Support 911Blogger


Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses

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

Dear [Interested Scientist],

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

Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

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

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

The presence of reduced iron (less oxygen than needed for even FeO) in these spheres (see our Figures 20 and 21) implies that a transfer of oxygen has taken place, from iron oxide to aluminum. High temperatures are also needed for the formation of iron-rich spheres (spheres formed from liquid due to surface tension), further indicating a highly exothermic thermitic reaction.

When Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19.   This is one of the many tests he did to check things.

Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material.

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

Later, we mixed up some ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide powders thus making a type of nano-thermite (but with no organic matrix). This was run in the DSC at BYU in an inert atmosphere up to 700C – and it did not ignite! We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.

You say that the exothermic peaks we observed in the DSC (our Figure 19) could be due to burning of epoxy paint. Not according to our experiments -- that is, when Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peaks in Fig 19.   Igniting paint in the same DSC is one of many tests performed to double-check our experiments, and I urge you to do similar tests.

Please keep these facts in mind as you undertake DSC studies – which I welcome! Yes, I was surprised that James Millette did not even perform DSC studies.

Another key observation that we made:

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

If you compare frames c) aluminum and e) silicon in Fig. 15, you will see regions where the aluminum is clearly separated from the silicon. This argues against the red material being kaolinite as you and Millette suggest.

We performed experiments soaking epoxy paint chips in MEK as well. As we reported in our paper, the red material swells but remains hard under forceps after soaking for many hours.  OTOH, the epoxy paint became very flimsy after soaking in the MEK for a similar length of time.  This is yet another test which distinguishes the red/gray chips from paint!

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

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

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

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

We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.

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

Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones

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

x

Good timing. Thank you for this response.
I hope you don't mind but I copied it over to a jref thread that has been liberally slandering your work.

I don't mind.

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

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

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

I'm a researcher, not a debater, but I will stand up for the truth and just wish I had more time.
Thanks again.
Steve

Neils Harrit recommended

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also appreciate....

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

Very well said, Jon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Steven Jones

jref thread

Hi remo,

Could you post the URL for the jref thread?

Thanks!

URL

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&page=26

Prof Jones. Most welcome and most timely. I do not have the expertise to follow the elemental Al eight-ball but certainly wish to help facilitate its sinking. You give 'em hell. these are gauntlets. Plenty of ad hominem over there, but then, this is war, and It is beyond measure important that the science be responded to by the science.
In the words of John Kennedy Jnr. Time is the enemy of truth. We may not have the luxury of it.

This requested to be posted here from jref in response to your letter [it appears both subscribers are banned from each others site? why is that.]

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

Dear Prof. Jones,

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

In this thread, you will find my inquiry about your status and Darat's reply:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=243618
I quote fully:

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

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

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

The thread remo mentioned is found here (this link goes directly to the currently last page):
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&page=26

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

Oystein, JREF forum member."

He sais 'kind' and 'kindly' once too often. Given the names I have been called there, all of us., this caveat isn't worth any more than Sunders axial expansion THEORY itself.
We are talking about the single greatest atrocity and cover-up of our generation, so I expect everything.

All the best. x ro

Agreement reached on a collaboration to study WTC dust

in well-equipped laboratories. The "interested scientist" in the above blog and I will collaborate on further studies, particularly of the red/gray chips, and we have agreed on doing XRD (X-ray diffraction) and DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimeter) studies in particular. It appears that at least two other scientists will be involved.

I'm excited about this! as I am about on-going alternative-energy studies. Looks like I will be pursuing both lines of research for the near future.

I will write up a more formal blog to announce this collaboration soon.

Remo -- I would rather do experiments such as this, and get solid empirical answers, rather than engaging in "endless" debates at Jref or truthaction.

Absolutely

wild.

Dr. Jones

Dr. Jones,

I'm wondering if you could at least take a look at the URL remo has provided (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&page=26) and give a response here about some of the arguments they are presenting. I'm not asking you to spend all day on this. I'm sure it can be a real time sucker and you are a busy man. They have accused you of lying about a few things and some of them should be fairly easy to clear up.

The jref crowd likes to tout a respectful attitude and comments from all sides, but they are pretty spiteful and are also calling remo names, like Dr. Jones' lapdog. No respect for a person who is not afraid to question a government who has already been caught lying about so many important things.

Hat's off to remo for at least attempting to have a discussion with them. As he said, 9/11 is the most important cover-up of our generation.

Thanks!

Nah.

They haven't earned anyone's time or consideration. If they want to "debunk" stuff, they can do real science like grown-ups do. Let them huff and puff. No one cares.

Thats ok.

'Attempt' is the operative word. and as discussion it sure won't light any fires. Tho, as lap-dog, I'll know who's head to piss on when it does. Very unhealthy environment, and nothing in this miasma is easily cleared up. Thats the game. illusioNIST ratbags everywhere . no talk of FREE FALL, I know that. No interest in NIST report anomalies either, nor the excess energy needed to pulverize and fragment so much material so quickly. No interest in molten/evaporated/vaporized steel. No,. behind the emperor's cloak of skepticism, Pinocchio Sunders 'fire induced sequential building collapse due to normal office furnishings fires' agnotology still satisfies the failed imaginations.
I sure hope none of them are allowed to drive cars.
To the elemental 8-ball discussion, The graphs all remind me of wall street 911 insider trading spikes anyway, so, difficult to argue elemental chemistry when you aren't one. And to say what benefit Prof Jones would gather by going word for word in the pit ? very moot at this stage. They are greedy for blood. Professors Jones and Harrit's. So I'd say Collaborative laboratory testing going forward with results in the literature for peer review probably more effective than having balls mauled in jref land..

Millette vs. Harrit et al

I've been studying the Millette vs. Harrit/Jones red/gray chips controversy over the last five months or so, and have just finished writing up my conclusions. Jim Millette and the "debunkers" have won one small battle, but they have lost the war.

The measured characteristics of the upgraded SFRM in WTC1 prove that the accelerants were embedded in the SFRM that was fitted to WTC1 floors 94 to 98 from 1996 to 1998. The upgraded SFRM on floors 94 to 98 - the very floors that "Atta" "coincidentally" crashed into - had a high density compared to upgraded SFRM on other floors, and these floors were right in the middle of a contiguous set of upgraded floors. And "Atta" banked his plane at around 25 degrees so that the damage zone spanned five floors.

Deloitte & Touche announced in June 1993 that they would not be returning to the WTC after being badly disrupted by the February bombing, leaving the Port Authority with "about seven and a half floors of prime space in Tower One". The SFRM upgrades were carried out on vacant floors, and the perps needed to target five contiguous floors, given that this is how many floors they needed to remove to induce Euler buckling in core columns from a loss of bracing. Thus, the perps knew which floors to target as soon as the decision was announced to upgrade vacated floors.

