tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15988484211838294512024-03-22T00:44:39.664+01:00Oystein's 9/11 debatesDebates 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? State it as precisely as you can, and convince me!Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-49456730080852841892013-05-15T09:51:00.002+02:002013-05-15T09:56:15.165+02:00cjnewson's "American Airlines Flight 77 Evidence"<p>Fellow JREF forumite "cjnewson88" has compiled a massive blog post with tons of evidence (photos and videos) documenting the attack on the Pentagon: You will see the plane on video, plane parts inside and outside of the Pentagon, comparison with whole Boeing 757s, damage to the building and surroundings, radar information, aircraft control radio recordings, results from flight data recorder analysis, evidence concerning Hani Hanjour, etc., all in one place, with very little commentary. Please share (careful if you are on mobile or have a low bandwidth: This massive repository will take a little while to load!):</p>
<p><b><a href="http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html">http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html</a></b></p>
<p>Please share! You can post the URL in YouTube comments without trouble if you copy and paste this:</p>
<p><span style="font-family:monospace">therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz</span></p>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-11852965150730189122013-04-08T15:52:00.001+02:002013-04-10T20:21:20.229+02:00All "Truther" Petitions fail miserably<p><i>(Update) Apr 10, 2013: Mark Ouwehand's petition at whitehouse.gov ended today with only 798 signatures of the required 100,000 (0.8%) (/Update)</i></p>
<h1>Abstract</h1>
<p>
Many 9/11 "Truthers" believe in change through popular support of their positions, and they believe they have the numbers on their side. Consequently, 9/11 Truthers have set up numerous petitions to make certain demands and points in connection with the conspiracy theorists' beliefs.
</p><p>
I have monitored eight "9/11 truth" petitions since the summer of 2012. The four most popular of these were started between May 2012 and March 2013. Three of them have a goal or expectation of reaching a "million" signatures, with no time frame, while the fourth is a petition to the White House and is thus expected to reach 100,000 in 30 days.
</p><p>
The purpose of this blog post is to visualize how terribly these "best" petitons have failed relative to their stated goals, and comment on the delusion of "truth" leaders who believe to have much popular support. Their own petitions prove them wrong.
</p>
<h1>Websites facilitating petitions</h1>
<p>
Several websites, such as signon.org <a href="http://www.signon.org/">[1]</a> , petition2congress.com <a href="http://www.petition2congress.com/">[2]</a>, avaaz.org <a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en">[3]</a>, change.org <a href="https://www.change.org/us">[4]</a> and ipetitions.com <a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/">[5]</a> facilitate the setting-up of petitions Those petitions rarely come with a target when they are set up, but sometimes, the "truther" promoting one voices an expectation or hope about the number of signature that petition would eventually reach and surpass. As "truthers" often believe they have "millions" of supporters in the USA and the world, they usually set their hopes at "1 million" or "millions" of signatures, but without announcing a time frame to achieve that goal. To reach 1 million signatures within 1 year, they would need almost 3,000 signatures <i>every day</i> on average.
</p><p>
An exception is the White House's petition site, petitions.whitehouse.gov <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/">[6]</a>, which prescribes the target: A petiton there must reach 100,000 signatures within 30 days to be considered by the Obama administration (until recently, the threshold was 50,000).
</p><p>
It easy for you to verify that on all these sites petitons with success large and small have been generated en masse: While many (probably most) issues are ill promoted, unpopular, or very local in scope and attract only a handful to few hundreds of signatures, there is a good number however that surpass ten thousand, one hundred thousand, and occasionally even a million signatures. I recommend you browse the sites at your leisure. Look for "popular" or "hot" petitions. Some sites offer success stories ("victories"), where petitons not only got a lot of signatures, but their demands were also eventually met (albeit not always <i>because</i> of that particular petition).
</p><p>
With the common "truther" claim that "9/11 truth" is supported by millions, by significant proportions of the population, and with all their busy campaigning on the internet, one might expect that their issues are both well promoted and popular; and 9/11 is a national and global issue that almost everybody on the planet is aware of. As a result, their petitions should rank among the more popular. But: They don't.
</p>
<h1>"Truther" petitions and their goals</h1>
<p>
Of eight "9/11 truth" petitions that I am currently monitoring, four (by Chris Sarns, James Hufferd, an anonymous and RL McGee) have apparently never been much promoted anywhere; they have between 49 (after 32 days) and 226 supporters (after more than a year). I won't bother you with these. Their creators never announced any ambitious goal, as far as I know. The following four have fared relatively better, and at some point "truthers" voiced ambitious expectations:
</p>
<ol>
<li>
Mark Graham: "Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7" at avaaz.org <a href="http://avaaz.org/en/petition/Revise_the_US_government_final_report_on_the_collapse_of_Building_7/">[7]</a>. Posted May 7, 2012. I have blogged about this, and its failure, before <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/06/monitoring-truther-petition-about-wtc7.html">[8]</a>, when I showed that 911Blogger commenter "kawika" had "dreamed" about reaching <b>1 million</b> signatures. The petition was at ca. 1,470 signatures when I last updated late in June. It is now at 1,734.
</li><li>
Richard Gage: "President Obama: 9/11 Families Ask You to Watch <i>9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out</i>" at change.org <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-9-11-families-ask-you-to-watch-9-11-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out-2">[9]</a>. This has sat quite prominently, with a nice logo, on top of the right hand column on the startpage of <a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/en">ae911truth.org</a> (where it is now just one among several less prominent links). More recently, ae911truth sent out an email to all their newsletter recipients (probably a five-figure number) asking all to sign. The petition received most of its now ca. 5,600 signatures following this emailing, which had the subtitle: "<b>Help us reach 1 Million Signatures!</b>" <a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/60-action-alerts/726-sign-the-ae911truth-family-member-petition-help-us-reach-1-million-signatures.html">[10]</a>.
</li><li>
Jon Gold: "Statement For 9/11 Justice" at ipetitions.com <a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/statement-for-911-justice/signatures">[11]</a>. Not strictly a petition, as this "statement" does not advance any demands, Jon still hopes to get a lot of signatures, as he announced at 911Blogger <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-08-09/great-start">[12]</a>: "I am hoping this statement goes viral. <b>I am hoping that millions sign it</b>. Can you imagine how powerful a statement that would be?" (my bolding).
</li><li>
Mark Ouwehand: "REINVESTIGATE THE COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7 ON 9/11. NEVER HAS A STEEL FRAME BUILDING COLLAPSED DUE TO OFFICE FIRES" <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/AbjB">[13]</a>. This comes with an implicit goal of <b>100,000 signatures within 30 days</b>, as that is the threshold set by the Obama administration for such petitions to be considered (even though the administration does sometimes publish an official statement on petitions with fewer signature, at its own discretion). The 30 days end on April 10th - 2 days from today.
</li>
</ol>
<h1>Data</h1>
<p>
The following graphs plot the development of the four petitions above. The three petitions that have been running since last summer and all want to reach 1 million are drawn to the same scale: The diagrams have the same size. The left-hand y-axis goes to the target of 1 million total signatures. The right-hand y-axis goes to the 3,000 that they'd need almost every day to reach 1 million within one year. The x-axis runs from the first day of the month the petition was started to May 1st, 2013.
</p><p>
The red lines shows the total number of signatures. The blue line shows new signatures per day - those are usually averages for 2 or 3 consecutive days, but intervals may vary.
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXhyphenhyphenN3YhwqT_IQPRhrptJggECVKsPms7tl-ins8waY2YcjYiShjBArkckZrD_9_eHn3OpObt4pTmDwbT12bFQIkW6vSUBorx8cV-fVKsrRxwFg0HeIo77zsIPKRIG-5MdTUhlbfN84okeK/s1600/20130407_MGraham_ScaleToMillion.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXhyphenhyphenN3YhwqT_IQPRhrptJggECVKsPms7tl-ins8waY2YcjYiShjBArkckZrD_9_eHn3OpObt4pTmDwbT12bFQIkW6vSUBorx8cV-fVKsrRxwFg0HeIo77zsIPKRIG-5MdTUhlbfN84okeK/s1600/20130407_MGraham_ScaleToMillion.jpg" /></a>
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieo2BQRVafCCK_sFiDRaV7UELKVaH4GcGNG5csOYf2m8F3tzIQE-AxkUYUD8wpUdea2KuM9eSFvCK7_bCvnJrR5SdbOY-jzB4kzmmFoUvXbTZL3Q5jPlf89FhPFpwmJau_6NTQNRh0rpPW/s1600/20130407_RGage_ScaleToMillion.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieo2BQRVafCCK_sFiDRaV7UELKVaH4GcGNG5csOYf2m8F3tzIQE-AxkUYUD8wpUdea2KuM9eSFvCK7_bCvnJrR5SdbOY-jzB4kzmmFoUvXbTZL3Q5jPlf89FhPFpwmJau_6NTQNRh0rpPW/s1600/20130407_RGage_ScaleToMillion.jpg" /></a>
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkqLTB0x_z_H-WoPbPjJoOpsEhHgyHw-AdACL_GclTfvPLgK_T1jd7EJV0dk6wJKCUXCXg0sDlzZrHlZoY2MFp-rj_QHkokXcU6PXyicoshK-tlJh59fDImqYmmWT1mWvkNrJX_YFKacAt/s1600/20130407_JGold_ScaleToMillion.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkqLTB0x_z_H-WoPbPjJoOpsEhHgyHw-AdACL_GclTfvPLgK_T1jd7EJV0dk6wJKCUXCXg0sDlzZrHlZoY2MFp-rj_QHkokXcU6PXyicoshK-tlJh59fDImqYmmWT1mWvkNrJX_YFKacAt/s1600/20130407_JGold_ScaleToMillion.jpg" /></a>
</p><p>
The fourth graph is scaled differently, owing to the lower target and shorter runtime. So the total is scaled to 100,000 total and 3,000 per day (it would actually take an average of 3,334 to reeach the target), the x-axis shows the 30 days available:
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH68p38InJLSiOXHyRersCSPJcZktGNcVEfhDUDxVhVN-dFM1CriTyCfNGLk7wO6thjoAy0usvICsdq_5SsPH9ydKzQYzOSkaFGfizYBE5BG3wkVOX__dCwhrBf2n66GHkQepU5SCP_69o/s1600/20130407_MOuwehand_ScaleTo100000.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH68p38InJLSiOXHyRersCSPJcZktGNcVEfhDUDxVhVN-dFM1CriTyCfNGLk7wO6thjoAy0usvICsdq_5SsPH9ydKzQYzOSkaFGfizYBE5BG3wkVOX__dCwhrBf2n66GHkQepU5SCP_69o/s1600/20130407_MOuwehand_ScaleTo100000.jpg" /></a>
</p>
<h1>Discussion</h1>
<p>
In all four graphs (my originals, anyway; not sure how you download them), the span from 0 to max y-value is 182 pixels. Since none of the four petitions has even reached 1% of its target, the red lines rise no more than 2 pixels above zero. The blue "per day" plots occasionally peak above zero, but only one of the few discernible peaks exceeds 10% of what they need every single day. All four petitions have seen activity at practically 0% of what's required on almost all days.
</p><p>
There are not many possibilities to explain this huge discrepancy between the stated or implied targets of 100,000, "1 million" or even "millions" of signatures and the less than 1% of that actually reached - especially the question "<i>why do truthers voice such an expectation</i>":
</p>
<ul>
<li>They either sincerely believe that 1 million, or 100,000 within 30 days, is a realistic target, or at least one that is not magnitudes away from what is realistic. In that case, they are seriously deluded about the popularity of "9/11 Truth", its reach and the enthusiam of its followers</li>
<li>Or they know perfectly well that 1 million is totally unrealistic, and say such things for propaganda value only</li>
</ul>
<p>
I stated earlier that many online petitions fail to win much support when they are not well promoted, or unpopular, or only interesting to a small group (local issues or special interests). The former two might apply to "9/11 Truth" petitions, so one, or both, of the following must be true:
</p>
<ul>
<li>"Truthers" don't promote their petitions well</li>
<li>"Truthers"' demands and statements are unpopular</li>
</ul>
<p>
At least in the case of Richard Gage and AE911Truth, their petition has been seen by tens of thousands, as Gage has actively mailed to their "member" base, and his website gets a lot of daily traffic (thousands of daily content views). I have no good idea how and where the other petitions have been advertized, but it seems clear that their reach has been quite limited. "9/11 Truth" is mostly known as an internet phenomenon (yeah, citation needed; please comment if you disagree!), so it should be surprising, and I'd find it rather implausible, if none of these petitions haven't been promoted such that many or most "9/11 Truth" believers could have come across them.
</p>
<h1>Conclusions</h1>
<p>
In my opinion, all these petitions document that, today, "9/11 Truth" is a fringe issue that no more than a few thousand individuals worldwide have an actual interest in.
</p><p>
I suspect that the "truth" leaders who set up such petitions are sincere in their belief that they have "millions" on their side, and that they sincerely believe to break into widespread popular support any day now, and that thus their hope to at least approach 1 million of signatures isn't far-fetched.
</p><p>
These "truth" leaders are deluded. They live in a tiny bubble, frequent echo chambers, where the fringe few thousands mutually amplify their delusions.
</p>
<h1>References</h1>
<p>
[1] <a href="http://www.signon.org/">SignOn.org. Democracy in action</a>
</p><p>
[2] <a href="http://www.petition2congress.com/">Petition2Congress. Free petitions that send email to Capitol Hill</a>
</p><p>
[3] <a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en">AVAAZ.org. The world in action</a>
</p><p>
[4] <a href="https://www.change.org/us">change.org. The world's petiton platform</a>
</p><p>
[5] <a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/">ipetitions. Your voice counts</a>
</p><p>
[6] <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/">WE the PEOPLE. Your voice in our government</a>
</p><p>
[7] Mark Graham: <a href="http://avaaz.org/en/petition/Revise_the_US_government_final_report_on_the_collapse_of_Building_7/">Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7</a>. Posted May 07, 2012
</p><p>
[8] Oystein: <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/06/monitoring-truther-petition-about-wtc7.html">Monitoring Truther Petition about WTC7 at Avaaz </a>. Posted June 7, 2012; last updated June 26, 2012
</p><p>
[9] Richard Gage: <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-9-11-families-ask-you-to-watch-9-11-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out-2">President Obama: 9/11 Families Ask You to Watch “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”</a>. Posted June 09, 2012
</p><p>
[10] AE911Truth: <a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/60-action-alerts/726-sign-the-ae911truth-family-member-petition-help-us-reach-1-million-signatures.html">Sign the AE911Truth
FAMILY MEMBER PETITION - Help us reach 1 Million Signatures!</a>. Posted March 07, 2013
</p><p>
[11] Jon Gold: <a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/statement-for-911-justice/signatures">Statement For 9/11 Justice</a>. Posted August 04, 2012
</p><p>
[12] Jon Gold: <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-08-09/great-start">Off To A Great Start</a>. Posted at 911Blogger on August 09, 2012.
