media).

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Were the towers ever cleaned using sand blasting or similar techniques either during construction or after completion?

Yes they were after the 1993 bombing, but only a few sections, also a parts cleaner and sand blaster I believe was part of the work shop where the 50 ton press was.
They would be standard equipment.

You also have to remember that the substance thought to be sand in the photos of the world trade center might be bottom ash and as such it would contain trillions of micro spheres.
Disturbance by heavy equipment would cause them to the launched into the air.