(As for WTC2 and 7, they obviously used different techniques, for example, that would risk an orange-yellow melt being seen falling from the windows in the minutes prior to collapse, or a low frequency boom audible three seconds prior to collapse.)

When the mill scale layer (mostly magnetite) on the outer layer of the steel is subjected to excessive heating (as would be expected during office fires when accelerants within the SFRM have ignited), it cracks and spalls away from the steel substrate with the primer paint film still attached, due to differential thermal expansion between steel and mill scale. Although the "debunkers" were right about the red/gray chips being primer paint on oxidized steel, they will never account for the elemental aluminum and the iron spheres. Elemental aluminum powder, at least some of it nano-sized, obviously formed part of the accelerant that was embedded in the upgraded SFRM. The fact that it ignited at no more than 700 C in DSC tests rules out the possibility that the Al came from the plane or from normal building materials.

My prime suspects for the oxidizer are KClO4 and NH4ClO4. An Al/potassium perchlorate mix has an energy density of 9.577 kJ/g, 140% higher than classic thermite's 3.985 kJ/g. But Fe2O3 could have been included as a catalyst. And I suspect that a plastic such as low density polyethylene was used to provide most of the heating, with the Al/oxidizer playing the role of igniting the plastic, analogous to the jet fuel igniting the office combustibles..

In the DSC tests, elemental Al from the accelerant in the adjacent SFRM, on the outer surface of the red layer, could have reacted with Fe2O3 in the paint pigment to form the iron spheres. This elemental Al was also seen in the Harrit MEK soak chip.

On the few occasions that debunkers have managed to get something right, we in the truth movement should admit it. After all, they've got almost everything wrong. The red/gray chips proved to be very much of a red herring, since they are attracted by a magnet, distinctive, and ubiquitous in the dust. It's not quite so easy as finding unreacted accelerants of up to 0.7 mg, but the chips have provided proof of controlled demolitions by way of relatively small traces of accelerant that remained on the chips. Now we should continue to work with the evidence that debunkers cannot deny.

Here's my latest page (it's not for those with the attention span of a goldfish :-)

Millette study fails to refute crucial findings by Harrit et al

Further comments and questions for JREFer's

So Zica, I did spend some time going through Jref comments; some are scientific and apropos and worth reading. Unfortunately there is a lot of ad hominem trash as well. (Remo, I assume you are assuming to IRON "balls".)

The geologist PhD that I am now collaborating with wrote to me:
"Our lab is prepared to identify any mineral by XRD, and we often run patterns of kaolinite and aluminum metal."

So I look forward to working with him on resolving these important issues. That is the way science proceeds generally -- experiments and publication (as we did), followed by discussion (in this case, lots of discussion was generated), then follow-up experiments to resolve issues raised. One really cannot expect ALL the information to come out in a single first paper. And I'm open-minded about what we will find in follow-up experiments -- as I wrote to my new collaborator -- we must resolve to publish our findings, whatever these turn out to be.
In particular, it is unfortunate that we did not CLEAN the chip that was soaked in MEK, so as to obtain clear and unambiguous detail BEFORE the MEK run, regarding its elemental content. This is one of my regrets in the first paper.

I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.

To the fellows at Jref, I wish to emphasize a few questions:

1. Why do iron-rich spheres appear in the residue of the red/gray chips following ignition in the DSC, which also provides a sharply-peaked heat trace? Do these results not imply SOME type of highly exothermic reaction, beyond that which can be reached by burning paint in air? That is -- where do the iron-rich spheres ( in the ignition residue) come from?

2. Our Figures 31,32 in the Active Thermitic Materials paper show multiple layers, and Fig. 33 shows the composition of the "light gray" layer. We published these results, and any future study of the WTC dust should also look for these multiple-layered red-gray chips. I intend to explore the dust once again for such multi-layered chips with the new (and skeptical) collaborating scientist.
Now my question to the Jref fellows: It is difficult to see how a "paint" applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust and published -- have you attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.

For further discussion on this point, see:
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-07-06/us-patent-5505799-looks-manual-911-explosive and my comments therein.

Now the guys at truthaction...

are not-so-scientific in their responses, I find. A while back, someone there posted "F**K SCIENCE!" and that seems to be a prevailing attitude there, unfortunately.

They have devoted a thread to me, how nice: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51484&highlight=&sid=c6170b002eb92835c27d85ca62e4114a#51484

Most of it so far seems to be personalized attacks on me and Kevin Ryan, and on what I call Tesla-Moray-Davey energy in recognition of the earlier discoverers.

Truthmover writes: "First off, I think it's a joke that Jones can promote over-unity fantasy as science and then stand on the mantle of logic and look down at others." And, ""over-unity" perpetual motion bollox. That's lies." "

Snowcrash writes: "The first thing I would ask of prof. Jones is to release the HRTEM and FTIR results, which I asked for months ago after the Millette report, and way before that."

The TEM and FTIR results are not mine to present publicly -- I have urged the respective scientists to publish their data.

Snowcrash continues: " I would also like to ask how prof. Jones' joule thief overunity device is coming along. Why hasn't prof. Jones published about this revolutionary device for a long while now? Where is the revolutionary breakthrough, upending physics as we know it? We all know the answer."

But do you know the correct answer? I think not, because I'm staring at the energy data (not just from joule-thief-based designs) and it is profound, contrary to your childish and non-scientific jibes.

But there has been opposition from the beginning; google "Tesla energy JP Morgan", for example. But you don't believe in opposition from such banksters and international corporationalists, do you? if not, you have some major surprises ahead of you IMO.

Tesla is credited with saying to JP Morgan, "“Power will belong to everyone, like the air we breathe”. That is why this energy is sometimes called "free energy" -- but not because it is extracted from nothingness -- nothing could be further from the truth. JP Morgan saw a loss of profits and cut off all funding to Nikola Tesla, and asked his big-business cronies to NOT support Tesla either. We must exercise some caution in releasing data, we have learned. Tesla did not want his invention to get into the hands of war-mongers.

I have never called it a "perpetual motion device"; Tesla reportedly despised that term. There is another source of energy, that evidently you are not aware of....
Edit: I include in the list of non-conventional energy sources of interest the LENR and electroweak interactions, as I have for years now.

I need to get back to research now.

Thank you!

Thank you, Dr. Jones, for taking the time to look at the conversation and respond. I didn't want you to get bogged down in what I have always seen as spiteful conversation at jref, but I thought it was good for you to add some comments here, regarding that particular conversation.

It's unfortunate that the attitude of righteousness and junior high antics is a priority at jref. I am not a scientist, but I would love to read a good discussion, without the vitriol. I think challenges can bring confidence to an argument, if it is correct. But, in their case, confidence goes looking for challengers and only results in arguments. Or something like that.

I look forward to hearing more about your work.

fun with science

yes :) indeedy Professor Jones, iron balls with sulfur inside. although some molybdenum balls also.
how ever did normal office furnishings get that hot?