</p><p>
[13] Mark Ouwehand: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/AbjB">REINVESTIGATE THE COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7 ON 9/11. NEVER HAS A STEEL FRAME BUILDING COLLAPSED DUE TO OFFICE FIRES.</a> Posted on March 11, 2013
</p>
Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-11279420787470849182013-02-28T14:45:00.002+01:002023-09-03T10:15:55.761+02:007.5 kJ/g disproves thermitic material<h1>Abstract</h1>
<p>
Harrit et al. <a href="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">[1]</a> present 4 red-gray chips that they did a DSC test on. One of the chips was determined to yield a specific energy of 7.5 kJ/g. They believe that some of that energy yield comes from thermite in the red layer.
</p><p>
Assuming that the red layer contains at least as much Si as Al by weight and that Si is fully oxidized as SiO<sub>2</sub>, I have developed a simple spreadsheet to compute the minimum amount of energy that the organic matrix must contribute to raise the composite specific energy of the chip to the empirical value of 7.5 kJ/g. A number of cases is dicussed in which the following paramters are varied:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Specific energy of thermite: Theoretical value of 3.96 kJ/g vs. a more realistic practical value of 3 kJ/g</li>
<li>Mass of the gray layer: None vs. equal mass as red layer (this in effect doubles the effective specific energy of the red layer)</li>
<li>Organic matrix: Values of 42 kJ/g (highest tabulated value of all organic polymers, for PP), 30 kJ/g (upper limit for most polymers), 20.4 kJ/g (epoxy) and 9.5 kJ/g (ideal polymer plus oxidizer composite) are considered.
</ul>
<h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>
According to the data in [1] and Harrit et al.'s interpretation thereof, the red layer of their red-gray chips contains mainly just the elements C, O, Al, Si and Fe, while the gray layer is mainly iron oxide and chemically inert. They conclude that the red layer contains thermite (2 Al + Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>) which reacts in the DSC test, and also an unidentified organic matrix that also reacts and is "itself energetic" (p. 28). Harrit et al. have heated four chips in a DSC up to 700 °C and measured heat flux. The most energetic of these four yielded a specific energy of 7.5 kJ/g (page 19):
</p>
<blockquote>
Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.
</blockquote>
<p>
Later (p. 28) they correctly argue:
</p>
<blockquote>
We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic.
</blockquote>
<p>
When the chip as a whole exhibits 7.5 kJ/g, but it has constituent materials that are inert or have a lower energy density, then there have to be other constituents with an average specific energy that is significantly <i>higher</i> than 7.5 kJ/g. This already rules out conventional monomolecular explosives (Fig. 30 in [1]). So if the energy balance comes from the organic matrix, it has to react with an oxidizing agent: Either ambient oxygen, or, conceivably, some unidentified embedded oxidizer.
</p><p>
With reasonable assumptions to envelop ideal and realistic scenarios, it is possible to compute, dependent on hypothetical thermit contents, the minimum contribution of the organic matrix to the mass and energy yield of such a chip. I propose that, if significantly more of the energy yield comes from organic combustion than from thermite, then the characterization of the chips as "thermitic" as well as the interpretation of the DSC test results vis-a-vis nanothermite from literature are faulty.
</p>
<h2>Assumptions</h2>
<p>
It is known from practically all EDS spectra of red layers or residues that Harrit et al. present that the silicon amount is at least equal to, and often exceeds, the aluminium content. This is easy to verify: In <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig07.jpg">Fig. 7</a>, and <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig11.jpg">Fig. 11</a>, the Al- and Si-peaks are about equal, in Fig. <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig14.jpg">14</a>, <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig16.jpg">16</a>, <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig18.jpg">18</a>, <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig25.jpg">25</a> and <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig26.jpg">26</a>, the Si-peak is significantly higher than the Al-peak. The only exception, <a href="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig17.jpg">Fig 17</a>, is from a small spot location specifically chosen for its high Al-content. That chip however contains less Al overall than Si (Fig. 14). Judging from Fig. 16 I find that Si is accompanied by enough O to form silica.
</p><p>
I will therefore assume that, for all chips tested in the DSC,
</p>
<ul>
<li>Si was present in the red layer in a mass fraction equal to that of Al. </li>
<li>Si is fully oxidized as SiO<sub>2</sub>. Since Si and O appear in silica in a mass fraction of 28:(16+16), this means that for each mass unit of Al, there are 32/28 = 1.14 mass units of O.</li>
</ul>
<p>
<b>These are the only assumptions that are not "thermite friendly", but they follow from the data!</b> I have three more assumptions that remain constant throughout all cases and that are either "thermite friendly" (i.e. deviation from them would render the case for Harrit et al.' "thermite" hypothesis even more unrealistic), or almost neutral:
</p>
<ul>
<li>I assume in all cases cases that all the Al is mixed with iron oxide as stoichiometric thermite: 2 Al + Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> (molar masses 2*26.98 + 159.69) consists of 74.7% iron oxide and 25.3% Al, so for each mass unit of thermite, there are 0.253 mass units of Al and 0.541 mass units of SiO<sub>2</sub> (0.253 + 0.253*32/28). </li>
<li>The balance of the mass of the red layer is assumed to be organic material, with or without embedded oxidizer.</li>
<li>The gray layer is always present and assumed by Harrit et al. to not contribute to the exotherm. I disagree somewhat with this assumption - it is quite possible for hematite to experience exotherm phase changes when heated, but that will pale against redox reactions of fuel, so I ignore that and accept the assumption.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Parameters and cases</h2>
<p>
It is well known that many solid organic compounds, including many that could form such a matrix (epoxy, alkyd, other resins) are highly energetic. Practically all of them release more than the 3.96 kJ/g that thermite does. For non-halogenated polymers (Harrit et al. found no significant signals for halogenes), tabulated values for effective heat of combustion range from 12.0 kJ/ for Polyimide thermoplastic over 20.4 kJ/g for epoxy and around 25.5 kJ/g for Polyamides to 41.9 kJ/g for Polypropylene (<a href="http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf">[2]</a>, Table A-5). The large majority are in a range between 15 and 30 kJ/g. Itherefore propose that the effective specific energy of the unknown organic material <i>cannot</i> exceed 42 kJ/g, and <i>probably does not</i> in fact exceed 30 kJ/g. I will further consider the case that the matrix is epoxy, as Millette found chips with an epoxy matrix.
</p><p>
The previous paragraph considers organic combustion with oxygen from ambient air. Such a process limits the burn rate and would render the red layer material less-than-explosive. I will consider a hypothetical polymer readily mixed with pure oxygen as oxidizer: The highest energy yield is tabulated for Polypropylene (PP), at 42 kJ/g. PP has a sum formula of (C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>6</sub>)<sub>n</sub>. Complete combustion follows the formula: C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>6</sub> + 4.5 O<sub>2</sub> -> 3 CO<sub>2</sub> + 3 H<sub>2</sub>O + heat. This means that a composite of PP and O<sub>2</sub> would have to incorporate 144 (9*16) g of oxygene per 42 grams of PP. The effective specific energy of that composite would consequently drop to 42 kJ/g * 42/(42+144) ~ 9.5 kJ/g. Of course any actual solid oxidizer (such as perchlorates or permagnanates) contains additional mass that would further decreases the effective specific energy. I will use 9.5 kJ/ as an upper limit to envelop any and all (organic polymer + oxidizer) composites.
</p><p>
I will assume in the <i>ideal</i> case that all the Al is present as metal, none is oxidized, and that it reacts perfectly with all the available iron oxide to release the theoretical maximum of 3.96 kJ/g. In a <i>more realistic</i> case, I will assume the same proportions of aluminium and iron oxide, but consider that a sgnificant proportion of nano-Al is passivated, or that it won't react to completion, such that the effective energy yield of the thermite is decreased to 3 kJ/g.
</p><p>
The mass proportions of red:gray layers isn't known and difficult to estimate. However, as the gray layer is mostly iron oxide (>5 kg/L) and the red layer is only partly iron oxide, all other constituents lighter (Al: 2.7 kg/L; silica: 2.65 kg/L; polymers: usually <2 kg/L), it is clear that the gray layer has a significantly higher density. Harrit suggest that both layers are usually of similar thickness. In my <i>unrealistic</i> cases, I will ignore the gray layer, or assume its mass is 0, in the <i>realistic</i> cases I'll assume both layers have the same mass. That effectively doubles the specific energy of the red layer, from 7.5 to 15 kJ/g.
</p>
<h1>Calculations</h1>
<h2>Formulas</h2>
<p>
I created a spreadsheet with five input cells (numbers (1), (2), (6), (7) and (9) below) and with six relevant output cells (numbers (4), (5), (11), (13), (14), (15) and (17) below). The formulas provide a generic description of the spreadsheet formulas, so you can recreate the spreadsheet with any software you prefer:
</p>
<p>
(1) The mass of the red layer is constant: 100%.
<br>
(2) The mass proportion of thermite in the red layer, expressed in %
<br>
(3) The mass proportion of Al in the red layer: =(2)*0.253
<br>
(4) The mass proportion of SiO<sub>2</sub> in the red layer: =(3)*60/28
<br>
(5) The mass proportion of the organix matrix is the balance: =(1)-(2)-(4)
<br>
(6) The specific energy of thermite: In the "ideal" case 3.96 kJ/g, in the "realistic" case 3 kJ/g
<br>
(7) The mass of the gray layer: In the "ideal" case 0, in the "realistic" case 100% (of the red layer)
<br>
(8) Total mass of the Chip: =(1)+(7)
<br>
(9) The measured specific energy of the chip, in kJ/g; constant at 7.5 kJ/g for the purpose of this article
<br>
(10) The specific energy of the red layer alone: =(9)*(8)/(1)
<br>
(11) The contribution of thermite to the specific energy of the red layer in kJ/g: =(6)*(2)
<br>
(12) The contribution of the organic matrix to the specific energy of the red layer in kJ/g: =(9)-(11)
<br>
(13) The specific energy of the organic matrix: =(12)/(5)
<br>
(14) The mass ratio of organics:thermite: =(5)/(2)
<br>
(15) The energy contribution ration of organics:thermite: =(12)/(11)
<br>
(16) The energy contribution of thermite, in % of total energy release: =(11)/(9)
<br>
(17) The energy contribution of organics, in % of total energy release: =(12)/(9)
</p><p>
For each of the three cases, I kept the specific energy of thermite (6) and the mass of the gray layer (7) constant and played with the mass proportion of thermite (2) such that the specific energy yield of the organic matrix (13) reached the target values of 9.5, 20.4, 30 and 42 kJ/g. I then copied the resulting values of interest into the tables.
</p>
<h2>Tabulated results</h2>
<p>
I have modeled three cases - one unrealistic, one half realistic, one realistic. In each case, I have tabulated results for 5 mass proportions of thermite:
</p>
<ol>
<li>Thermite fixed at 12%. This means an <b>Al-content just over 3%</b>. I chose this value, as quantifications of XEDS spectra of red layers suggest there is less than 3% Al in them</li>
<li>Thermite chosen such that the organic matrix computes to the specific energy yield of <b>9.50</b>, which is a theoretical upper limit for organic polymer <b>with embedded stoichiometric oxygen</b></li>
<li>Thermite chosen such that the organic matrix computes to the specific energy yield of <b>epoxy, 20.40</b></li>
<li>Thermite chosen such that the organic matrix computes to the specific energy yield of <b>30 kJ/g</b>, which is a <b>realistic limit</b> defined in my assumptions</li>
<li>Thermite chosen such that the organic matrix computes to the specific energy yield of <b>42 kJ/g</b>, which is the <b>maximum </b>for all organic polymers</li>
</ol>
<h3>Ideal case: Gray layer 0%, Thermite 3.96 kJ/g, chip yields 7.5 kJ/g</h3>
<p>
"Ideal" means "unrealistic" - this case gives <i>absolute theoretical maxima</i> for the contribution of thermite to the measured exotherm. It is however impossible to actually reach these values, as the energy yield of thermite in practice never reaches the theoretical maximum of 3.96 kJ/g, and there was in fact a gray layer that contributed significant mass but no significant energy.
</p>
<table>
<tr style="text-align:center">
<td>Mass of<br>Thermite<br>% of red layer<br>(2)</td>
<td>Mass of<br>SiO2<br>% of red layer<br>(4)</td>
<td>Mass of<br>Organics<br>% of red layer<br>(5)</td>
<td>Contrib.<br>Thermite<br>kJ<br>(11)</td>
<td>Yield of<br>Organics<br>kJ/g<br>(13)</td>
<td>Mass<br>Thmt:Poly<br><br>(14)</td>
<td>Energy<br>Thmt:Poly<br><br>(15)</td>
<td>Contrib.<br>Polymer<br>%<br>(17)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>12.00</td>
<td>5.69</td>
<td>82.31</td>
<td>0.48</td>
<td>8.53</td>
<td>1:6.86</td>
<td>1:14.78</td>
<td>93.66%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>19.90</td>
<td>9.44</td>
<td>70.66</td>
<td>0.79</td>
<td>9.50</td>
<td>1:3.55</td>
<td>1:8.52</td>
<td>89.49%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>49.39</td>
<td>23.43</td>
<td>27.18</td>
<td>1.96</td>
<td>20.40</td>
<td>1:0.55</td>
<td>1:2.83</td>
<td>73.92%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>55.87</td>
<td>26.50</td>
<td>17.63</td>
<td>2.21</td>
<td>30.00</td>
<td>1:0.32</td>
<td>1:2.39</td>
<td>70.50%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>59.52</td>
<td>28.23</td>
<td>12.25</td>
<td>2.36</td>
<td>42.00</td>
<td>1:0.21</td>
<td>1:2.18</td>
<td>68.57%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h3>More realistic case: Gray layer 0%, Thermite 3.00 kJ/g, chip yields 7.5 kJ/g</h3>
<p>
"<i>More realistic</i>" means "<i>still unrealistic</i>" - The thermite yield is now reasonable, but I still ignore the very real mass of the gray layer.
