Support 911Blogger


Eight-author paper (including 5 PhD's) pub'd in Journal of 9/11 Studies: Extremely High Temperatures during the WTC destruction

A paper that will surely rattle a few cages was published today:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
5 Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)

The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.

Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...

Given the level of activity with our 9/11 Investigation at this stage -- things are moving quickly now -- the authors decided to go ahead and submit the paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where it was accepted and quickly published following final reviews.
See what you're missing -- Journal of Physics!

I should also note that three physics departments are listed in the affiliations: Brigham Young University, Univ. of Maryland at College Park, and Univ. of Iowa. (Some PhD's are sticking their necks out again... The paper, we believe, is solid.)

You will want to read this one! We hope it will generate interest and comment.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

MP3 Audio Clip - Richard Gage on Drive Time Radio

Wednesday October 24, 2007
Richard Gage AIA, Founder of Architects For 911 Truth, Talks Truth on Drive Time Radio About Vaporizing Steel Framed Buildings

* source = http://www.wtic.com/
-----------------------------------

More MP3 Audio Clips >

How many people would hear that?

That's great, Thanks!

Regards John

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!

This is impressive ! (...and also clever in seeking publishment

This is an impressive work. Of course, I have always been impressed by the works of you guys, because ya'll put the pavement on the road to 911 Truth.

I am excited and look forward in seeing what happens with this. Great piece and a great plan.