But. Seriously, Zica..all... http://www.takeourworldback.com/millettepaintchips.htm as linked by Poseiden.......

root canal

I started reading that, but then went to the root of that site and got turned off. sorry poseidon but I'm not ready for your timeline with its apologies for the gas chambers and it ends up causinv a lack of trust for anything you say. It's not you, it's me.

Web of lies

"Gas chambers"? Which gas chambers would those be? The delousing chambers with very high cyanide levels in the walls, that were used to save human lives? The morgues claimed as "homicidal gas chambers" with trace cyanide levels 1,000 times lower than the delousing chambers? The "gas chamber" that was an air raid shelter and reconstructed as a "gas chamber" after the war?

You gotta love how the Hoaxers attempted to 'explain' the 1,000-fold difference in cyanide levels. Some of them claimed it was because killing lice is very hard, but killing humans is very easy and required only a minimal quantity of cyanide. Okay, so in this scenario, the German nation is fighting for survival on all fronts in a world war, and dedicates resources to obtaining a lot of Zyklon B. And they use 99.9% of their Zyklon B to save their prisoners' lives, and 0.1% of it for killing them! Hoaxers knew that few would buy into this BS; it's even worse than cocaine-snorting, womanizing, gambling, whisky-swilling, pork chop-loving, video gaming "devout Muslims" who hate Western freedoms, or a high-rise where the steel can be simultaneously cool enough to retain its strength whilst hot enough to produce enough thermal expansion to bring the building down. So they had Markiewicz et al at the Krakow Institute conduct their 'study' using a fraudulent methodology that could only show unstable cyanide salts and not the stable Iron Blue. They got the politically desired results of similar cyanide levels in delousing chambers and morgues ("homicidal gas chambers"), i.e., both trace amounts. Markiewicz's refusal to look for stable cyanide compounds is like NIST's refusal to look for explosives or incendiaries.

Then you have the Hoaxers' Judy Wood act of refusing to do energy calculations on how much coke or wood is needed to cremate a body, refusing to consider how many cremations each muffle can do per day, and refusing to consider how often the firebricks need replacing., etc. Or making wildly unrealistic claims that have no basis in reality but are desperately needed by these politically-motivated Hoaxers to peddle their spiel.

In each case it's those who've been corrupted by power who seek control over the people by scaring them into imagining that the "evil Nazis" or the "evil Muslims" are out to get them, with the rulers presenting themselves as the solution: "You need us to protect you from those awful racists / fanatics / terrorists / haters".

In their web of lies, deceivers will use one hoax to prop up another. Supporters of truth and justice want to see all lies corrected, whereas gatekeepers or people who've been badly brainwashed will employ an argumentum ad numerum to suggest that some particular lie is the truth, and then say that the truth seeker who exposes too many lies cannot be trusted.

speaking for myself

I was speaking for myself, Poseidon. I don't trust what you have said because I see you blaming the Jews for any/all problems. Could be that I am wrong. But that's where I am. I think it's a pretty tough sell to say that the Nazis weren't bad guys.

I do think that Israel is a theocracy and an apartheid state. I think the US is a police state. And I do think radicalized Muslim terrorists exist. I think the US is heavily invested in radicalized muslims for our foreign policy. There are many other types of religious extremists (see the recent garbage by the coptic xtian) as well. Money and fear are also big motivaors.

By far, the majority of terror is by the hand of powerful governments. Not only the USA. But I am an American and I think it is wise to clean my own house first.

We are still paying al qaeda to do dirty work in Syria. I wonder what the JREFers think about that.

on our support of al qaeda in syria

Distrust is warranted

Nazi / Holocaust revisionism can serve only one purpose: To discredit any cause or movement which associates with it. It may be a good time to refamiliarize ourselves with the points discussed here:

http://911blogger.com/node/14466

As noted there: '"Holocaust Revisionism" - I can't think of a better topic to attach to 9/11 Truthers, 9/11 skeptics, 9/11 "curious" people, than promoting the notion that this is a legitimate avenue of research for 9/11 Truthers, that is, if you are attempting to discredit 9/11 Truth by associating the idea of re-examining 9/11 with overtones of racism.'

People sincerely committed to exposing the falsehoods of the 9/11 official story should ask themselves, when they encounter those encouraging such views within the movement--does this really sound like something that will help this effort? The 9/11 OCT sustains policies that oppress people and strengthen corporate-military interests. Can the same be said of the verdict of most of humanity, shared by viewpoints from across the political spectrum, that the regime that ruled in Germany from 1933 to 1945 was f@!*ing evil?

And bear in mind, there are passionate and articulate critics of Zionism and Israel, and advocates for Palestinian rights, who are not in the least bit revisionists where the Nazis or the Holocaust are concerned. Such noxious revisionism is not a prerequisite (thank goodness) for critiquing Zionism and Israeli policy.

Posting for Oystein - Applies to all

(Note: This comment will also be posted at JREF inj the expectation that 911Blogger moderators will censor me again: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&page=27 )

People sincerely committed to exposing the falsehoods of the 9/11 official story should ask themselves, when they encounter those encouraging such views within the movement--does this really sound like something that will help this effort?

Full agreement.

This reasoning applies vis-a-vis every claimant, claim and argument in the movement.

Particularly, people sincerely committed to exposing the falsehoods of the 9/11 official story should ask themselves if the claim by Harrit and Jones that the red-gray chips are "actrive thermitic material" (specifically: elemental Al and iron oxide in nano-sized particles) is true, or if it is false and a liability. They will find it is not true. It is FALSE - yet it is so widely believed by so many - here, at AE911Truth, and on so many boards.

This will come back to haunt you. The sooner you allow a reasoned, scientific debate, ask hard questions of ProfJones and his collaborators and demand truthful answers instead of evasions and new speculations, the better for your movement.

ProfJones, can you acknowledge that the various red-gray chips represent several different materials? You even implied as much in this very post when you speculated that Dr. Millette may have looked at a different material when he analyzed a red-gray chip with TEM.

ProfJones, can you acknowledge that there were at least two, possibly more, different primer paints applied to WTC steel, and that specifically there was the LaClede primer on the floor joists? These probably had a greater painted surface than the Tnemec-primed perimeter columns, and can thus be expected to be more plentiful in the dust.

ProfJones, can you at this time state clearly that your team has NO evidence that the platelets in chips a-d are anything but Kaolin, and that you could't identify elemental Al in them?

ProfJones, can you acknowledge that Dr. Farrer's finding of Strontium and Chromate may corroborate the hypothesis that these chips a-d are in fact LaClede primer on spalled, oxidized steel - a paint formulation whose XEDS spectrum would match those in Fig 7 almost perfectly and which contains traces of Sr-chromate?