</p>
<table>
<tr style="text-align:center">
<td>Mass of<br>Thermite<br>% of red layer<br>(2)</td>
<td>Mass of<br>SiO2<br>% of red layer<br>(4)</td>
<td>Mass of<br>Organics<br>% of red layer<br>(5)</td>
<td>Contrib.<br>Thermite<br>kJ<br>(11)</td>
<td>Yield of<br>Organics<br>kJ/g<br>(13)</td>
<td>Mass<br>Thmt:Poly<br><br>(14)</td>
<td>Energy<br>Thmt:Poly<br><br>(15)</td>
<td>Contrib.<br>Polymer<br>%<br>(17)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>12.00</td>
<td>5.69</td>
<td>82.31</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>8.67</td>
<td>1:6.86</td>
<td>1:19.83</td>
<td>95.20%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>18.20</td>
<td>8.63</td>
<td>73.17</td>
<td>0.55</td>
<td>9.50</td>
<td>1:4.02</td>
<td>1:12.74</td>
<td>92.72%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>47.64</td>
<td>22.60</td>
<td>29.76</td>
<td>1.43</td>
<td>20.40</td>
<td>1:0.62</td>
<td>1:4.25</td>
<td>80.94%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>54.57</td>
<td>25.89</td>
<td>19.54</td>
<td>1.64</td>
<td>30.00</td>
<td>1:0.36</td>
<td>1:3.58</td>
<td>78.17%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>58.55</td>
<td>27.77</td>
<td>13.68</td>
<td>1.76</td>
<td>42.00</td>
<td>1:0.23</td>
<td>1:3.27</td>
<td>76.58%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h3>Realistic case: Gray layer 100%, Thermite 3.00 kJ/g, chip yields 7.5 kJ/g</h3>
<p>
"<i>Realistic</i>" means that all assumptions are now within the bounds of what is possible in practice - it does not mean that these are probable values! Al still ist best estimated as less than 3% of the mass of the red layer! This case merely provides <b>realistic maxima of hypothetical thermite contribution</b> to mass and energy yield af that chip and its 7.5 kJ/g.
</p>
<table>
<tr style="text-align:center">
<td>Mass of<br>Thermite<br>% of red layer<br>(2)</td>
<td>Mass of<br>SiO2<br>% of red layer<br>(4)</td>
<td>Mass of<br>Organics<br>% of red layer<br>(5)</td>
<td>Contrib.<br>Thermite<br>kJ<br>(11)</td>
<td>Yield of<br>Organics<br>kJ/g<br>(13)</td>
<td>Mass<br>Thmt:Poly<br><br>(14)</td>
<td>Energy<br>Thmt:Poly<br><br>(15)</td>
<td>Contrib.<br>Polymer<br>%<br>(17)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>12.00</td>
<td>5.69</td>
<td>82.31</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>17.79</td>
<td>1:6.86</td>
<td>1:40.67</td>
<td>97.60%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>n/p</td>
<td>n/p</td>
<td>n/p</td>
<td>n/p</td>
<td style="color:red">9.50</td>
<td>n/p</td>
<td>n/p</td>
<td>n/p</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>19.95</td>
<td>9.46</td>
<td>70.59</td>
<td>0.60</td>
<td>20.40</td>
<td>1:3.54</td>
<td>1:24.06</td>
<td>96.01%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>36.38</td>
<td>17.26</td>
<td>46.36</td>
<td>1.09</td>
<td>30.00</td>
<td>1:1.27</td>
<td>1:12.74</td>
<td>92.72%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align:right">
<td>45.82</td>
<td>21.74</td>
<td>32.44</td>
<td>1.37</td>
<td>42.00</td>
<td>1:0.71</td>
<td>1:9.91</td>
<td>90.84%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h1>Discussion</h1>
<p>
The first, fully unrealistic case, shows that even under the most thermite-friendly assumptions - the highest possible energy contribution of the organic matrix and ideal composition of thermite, with no losses, and neglected gray layer mass, the organic matrix provides more than twice as much energy as the hypothetical thermite. In the case of a more typical or expected epoxy matrix, this factor increases to almost 3. If XEDS readings are reliable in their indicating 3% of Al or less, then the organic matrix provides at least 93.66% of the measured energy, or almost 15 times as much as thermite.
</p><p>
When we consider that nanothermite can't in practice yield the theoretical maximum but will in practice be limited to perhaps 3 kJ/g, then even the best, most "thermite-friendly" organic matrix would contribute 76.58% of the measured energy, which is more than 3 times the energy that thermite contributes in that case - even when the gray layer is ignored. If the matrix is epoxy, then thermite would only contribute 21% of the energy. If the polymer carries its own oxidizer, then it must contribute more than 4 times the mass of thermite and more than 12.7 times more energy.
</p><p>
Putting the gray layer into the equation, the last remaining hope that thermite could play a significant role is shattered: The best realistic case, with an organic matrix that has 42 kJ/g, there could be almost 46% thermite in the red layer, but it would contribute only 11% of the energy. A more typical organic material with 30 kJ/g would have to outweigh the thermite by mass and yield 92.72% of the total energy. An epoxy matrix would have to outweigh thermite by a margin of 3.54:1, giving it 24 times the energy content of the 20% thermite. However, as there probably isn't actually more than 3% Al in the red layers, which means no more than 12% thermite, we find that 7.5 kJ/g for the entire chip means that 97,60% of its energy must come from organic combustion.
</p><p>
</p>
<p>
The spreadsheet shows that, as long as the gray layer has more than 26.5% of the mass of the red layer. it is not possible at all to reach 7.5 kJ/g with an ideal hypothetical (polymer+O) composite that is independent from ambient air, regardless of thermite content (nor can thermite, with its mere 3.96%, explain that value).
</p>
<p>
Since in all realistic scenarios, no more than 36% of the mass of the red layer would be thermite, and that thermite would be intimately mixed with silica and organic matrix in a nanocomposite with a very high surface-to-volume ratio, we have to assume that the heat released by both the thermite and the organic matrix would increase the temperature of all ingredients uniformly. A significant proportion of that heat is lost in gasification of the organic polymer. It seems unlikely that any part of such a mix could reach a temperature near the melting point of iron, as Harrit et al. seem to suggest (page 19).
</p>
<h1>Conclusions</h1>
<p>
With only two limiting assumption - that there is as much Si as Al, and that it is fully oxidized to silica - I have shown that the theoretical maximum contribution of thermite is under 1/3 of the energy yield of that chip. This result of just 31.43% energy from thermite holds true only for a carefully chosen but impossible set of conditions: Perfect efficiency of the thermite, no mass contribution from inert gray layer, and the most energetic solid organic polymer fuel.
</p><p>
Considering realistic parameters - that the hypothesized nanothermit will yield no more than 3 kJ/g (about 75% of the theoretical maximum) in practice, and that the gray layer has the same, but chemically inert, mass as the red layer, I find that the organic matrix must contribute at least ten times as much energy as thermite. This factor of ten holds true only with an ideal organic fuel. A realistically chosen organic fuel, with a specific energy between 20 and 30 kJ/g, would have to have 1.27 to 3.54 times the mass of thermite, and contribute 92.7 - 96.0% of the energy to boost that chip to its empirically determined 7.5 kJ/g. In these scenarios, the thermite content falls to 20%
</p><p>
Considering that the actual Al-content of the red layers is probably under 3%, I find that thermite can at most contribite 2.4% of the 7.5 kJ/g
</p><p>
It is not within the realm of the practically possible to hypothesize that the organic matrix itself contains an embedded oxidizer.
</p><p>
With those findings, this red-gray chip cannot reasonably be called "thermitic" and cannot be explosive.
</p>
<h1>References</h1>
<p>
[1] Harrit N. H.; Farrer, J.; Jones, S. E.; Ryan, K. R.; Legge, F. M.; Farnsworth, D.; Roberts, G.; Gourley, J. R.; and Larsen, B. R.: <a href="https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7">Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe</a>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31
</p><p>
[2] Lyon Richard E.; Janssens Marc L.: <a href="http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf">Polymer Flammability</a>. May 2005 - Final Report for the U.S. Department of Transportation and FAA. Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-05/14
</p>
<h1></h1>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-38187814942717739962013-02-18T13:58:00.004+01:002015-10-31T20:38:56.654+01:00Useful links for "Thermite" debateNote: This link list may be appended or edited at any time without notice.
<br />
<h1>
Studies already done or proposed</h1>
[] Basile, M.: <a href="http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/mark_basile_project_status_august_2014.pdf">Progress Report</a>. August 2014
<br />
[] Basile, M., Shaddock, R.: <a href="http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/">Proposal for Independent Study of the WTC Dust</a>
<br />
[] Harrit N. H.; Farrer, J.; Jones, S. E.; Ryan, K. R.; Legge, F. M.; Farnsworth, D.; Roberts, G.; Gourley, J. R.; and Larsen, B. R.: <a href="http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7">Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe</a>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31
<br />
[] Harrit N. H.: <a href="http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf">Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint</a>. Open Letter, May 2009
<br />
[] Millette, J. R.: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf">Revised Report of Results: MVA9119. Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC dust</a>. Prepared for Classical Guide, Denver, 01 March 2012.
<br />
<h1>
References in "ATM"</h1>
[14] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
[16] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
[18] Sun, J.; Pantoya, M. L.; Simon, S. L.: <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603106001572">Dependence of size and size distribution on reactivity of aluminum nanoparticles in reactions with oxygen and MoO<sub>3</sub></a>. Thermochimica Acta, Volume 444, Issue 2, 15 May 2006, Pages 117–127
<br /> Abstract and Figures only; Figures are interesting: DSC scans with Al nano particles
<br />
[19] Gash, A. E.; Simpson, R. L.; Tillotson, T. M.; Satcher, J. H.; Hrubesh, L. W.: <a href="http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=15007525">Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker</a>. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000.
<br />
[20] Miziolek, A. W.: <a href="http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/34/33115.pdf">Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance</a>. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48.
<br />
[21] Gash, A. E.; Satcher, J. H.; Simpson, R. L.; Clapsaddle B. J.: <a href="https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/302999.pdf">Nanostructured energetic materials with sol-gel methods</a>. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800:55-66.
<br />
[28] Tillotson T. M.; Gash A. E.; Simpson R. L.; Hrubesh L. W.; Satcher J. H. Jr, Poco J. F.: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3093(01)00477-X">Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies</a>. J Non-Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345. [<a href="http://scribd.com/doc/80585354/T-M-Tillotson-et-al-Nanostructured-energetic-materials-using-sol-gel-methodologies">Alternative</a>]
<br />
[] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
[] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
<h1>
Further papers on nano-energetic materials</h1>
Clapsaddle, B.J.; Gash, A.E.; Plantier, K.B.; Pantoya, M.L.; Satcher Jr., J.H.; Simpson, R.L.: <a href="https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf">Synthesis and Characterization of Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials</a>. International Pyrotechnics Seminar Fort Collins, CO, United States July 12, 2004 through July 16, 2004
<br />
Wang J, Hu A, Persic J, Wen, JZ, Zhou YN: <a href="https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advanced-materials-joining/sites/ca.centre-advanced-materials-joining/files/uploads/files/nanothermite_jpcs.pdf">Thermal stability and reaction properties of passivated Al/CuO nano-thermite</a>. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 72 (2011) 620–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpcs.2011.02.006
<br />
Wang, Yi; Song, Xiao-lan; Jiang, Wei; Deng, Guo-dong; Guo, Xiao-de; Liu, HHing-ying; Li, Feng-sheng: <a href="http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf">Mechanism for thermite reactions of aluminum/iron-oxide nanocomposites based on residue analysis</a>. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 24(2014) 263-270
<br />
<h1>
NIST-Report</h1>
<h2>
Start page</h2>
[] NIST: <a href="http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm">Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster</a>
<br />
[] ALTERNATIVE URL: <a href="http://911depository.info/PDFs/NIST%20Reports/">911depository.info</a>
<br />
<h2>
Individual reports of interest</h2>
[] Luecke, W. E.; Siewert, T. A.; Gayle, F. W.: <a href="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101017">Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-3A)</a>. December 2005
<br />Table 3-5, p. 21 (list of steel manufacturers)
<br /><a href="http://911depository.info/PDFs/NIST%20Reports/Supporting%20Reports%20-%20WTC%201%20and%202/1-3%20Mechanical%20and%20Metallurgical%20Analysis%20of%20Structural%20Steel/1-3A.pdf">Alternative URL</a>
<br />
[] Luecke, W. E.; Siewert, T. A.; Gayle, F. W.: <a href="http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101017">Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-3A)</a>. December 2005
<br />Table 3-5, p. 21 (list of steel manufacturers)
<br /><a href="http://911depository.info/PDFs/NIST%20Reports/Supporting%20Reports%20-%20WTC%201%20and%202/1-3%20Mechanical%20and%20Metallurgical%20Analysis%20of%20Structural%20Steel/1-3A.pdf">Alternative URL</a>
<br />
[] Carino, N. J.; Starnes, M. A.; Gross, J. L.; Yang, J. C.; Kukuck, S. R.; Prasad, K. R.; Bukowski, R. W.:<a href="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101041">Passive Fire Protection. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A)</a>. December 2005
<br />Page 87: “...Series 10 Tnemec Prime (99 red), which is the primer that was specified for the exterior columns”
<br /><a href="http://911depository.info/PDFs/NIST%20Reports/Supporting%20Reports%20-%20WTC%201%20and%202/1-6%20Structural%20Fire%20Response%20and%20Probable%20Collapse%20Sequence%20of%20the%20World%20Trade%20Center%20Towers/1-6A.pdf">Alternative URL</a>
<br />
[] Gross, J. L.; Hervey, F.; Izydorek, M.; Mammoser, J.; Treadway, J.: <a href="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101042">Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NCSTAR 1-6B)</a>. December 2005
<br />Appendix B, p. 157 of the PDF: LaClede primer specification
<br /><a href="http://911depository.info/PDFs/NIST%20Reports/Supporting%20Reports%20-%20WTC%201%20and%202/1-6%20Structural%20Fire%20Response%20and%20Probable%20Collapse%20Sequence%20of%20the%20World%20Trade%20Center%20Towers/1-6B.pdf">Alternative URL</a>
<br />
<h1>
Videos</h1>
[] Basile, M.: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc">911 Dust Analysis Raises Questions</a>. Videotaped presentation at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire on 26th June 2010.