Mucho gracias and appreciation from all of us Truthers out here for all the hard work and sacrifices you guys put into these type of endeavors.

~~~~~~~~~~
On a sidenote: Reed Elsevier Pub has been buying up so many journals that now libraries are having a difficult time being able to purchase as many journals as they used to. I wonder if Elsevier also influences publications indirectly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

Way to go Dr.

Way to go Dr. Jones.......

This must be the paper you replied to me about some days ago.

Looks very good, thanks for your work.

Thanks for your tireless and

Thanks for your tireless and rigorous effort to find the truth.

Best regards,

Juan

--------------------------------------------
WTC 9-11-2001 was a Neocon-Zionist conspiracy,
but Jews DID NOT do 9-11 -
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8914#comment-174921
The WTC was destroyed by controlled demo-
http://www.ae911truth.org

Your work in this cause is

Your work in this cause is truly an inspiration. Thank
you for all you have done.

Thanks to all of the authors

Thanks to all of the authors for this excellent, detailed scientific work!

It is indicting evidence of the government's failure to make even an attempt at a responsible audit or inquiry into the 9/11 crime scene in New York.

Well...THEIR OCT JUST WENT UP IN FLAMES!

Thanks again, men.
God bless.

AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

One day these men will

One day these men will recieve great aclaim for saving the world from itself!

They bring light where darkness rules for they are heros without peer and all they are laking is review and publication.

We are close to a break through and my friends "the game is a foot"!

Kind regards John

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWE BACK!...

Checkmate, gentlemen!

Thank you for your diligent pursuit of justice.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Which journal?

Impressive!
Look, this is what we need to convince the world.

By the way, at which "Journal of Physics" was the paper accepted?
Is it IOP's Journal of Physics D?
I do not see the paper in the list of accepted papers of this journal yet.
Hopefully they will print your paper soon.

Having used SEM and

Having used SEM and subsequently XEDS for elemental analysis in my own research...it is certainly a definitive method of identification...this is great stuff!!

Come on world....please, please, please see this work and understand what it means!!!

Rick, seeing you have used

Rick, seeing you have used SEM,
and EDS equipment, do you still have access to these?

Thanks for your support (everyone!).

A hopeful yes.....

Dr. Jones, I am no longer in academics full time, but have kept in touch with the lab, and would like to think I could use the equipment. Believe me, anything I might could do to help you...just ask! Rickysa@aol.com

Also, a personal thank you for all you've done.

Rick

Thanks Dr. Jones...

for this great news ,and your continued efforts !

Glee ...

"This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper."

OMG. Waiting with bated breath. I can't imagine what'll happen if and when it gets published. Thank you for all your fabulous work! =o)

USGS

That FOIA request which produced the Mo sperule data was brilliant. Perhaps the fasteners were targeted. This paper is a milestone, congratulations.

Congratulations and some feedback

Excellent work.

If I understood correctly, the above paper ("Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction") has been accepted for publication in a scientific journal. In the meantime, it has been published in the Journal of 911 Studies (which, of course, is also a scientific journal).

In addition, another, different paper written by two of the authors will be published in a mainstream technical journal, hopefully within a few months.

Is this right?

If so, this is great! I hope there won't be any setbacks. That in mind, it may be best not to advertise the names of the journals until everything is certain.

When a paper such as this is written, I believe it should be offered to as many relevant journals as possible -- at once.

A few comments (some of them cosmetic) on the above article:

I find the argument highly persuasive and easy to follow (at least as easy as it can be for a layman).

I would add an empty line before each indented quotation. There is already an empty line after indented quotations.

"Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will
enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit
firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others."

This well-intentioned sentence sounds superfluous, as I suspect that no building can be designed to survive a controlled demolition.

A few clarifications

Thank you for the constructive comments. The "9/11 fact-finding team" is pressing forward..

A few clarifications are in order.

The "Temperature gap" paper pub'd yesterday in J911S was submitted JPhysD, and returned as "beyond the scope of this journal" (JPhysD) with no technical objections or comments.

Vesa writes, "When a paper such as this is written, I believe it should be offered to as many relevant journals as possible -- at once."
No, this would be contrary to scientific protocol and ethics. A paper submitted to one journal cannot be submitted to another simultaneously. Thus you see, a journal can delay publication of a paper for many months if they want to. (Of course, the authors can withdraw the submission and try in another journal -- another time delay.)

The "distinct" paper I mentioned has been accepted for publication, but has been in the "process" already for roughly seven months. We don't know when they will publish. (This is NOT JPhysD, but it is perhaps wise not to disclose the journal until it actually appears...)

We are encouraging the best motives for studying 9/11 facts when we write, ""Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit
firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others."

This was written when 9/11 fact-seekers were being branded as extremists/terrorists and we wish to set that fallacious and harmful charge aside.

Great work

In my field there are online journals which are more likely to accept new or contradictory findings, but are gaining in reputation as more publish there --

http://www.plosone.org/home.action

Are you considering these venues -- if there are any applicable for this work -- upon rejection?

Terrific work!