ProfJones, can you acknowledge that you are inforned about the observation that the XEDS spectrum of Tnemec paint that you presented in Sydney is remarkably similar to that of the MEK-soaked chip, whle that chip's spectrum is very much different from that of chips a-d?

ProfJones, wouldn't agree that you should suspend any and all judgment on the validity and usefulness of DSC testing until your team figures out how (and why!) the experts at LLNL did it, and refrain from making any recommendations to other scientists?

In short, ProfJones, can you admit that your conclusions in the 2009 paper are facing serious challenges of fact and logic in 2012?

ProfJones, I think you should refrain from confusing the debate by dragging in red herrings and speculation like the multilayered chip (which is so obviously different from all the others) or an obscure patent for a material that has nothing in common with any of the chips. You should stop appealing to imagination, and instead acknowledge and apply facts and scientific reasoning.

AE911Truth has written in a newsletter to all their fans that "Millette comcluded the chips aren't paint". This was WRONG - Millette concluded the opposite: That every characteristic of the chips is consistent with paint; he merely has not YET identified the paint brand, and said that SOME chips aren't Tnemec.
AE911Truth should thus be URGED to retract this FALSE claim they made earlier and include a correction in their nexr newsletter.

And every reader of 911Blogger should be genuinly sceptic and critical! Do not assume that a person is wrong because he is actiive at JREF, or that another person is right because he has a PhD and believes what you believe!

This is the time now to see if 911Blogger is committed to open discourse and actual truth.

Request for Oystein

Hi Oystein,

I have posted the above comment here for you, as the moderators have not yet responded about why they are blocking your comments.

Now I have a request for you:

Please be proactive and provide an example of raising the level of discourse at JREF. Specifically, I would recommend trying to change the culture of condescension in the 9/11 related threads. An example would be to stop using the word "twoofer".

I think you might have more serious attempts at discussion by the purveyors of CD explanations for the WTC. Some might feel more welcome if every mistake, misstep, or instance of disagreement wasn't jumped upon in a righteousness orgasm. You might find more challenging discussion partners and more satisfaction over there as well.

Thanks in advance.

You can call me

You can call me a Boiling Frog.

4. Personally, I never need use the word "truther". And I don't need another convenient name for people believing in alternative theories for 9/11. Actually, I don't know what people believe. I don't even use the word "believe", if you can think about that ;)

Have you noticed that the USA has slowly become a police state? It wasn't wireless wiretapping overnight. It took Obama a whole few months to go from wanting to prosecute illegal wiretapping to voting for telecomm immunity (after he secured the D nomination).

It might not matter to many people what kind of truth comes out about 9/11. What kind of lies and cover-ups are exposed. What ongoing relationships with and support of terrorists are realized. The heat is continually turned up, slowly but surely, and there is definitely no option for escape from the pot at the polls.

If there is to be a two-way discussion, Oystein needs to address

the questions I posed a few days ago, and I think he should do this before I answer his questions which Zica posted.

Not that it would be difficult to answer his questions, but I sense that he is basically ignoring my questions (previously posed) while asking me to respond to his -- not acceptable. If responses to my numbered questions were posted SOMEWHERE -- then please post them here.

So here again are my questions to the Jref guys (specifically now to Oystein), and I await your answers Oystein:
________
To the fellows at Jref, I wish to emphasize a few questions:

1. Why do iron-rich spheres appear in the residue of the red/gray chips following ignition in the DSC, which also provides a sharply-peaked heat trace? Do these results not imply SOME type of highly exothermic reaction, beyond that which can be reached by burning paint in air? That is -- where do the iron-rich spheres ( in the ignition residue) come from?

2. Our Figures 31,32 in the Active Thermitic Materials paper show multiple layers, and Fig. 33 shows the composition of the "light gray" layer. We published these results, and any future study of the WTC dust should also look for these multiple-layered red-gray chips. I intend to explore the dust once again for such multi-layered chips with the new (and skeptical) collaborating scientist.
Now my question to the Jref fellows: It is difficult to see how a "paint" applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust and published -- have you attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.
_________________

PS -- about the multi-layered chips, we checked and found that the red-layer chemical signature corresponds to that of our Fig 7; and the dark-gray layer signature corresponds to our Fig. 6; thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper.

Oysteins Response to your questions - And another note to MODS!

He posted this comment there Thursday morning at:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8615302&postcount=1055

Here it is without the graphic or formatting. Sorry - please go there to see it in full.

[MODERATORS: It looks like Dr. Jones is willing to have a discussion with Oystein. Will you PLEASE let him post here?!!! WTF? Or please explain why not. THANK YOU! I don't think this back and forth between sites is working very well!!! I'm not going to be the moderators' lapdog anymore.]

""So here is my reply, ProfJones

Originally Posted by ProfJones
So Zica, I did spend some time going through Jref comments; some are scientific and apropos and worth reading.
What good is it to announce you read scientific and worthy arguments, when you totally, absolutely refuse to address or even acknowledge a single one of them? ProfJones, You don't actually expect us to answer your new questions before you haven't addressed ours - or do you?

I'll anyway expand the courtesy and respond to the couple of points you have addressed at us - before repeating some of the issues you have so far failed to address or even acknowledge. I hope you will return the courtesy. Finally, I will address some pf the other issues you talk about in that latest comment of yours, particularly the issue of XRD tests you have already commissioned.

Originally Posted by ProfJones
1. Why do iron-rich spheres appear in the residue of the red/gray chips following ignition in the DSC, ...
We don't know why iron-rich spheres apear in the residue, and you don't know either. The main reason for this is that your team failed to give the readers of your paper any clue which kind, or kinds, of red-gray chips Dr. Farrer wasted in the DSC experiment.
Was it the kind of chips of which chips a-d are (Fig 2-11) an example of - those with kaolin as the Al-bearing pigment, that are an almost picture-perfect match for LaClede Steel primer?
Or was it the kind of chip represented by the MEK-soaked chip (Fig. 12-18) that so very much differes from chips a-d, but whose elemental spectrum is a surprisingly good match for the spectrum of Tnemec primer, as you, ProfJones, have presented a while ago in Sydney?
Or was it perhaps the multilayered kind of red-gray chip shown in Fig 31, that contains significant Pb, a feature entirely absent from the two other kinds of chips I just mentioned?
Or was it perhaps the kind of chips that you suspect Millette was looking at and which, as you imply, can also be found in WTC dust and extracted by a magnet - the kind that contains a few TiO2 pigments (of which your Fig. 25 might show some post-DSC residue of - that residue that Farrer found in the DSC contains the very Titanium signal that you claim was absent from the allegedly "thermitic" chips!)
Or was it chips of any of the various other kinds that may be found, perhaps rich in copper or barium, as your paper suggests on page 28?
You see, ProfJones, without a proper characterization of the materials that Dr. Farrer put in the DSC, it is impossible to interprete the results competently.
Originally Posted by ProfJones
...ignition in the DSC, which also provides a sharply-peaked heat trace?
First of all, ProfJones, I think the first a leading question - you imply that the heat traces are sharply-peaked, I say they are not, or not all of them.