<br /> <a href="http://s1088.beta.photobucket.com/user/MikeAlfaromeo/library/ActiveThermiticMaterial/MarcBasilePresentation">Screenshots</a>
<br />
[] Basile, M.: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo">Mark Basile ignites a chip (nano-thermite) - 9/11</a>. Clip (15 seconds) from the above video (at 41:43 minutes)
<br />
[] Basile, M; Suarez, B.; Steele, A.: <a href="http://www.911freefall.com/2012/12/mark-basile-and-wtc-dust.html">Mark Basile and WTC dust</a>. Interview at 9/11 Free Fall, 27 December 2012.
<br /> <a href="http://ae911truth.de/pdf/atm/Basile_Interview_FreeFallRadio_Transcript_201212.pdf">Transcript</a>
<br />
[] BBC: <a href="http://vimeo.com/44430286">The Conspiracy Files - 9 11 Ten Years On</a>. Friday, September 09, 2011. At 31:25, interview with Niels Harrit. At 34:15, interview with Richard Fruehan and Chris Pistorius of Carnegie Mellon.
<br />
[] Charters, Adrian: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLNE-JOSYvM">Prof. Niels Harrit - Interview London (2009) Part 1</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrMIhVq-G0">Part 2</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7lr5frgkC8">Part 3</a>. July 2009.
<br />
[] Harrit, N. H.: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I51fDKsuJ_I">The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Niels Harrit (Full Presentation)</a>. September 2011.
<br />
[] Jones, S. E.: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvRtJO5cNJs">Dr. Steven Jones - Boston 911 Conference - Full Presentation - 12/15/07</a>
<br />
[] Jones, S. E.: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-aSzttALm8">Steven Jones 2009 "Science and Society"</a>. Presentation, "Hard Evidence Tour Down Under", Sydney, November of 2009.
<br /> <a href="http://s1088.beta.photobucket.com/user/MikeAlfaromeo/library/ActiveThermiticMaterial/StevenJonesPresentation1">Screenshots</a>
<br />
[] Jones, S. E.: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCnJkuW6qxc">DR STEVEN JONES- 911- THERMATE EVIDENCE PART 1</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuvhGPXL-W8">Part 2</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdTGXpk5JR8">Part 3</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClmbPpptV54">Part 4</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQxbihFf5eE">Part 5</a>. Uploaded January 30, 2009
<br />
[] Mohr, Chris: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGGJ4xzna8o">Part 23 Epilogue: WTC Dust Update; Saying Goodbye to 9/11 Truth </a>. Uploaded May 25, 2015.
<br />
[] : <a href=""></a>
<br />
[] : <a href=""></a>
<br />
<h1>
Presentations</h1>
Jones, S. E.: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060613202231/http://freedomisforeverybody.org/911PowerPointSJ.php">Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?</a>. 2006. Slides, with two MP3 sound files to listen along.
<br />
<h1>
Blogs</h1>
911Blogger - Reprehensor: <a href="http://911blogger.com/node/19761">Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe</a>. Posted April 04, 2009
<br />
<h1>
DSC Testing</h1>
[] Lyon, Richard E. and Janssens, Marc L.: <a href="http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf">Polymer Flammability</a>. DOT/FAA/AR-05/14, May 2005
<br />
[] Budrugeac, Petru: <a href="http://revroum.lew.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/4/Art%2006.pdf">Thermokinetic study of the Thermo-oxidative Degradation of a composite Epoxy Resin Material</a>. Revue Roumaine de Chimie (Rev. Roum. Chim), 2013, 58(4-5), 371-379
<br />
[] Epoxy Technology, Inc.: <a href="http://www.epotek.com/site/files/brochures/pdfs/adhesive_application_guide.pdf">Epoxy Adhesive Application Guide</a>. Epoxy Technology, Inc., 14 Fortune Drive, Billerica, MA 01821 (USA), 2009
<br />
[] Ferranti, Louis, Jr.: <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/1853/19722">Mechanochemical Reactions and Strengthening in Epoxy-Cast Aluminum Iron-Oxide Mixtures</a>. Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007
<br />
[] Izzo FC, Zendri E, Biscontin G, Balliana E: <a href="http://www.authormapper.com/search.aspx?val=subject%3AChemistry&coll=year-month%3A2011-05&val=publication%3AJournal+of+Thermal+Analysis+and+Calorimetry">TG–DSC analysis applied to contemporary oil paints</a>.
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, May 2011, Volume 104, Issue 2, pp 541-546. Full paper: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10973-011-1468-y">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10973-011-1468-y</a>
<br />
[] Schawe J., Riesen R., Widmann J., Schubnell M., Jörimann U.: <a href="http://www.masontechnology.ie/x/Usercom_11.pdf">Interpreting DSC curves. Part 1: Dynamic measurements</a>. METTLER TOLEDO GmbH, Switzerland, 2000.
<br />
[] Schubnell M., Riesen R., Widmann J., Schawe J., Darribère C., Jörimann U.: <a href="http://www.masontechnology.ie/x/Usercom_12.pdf">Interpreting DSC curves. Part 2: Isothermal measurements</a>. METTLER TOLEDO GmbH, Switzerland, 2000.
<br />
[] Sichina WJ: <a href="http://depts.washington.edu/mseuser/Equipment/RefNotes/TGA_Notes.pdf">Characterization of Polymers Using TGA</a>. PerkinElmer Thermal Analysis - Application note.
<br />
[] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
[] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
[] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
<h1>
About Pigments</h1>
Buxbaum, Gunter; Pfaff, Gerhard (editors): <a href="http://books.google.de/books?id=rC_n7RWgNVoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false">Industrial Inorganic Pigments, Third Edition</a>. John Wiley & Sons, 2006, ISBN: 978-3-52760-403-6
<br />
Eastaugh, Nicholas; Walsh, Valentine: <a href="http://books.google.de/books?id=2pJKuFn_KcEC&lpg=PA180&ots=SrorEKbjD2">The pigment compendium: optical microscopy of historical pigments, Vol. 2</a>. Taylor & Francis, 2004; ISBN: 0 7506 4553 9, 9780750645539. Page 180+181: Strontium chromate
<br />
Jones, Thomas S: <a href="https://archive.org/details/ironoxidepigmen00jone">Iron Oxide Pigments (in Two Parts). 1. Fine-Particle Iron Oxides for Pigment, Electronic, and Chemical Use</a>. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1978
<br />
Khokhani, Ashok: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121224105142/http://203.158.253.140/media/e-Book/Engineer/Maintenance/Coating%20Technology%20handbook/DK4036ch82.pdf">Coatings Technology Handbook, Third Edition - Chapter 82: Clays</a>. Taylor & Francis, 2005; ISBN: 978-1-57444-649-4
<br />
LANXESS : <a href="http://bayferrox.com/uploads/tx_lxsmatrix/Laux_brochure_english_compressed.pdf">Inorganic pigments using the Laux process</a>. Details the Laux process, and the pigments Bayer LANXESS produces with it in Krefeld.
<br />
Murray, Haydn H.: <a href="http://kyawlinnzaw.weebly.com/uploads/4/5/1/3/4513060/applied_clay_mineralogy.pdf">Applied Clay Mineralogy; Occurrences, Processing and Application of Kaolins, Betonites, Palygorskite-Sepiolite, and Common Clays</a>. Elsevier, 2007; ISNB: 978-0-444-51701-2
<br />
Pruett, Robert J.; Webb, Harold L.: <a href="http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%2041/41-4-514.pdf">Sampling and Analysis of KGa-1B well-crystalized Kaolin Source Clay</a>. Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 41, No. 4, p. 514-519, 1993
<br />
QuikClot: <a href="http://www.quikclot.com/">Homepage</a>. A manufacturer of kaolin-containing devices to stop bleeding. Has electron microscopy images.
<br />
<a href="http://en.yipin.com/list-IronOxidePigments.html">Shanghai Yipin Pigments Co., Ltd - Products - Iron Oxide Pigments</a>. Offers commercial bulk amounts of several qualities and color hues of hematite pigment, with Technical Data Sheets for properties such as "Predominant particle size".
<br />
<h1>
Miscellaneous</h1>
[] Ritchie, N. W. M.: <a href="http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div837/837.02/epq/dtsa2/index.html">NIST DTSA-II</a> multiplatform software package for quantitative x-ray microanalysis.
<br />
[] Daéid, Niamh Nic (editor): <a href="https://www.blogger.com/www.interpol.int/content/download/21910/206602/version/1/file/IFSMSReviewPapers2013.pdf#page=129">17th Interpol International Forensic Science Managers Symposium, Lyon. 8th - 10th October 2013. Review Papers</a>
<br />
[] : <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1598848421183829451"></a>
<br />
<h1>
</h1>
Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-31606442070544064692013-01-17T23:18:00.000+01:002013-01-17T23:19:36.144+01:00Asking Truth scientists: How do you tell energetic and mundane chips apart?<h1>Abstract</h1>
<p>
It has been alleged that dust particles from WTC dust that have the two properties "attracted by a magnet" and "are red-gray chips" are also active thermitic material. However, recent remarks made by some of the researchers involved strongly suggest that many chips selected by those criteria may in fact be really just paint.
</p><p>
In order for follow-up researcher to select the "right" chips, an objective method should exist to separate the "right" ("energetic", "thermitic") from "wrong" (perhaps "paint" etc.) chips.
</p><p>
It is also not entirely clear, in my mind, if the researchers like Harrit, Jones, Farrer or Basile who have reported on "energetic" chips were aware of the distinction at the time, and did in fact separate the different kinds of chips prior to any desctructive tests that yielded exotherm reactions and suspicious residues.
</p><p>
I expect that these "thermite"-proponents can declare unequivocally how to distinguish "thermitic" from mundane chips <i>before</i> any destructive experiments are done. I have designed a series of questions to shed light on this.
</p>
<h1>Content:</h1>
<ol>
<li>Introduction</li>
<li>Detailed Questions</li>
<li>How the Bentham authors selected the chips to be studied</li>
<li>How Millette selected the chips to be studied</li>
<li>Statements by "truther" scientists</li>
<ul>
<li>Steven Jones</li>
<li>Frank Legge</li>
<li>Kevin Ryan</li>
<li>Mark Basile</li>
</ul>
<li>References</li>
</ol>
<h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>
Harrit e.al. (2009 <a href="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">[1]</a>, refered to as "<i>ATM</i> [1]" throughout the rest of this article) have studied red-gray chips found in dust from the World Trade Center collapses that settled around "Ground Zero" on 9/11/2001. Their paper describes how these chips were selected, discusses how they are all similar, and presents data, much of which is said to be "representative" of all the red-gray chips they studied. They conclude that the red layer of these chips is "active thetmitic material" and some kind of "super-thermite" and "nano-thermite", i.e. contains the classical thermite ingredients iron oxide and elemental aluminium as nano-sized particles, embedded in an organic matrix.
</p><p>
The method to select these chips is described as involving only two steps:
</p><p>
a) Pull a magnet through the dust and select all particles that are attracted to it
<br>
b) Visually inspect particles and select those that are chips with a red and a gray layer
</p><p>
The paper gives the impression that virtually all chips that the authors found by this two-step method have the same "thermitic" properties - in particular, that they are all "<b>energetic</b>", and, when ignited and burned, leave in their residue iron-rich micro-spheres.
</p><p>
I have previously argued (Oystein <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html">[2]</a>) that the data presented in <i>ATM</i> [1] speaks for the presence of several different kinds of red-gray chips, precluding the validity of lumping data from different chips together to form a single conclusion for all chips.
</p><p>
Millette (2012, <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf">[3]</a>) has done a follow-up study to <i>ATM</i> [1] and selected red-gray chips from WTC dust samples using the very same method: a) Pull particles out with magnet; b) visually select red-gray chips. In addition, he focused on chips whose red-layer were similar in morphology and elemental composition (EDS spectrum) to chips a-d in Figures 6-11 in <i>ATM</i> [1]. He found that these chips contain no elemental Al, and thus no thermite at all. Instead, all the compounds he identified (kaolin clay, pigment-sized hematite and titanium dioxide ambedded in epoxy) are consistent with primer paint. His chips appear to be <b>mundane</b>.
</p><p>
It appears now that some of the authors of <i>ATM</i> [1] acknowledge that indeed some of the red-gray chips they selected were <b>mundane</b> - and believe that Millette looked at the wrong chips! This raises a few questions, that I would like these scientists to answer before any further studies (e.g. Mark Basile, <a href="http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm">[4]</a>) are undertaken – most prominently:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<b>By what non-destructive method and objective criteria – in addition to selection by magnet and visually seperating red-gray chip – can a researcher who attempts to study the "<b>energetic</b>" red-gray chips, that are alleged to be thermitic, distinguish them from <b>mundane</b> materials such as paint?</b>
</li>
</ul>
<h1>Detailed Questions</h1>
<p>
The scientists that, to my best knowledge, have stated there are non-thermitic yet magnetic (?) red-gray chips (I'll present their statements below) and who the following questions are addressed to most immediately are:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Steve E. Jones – the actual lead author of <i>ATM</i> [1]</li>
<li>Kevin R. Ryan – co-author of <i>ATM</i> [1]</li>
<li>Frank M. Legge – co-author of <i>ATM</i> [1]</li>
<li>Mark Basile – acknowledged in <i>ATM</i> [1] as contributor; has studied chips himself; proposes a new study to be done by an independent lab</li>
</ul>
<p>
Others who I'd expect to be able to answer them are:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Niels H. Harrit – named lead author of <i>ATM</i> [1]</li>
<li>Jeffrey Farrer – co-author of <i>ATM</i> [1], responsible for much of the analytical work in the lab (DSC tests and, I believe, all the work on at least chips a-d)</li>
<li>David Griscom – peer-reviewer of <i>ATM</i> [1] and currently advisor to Mark Basile</li>
</ul>
<p>
In the remainder of this section, I will talk about red-gray chips that are attracted to a magnet, and I will just call those „<b>chips</b>“. So whenever you read the word „<b>chips</b>“, I am talking about dust particles drawn from WTC dust <i>with a magnet</i> that have (at least) <i>a red and a gray layer</i>.