Having distributed your UVSC DVD to the UW-Madison physics and engineering departments with no visible results, I may try again with this excellent paper. Congratulations!

Copy to USGS also

Perhaps someone should send copies of it to the US Geological Survey as well.

And to NIST?

...

Yes, to NIST. Does anyone

Yes, to NIST. Does anyone have the individual emails of the panel members?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

Here may be some

We used these addresses when we sent the "Finnish researchers' questions and observations for NIST concerning WTC 7 investigation" to NIST (replace " at " by @ ):

wtc at nist.gov
michael.newman at nist.gov
NCSTAC at nist.gov
sivaraj.shyam-sunder at nist.gov

Thanks, Kevin, and yes, I

Thanks, Kevin, and yes, I will send copies to NIST and USGS requesting comment.

Need Help With The Following Points....

Mr. Jones and Company: I've been defending your work as well as 9/11 Truth on JREF for quite some time. They have brought up some points I would like you to address so I can defend the work with full guns blazing. If we can address these, I plan on having a construction engineer from Purdue as well as Physics teacher examine the work as well to get their thoughts.
I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I was able to counter the sample claims. The others I can't really address from a layman's perspective.

1. In section 2 (Methods), the authors fail to specify whether the detector on the SEM is a silicon lithium Si(Li) detector or a silicon drift detector (SDD). This is actually quite important since the SDD has a high instance of coincidence peaking which can cause misidentification of certain elements. Looking at the spectra, it appears to be a Si(Li) detector, but that's an educated guess at best.
2. On page 2, in the section "Results", the author states, "The spherules found in the WTC dust were predominately iron-rich" without supporting his contention with a statistical analysis of the iron content of the particles available for analysis. He might mean that the particles he analyzed were iron rich, but that indicates heavy operator bias in selecting particles.
3. The author makes no mention of the particle correction routine used to determine the composition of the particles. He further makes no indication of standards collected, or of calibrations run to determine what the relative deviation of a standardless particle quant would be. This is an extremely important point. Jones is reporting "approximate" particle compositions to one decimal place, indicating that his analysis has a deviation of +/- 0.1%. It, of course, would be helpful if Jones were to actually report the actual two standard normal deviation, but I think we've already established that such considerations are for real research papers, not Jones's dreck. Anyway, J.T. Armstrong in Electron Probe Quantitation (pp 296) reported 2 standard deviations for particle analysis using conventional ZAF corrections as +/- 55% relative. In the case of the iron composition given as a caption in Figure 3, it should read Fe = 10.7% +/- 5.9%.
4. The caption under figure 4 states "The Fe-S-Al-O signature is striking, nothing like the signature of structural steel." This is a particularly appalling statement intending to somehow imply that all of the iron rich spherules from his "dust sample" had to be from structural steel or gypsum. Similar to what Dr. Greening has already pointed out, we can't simply assume that the only source of iron in the WTC dust was from steel. Nor can we assume that the temperatures necessary to vaporize the individual constituent elements of those spheres is what caused them to form in the first place. I mentioned rice husk ash in an earlier post which has an abundance of iron rich particles despite rather low burning temperatures. Crazy Chainsaw has also provided information regarding the vaporization of molybdenum at temperatures far below those required to vaporize the pure constituent metal.
5. The caption under figure 5 states "The O/Fe ratio of 1.5 suggests that Fe2O3 is present, iron (III) oxide." Regarding my analysis in point 3, Jones can not state with any certainty that the O/Fe ratio is actually 1.5. Furthermore, Jones seems completely unaware that hydrogen atoms are not fluoresced during XEDS. This means that Jones cannot, with any certainty, determine if the particles are Fe2O3 or Fe(OH)2,3,4 or any variant thereof.
6. On page 4, Jones reports the following, "No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports." This is further evidence that he simply rejects the possibility that fires caused this ash sample. The USGS report's purpose was not to comment on the source of the iron rich spheres. In fact, I can't imagine why any researcher, when presented with a sample of ash from a building fire would think twice about finding iron.
7. On page 4, Jones reports, "A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 Liberty Street shows a “mean of composition” of “Fe spheres” of 5.87% which is very high compared with “Fe spheres” found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% [1]." Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that Jones has decided to compare apples to oranges. He has chosen to compare the composition of ordinary building dust to ash from a building fire. And he thinks it's strange. Lunacy.
8. The next several pages operate on the following argument: Because the temperature required to vaporize a pure metal is really high, these spheres cannot form in normal office fires. Of course, this argument is completely useless unless you compare the results to a similar office fire or across a series of office fires. Jones is expecting the scientific community at large to believe that such elements are not found in office fires because he says so.
9. Finally, the appendix notes where Jones got his samples from. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't understand how any legitimate scientist could possibly believe the validity of Jones's source. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center. Suffice it to say that such forensic handling would certainly not be admissible in any court.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

Some of these are good questions

Of course, the ad hominems are not scientific.

However, I would like to address these when I have time -- BBC interviews all day tomorrow, followed by travel. Look for responses next Monday when I'm back, hopefully.

Also, pls give the URL for the JREF discussion, I may take a look next week...

Here is the link you