Take a look at all four traces, plus the trace by Tillotson and Gash that you reference:

Tillotson and Gash's curve peaks at ca. 5 Watts/gram. Your specimens from the Intermont and White dust samples both exceed that value of 5 Watts/gram over a range from ca. 380°C to 460°C - at a heating rate of 10°C/min, this means these two chips were smoldering above the peak power of Tillotson's nanothermite for an amazing 8 minutes! Of course, the base of these peaks is even much wider than that. In short: That was a very slow reaction indeed! Tillotson's graph stayed above 2 Watts/gram for a little under 6 minutes, which is what I would consider its "peak" during which the bulk of the thermite reaction happened. Of your 4 samples, only MacKinlay 1 has a narrower peak, the three others peak above 2 Watts/gram much much longer. So I would ask you, ProfJones: Why are the two peaks for the Intermont and the White sample so very wide compared to actual nanothermite?

Originally Posted by ProfJones
Do these results not imply SOME type of highly exothermic reaction, beyond that which can be reached by burning paint in air? That is -- where do the iron-rich spheres ( in the ignition residue) come from?
No - you have it all backwards.

There is nothing unusual about the power, the peak width or the energy release of your four specimen of unknown provenience, considering that they all probably consist mostly (70%-80% by weight, typically) of some unknown organic matrix that burns under air - as your paper freely admits on page 28 of your paper.

Your results, ProfJones, actually "imply SOME type of highly exothermic reaction, beyond that which can be reached by burning thermite".

All the XEDS spectra that you have produced on the red layers (particularly Fig's 7 and 14) suggest strongly that the organic component of the red layer is roughly 65-85% of the mass, with the remaining 15-35% being distributed over inorganic substances that include various metals. Marc Basile has quantified his "lucky chip #13" and found it contains >70% carbon alone - which implies more than 85% by weight of some hydrocarbon. On the other hand, the same chip contains only traces of iron and aluminium, such that even if all the Al were elemental and it was all married with all the Fe2O3, there would be less than 5% thermite in the red layer. Considering that thermite has an energy density of <4 kJ/g, but practically all organic substances have energy densities of >15 kJ/g, it follows directly from Basile's study that >98% of the heat of reaction comes from the organic matrix, not from thermite.

Your MEK-soaked chip, ProfJones, is shown in Fig. 14 to contain more C, more O, more Ca, more Si, more S, more Fe and possibly even more Zn than Al. In fact, I am sure you will find that if you run a quantification routine on that spectrum, you will find that it shows less than 1% by weight Al in that chip's red layer (I ran XEDS simulations and estimate 0.6%). With that little Al, the chip could at most contain 4%, more likely <2.4% (most likely 0%, of course) thermite. At the same time, it seems to be about 40% by weight carbon, which would imply close to 50% organic matrix. Again, the energy content of that very real organic matrix exceeds that of the only hypothetical maximum thermite content by a factor of at least 50!

So if your four specimens in the DSC released 1.5-7.5 kJ/g of energy, rest assured that at most 0.03-0.15 kJ/g of that came from thermite. This is too little to even affect the organic matrix much: Given typical values for the heat capacity and enthalpy of gasification of typical organic polymers such as epoxy, the little thermite in the matrix wouldn't even heat the matrix enough to bring it to the brink of decomposition, let alone turn it to gas.

ProfJones, these are the facts that you must face: Your own data, presented in the Harrit e.al. paper, and corroborated by the work of Marc Basile and Dr. Millette, proves convincingly that none of the red gray chips are thermitic.

I don't know why you found this or that kind of spheres in the residue. What I do know is that you found too little (if any at all) Al before any ignition, no Al-oxide after, but too much heat. It all speaks for organic comustion as the main, if not sole, source of reaction heat. Can you exclude, for example, that the organic material, upon being heated, released CO or H2, which then reduced some of the iron oxide (either within the red layer, or of the gray steel layer of oxidized steel)?

Sorry ProfJones, your team is sitting on the samples, your team refuses to release any to your critics, your team did the experiments, your team did and/or documented the experiments inexpertly. It is not our duty to find the answers to the querstions that your experiments failed to address. It is, however, your duty, ProfJones, to respond to valid criticism of your conclusions. I am waiting.

Originally Posted by ProfJones
2. Our Figures 31,32 in the Active Thermitic Materials paper show multiple layers, and Fig. 33 shows the composition of the "light gray" layer. We published these results, and any future study of the WTC dust should also look for these multiple-layered red-gray chips. I intend to explore the dust once again for such multi-layered chips with the new (and skeptical) collaborating scientist.
Now my question to the Jref fellows: It is difficult to see how a "paint" applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust and published -- have you attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.
I am flabbergasted, ProfJones!

What have these chips shown in Fig. 31-33 to do with the other, different kinds of chips on which you did the bulk of the study? The multilayered chip contains "significant Pb" (page 28) - which none of the other chips do. ProfJones, Wouldn't you agree that this chip must be a different material than any of the chips, or their residues, whose spectra are shown in Fig. 7, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26 - you never show Pb in any of these (just 1% Pb in a paint chip of similar composition as chips a-d, with C, O, Al, Si and Fe, would result in a very clear XEDS peak at 2.35 keV, the M-alpha level of Pb, a peak that would be about as prominent as, or even more prominent than, the L-alpha and K-beta peaks of iron at 0.82 and 7.06 keV, respectively, as simulations tools tell us).

So ProfJones, when you dismiss Millette's TEM data as "a different material" because it contains Ti, why do you not also dismiss that multilayered chip, as it most clearly is a different material?

All the conclusions of the Bentham paper rest in no way at all on that multi-layered chip. Instead, they rest on your test results on chips a-d which are all clearly single-layered, the MEK-soaked chip, which is clearly single-layered, and several unknown, uncharacterized, unidentified chips that Dr. Farrer wasted in the DSC.

To even think that the multi-layered chip might be the same material as any of those that went into your conclusions is naive. To ask us, or scientists determined to replicate your tests to consider it, borders on deceptive.

The same goes for the chip in Fig 33 -it clearly must be considered a different material, as the gray layer has no resemblence with the gray layers of chips a-d, except that it is gray.

ProfJones, asking us such nonsense questions doesn't improve your standing. Please try to focus on those experimental results, and those specimens, and those kinds of chips, that you used to form your conclusions! You see, your conclusions do not follow from your data. Don't try to distract from that uncomfortable situation by running away to the discussion of different materials, on which we can only speculate due to a glaring lack of useful data!