</p><p>
Here are two more terms that I define and consistently use throught this section to describe and identify <b>chips</b>:
</p>
<ul>
<li><b>energetic</b>: This word denotes <b>chips</b> that react with an exotherm when ignited in the manner described in <i>ATM</i> [1] and produce spherical residues that include the element iron. Those are the <b>chips</b> that are considered „interesting“, „active thermitic material“, „suspect“ or what you want to call it. I give you some freedom to decide for yourself which <b>chips</b> you want to consider <b>energetic</b>.</li>
<li><b>mundane</b>: Those are <i>all other</i> <b>chips</b> - they don't react energetically, or don't produce iron-rich spherical residue, and can thus considered to be non-thermitic, or not active, or not interesting, or whatever you prefer. Some or all of the <b>mundane chips</b> might be paint, but it is not important here what they are.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Each <b>chips</b> is either <b>energetic</b> or it is <b>mundane</b>, but can't be both, and can't be neither.
</p><p>
So here are my questions:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Do you agree that there are <i>both</i> <b>energetic</b> <i>and</i> <b>mundane chips</b> in the WTC dust?</li>
</ul>
<p>
If you <i>agree</i> that at least <i>some</i> <b>chips</b> are <b>mundane</b>, please answer the following (skip those that don't apply to you or that you can't answer on behalf of your team mates) (note that the recurring question „<b>If yes, how (did you separate them)?</b>“ is really the most interesting at the time of writing):
</p>
<ul>
<li>
When did you first realize there are both <b>mundane</b> and <b>energetic chips</b> in the WTC dust?
</li><li>
Did you separate <b>mundane chips</b> from <b>energetic chips</b> before you photographed them? If yes, how?
</li><li>
Do any of the photographs you present in your work show <b>mundane chips</b>? If yes, which? If not, why did you not show photographs of any <b>mundane chips</b>? Do such photographs exist?
</li><li>
Did you separate <b>mundane chips</b> from <b>energetic chips</b> before you put them in the electron microscope? If yes, how?
</li><li>
Do any of the SE- or BSE-images in your work show <b>mundane chips</b>? If yes, which? If not, why did you not show micrographs of any <b>mundane chips</b>? Do such micrographs exist?
</li><li>
Did you separate <b>mundane chips</b> from <b>energetic chips</b> before you did XEDS scans on them? If yes, how?
</li><li>
Were any of the XEDS graphs you present in your work taken from <b>mundane chips</b>? If yes, which? If not, why did you not show any XEDS scans from <b>mundane chips</b>? Do such XEDS graphs exist?
</li><li>
Did you separate <b>mundane chips</b> from <b>energetic chips</b> before you did DSC or other ignition tests on them? If yes, how?
</li><li>
Were any of the DSC graphs you present in your work taken from <b>mundane chips</b>? If yes, which? If not, why did you not show any DSC traces from <b>mundane chips</b>? Do such DSC traces exist?
</li><li>
Was any of the post-ignition (DSC, flame test, heating strip...) residue you show in your work from <b>mundane chips</b>? If yes, which? If not, why did you not show photographs, micrographs or XEDS spectra from residue of <b>mundane chips</b>?
</li><li>
In your opinion, should a researcher who tries to replicate „ATM“ today, or wants to go beyond ATM and perhaps tackle the open questions, attempt to separare <b>mundane chips</b> from <b>energetic chips</b> before doing any ignition tests (such as DSC)? If so, how do you propose this be done?
</li>
</ul>
<p>
If, on the other hand, you <i>disagree</i> that some of the <b>chips</b> are <b>mundane</b>, in other words, if you believe that all (magnetic! red-gray!) <b>chips</b> are <b>energetic</b>, then please answer the following:
</p><p>
James Millette reported on <b>chips</b> (from WTC dust that are both magnetic and red-gray), yet he said he didn't find any elemental Al in them.
</p>
<ul>
<li>
Do you accept that Millette validly showed there is no elemental Al in the specimens he analyzed in depth? If not, what did he do wrong?
</li><li>
Do you agree that these specimens, where Millette ruled out elemental Al and thus thermite, are indeed <b>chips</b>, i.e. from WTC dust, red-gray, and attracted to a magnet? If yes, how do you square that with your assertion that <b>all</b> chips contain thermite? If not, what did Millette do wrong?
</li>
</ul>
<h1>How the Bentham authors selected the chips to be studied</h1>
<p>
From <i>ATM</i> [1], page 9 (font colors added by me):
</p>
<blockquote><b>2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination</b>
<br>
<br>
For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/ Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. <span style="color:red">The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust.</span> <span style="color:green">A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples.</span> <span style="color:purple">The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.</span> They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including some not on this research team) who have also found such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center destruction.</blockquote>
<p>
Note that this section of the text provides only two methods to select chips of interest, and doesn't hint at any other criteria by which to select specimens to be studied. Further in the paper, it points out several times how the chips are similar, and how the data presented is representative for all chips (from pages 10-15):
</p>
<blockquote>1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips
<br>
<br>
Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust samples collected. An <span style="color:red">analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips</span> and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.
<br>
...
<br>
<span style="color:red">All of the chips used in the study</span> had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. ... <span style="color:red">Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs</span>.
<br>
...
<br>
... Fig. (5). These four cross sections are <span style="color:red">representative of all the red/gray chips studied</span> from the dust samples. The BSE images illustrate the finding that <span style="color:red">all of the red layers studied contained</span> small bright particles or grains characterized by a high average atomic number. ...
<br>
...
<br>
(XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared
from the four dust samples were performed and <span style="color:red">representative spectra</span> are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that <span style="color:red">the gray layers are consistently characterized</span> by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon. The chemical signatures found in <span style="color:red">the red layers are also quite consistent</span> (Fig. 7), each showing the presence of <span style="color:blue">aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O)</span>, and a significant carbon (C) peak as well.
<br>
<br>
At still higher magnifications, <span style="color:red">BSE imaging of the red layer illustrates the similarity</span> between the different dust samples. </blockquote>
<p>
No hint at all in all of the paper that some of the magnetically selected red-gray chips can be distinguished by any of the methods described and be grouped as "thermitic/energetic" chips vs. "non-thermitic/mundane" material <b>before</b> testing them in the DSC.
</p>
<h1>How Millette selected the chips to be studied</h1>
<p>
From [3], page 2 and 3:
</p>
<blockquote><b>Method</b>
<br>...<br>
The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: <span style="color:purple">small red/gray chips</span> <span style="color:green">attracted by a magnet</span> and showing an elemental composition primarily of <span style="color:blue">aluminum, silicon and iron</span> as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.
<br>...<br>
<span style="color:green">1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).</span>
<br>
<span style="color:purple">2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed</span> and washed in clean water.
<br>
3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 6).
<br>
4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 7 and 8).
<br>
<br>
<span style="color:purple">Red/gray particles</span> that matched the criteria (<span style="color:purple">attracted to a magnet</span> and <span style="color:blue">an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum)</span> were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing.
</blockquote>
<p>
Millette used the exact same criteria that Harrit e.al. did – plus making sure the red layer has the Fe, Si and Al signals that Harrit e.al. consider a significant finding in "thermitic" chips.
</p>
<h1>Statements by "truther" scientists</h1>
<h2>Steven Jones</h2>
<p>
At the end of a blog post at 911Blogger <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses">[5]</a>, Steven Jones appended the following remark at the very end:
</p>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>
This implies that red-gray chips can be pulled from WTC dust with a magnet that are not the same material that Harrit e.al. reported on – i.e. a different material.
</p>
<h2>Frank Legge</h2>
<p>
Frank Legge recently engaged in an online debate with Ronald Wieck and others in the comments section of an Amazon customer review <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R1VABIZJ14CZ8F/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0615412564&cdForum=Fx1A92G43I76IHB&cdMsgID=Mx28HCX154OWEBV&cdMsgNo=264&cdPage=27&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZX5Y5EBJTTBA&store=books#Mx28HCX154OWEBV">[6]</a>. Note that he incorrectly addressed "Ronald and Millette", it should have been "Ronald and Erich", as Millette didn't participate in that exchange. To make reading easier, I'll format the questions quoted from Ronald's previous post blue, Legge's own words purple:
</p>
<blockquote>
<span style="color:purple">Ronald and Millette</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:blue">"you write "Millette's ... carefully selected some paint fragments on which to perform his analysis. He did not study the chips described in the Active Thermitic Materials paper."
<br><br>
Do I understand you correctly when I construe your words to imply
<br>
1. that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, i.e. different materials? Such that some may represent thermitic incendiaries/explosives, some may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?"</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:purple">Of course!</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:blue">"2. that it is possible to select chips and pick out those that are not thermitic?"</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:purple">Of course</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:blue">"3. that, as a corrolary to 2., it would be possible to select thermitic chips from a mix of various kinds of red-gray chips?"</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:purple">Of course.</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:blue">"If that is so, can you provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust? I believe this would be a great help for future studies, such as the one contemplated by Mark Basile (http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm) right now? "</span>
<br><br>
<span style="color:purple">Of course. Read the Active Thermitic Materials paper. It is all set out there.</span>
</blockquote>
<p>
The questions don't mention the magnetic separation of red-gray chips. However, since Legge is very clear that "[i]t is all set out [in the Active Thermitic Materials paper]", these words must be construed as meaning that ALL red-gray chips selected with a magnet are thermitic.
</p>
<h2>Kevin Ryan</h2>
<p>
Prior to commissioning the James Millette study, Colorado-based journalist Chris Mohr was in conversation with Harrit's co-author Kevin Ryan. In those exchanges, Ryan acknowledged that there are paint chips among the red-gray chips, as Mohr relates on the JREF forum <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8905229#post8905229">[7]</a>:
</p>
<blockquote>BTW in support of what MM said, <span style="color:red">when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't.</span> Unfortunately, he refused to release the samples to me or Millette, and our personal connection broke down around that time. I was never able to get samples of these different kinds of chips, or more info about them in relation to the Bentham paper. Nor did I know at that time about the two different types of paint primer in use at WTC. So MM is right that the Bentham authors knew there were paint chips, but his noncooperation has made it impossible to know what he actually has. In the meantime, however, the Millette study has not been credibly refuted when it comes to the question of which chips he tested. Many 9/11 Truth people seem to agree that his methodology in finding the correct chips was sound.</blockquote>
<p>
Red font marking added by me to highlight the key statement. So the question is: <b>How</b> do the acknowledged paint chip look different? I note that there is again no mention of magnetic properties, which would in this case seem to indicate that magnetic attraction is <i>not</i> a key difference.
</p>
<h2>Mark Basile</h2>
<p>
Mark Basile is a chemical engineer who first approached Steven Jones about the alleged thermitic nature of the red-gray chips in december 2007, and was in due course supplied with a sample of WTC from one of the sources (Janette MacKinlay) which he did some tests on. I commented some of his results elsewhere in my blog
</p><p>
As Basile is currently proposing yet another lab study of the dust, he was recently (december 2012) interviewed by the radio talkshow "9/11 Free Fall Radio" (Bernie Suarez and Andrew Steele) on No Lies Radio <a href="http://www.911freefall.com/2012/12/mark-basile-and-wtc-dust.html">[8]</a>. Some passages transcribed - first one starting at the 27:26 minutes mark:
</p>
<blockquote>
<span style="color:red">There are a lot of paint chips in the dust! You should make that perfectly clear!</span> Just when you, if anybody in the audience, let's say, would get out there and get a World Trade Center dust sample, and they pull out red chips from this, <span style="color:red">I'm not telling anybody in the world that every red chip you're gonna pull out of there is one of these nano-thermite chips. The vast majority of them actually are primer paint, from what I'm finding, but that doesn't mean they all are.</span> And they are not all, because […?...] pulled out ones where I've seen the reaction, I've seen the product, so I know you're in there. But there is also a lot of primer paint chips in there, too.
</blockquote>
<p>
He even goes on to speculate about the work of Steven Jones (28:28 minutes):
</p>
<blockquote>
I think some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at were definitely, you know, primer paint chips, too, so not everything in there was necessarily nano-thermite chips.
</blockquote>
<p>
(I wonder what Jones, Harrit etc. have to say on this?)
</p>
<h1>References</h1>
<p>
[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.
Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.
Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: <A HREF="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe</A> <i>("ATM")</i>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31
</p><p>
[2] Oystein: <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html">Why red-gray chips aren't all the same</a>. Posted in author's blog on March 14 2012
</p><p>
[3] James R. Millette: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf">Revised Report of Results: MVA9119. Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC dust</a>. Prepared for Classical Guide, Denver, 01 March 2012.
</p><p>
[4] Mark Basile: <a href="http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm">Proposal for Labs to Study the Building Fire Dust</a>.
</p><p>
[5] Steven E. Jones: <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses">Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses</a>. Posted on 911Blogger on September 08 2012. Last retrieved: 2013/01/16
</p><p>
[6] Frank M. Legge: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R1VABIZJ14CZ8F/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0615412564&cdForum=Fx1A92G43I76IHB&cdMsgID=Mx28HCX154OWEBV&cdMsgNo=264&cdPage=27&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZX5Y5EBJTTBA&store=books#Mx28HCX154OWEBV">Reply to a question</a>. Posted at amazon.org as a comment to a Customer Review on December 25 2012. Last retrieved: 2013/01/16
</p><p>
[7] Chris Mohr: <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8905229#post8905229">A forum post</a>. Posted at the JREF forum on January 10 2013. Last retrieved: 2013/01/16
</p><p>
[8] Mark Basile: <a href="http://www.911freefall.com/2012/12/mark-basile-and-wtc-dust.html">9/11 Free Fall: Mark Basile and WTC dust</a>. Radio talkshow, broadcast by No Lies Radio on December 27 2012.
</p>
Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-12214905282570090322012-09-12T16:00:00.000+02:002012-09-15T23:04:09.083+02:00Steven Jones and Jeff Farrer confirm four of my claims concerning red-gray chips<h1>Summary</h1>
<p>
Steven E. Jones and Jeff Farrer, both among the authors of the 2009 paper "Active Thermitic Material..." (<i>ATM</i>, [1]) by Harrit e.al., have now confirmed four claims I have made about that paper and the red-gray chips discussed therein:
</p>
<ol>
<li>The chips contain traces of strontium and chromium, corroborating my claim that some chips may be LaClede steel primer, which contains ca. 1% by weight Strontium Chromate pigments <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html">[2]</a></li>
<li>Their XEDS data of chips a-d is consistent with kaolin as the sole ingredient that contains Al</li>
<li>They concede that a DSC experiment, done by LLNL scientists Tom Tillotson and Alex Gash and refered to in ATM, may have been performed under inert atmosphere and not, as they previously believed, under air</li>
<li>Red-gray chips found in WTC are not all the same material, they represent at least two different materials</li>
</ol>
<h1>Jones and Farrer speak</h1>
<p>
A few days ago, on september 8th, Steven Jones posted recommendations to an unnamed scientist who wants to do a replication of the Harrit e.al. experiments on red-gray chips at 911Blogger <a href="http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses">[3]</a>. A day later, he appended comments (or paraphrases thereof) that he had received from Jeff Farrer. Please find the bulk of his post quoted below.