Here is the link you requested.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104926

Just finished with BBC, a few answers

1. Si(Li) detector
2. The question leaves out the last part of the very SENTENCE quoted. to generate a straw man. Quote the rest, and then re-phrase the question fairly.
3. We have run a series of measurements on Fe2O3, to determine the accuracy of the EDAX system. +/- 55% is totally exaggerated and incorrect for this system, nor can I see any justification for using 2 standard deviations -- why does the author use 2 sigma instead of one? We have the data, a short paper to follow will provide detailed analysis.
4. What? We did not imply any such thing. (Straw man.)
5. See 3 above. The ratio of 1.5 is a reasonable indicator based on those measurements -- we used the term "suggests".
6. What?
"On page 4, Jones reports the following, "No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports." This is further evidence that he simply rejects the possibility that fires caused this ash sample."
Logic is incomplete, please explain. USGS giving no explanation for these spheres does not mean that I reject the possibility that fires caused this ash sample.
7. This is not apples and oranges or "lunacy" to compare the iron-rich sphere content in WTC dust with that in ordinary dust, or explain why you state this. Ad hominem ("lunacy") and faulty logic unless explained.
More later, sorry time is limited and I have another appointment. You may wish also to query a co-author, as there are EIGHT authors, not just one.

Further replies

8. "The next several pages operate on the following argument: Because the temperature required to vaporize a pure metal is really high, these spheres cannot form in normal office fires. "
Show me where in the paper we say anything about VAPORIZATION of metals to form spheres. It's not there! This guy has not read the paper carefully evidently -- or just likes to invent straw-man arguments.

9. "There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center."

Why does the author say this? Pls explain why you don't think the dust samples are from the WTC. And how about the WTC dust samples discussed by USGS and RJ Lee? Why do these various samples show iron-rich spheres, if there is something wrong with our samples? Why the agreement as to findings in the various samples?

(Pls provide the URL for the JREF discussion, would you?)

That tops it all

"There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center."

Those people are sad. Just plain sad.

Mainstream publications

In May of last year, with much fanfare, Bazant et. al submitted their paper entitled "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It?" to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM). In it, they attempt to propose a mechanism explaining the gravity-driven collapse of the WTC towers. To date, this paper has not been published, nor do I know whether it has even been accepted for publication. There were enough flaws in the paper that I would expect (hope) that it would not pass the review process.

However, I just noted that JEM has just published an article entitled "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen. I will probably put up the $30 to buy the article online. But it seems to me that this journal has at least broached the topic, albeit by publishing a paper defending the official story. Perhaps this may be a venue for submission of this paper, although I must admit, the specific nature of the Jones et. al. paper deviates somewhat from their normal technical scope, i.e., JEM tends to focus the static and dynamic responses of structural elements, so it will likely be rejected as "beyond the scope of this journal" as it now stands. However, if the paper can be restructured in such a way that it challenges the Seffen paper, or at least proposes an alternative hypothesis to the progressive collapse theory, then it may stand a chance of publication in that journal. This may require introducing the thermite/thermate hypothesis as well, which I understand (and can appreciate) why the author's may be hesitant to discuss right now.

In any case, getting a paper published in a mainstream journal is tough. By their very nature, peer-reviewed journals tend to be very conservative, especially in the physics and engineering communities. All the best to you all.

If you have an university in town

you might try their engineering library. At my local university, I was able to able to obtain without charge the JEM article on plane crash physics by Karim and Hoo Fatt.

Good points

Various of the Investigative team are working on responses to these fellows. Thanks for the comment.

Seffen's paper has been online for some time now...

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis

http://winterpatriot.pbwiki.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf

The temperatures required

The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust (table 1) are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings (table 2). The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C). We wish to call attention to this discrepancy: the official view implicating fires as the main cause for the ultimate collapses of the WTC Towers and WTC 7 (FEMA [13], NIST [15] ) is inadequate to explain this temperature gap and is therefore incomplete at best. The formation of numerous metal-rich spherules is also remarkable, for it implies formation of high-temperature droplets of the molten metals, dispersed in the air where they cool to form spherules. As displayed in figures 3 and 4, we observe spherules with high iron and aluminum contents, a chemical signature which is not consistent with formation from melted steel.

The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [15]. Proposed new building codes based on the WTC disaster must address all available evidence for what caused the complete and rapid destruction of these skyscrapers. Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others. Thus, a thorough investigation which considers these data, showing extremely high temperatures and severe fragmentation in the formation of small metal-rich spheres during the WTC Towers destruction, is highly motivated. In particular, the repeatedly-delayed report on the destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 [21] should address these striking facts. http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

Great work.

And nice collaboration too!
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Thanks Professor