Now, ProfJones, there were a few questions to you implied in the posts here that you say you already read, but you did not address them. Please be so kind and do so now:

The first four questions I ask of you follow from the four points I raised yesterday in my own blog, where I offered a response to your current article at 911Blogger:
Steven Jones and Jeff Farrer confirm four of my claims concerning red-gray chips
Do you acknowledge, ProfJones, that (a) there were more primer paints used on WTC steel than the Tnemec formulation you have been talking about so far, most notably the primer by LaClede Steel Company with which the floor joists were painted, (b) the spectra as well as the appearance of chips a-d are a very good match for the LaClede primer formulation (as well as for the LaClede steel - a low-carbon-manganese alloy), (c) that LaClede primer contains a small amount of Strontium Chromate, (d) that Dr. Farrer's finding of small amounts of both Sr and Cr may corroborate the conclusion that some of the chips, including chips a-d, may be LaClede primer on LaClede steel, (e) it is possible that even more different kinds of primers were used on the twin tower cores (for which no brand or specification is known) and WTC7, and other structures?
Can you please acknowledge that, as per Dr. Farrer's comments from september 9th, you can't exclude the conclusion that the platelets in chips a-d are kaolin after all? They contain either as much Si as, or slightly more than, Al, and also a large amount of O (Fig. 11a; compare the C:O ratio there with that in Fig 7 to detrmine that most of the O in Fig 11a must be associated with Si and Al)? As your XRD and TEM data was inconclusive, you should acknowledge that kaolin is a possibility, and elemental Al unproven!
Since you now don't know any longer, and have good reason to doubt, that Tillotson and Gash did their DSC under air, are you ready to cast doubt on the usefulness of the DSC tests Farrer did for the Harrit e.al. paper, and particularly retract the conclusions drawn from it, until the issue has been cleared up? This in light of the facts I gave you avove: That XEDS data shows that only 2% or less of the energy released in Farrer's tests would come from thermite, but 98-100% from reactions of the dominant material, the organic matrix, under air"
Most importantly, ProfJones, could yoiu please clearly acknowledge that you understand by now that the red-gray chips aren't all the same material, and that thus test results gained from one chip can't be assumed to apply to another chip unless you show first that both have the same composition? Please keep in mind that ir was YOU, ProfJones, who suggested that a red-gray chip may be of a different material, if it contains one element that some other red-gray chip does not! When you answer this, please consider the implication this realization has on the conclusions of the Harrit e.al. paper. In particular: Do you realize that the MEK-soaked chip must be a material different from that of chips a-d, and that thus the finding that the MEK-soaked chip may have contained a trace (clearly <1%) of elemental Al cannot validly applied to either chips a-d, in which all the Al seems to be contained in the kaolin-like, Si-, O- and Al-rich platelets, or the unknown chips that Dr. Farrer wasted in the (probably) incorrectly done DSC test?

As this post is growing very long, I shall leave my questions at that. They address some of the information you provided a few days ago, so I hope you will be happy to reply to them and clarify what you think about the implications!

Now some comments on the remainder of your latest comment:

Originally Posted by ProfJones
The geologist PhD that I am now collaborating with wrote to me:
"Our lab is prepared to identify any mineral by XRD, and we often run patterns of kaolinite and aluminum metal."
This sounds good: It is probably good that a geology PhD will be doing this. Please tell me it's not Dr. Griscom (who holds a PhD in physics, but is a member of the Geological Society of America). Also, I understand that XRD is a competent method (as opposed to the DSC and MEK tests) to characterize a range of materials. For example, Tillotson and Gash used (P)XRD to determine that a reaction product of their nano-thermite composition was Al2O3. If this researcher actually does a DSC test, perhaps you could pass on the suggestion that he does (P)XRD both before and after the DSC test, with a specific view to determining presence of alumina and iron oxide pre- and post-burning?

Originally Posted by ProfJones
That is the way science proceeds generally -- experiments and publication (as we did)
Your team wrote in the 2009 Harrit e.al. paper (oage 26): "The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere." As far as I am aware, ProfJones, the FTIR results have not been published. I urge you and your collaborators to do this noa as soon as possible, ideally before any other team spends money and time on experiments that may turn out to be superfluous if you had already published your results!

Originally Posted by ProfJones
as I wrote to my new collaborator -- we must resolve to publish our findings, whatever these turn out to be.
Full agreement, ProfJones! In particular, it is generally recognized today as the ethical duty of any researcher to publish even negative or inconclusive results, as these can be as valubale as positive ones. So...
Originally Posted by ProfJones
I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.
...I am surprised, and slightly dismayed, that your team has not only withheld the crucial FTIR and TEM data from public scrutiny, but also XRD results! Why, ProfJones?? Why did you publish the results from all the incompetent tests, and none from the competent tests?? You are certainly aware how that must taste to a true sceptic of your science?

ProfJones, it is high time, very high time, and extremely urgent, that you, Dr. Farrer, Niels Harrit and whoever else got to do work on your dust samples, publish ALL your data ASAP! At the very least, I ask you sincerely to call your collaborators and get from them a very clear statement if end when they are going to fully disclose the experimental data already obtained! Perhaps I might suggest that we don't wait till you all get the time to write a clean paper that would be fit for journal publication, and rather just compile the data as is, with a few annotations, perhaps similar to Dr. Millette's preliminary report? Such data "dumps" might well be hosted at the Journal of 9/11 Studies - why not ask its editors, Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan? What do you think, ProfJones?""

Challenge

In response to Oystein at JREF:

No, I don't approve of censorship here at Blogger. I want this conversation to be had. I want the moderators here to let you into 911Blogger. Individual comments which are full of with bullshit sentiments, like "twoofer" (which seems to give many at JREF their jollies), can be moderated.

If there are people willing to sign up here and comment respectfully, I would appreciate it. I am not a scientist, but I still am able to have the completely idiotic thought in my mind that it is possible for the government to lie. For Bldg 7 to have been demolished. I don't know the answers, but I am not afraid of holding more than one thought in my head - even if I don't believe it.

If you are looking for examples of the government lying to us about 9/11, there are plenty. Please read Sibel Edmonds' book, Classified Woman. Please take a listen to her talking about our special relationship with "the terrorists" not ending after the support for the mujaheddin in the 80's. Our building of over 300 mosques and madrassas in the middle east. Our use of terrorists in the Balkans/Central Asia. Here's an interview that you can check out:

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-422-sibel-edmonds/

This woman was validated by the IGO, by Congress. Then everyone was gagged (including Congress) - not to protect national security, but to cover the asses of sick criminals in the gang we call government. It's corrupt, compromised, and needs to be cleaned.

Why is this on topic? Because it's another example of how we have been lied to about 9/11. Another MO to consider when investigating the crime of 9/11. So forgive us non-scientists for being so gullible, when we watch the video of Bldg 7 drop. See that the 9/11 Commission avoided it. And hear about evidence from apparently concerned scientists, architects, and engineers.