</p><p>
I will now show how Jones and Farrer confirm four claims I have made about their experiments on red-gray all along.
</p>
<h1>Discussion</h1>
<h2>1. Farrer corroborates Strontium Chromate from LaClede primer paint </h2>
<p>
As I have previously shown <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html">[2]</a>, the four red-gray chips labeled "a-d" in Figures 2 - 11 of ATM [1] are consistent with what one would expect from chips of LaClede Standard Primer - a red paint that, according to NIST documentation, was painted on the floor joists of the WTC twin towers. These floor joists probably had more painted surface than the perimeter columns (painted with Tnemec 69 or 99) and the core columns (painted with unknown primer(s)) and can thus be expected to be abundant in WTC dust.
</p><p>
To recap: LaClede standard primer was a paint that, per specification, consisted of 71.5% by weight epoxy (organic matrix) and 28.5% mineral pigments. Of the pigments, 55% by weight was red iron oxide (i.e. hematite = Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> with a size most likely in the range 100-300 nanometers), 41% aluminium silicates (with kaolin, a naturally mined clay silcate, chemical sum formula Al<sub>2</sub>Si<sub>2</sub>O<sub>9</sub>H<sub>5</sub>, being the most mundane candidate) <b>and 4% Strontium Chromate (SrCrO<sub>4</sub>)</b>. This would be equivalent to there being approximately 0.5% Strontium and 0.3% Chromium in the ready paint, along with 11% iron and 2.5% and 2.4% silicon and aluminium. I have further shown that an XEDS spectrum of this paint at 20 keV (the electron energy used by Harrit e.al. for their Fig. 7) would show a small signal for Cr, but that Sr would quite likely be missed due to its small signal being right underneath the much larger Si-signel. I have pointed to a letter by Niels Harrit [4] in which Harrit documented that small signals for both Cr and Sr were detectable at least in their chip a.
</p><p>
We learn via Steven Jones now that Jeff Farrer has done further TEM-studies on red-gray chips, and has confirmed the presence of both Strontium and Chromium:
</p>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>
TEM is "Transmission electron microscopy". The XEDS spectra shown in <i>ATM</i>[1] were all derived from "SEM" equipment, that is "Scanning electron microscope". Jones is clear that Farrer <i>did</i> identify Sr and Cr with the TEM.
</p><p>
This would corroborate the result from [4], that <i>some</i> red-gray chips contain particles (pigments) with Strontium and Chromium - a result clearly consistent with my assertion that some chips are LaClede primer.
</p><p>
It is true that Dr. Millette [8] did not show any Sr in his TEM data. I submit that this could possibly result from Sr-chromate making up only 4% of the LaClede pigment - one part in 25. It isn't totally unlikely that a microscopic LaClede sample with countably few pigments by chance simply contains no Sr-chromate pigment. I wish though Dr. Millette would go back to the lab and specifically search for such pigments (they should be recognizable by their probable shape, which is typically acicular, i.e. needle-shaped, with length in the range of 1-4 micrometers)
</p><p>
It would be interesting to know how Farrer identified elements on the TEM, and see his actual results (images, spectra...). One technique available on TEM to identify not elements as such but crystal structures and thus, potentially, the minerals in question, is TEM-SAED ("Selected area electron diffraction"). <b>I wonder if Farrer has specifically identified Strontium Chromate. I call upon Drs Farrer and Jones to publish their TEM data as soon as possible!</b>
</p>
<h2>2. Farrer confirms Al and Si consistent with kaolin</h2>
<p>
In his own initial post, Jones makes the following assertion:
</p>
<blockquote>... 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</blockquote>
<p>
An Al:Si ratio of 0.92 would mean there is more silicon than aluminium in those "aluminum-containing platelets" - a strange finding for one who claims to have a formulation of Fe-Al-thermite in which the Al is found in said platelets. Note that Jones fails to mention that the same platelets also contain a very significant amount of oxigen, as can be seen in Fig. 11a of [1]. It would be interesting to get a value for the Al:O ratio there!
</p><p>
However, Jones's claim that the measured ratio of 0.92 disproves kaolinite, is FALSE, as Farrer has pointed out. Jones added the following remark a day later:
</p>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>
Kudos to Farrer for pointing this out, and to Jones for faithfully forwarding that comment. So it seems Farrer's TEM-data on those platelets is consistent with kaolin after all!
</p><p>
(To wrap up my argument: Fig. 7 (XEDS spectra for bulk or red layers) shows that chips a-d all have Al:Si ratios near unity. The only constituent of chips a-d identified by the Jones team as containing Al are these platelets, which means that all, or almost all, the Al in the chips is actually contained in the platelets. The elemental composition as well as the morphology of these platelets is entirely consistent with kaolin clay, a common paint ingredient. It is indeed the best explanation for ALL the data Harrit e.al. have presented on chips a-d. So if the Al in the platelets is present in a stoichiometric proportion to Si to form kaolin, or even sllightly too little Al, then there is no Al left - neither in the platelets nor elsewhere in the chip - to account for a hypothetical presence of elemental Al.)
</p>
<h2>3. Farrer concedes he may have done DSC-test the wrong way</h2>
<p>
The context for that topic is this: In <i>ATM</i> [1], Harrit e.al. present, in Fig. 19, DSC traces for four (unknown, uncharacterised) chips. They compare one of these with a DSC trace taken from a paper by LLNL scientists Tom Tillotson and Alex Gash [5], which was from a sample of experimental nano-thermite. Harrot e.al. claim that the DSC traces basically have the same characteristics (while in fact it can be clearly seen that they are quite different in many respects), and take this as one of their best pieces of evidence that the red-gray chips are not thermitic. The DSC test on the red-gray chips was done by Jeff Farrer, and it was done under an atmosphere of normal air, i.e. in the presence of ca. 21% oxygen. In Tillotson e.al., no indication is given if the test was done under air or inert gas.
</p><p>
Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have claimed on several occasions that Jeff Farrer contacted Tillotson and Gash before doing his DSC test and learned from them that they used air. I have called this a lie. It is patently obvious why doing the experiment under air would be a fool's errand when you <i>know</i> (as both Tillotson e.al. and Harrit e.al. did) that your sample contains organic material which is likely to combust under air when heated. I just didn't know if the lie orignated with Farrer, who is alleged to have called the LLNL scientists, or with Jones or Harrit, who may have invented that bit of information about Farrer. I know however of two emails that Gash and Tillotson wrote on the matter and that prove Jones and Harrit wrong [6]. First from Gash's email:
</p>
<blockquote>[...] As you correctly point out DSC in an O2 atmosphere will combust the organic impurities and greatly add to the energy release. However the DSC in question was done in ultra pure nitrogen. [...]
<br><br>
Alex</blockquote>
<p>
Then Tillotson:
</p>
<blockquote>The experiment was performed as Alex described...in ultra pure nitrogen as is standard technique here at LLNL. If Mr. Farrer did contact me I can guarantee you that I did not respond to his questions.
<br><br>
Tom Tillotson</blockquote>
<p>
Now, Jeff Farrer has advised Jones to backpaddle from the earlier claims. Jones appends Farrer's comment (my emphasize):
</p>
<blockquote>1. Dr. Farrer contacted Dr. Tillotson of LLNL regarding the LLNL production and ignition of nano-thermite; Dr Tillotson said the experiments were <b><i>likely</i></b> 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.</blockquote>
<p>
Good to see that all of a sudden they really don't know. It must be pointed out that Tillotson has expressedly denied the claim that he replied to a question by Farrer, if ever he received one.
</p><p>
Obviously, it should be assumed at this time that
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha">
<li>Tillotson and Gash did their experiment under inert gas</li>
<li>Farrer did his test under 21% oxygen</li>
<li>The results of both teams can thus not be compared</li>
<li>No DSC test will yield any useful results with regard to identifying or excluding thermite if done under air</li>
<li>A replication of the DSC is thus not desirable and should be advised against</li>
</ol>
<p>
To pile up, Alex Gash today believes DSC is not a good method at all to characterize a (nano-)thermite reaction. In his email, he continues:
</p>
<blockquote>While that may or may not be the case over the years we have come to rely less and less on the enthalpy from DSC for irreversible reactions as an absolutely accurate value.
<br><br>
In irreversible high energy processes the solid is undergoing many changes that may lead to inefficient heat transfer tot he DSC sensor and thus an inaccurate heat flow measurement. At the time of publication, we had more faith in the absolute value of these measurements. That is not to say DSC is not useful, quite the contrary. It gives us a reasonable idea how energetic a composition may be, it identifies decomposition temperatures, and is very accurate for determining the enthalpy of reversible heat flow (e.g., phase transitions, melting etc..). Since the publication of that paper we have found that combustion calorimetry is a far more accurate way to determine reaction enthalpy.</blockquote>
<p>
Gash confirms what any person experienced with and knowledgable about DSC could have told you: DSC is very good for physical processes, good for decomposition, but not good for vigorous chemical reactions. Another excellent reason why replication of Farrer's DSC-expermient is not a good idea.
</p>
<h2>4. Jones admits that red-gray chips may be from different materials</h2>
<p>
In a previous post, I have already explained <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html">why red-gray chips aren't all the same [7]</a>: Harrit e.al. themselves point out how different chips are characterized by different significant elements. It really is quite obvious.
</p><p>
Yet, Jones and Harrit go on and pretend like all chips are basically the same material. In particular, their MEK-soaked chip (Fig. 12-18) is obviously quite different from chips a-d (Fig. 2-11, which are much more likely all the same stuff) in several respects, yet they pretend that a result found on that MEK-soaked chip (apparent trace occurance of elemental Al) can be extrapolated to chips a-d. Further on, no spectra or images are provided for the four chips burned in the DSC (Fig. 19), so their identity and characteristics remain unknown - it is simply assumed, without argument, that they are the same material.
</p><p>
<b>It can't be stressed enough that all conclusions of <i>ATM</i> [1] are fundamentally dependent on the unproven, and actually refuted, assumption that all red-gray chips in WTC dust that are attrected to a magnet are basically the same (thermitic) material</b> because they lump together results gained from different specimens and form a conclusion that is assumed to be valid for all of them.
</p><p>
With his new statement, Steven Jones now implies that red-gray chips extracted from WTC dust by magnet are from different materials. He writes:
</p>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>
Please keep in mind that Millette used the very same method to gather red-gray chips that Jones did. Thus, if Millette can extract a different material, so can Jones, and with that reasoning, he has to consider the possibility that, for example, the MEK-soaked chip wasn't the same material as chips a-d, or that the chips Farrer wasted in the DSC were different from each other, from chips a-d, and / or different from the MEK-soaked chip.
</p><p>
Also, note how Jones determines that "<i>his [Millette's] samples do not appear to be the same material</i>": he notes that some of Millettes chips, according to SEM-XEDS spectra, contain element X and not Y, while some of Jones's chips contain Y and not X. The same argument can be applied to Jones's own chips:
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha">
<li>The MEK-soaked chip contains Zn and Mg but no Na or K; Chip (c) on the other hand contains neither Zn nor Mg, but does show Na and K. </li>
<li></li>
<li>The DSC-residue of a chip shown in Fig. 25 shows Ti; Neither chips a-d nor the MEK-soaked chip have Ti.</li>
<li>The chip in Fig. 31 contains Pb. No other chip shown in [1] contains Pb</li>
<li>The gray layer of the chip in Fig. 33 contains no Fe; all gray layers in Fig 6 are dominated by Fe</li>
</ol>
<p>
<b>I call on Steven Jones to puclicly acknowledge that <i>obviously</i> the red-gray chips are of different materials, rendering the conclusions of Harrit e.al. invalid!</b>
</p><p>
There's even more: Jones rejects Millette's samples on the ground that Millette reports no Pb, Sr and Cr. By the same reasoning, Jones ought to have rejected ALL specimens presented in his own paper, ATM, on the grounds that none are shown to contain Pb, Sr and Cr!
</p><p>
He alleges that Millette's finding of Ti is grounds to exclude the specimen from the study, yet included a specimen with Ti in ATM.
</p><p>
The explanations for these discrepancies are obvious:
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha">
<li>As the chips are obviously from different materials, some are bound to contain Pb, others not; some are bound to contain Sr and Cr, others not; some are bound to contain Ti, others not; some are bound to contain Zn or Mg, others not; etc.</li>
<li>On each specimen, it would be possible and easy to miss a small trace of an element when scanning the bulk of a particle with SEM-EDS, but finding small particles containing that element within the specimen when focussing the much hiigher resolution of TEM-EDS on select pigments</li>
</ol>
<p>
Farrer's finding of particles containing Pb, Sr and Cr is very interesting, but near useless without having the actual data for reference. <b>I call upon Dr. Farrer to publish his TEM-data fully and as soon as possible!</b>
</p>
<h1>Conclusions</h1>
<p>
Steven Jones did not intend this, isn't perhaps aware of it and would probably deny it, but his latest comments have strengthened the hypothesis that some of the red-gray chips were corroded steel chipped off the WTC floor joists, which were painted by LaClede Steel Company with a primer containing pigments of Iron Oxide and Kaolin along with traces of Strontium Chromate, by confirming that
</p>
<ol>
<li>some chips contain particles with strontium and chromium</li>
<li>the Al:Si ratio observed in many of the chips is consistent with Kaolin</li>
</ol>
<p>
Further, he has retracted the claim that DSC tests ought to be done under air to compare the results with actual nano-thermite. This puts into further doubt the validity and usefulness of doing DSC tests on the red-gray chips and speaks against repeating such tests.
</p><p>
Lastly, Jones has admitted, by implication, that the WTC dust contains several different materials that form red-gray, magnetically attracted chips. He has provided criteria for when to doubt that two chips are of the same material. Applying the same criteria to ATM (Harrit e.al., [1]) invalidates at once all major conclusions of that paper and resets the status of the debate to "<b>there is no evidence that any red-gray chips contain aluminothermic material</b>".