I just read your rebuttal to the points I posted. I will relay them to the JREF kids if it hasn't been so already. Thanks again for the clarification.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

URL for JREF discussion

Dr. Jones the link to the URL discussion is: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3401421&posted=1#post3401421

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

Comments from JREF

I think the following comments, posted at JREF are very valid.

Dr, Jones, if you could comment on them, that would be great.

Quoted from JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104926&page=11)

"...... Jones’ new paper makes essentially only two points/observations:

(i) The jet fuel and subsequent office fires in the WTC would have generated temperatures that were generally below say 1100 deg C.

(ii) The presence of spherical iron-rich METALLIC spheres in the size range 50 microns to 1.5 mm in the WTC dust shows that the dust contains particles that were formed at temperatures close to the melting point of iron or 1500 deg C, which is well ABOVE any temperature found in fires from the combustion of jet fuel or materials such as paper, wood, textiles or plastics.

If we accept the validity of both of these observations, the most logical conclusion, but one Jones is apparently loathe to make, is that the iron-rich particles were NOT produced in the WTC fires, (because the fires weren’t hot enough!), but were already present in these buildings prior to 9/11. Jones must therefore show that the WTC microspheres were NOT from a long list of possible candidates, (e,g. welding fumes, wear particles, etc), that were probably already in the towers pre-9/11 before he starts suggesting any nefarious source(s) of these spheres. (Which I admit he hasn't done in his new paper, but he did do in his Boston presentation).

This means Jones must provide QUANTITATIVE DATA on the % of microspheres in his samples as well as the total iron. Without this information we really don't have much to talk about on Jones' latest missive."

Thanks.

Comments from JREF

Dr. Jones, could you comment on the following from JREF. I think it raises some important issues.

"Jones’ new paper makes essentially only two points/observations:

(i) The jet fuel and subsequent office fires in the WTC would have generated temperatures that were generally below say 1100 deg C.

(ii) The presence of spherical iron-rich METALLIC spheres in the size range 50 microns to 1.5 mm in the WTC dust shows that the dust contains particles that were formed at temperatures close to the melting point of iron or 1500 deg C, which is well ABOVE any temperature found in fires from the combustion of jet fuel or materials such as paper, wood, textiles or plastics.

If we accept the validity of both of these observations, the most logical conclusion, but one Jones is apparently loathe to make, is that the iron-rich particles were NOT produced in the WTC fires, (because the fires weren’t hot enough!), but were already present in these buildings prior to 9/11. Jones must therefore show that the WTC microspheres were NOT from a long list of possible candidates, (e,g. welding fumes, wear particles, etc), that were probably already in the towers pre-9/11 before he starts suggesting any nefarious source(s) of these spheres. (Which I admit he hasn't done in his new paper, but he did do in his Boston presentation).

This means Jones must provide QUANTITATIVE DATA on the % of microspheres in his samples as well as the total iron. Without this information we really don't have much to talk about on Jones' latest missive."

Any comments would be great. Thanks.

One counter comment

"If we accept the validity of both of these observations, the most logical conclusion, but one Jones is apparently loathe to make, is that the iron-rich particles were NOT produced in the WTC fires, (because the fires weren’t hot enough!), but were already present in these buildings prior to 9/11."

They must then level this criticism not only at Dr Jones ( AND at the other authors of this paper too!) but also at the authors of the RJ Lee report, which contains the following:

“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…” “In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust…” “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust…”

Still more

The RJ Lee report also notes

“extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].”

It further states that

metals were vaporized at the WTC during the WTC Event and either deposited on WTC Dust or deposited directly onto surfaces in the Building [1].”

[...] The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool."

yes, but

The Lee sample was collected well after cleanup operations occurred (something Jones doesn't include in the paper). I think spring/summer of 2001. this might account for the high iron content in that report.

The boiling point is necessary to vaporize lead?

> to vaporize lead (1,740 °C)

Sorry for a too late comment.
I'm not familiar with this field and I suppose it would little affect the discussion of the paper, but is the boiling point (1740 °C) necessary for lead to vaporize, or as cited from the RJ Lee report, to volatilize, oxidize, and condense on the surface of the mineral wool? I understand not only lead but (most) materials (eg. water) vaporize at temeratures well below their boiling points, but I'm not sure the vapor pressure close to or above 1 atm is necessary for lead to oxidize and condense on the surface of something.
As for the vesicular aluminosilicate particle, the boiling is indicated by its vesicular or "Swiss cheese" appearance.

Question about % weight of Fe ms

Hi Dr. Jones.

First, thanks for all your and others work in unraveling the obfuscation surrounding the forensic science in all this.

Second, the 5.87% Fe ms that RJ Lee Group reported on, is that % by weight (my understanding) or is it "particle counting" from looking at the EM micrographs?

The "particle counting" contention is held by some debunkers and it seems to imply a misreading of the RJ Lee report. The report says that their metal wipes analysis was done in accordance with NIOSH 7300 standards.

NIOSH 7300 outlines a process called "Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma" and "Atomic Emission Spectroscopy". However, the table in the RJ Lee report that cites the 5.87% Fe microspheres does not directly reference NIOSH 7300. It references "Statistical P-values for the comparison of TP-01 dust and dust in Background Buildings."

Any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Jay Howard