Please come and discuss the science here. Make the argument stronger, or make the facts more clear. I, for one, am ready and able to listen.

But the next time I hear "twoofer", I'm going to wish like hell the person who says it was standing in front of me, so I could knock their f***ing head off. Figuratively, of course.

I met Oystein this spring

he is a nice guy, besides he thinks all scepticals on 9/11 are flat wrong. He doesn't know a lot about all the 9/11 topics, only WTC 7, nanothermite or his LaClede primer, and the flight defense are topics he researched quite well, coming to different conclusions. I still want to write a blog entry about our meeting.

I don't understand

why the moderators at 911Blogger won't let him in to speak freely here. Was he banned?

Mod Please

Why aren't Oystein's comments being posted? He submitted another one here today and copied it at jref. I'd rather not have to go over there to read it.

Can the moderators explain why his comments are always put into moderation?

Personally, I'd like to see respectful challenges to the science being presented here.

Please explain. Thank you.

I do not understand it either

why oystein is not allowed to post, I know him as mostly fair arguing debunker, maybe with false motives and conclusions, but no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to post. I like to debate him with arguments, rather than see hist post censored without reason.

In contrast, I do not understand why the post of "poseidon" above, linking to a Holocaust denial root page, was not moderated.
And btw, I do not subscribe to the alleged argument that Laclede is a given.
See ProfJones answers e.g.

Hmm...

Please excuse my ignorance, but I'm very curious about this moderation situation.

Are we mod-less or are the mods speechless. Should we just be more patient?

Why has blogger lost some of its most prolific voices?

What is the priority here? Free debates and discussion? Truth?

The science needs to be challenged in this forum, if it is to be understood and relied upon by those who use this forum to discuss the science. Wouldn't the mods agree?

Agreement?

Would Professor Jones agree?

sorry

duplicate

Steve, good points.

The Millette “progress report” was completed seven months ago but yet still no peer-reviewed publication. As you stated, a replication was not attempted and therefore the premise of any resulting paper would not be supported.

What I’ve noticed is that Millette’s approach looks much like that of NIST over the years – a fishing expedition. That is, NIST spent many years putting out hypotheses in a way that asked the public: “will you buy this?” NIST then abandoned most of those hyptheses (e.g. core column shortening, diesel fuel fires) after collecting the public responses.

The comparison between Millette and NIST is reasonable in that, for many years, Millette worked for the Bush DOJ and then for NIST as a contractor. This progress report came out after Millette had done nine years of contracting for NIST. These are not ad hominem statements, but simply statements of fact regarding the source.

Our “Active Thermitic” paper was, like the other supporting peer-reviewed papers before it, a response to Millette, not the other way around. That’s because it was Millette’s lab that produced the official reports on the WTC dust (which Thomas Kean wrote that he was proud of) that never made any mention of iron spheres. Chris Mohr, who did not appropriately compensate Millette or provide him any samples, just told us that he had contacted dozens of independent labs and pretended to not know who Millette was.

Apart from questions about the source, you have re-emphasized that many scientific analyses (e.g. DSC test, Resistivity test, visual comparisons, and MEK test) provide evidence that the red/gray chips are not paint. Unfortunately, it looks like all we will get in response is more chat room nonsense and fishing expeditions.

Steel primer paints must be resistant to fire and withstand temperatures well over 700 C, so we know that the diversionary claims about primer paint are not true. NIST made this clear using the primer paints from the WTC, and gave us nice pictures from after the tests to make it easy to see.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101042

Millettte’s samples “ashed” at or below 400 C and therefore are not only not red/gray chips (which ignite at 430 C and form spheres identical to those from thermitic reactions) but are also not primer paint from the WTC. But he pretty much admits that.

Now, back to work.

and not only that,

the existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres in the DSC, largely iron. What else can start to rip the oxygen out of iron oxide at below 400 deg C, then have a runaway temperature increase at least to the melting point of iron?

Those who dispute this on the grounds that oxygen was present, and that the energy came from the combustion of organic material, must provide an explanation for why such special conditions are required in a blast furnace to produce iron. The idea that you could heat a little kaolin and coke and iron oxide to a mere 400 deg C and see it suddenly run away and produce molten iron is clearly a fantasy.
http://www.thepotteries.org/shelton/blast_furnace.htm

Final response probably; until new XRD and DSC experiments

are completed by myself and colleagues.

In researching this anonymous Oystein fellow I find that he has an extension web-site devoted to defending the “official story” (as he calls it) of 9/11. But - why does he hide behind anonymity?

He writes that his website is for:
“Debates between me and anybody who doubts the common narrative of the events of 9/11. If you think the "official story" is wrong, and you can prove it, do it! What is your one (1) single most convincing argument? Your strongest evidence? Your most damning fact?” - http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html

First, Does payment motivate your efforts to defend the “official story” of 9/11? Note: I receive zero payments for my research on 9/11, and lost my university position seeking the truth about 9/11.

Second, will you identify yourself in the interest of transparency and truth? I am identified at my web-page, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ , and note while you're there that alternative energy research continues as a prime focus for my research efforts.

Third – my “strongest evidence” challenging the “official story” relates to the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 for over 100 feet, admitted to finally by NIST with a graph of actual data finally provided by them. These data along with NIST's refusal to release the computer model for the fall WTC7, and admissions of assumptions they used in their simulation.. I would like to see your explanation, how you defend the official story in the case of WTC7!

I will respond first to some misconceptions (to put it mildly) in Oystein's web-site, and in his post quoted by Zica.
Oystein: “Claims that Niels Harrit proved that some red-gray chips in the WTC dust are not WTC primer are basing this claim on the FALSE assumption that Tnemec was the only primer used. In fact, I will show that the chips that Harrit proved to not be Tnemec look very much like LaClede Standard Primer.”
Wait – “basing this claim on the FALSE assumption that Tnemec was the only primer used.” What nonsense! I never made such an claim. Who made this claim anyway? I'm challenging you to back up your assertion.

Oystein analyzes the LaClede primer and gives constitutes as follows:
“C: 48% by weight
O: 21%
Fe: 11%
H, N: 7% each
Si: 2.5%
Al: 2.4%
Sr: 0.5%
Cr: 0.3%”
Let me start with this question – where is the lead (Pb) in the LaClede primer that I noted that Dr Farrer found in the red material and stated this clearly in my blog above: ““very small (nanometer-scale) Pb particles in the TEM samples”. So where is the lead? Also, why is it that Millette does not find Pb or Sr in his TEM samples, if he is looking at the same material that we are looking at? Huh?

Oystein makes a big deal of the alleged similarity between the XEDS for Tnemec primer paint which I presented in Australia and the the XEDS from our Fig 14, for the red-gray chip soaked in MEK. As explained in the paper, Fig 14 was taken before the chip was cleaned and thus had WTC dust on the surface, unlike the data taken in Figures 6 and 7. I have discussed this before. Now the solvent DID clean the surface, and we find NO zinc or calcium or sulfur in the Figures 16 through 18. If this is Tnemec primer as Oystein suggests, then what happened to the Zn, Ca and S after soaking/cleaning?