</p>
<h1>The Source: Recent remarks by Steven Jones at 911Blogger</h1>
<p>
Quoting at length from the post for posterity - first what Jones <i>originally</i> posted (I left out parts that bring up other issues than the four I discuss here):
</p>
<blockquote>Dear [Interested Scientist],
<br><br>
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.]
<br><br>
Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:
<br><br>
<b>1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),</b>
<br>
<b>2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).</b>
<br><br>
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.
<br>[...]<br>
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.
<br><br>
[...]
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
[...]
<br><br>
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 .
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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</blockquote>
<p>A day later, SE Jones had received feed-back from his collaborater at BYU, Jeff Farrer (manager of the BYU TEM-lab), and appended his blog post with the following clarifications (again, only showing the parts that are of interest here):
<blockquote>Note added, based on comments received 9-9-12 from Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.
<br>
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.
<br>
[...]
<br>
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.
<br>
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.
<br>
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.</blockquote>
<h1>References</h1>
<p>
[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.
Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.
Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: <A HREF="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe</A>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31
</p><p>
[2] Oystein: <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html">Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer</a>. 2012/03/16
</p><p>
[3] Steven E. Jones: <a href="http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses">Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses</a>. Blog post at 911Blogger, 2012/09/08. Last retrieved 2012/09/12.
</p><p>
[4] Niels H. Harrit: <A HREF="http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf">Why
The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint</A>. Open Letter, May 2009
</p><p>
[5] T.M. Tillotson et al: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/80585354/T-M-Tillotson-et-al-Nanostructured-energetic-materials-using-sol-gel-methodologies">Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies</a>. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 285 (2001) 338-345
</p><p>
[6] T.M. Tillotson and Alexander Gash: <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8604233#post8604233">E-Mails</a>. As quoted by "Moorea" at the JREF forum on 2012/09/09. Original mails probably written on or shortly before either 2010/07/12 or 2010/12/07.
</p><p>
[7] Oystein: <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html">Why red-gray chips aren't all the same</a>. 2012/03/14
</p><p>
[8] James R. Millette: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf">Revised Report of Results: MVA9119. Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC dust</a>. Prepared for Classical Guide, Denver, 01 March 2012.
</p>
Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com42tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-525797726469093572012-06-16T17:37:00.000+02:002012-06-16T17:37:02.693+02:00Too little thermite to blow up Mark Basile's chip<h1>Abstract</h1>
<p>
Mark Basile analysed red-gray chips he found in dust samples collected in lower Manhattan very shortly after the collapse of the World Trade towers on 2001/09/11 [1.1]. In particular, he shows how vigorously his chip reacts when heated on a steel strip, producing rapid ejections of gas [1.2]. Basile suggests that this reaction is best explained by the thermite reaction, apparently affecting the organic matrix.
</p><p>
In an earlier blog post [2], I have shown that his data reveals that at most 4.7% by weight of the "energetic" red layer of one particular chip could possibly be stoichiometric thermite, while most of the layer (ca. 88%) must be a matrix of some unidentified polymer.
</p><p>
Some 9/11 Truth Movement adherents who believe that these red-gray chips are "thermitic material" claim that organic substances are typically a component of modern nano-thermite preparations, both as collateral residue of the synthesis (e.g. ca. 10% [3.1]) and as an additive to give nano-thermite explosive properties [3.2] (the organic material is rapidly turned to gas and can do volume work).
</p><p>
In this post, I will show that, at a mass ratio between thermite and organic matrix of about 1:19, as Basile's data implies, the chemical energy of the thermite does not nearly suffice to turn organic polymers to gas. It follows that the rapid reaction and creation of gas is powered by organic combustion and perhaps externally applied heat, not a thermite reaction.
</p>
<h1>Data</h1>
<h2>Basile's "lucky" chip #13</h2>
<p>
As I showed in [2], under the most "thermite friendly" assumptions, and taking Basile's data as it is, the red layer of his "lucky" red-gray chip #13 contains, by weight,
</p>
<ul>
<li>At most 4.74% ideal (stoichiometric) thermite (of the common Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>+Al variety)</li>
<li>At least 87.8% solid hydrocarbon matrix, unknown chemistry. It is safe to assume that this matrix is some form of organic polymer (or a mix of polymers), that contains no Fluorine or Chlorine</li>
<li>Ca. 7.1% (the balance) inorganic compounds, assumed to be inert</li>
</ul>
<h2>Thermal properties of various polymers</h2>
<p>
The Appendix of [4] lists many combustion-related thermal properties of many organic polymers. The following values will be used in the discussion. I chose Epoxy as the reference material, since James Millette [5] has identified epoxy as the matrix material for some red-gray chips. The properties of many other non-halogenic organic polymers are in roughly the same magnitude as those of epoxy. I will state ranges for most polymers in parentheses, even though the extreme values usually are for materials that wouldn't make much sense for a matrix:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Onset of decomposition: T<SUB>d</SUB> 427 °C (250 - 570 °C, Table A-1, first column). This property describes at which temperature the matrix will beginn to decompose, a process that usually involves some charring and some release of gas. It will also show in DSC curves.
</li>
<li>Ignition temperatur T<SUB>ign</SUB>: 427°C (271 - 600°C, Table A-1., third column). Note the ignition temperature may be influenced by association / mixing with other materials. Note also that some polymers don't ignite (don't burn with atmospheric oxygen) and just decompose</li>
<li>Enthalpy of gasification h<SUB>g</SUB>: 1.5 kJ/g (1.1 - 2.6 kJ/g, Table A-2, third column). This value describes how much energy must be expended to break the molecules down to gas molecules such as CO<sub>2</sub> or water vapor during burning or decomposition - not including the heat necessary to bring the polymer to the temperature where the molecukle structure begins to break down. Note that most polymers leave behind some solid residue (char) after gasification: Epoxy 4% of its mass (column two of table A-2), others up to 75%.</li>
<li>Heat capacity c<SUB>p</SUB>: 1.7 J/g/K (0.93 - 2.09 J/g/K, Table A-3, third column). This value describes how much energy is expended when heating 1 g of polymer by 1 °C (or by 1 K, which is the same). This value changes with temperature, it is given for normal "room temperature" conditions, but it typically increases somewhat with rising temperature. I will consider it as constant, which is a "thermite-friendly" imprecision.</li>
<li>Effective heat of combustion HOC: 20.4 kJ/g (14.4 - 41.9 kJ/g, Table A-5, first column). This is the energy effectively released by 1 g of polymer under air and takes into account that the theoretical maximum is not reached in praxis. Epoxy for example burns with only only 75% effectiveness in experiment. This is again a "thermite-friendly" choice, as I will use the theoretical max for thermite (3.96 kJ/g) and not actual effective heat release (perhaps 3 kJ/g or less).</li>
</ul>
<h1>Discussion</h1>
<h2>Heating epoxy with thermite</h2>
<p>
To simplyfy things, let's ignore the inorganic components other than stoichiometric thermite, and mix thermite and epoxy in the proportions according to Basile's data: 4.74 g of thermite, 87.8 g of epoxy. Let's further assume we could ignite this thermite and have it react perfectly within the epoxy matrix without heating the epoxy first, and have all of the heat of reaction be absorbed by the epoxy. Could the thermite reaction turn the matrix to gas and cause the rapid gas ejections seen in Basile's video? Let's see!
</p><p>
4.74 g of thermite contain at most (theoretical maximum) 4.74 g x 3.96 kJ/g = 18.7 kJ
</p><p>
If you put these 18.7 kJ of heat into 87.8 g of epoxy, which has a specific heat capacity of 1.7 J/g/°C, you warm it by 18,700 J / 87.8 g / 1.7 J/g/°C = 125 °C, reaching ca. 150 °C. Neither epoxy nor any other polymer would come close to the start of decomposition just from this thermite reaction!
</p>
<h2>Gasifying epoxy with thermite</h2>
<p>
Of course, the assumption that the epoxy isn't already heated to the brink of decomposition isn't realistic - thermite wouldn't ignite at room temperature, and you can't heat only the thermite inside the matrix. So next up. let's assume the epoxy is already heated to its decompostion temperature of 427°C, as is the thermite - which is concidentally (???) the temperature at which Harrit e.al. [6] observed ignition of red-gray chips. How much epoxy could the reaction of 4.74 g thermite turn to gas? Let's see!
</p><p>
Epoxy has an effective enthalpy of gasification of 1.5 kJ/g. The energy release of our thermite, 18.7 kJ, could thus gasify 18.kJ / 1.5 kJ/g = 12.5 g of epoxy, out of 87.8 g of epoxy in our sample, that's about 14%.
</p>
<h2>What causes the gas jets and the heating of "lucky" chip #13?</h2>
<p>
Marc Basile had heated his chip on a thin (50 µm) steel strip through which he sent a constant electrical current. Here a screenshot from 40:17 in his presentation [1]:
</p><p>
<a href="http://s1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/MarcBasilePresentation/?action=view&current=Basile_40_17_Chip13_HowToHeatIt-1.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/MarcBasilePresentation/Basile_40_17_Chip13_HowToHeatIt-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
</p><p>
This is, obviously, an important heat source. He gives is no idea how hot the strip got during the experiment. Hot enough apparently to ignite and gasify <i>something</i> - but potentially much hotter than just that. At the very least, this external heat infused 400 K x 1.7 J/g/K = 680 kJ/g into the probe just to heat the epoxy - thermite's theoretical max would be about 180 J/g, or 26% maximum compared with the heating strip.
</p><p>
It is obvious from my calculations above that thermite, even if present at all and in the maximum possible amount, contributes only minimally to the reaction of the organic matrix.
</p><p>
In particular: Every Joule expended on heating the matrix can't be expended to gasify it. Every Joule expended to gasify the matrix can't be used to heat any bit of matrix. And every Joule expended to do work on the matrix is lost to heat and ignite the next thermite particles to continue the thermite reaction. This material could never burn if the matrix were inert and the probe weren't externally heated. What is the use of thermite in such low concentration?
</p><p>
The organic matrix on the other hand is assured to release enough energy to: Heat the probe including all minerals and the gray layer, achieve full gasification, and warm its environment: of the 20.4 kJ/g effective energy density, only 1.5 kJ/g are expended on gasification, 0.7 kJ/g (1.7 J/g/K x 400 K) are expended to heat the same mass of epoxy from room temperature to ignition temperature, and then 18.2 kJ/g are left to do work on everything else
</p>
<h1>Conclusions</h1>
<p>
The three obvious and available heat sources in Basile's ignition experiment provide this much energy per gram of probe:
</p>
<ol>
<li>Combustion of epoxy: 12.6 - 36.8 kJ/g (Epoxy: 17.9 kJ/g = )</li>
<li>Heating strip: 0.7 kJ/g or more</li>
<li>Thermite: 0.18 kJ/g or less</li>
</ol>
<p>
5% Thermite in an organic matrix make no difference. On its on, it couldn't warm the matrix even to onset decomposition, it could not destroy more than a small fraction of the polymer molecules, and it would be incapable of doing any significant work on anything outside of the chip
</p><p>
<b>Whatever reaction is observed in the video of chip #13 burning, it is not driven by a thermite reaction. It is simple organic polymer combustion, helped to an unknown but probably significant degree by the external heat of the heating strip underneath.</b>
</p>
<h1>Additional remarks</h1>
<p>
1. I believe almost all red-gray chips found in WTC dust, including Basile's chip, are some sort of red primer paint on spalled steel / steel mill. Gauging the composition of LaClede standard primer [7], I suspect that Basile's quantification of the elemental composition is a bit off the mark - I would expect to see closer to 30% inorganic materials rather than the 12% according to Basile. I suspect in particular that he underestimates the amount of iron: His red layer is red paint, and the red pigment most certainly is iron oxide. There should be closer to 10% of the element iron rather than Basile's 2.6%. However, I am only guessing here, and I can only go by the data Basile provides
</p><p>
I am convinced that Millette [5] and Harrit e.al. [6] looked, most closely at LaClede standard primer, which according to my own analysis [7] can be expected to contain 2.4% aluminium. Harrit's chips a-d match the expected elemental composition of LaClede paint so closely, that I would say definitely these chips contain about that much of the elememnt Al. If, hypothetically, all that Al were elemental, it could react with three times as much of the iron oxide to form 10.4% thermite - against 71.5% epoxy. This ratio, 1:6.9 thermite:epoxy, is still insufficient to either heat epoxy from room temperature to ignition point, or gasify most of it, and the heat content of the epoxy would still outnumber that of the thermite by a ratio of at least 50:1, rendering the thermite insignificant.
</p><p>
In further, unpublished work, I have estimated that the total Al content of Harrit e.al.'s MEK-soaked chip ([7], Fig. 14) is only 0.6%, to allow for a maximum of 2.4% thermite. It should be obvious by now that this is even less significant than the hypothetical thermite-content of Basile's chip or the chips a-d that resemble LaClede so much. It is interesting that this MEK-soaked chip, with its very low overall Al-content, is the only one where the "thermite" theorists seem to have identified any elemental Al at all.
</p>
<h1>References</h1>
<p>
[1.1] Mark Basile: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc">911 Dust Analysis Raises Questions</a>. Videotaped presentation at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire on 26th June 2010, 4pm (On YouTube; 59:22 minutes, Last retrieved: June 16 2012)
</p><p>
[1.2] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo">Mark Basile ignites a chip (nano-thermite) - 9/11</a>. This szene is shown in [1.1] between between 41:43 and 42:00 minutes. (On YouTube; 0:16 minutes, Last retrieved: June 16 2012)
</p><p>
[2] Oystein: <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/how-mark-basile-confirms-that-red-gray.html">How Mark Basile confirms that red-gray chips are not thermitic</a>. Posted in author's blog on March 18 2012
</p><p>
[3.1] T.M. Tillotson et al: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/80585354/T-M-Tillotson-et-al-Nanostructured-energetic-materials-using-sol-gel-methodologies">Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies</a>. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 285 (2001) 338-345
</p><p>
[3.2] <i>(Currently too lazy to find an exemplary paper)</i>
</p><p>
[4] Richard E. Lyon and Marc L. Janssens: <a href="http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf">Polymer Flammability</a>. May 2005 - Final Report for the U.S. Department of Transportation and FAA. Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-05/14
</p><p>
[5] James R. Millette: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf">Revised Report of Results: MVA9119. Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC dust</a>. Prepared for Classical Guide, Denver, 01 March 2012.