Furthermore, when I compare the Tnemec primer data (which we obtained from doing actual SEM-XEDS experiments at BYU) with the XEDS data from Fig 14, I see distinct differences – for example, the sulfur peak is small in the primer paint but very large in Fig. 14. This is expected for sulfur from CaSO4 – the wallboard used in the WTC which is high in sulfate, and which is a prevalent component in the WTC dust.

Look, Oystein, why don't you put a sample of Tnemec primer in MEK and soak it, and see whether it becomes limp (as I say) or remains very hard under forceps? Do debunkers ever do experiments? I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find! Experiments are much more convincing in science than hand-waving arguments.

I asked, “ Why do iron-rich spheres appear in the residue of the red/gray chips following ignition in the DSC, ...”
To which Oystein replies: “ I don't know why you found this or that kind of spheres in the residue.”

I agree with you – you don't know why there are iron-rich spheres in the residue following ignition. We explain in our paper how these experimental observations provide evidence for the thermite reaction. Thanks for this admission-- and note that the presence of iron-rich spheres in the residue has been verified by Mark Basile in his studies of the red-gray chips. Yes, I am proceeding with follow-up experiments.

We wrote in our published paper:

“In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope, and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20).
“The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above the 700 ̊C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures indicate that a chemical reaction occurred.”

Right - and I am undertaking further EXPERIMENTS using a DSC to study the matter further, to further characterize the reaction(s) that occurred. You asked whether Dr. Griscom is involved; the answer is no, he is not.

_____________
I wrote: “Now my question to the Jref fellows: It is difficult to see how a "paint" applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust and published -- have you attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.”

Oystein replies: “I am flabbergasted, ProfJones! What have these chips shown in Fig. 31-33 to do with the other, different kinds of chips on which you did the bulk of the study? The multilayered chip contains "significant Pb" (page 28) - which none of the other chips do.”

Again, you are just wrong about lead, when you say “none of the other chips” show lead – as I stated clearly in my blog, the TEM data show “very small (nanometer-scale) Pb particles in the TEM samples”. Why do you keep saying there is no lead when there was lead? Now, it is true that the SEM-XEDS did not disclose lead as did the TEM data; this I think is partly because the TEM data were acquired at higher electron-beam energies. The lead (Pb) is there in our samples.

So again, how do you “account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.”

Will you do experiments, Oystein? How about it? It is not trivial to acquire and publish data as we did; where have you published your data – in a peer-reviewed journal? I look forward to obtaining X-ray Diffraction data with my collaborator (and others); he is very experienced with XRD. We should be able then to resolve the issue regarding elemental aluminum once and for all. With these and other tests, I would also like to resolve the question of whether the organic material (in conjunction with embedded compounds) is incendiary. Until those data are obtained, I'm not particularly inclined to participate in further “debates.” I say – let's do experiments! That is the way of science.

Thanks!

Thanks for taking some time for this!

The bridge

You are debating the points in the meantime and thank you for that.
These are important to SEE and READ and are thoroughly appreciated.
I understand this to be a 'review' process. It may not stack in the Literature, but serves a real and immediate purpose here.

Some points I can add

Oystein is not anonymous, at least I met him and know his name. You can see a picture of him and me in my latest blog entry,
discussing the general points of our debate (the scientific to follow).
http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/mein-treffen-mit-oystein-im-april-in-hamburg-teil-1-allgemeines.html

This is much more than most other "debunkers" ever did, arguying anonymously and hidden in the internet, while showing no interest for a real debate or a deeper look into the science or published studies for rebuttal. I tried to understand how and why he is such a opponent and believes what he believes, and by finding that out, I am still thinking he is sincere.
At least he tried to write a scientific study together with Kmimek, I know this because I read a draft version, doing some kind of (poor) peer review by myself (as I am not a scientist but familiar with any aspect of the scientific debate, as blogger and author) giving him hints what he has to work out better, and if this is ever to be published, his full and real name is surely to be known.

He is not a scientist, but has a scientific training from a university. As I remember he works a computer expert.

He did not analyse any given WTC steel primer in a labratory, neither did Ivan Kmimek, they generated the peaks via a computer programm, which models these by entering a chemical formula. So ProfJones is somethat right that experiments are needed, not only words, to falsify his work.

In the houses of shadow everybody lies

.......generated the peaks via computer program!!?!? no laboratory testing.?!? ... WHERE have I heard this b4 !? kmimek too
shadow boxing.

I am conned all over again.

I took a look into the JREF

thread, and had to laugh, oystein explaining HenryCo that he allegedly made handwaving claims, while he himself do the same with his calculations and no real labratory testing...

I'm sure in private conversation, Oystein is a reasonable

fellow. However, in many conversations on the JREF I've seen him back away from common sense logic as well as civil debate. In addition, his constant attacks, not to mention creepy research, into AE911Truth show him for what he is, and also suggests he has enormous amounts of time that he dedicates to this anti-cause. I think any "debate" with him will end up in the garbage heap of "I'm right; you're wrong." He doesn't accept any answer other than his own.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, though.

Sitting-Bull,

I disagree with you. If his name is not publicly disclosed he is anonymous. His reasons seem clear, fair, and prudent. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8623515&postcount=1078 This creates an unlevel playing field to Oystein's advantage. However, Oystein is willing to tell Jones his real name in private which would make this a fair fight.

After a deeper look at the link I posted directly above:

I doubt now whether this could be a fair fight if Jones needs to keep Oystein's identity off the public record in perpetuity. Also, Oystein's second condition doesn't make sense to me at all.

I would not make too much out

of the identity question, I would like so see the "doubt seeding in the details with words" put to rest via experimental testing.

As suggested above by ProfJones.

What do you think is more important?

All these "calculations", all the claims it looks like LaClede with steel rest, by only selecting the MEK soaked one, all the words about different kinds of red flakes, and the personal insult to me, like claiming I am ProfJones private buddy, some kind of a cultus follower, not able to think and research for me own
(as far as I remember I showed "Oystein" and others in "our" thread at german gulli-forum all my research works I had done over the years, to no avail)
shy to make any real experimental reaction tests, any DSC test, all this follows the agenda the JREF's have, oystein included. That's why I think it was so important to meet him and dismantle his agenda setting...

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key."
Carl Sagan

Both sides are working as teams.

Any arguments towards or communications with the other team should be written in the most concise manner possible and posted in a known location. All writings should be copied to one location containing the chronologically accurate back and forth only making a readable book. Oystein's group should elect someone with a known identity to post their team's content. I think approaching it this way will make this a fair, interesting, and productive process.