</p><p>
[6] Niels H. Harrit et al: <a href="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe</a>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31. Figure 19 shows ignition temperatures around 430°C
</p><p>
[7] Oystein: <a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html">Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer</a>
</p>. Posted in author's blog on March 16 2012Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-81423097226413007382012-06-07T18:42:00.000+02:002012-06-26T13:36:55.526+02:00Monitoring Truther Petition about WTC7 at Avaaz<p>
<i>Updated June 8th, 2012: Uploaded Graphic "What Kawika is getting so far" with new data points for today</i>
<br><i>Updated June 10th, 2012: Uploaded Graphic "What Kawika is getting so far" with new data points for today</i>
<br><i>Updated June 14th, 2012: Uploaded Graphic "What Kawika is getting so far" with new data points up to 06/13, and new graph to compare Dream vs. Reality. Also, link to kawika's latest comment from 06/11</i>
<br><i>Updated June 19th, 2012: Uploaded Graphic "What Kawika is getting so far" and "Dream vs. Reality" with new data points up to 06/18</i>
<br><i>Updated June 26th, 2012: Uploaded Graphic "What Kawika is getting so far", "What Kawika wants" (short term till jun 25th) and "Dream vs. Reality" with new data points up to 06/25</i>
</p>
<h1>The Poll</h1>
<p>
Over at 911Blogger, <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-05-07/petition-revise-us-government-final-report-collapse-building-7">Mark Graham announced on May 7th</a> that he has set up a petition to "<a href="http://avaaz.org/en/petition/Revise_the_US_government_final_report_on_the_collapse_of_Building_7/">Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7</a>" at the independent petitioning platform "Avaaz.com". This was his second attempt, a first petition had been pulled by Avaaz days earlier. This first attempt was <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-05-07/petition-revise-us-government-final-report-collapse-building-7">blogged by user "kawika" on April 24th</a>:
</p>
<blockquote>MILLION SIGNATURES to be sent to NIST
<br>Wouldn't that be nice? Making this viral is no big deal.</blockquote>
<h1>What kawika dreams:</h1>
<p>In the thread to Mark's second petition (which, by the way, was also pulled by Avaaz, but reinstated a week later), <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-01/censorship-reversed-avaaz-community-members-support-restoration-building-7-petition#comment-256807">kawika was enthusiastic on June 3rd</a> (my bolding):
</p>
<blockquote>We are at 999
<br>One more to break through the 1000 mark. Send this link to all your contacts. <b>This will grow exponentially.</b></blockquote>
<p>What does that mean - "grow exponentially"?
</p><p>
In a nutshell, it means that every day, the number of signers will increase. Suppose, for example, every day, on average, any 12% of the people who have already signed this petition would convince one other person to also sign. Then the number of signatures would increase by 12% in one day. If it starts today at 1000 signatures, then 12% increase would mean 120 new signatures by tomorrow, or 1120 total. A day later, we'd see 12% of 1120, or 134 new signatures, and the day after that 150 new signatures, etc.
</p><p>
The number of signatures would double in little more than 6 days. And then double again in another 6 or 7 days. And so forth. At that rate, the petition would indeed reach 1 million after 2 months - give or take a few days (there will be some random variations from day to day of course).
</p><p>
The point is: "Exponential growth" means that the %-increase from day to day stays about the same, while the number of new signatures per day increases. If you draw a chart of such exponential growth of the Petition, it would look like this after three weeks:
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAql-i4KgJvcoqkwmiMacgQ2wFbUj0N-KeYugMpBon4NQEB22sQ53R6jPgge95sOVvZ-_eSWYJzGj1TNg_3C6bmpLUZL688zNE4JTFcIa9XQ5CCBs0xdw0-epkw8-b7pdgcsrRBUrcA8KQ/s1600/AvaazPoll_Dream_0604-0625.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="225" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAql-i4KgJvcoqkwmiMacgQ2wFbUj0N-KeYugMpBon4NQEB22sQ53R6jPgge95sOVvZ-_eSWYJzGj1TNg_3C6bmpLUZL688zNE4JTFcIa9XQ5CCBs0xdw0-epkw8-b7pdgcsrRBUrcA8KQ/s400/AvaazPoll_Dream_0604-0625.jpg" /></a>
</p><p>
The things to look for that are typical for "exponential growth": The orange curve, which is the growth rate in %, remains about steady (the line is horizontal), while the blue line, which is the number of new signatures, increases from day to day (the line rises from left to right). If you run this for 2 months, it will look something like this:
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkuDSDp4x6jbKV1HigCha1MAlPjz8vAdA5RHcZgIYwrNt6Ns0fF3LR67ONaFnnBr3p-JeXGLwSG1BzbJgfq-f4dt7YGvku3ncxdKv6odO9nWg6HpTbtr-wnN6BNif6CgOMcbxqaWpwIANz/s1600/AvaazPoll_Dream_0604-0803.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkuDSDp4x6jbKV1HigCha1MAlPjz8vAdA5RHcZgIYwrNt6Ns0fF3LR67ONaFnnBr3p-JeXGLwSG1BzbJgfq-f4dt7YGvku3ncxdKv6odO9nWg6HpTbtr-wnN6BNif6CgOMcbxqaWpwIANz/s400/AvaazPoll_Dream_0604-0803.jpg" /></a>
</p><p>
You see, the orange line remains steady, the blue line gets steeper and steeper as time goes on!
</p>
<h1>What kawika actually gets:</h1>
<p>
I have been monitoring how the petition has been developing since june 3rd. It is now past june 25th, so we have seen 21 days of new signatures. They have a total of 1,468 now. And here is the actual development:
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVf8CLXnUFaag1x22EQ29iNqVcW8KK5zBKTn_24DIjn09odBHrMwREqmGdqahMLtEKuVPdeyQT5lwRMansyNqhWcoL7QipocnM2SMnqVfR0_AKxWrvmCCt-OjIa05ErVrXItaH8bPvOEIy/s1600/AvaazPoll_Actual_0604-0625.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="225" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVf8CLXnUFaag1x22EQ29iNqVcW8KK5zBKTn_24DIjn09odBHrMwREqmGdqahMLtEKuVPdeyQT5lwRMansyNqhWcoL7QipocnM2SMnqVfR0_AKxWrvmCCt-OjIa05ErVrXItaH8bPvOEIy/s400/AvaazPoll_Actual_0604-0625.jpg" /></a>
</p><p>
The growth rate in % (orange line) is not steady, it dropped rapidly in the first few days, almost reached 0, and has remained near 0 since. The number of new signatures per day (blue line) has declined even more, relatively speaking. It ought to be climbing! It hovered between 1 and 15 signatures per day for the last two weeks. That's background noise at Avaaz.
</p><p>
To compare Dream vs. Reality so far:
</p><p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlrv6gok2NT_2XZRcOjpmftiZ3wR1l74K4YnLcsi14bIuxOkQKHQmrDGJvDQ8dpipuvY1cHIGmLDIBLrwClL0flODggxMN7vWwsyl6VtwXk16JsEFNsSRKmlJipmhxQQqgbAbC1EK8wXbm/s1600/AvaazPoll_Actual_vs_Dream_0604-0625.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="225" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlrv6gok2NT_2XZRcOjpmftiZ3wR1l74K4YnLcsi14bIuxOkQKHQmrDGJvDQ8dpipuvY1cHIGmLDIBLrwClL0flODggxMN7vWwsyl6VtwXk16JsEFNsSRKmlJipmhxQQqgbAbC1EK8wXbm/s400/AvaazPoll_Actual_vs_Dream_0604-0625.jpg" /></a>
</p>
<h1>kawika keeps dreaming!</h1>
<p>
Amazing, but true: Just as the petition was trickling down to almost zero, Kawika still thought the petition had "momentum". <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-01/censorship-reversed-avaaz-community-members-support-restoration-building-7-petition#comment-256850">Commenting at 911Blogger on June 11th</a>:
</p>
<blockquote>
<b>1403--Keep Up The Momentum</b>
<br>
Multiply. Advertize. Share widely.
</blockquote>
<p>
LOL. Multiply they do. Unfortunately, the number of new signatures per day has been multiplying by only something like 0.75 each day.
</p><p>
(Update june 25th:) There has not been another comment on this failed petition since june 11th. But they set up <a href="http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-19/president-obama-911-families-ask-you-watch-911-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out">another one on change.org</a> ... I may blog about that at a later time.
</p>
<h1>Conclusion (FINAL)</h1>
<p>
Those truthers who expect their petitions and news and everything to go viral, grow exponentially, gain momentum, have impact, are seriously out of contact with reality. As with many of the irrelevant petitions at Avaaz and other platforms, such initiatives loose steam only days after they are first announced and spread. It appears that the Truth Movement cannot muster more than a few thousand individuals world-wide to even fill out a form on the internet.
</p><p>
Interestingly, this Avaaz petition has been "liked" on Facebook 580 times, twittered 75 times and forwarded by email almost 90 times, according to the Avaaz page (as of june 25th). It appears that these means of viral marketing haven't had a great impact.
</p><p>
I predict a continuation of this trend: Fewer and fewer new signatures every day, instead of exponential growth.
</p><p>
Update june 25th: I made the prediction after june 7th. It has been true on each of the three days since. Since then there have never been more than 14 signatures per day, and, on average, less than 6 per day, with small fluctuations. That's basically hugging the flat line at zero. It will struggle to reach 1500 before the end of june, and eventually fade out completely.
</p><p>
I won't update this blog post any longer, unless something dramatic happens.
</p>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-19334353262349813592012-03-22T15:14:00.000+01:002012-03-22T23:56:51.368+01:00Comparison of Gray Layer XEDS by Harrit vs. Millette<P STYLE="margin-top: 0.42cm; page-break-after: avoid"><FONT FACE="Albany, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=4>Abstract</FONT></FONT></P>
<P>Harrit e.al. [1] and Millette [2] both examined the gray layers of
red-gray chips found in the WTC dust using XEDS. This article will
show that all nine gray layers are probably oxidized steel, with no
significant differences in the level of oxidation between the two
publications. However, while Harrit's four samples may well be the
same steel alloy, Millette's seem to be different steel alloys.
Perhaps one of Millette's specimens is of identical or similar steel
as Harrit's.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-top: 0.42cm; page-break-after: avoid"><FONT FACE="Albany, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=4>Introduction</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Erich Maraite"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Erich Maraite">I
measured the XEDS graphs of gray layer material thus far published by
Harrit e.al. and Millete. Here are links to the bitmaps:</P>
<P>Harrit e.al.: <A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig06_orig.jpg">Chips
(a) – (d)</A></P>
<P>Millette: <A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxD/9119X01353_pt2gray_Xeds20kV.jpg">9119X0135(3)_pt2</A>,
<A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxD/9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray1_Xeds20kV.jpg">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray(1)</A>,
<A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxD/9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray1_Xeds20kV.jpg">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray(1)</A>,
<A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxD/9119-4808L16163_pt2gray_Xeds20kV.jpg">9119-4808L1616(3)_pt2</A>,
<A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxD/9119-4795L15601_pt1gray_Xeds20keV.jpg">9119-4795L1560(1)_pt1</A></P>
<P>The following Table lists the peak height in pixels:</P>
<TABLE WIDTH=100% CELLPADDING=2 CELLSPACING=0>
<COL WIDTH=97*>
<COL WIDTH=21*>
<COL WIDTH=25*>
<COL WIDTH=25*>
<COL WIDTH=21*>
<COL WIDTH=21*>
<COL WIDTH=25*>
<COL WIDTH=21*>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=20 BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Element</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>C</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>O</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Fe</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Al</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Mn</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Fe</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Fe</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Level </B>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>L-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-b</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Edge Energy
(keV)</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.537" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.54</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.842" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.84</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="1.487" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>1.49</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="5.898" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>5.9</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="6.403" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>6.4</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="7.08" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>7.08</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Millette's
gray layers:</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119X0135(3)_pt2</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="5" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">5</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="23" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">23</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="10" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">10</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="4" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">4</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="88" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">88</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="13" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">13</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray(1)</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="7" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">7</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="201" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">201</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="64" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">64</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="215" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">215</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="29" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">29</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray(1)</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="7" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">7</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="215" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">215</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="74" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">74</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="164" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">164</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="22" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">22</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-4808L1616(3)_pt2</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="7" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">7</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="41" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">41</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="11" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">11</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="97" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">97</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="15" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">15</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-4795L1560(1)_pt1</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="13" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">13</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="56" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">56</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="18" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">18</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="10" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">10</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="88" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">88</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="13" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">13</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Harrit's gray
layers:</B></P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (a)</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="20" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">20</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="266" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">266</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="98" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">98</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="10" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">10</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="322" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">322</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="45" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">45</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (b)</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="32" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">32</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="335" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">335</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="127" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">127</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="9" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="326" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">326</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="48" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">48</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (c)
</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="30" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">30</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="320" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">320</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="144" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">144</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="215" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">215</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="32" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">32</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=38% HEIGHT=20 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (d)</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="33" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">33</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="324" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">324</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="140" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">140</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="11" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">11</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=10% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="309" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">309</P>
</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8% STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="43" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">43</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P>I then computed the relative peak heights, using a formula
(Individual peak height) / Sum(all peaks in the same line). So for
example, in Sample Chip (a), C has a pixel height of 20px, and the
sum off all pixel heights is (20+266+98+0+10+322+45), and thus
relative peak height of C would be 20 / (20+266+98+0+10+322+45) =
2.63%. With this crude method, I normalize the different absolute
dimensions of the graphs. Here's the result:</P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<TABLE COLS=8 WIDTH=100% CELLPADDING=2 CELLSPACING=0>
<COL WIDTH=237>
<COL WIDTH=49>
<COL WIDTH=58>
<COL WIDTH=58>
<COL WIDTH=49>
<COL WIDTH=49>
<COL WIDTH=58>
<COL WIDTH=49>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=20 BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Element</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>C</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>O</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Fe</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Al</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Mn</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Fe</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Fe</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Level </B>
</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>L-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-a</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>K-b</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Edge Energy
(keV)</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P><BR>
</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.537" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.54</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.842" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.84</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="1.487" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>1.49</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="5.898" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>5.9</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="6.403" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>6.4</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="7.08" SDNUM="1033;">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>7.08</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Millette's
gray layers: (This line: Arithmetic mean)</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0339291972371704" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>3.39%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.303805300109205" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>30.38%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.100544924985115" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>10.05%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0156954156954157" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>1.57%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.00%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.476799230227926" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>47.68%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0692259317451677" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>6.92%</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119X0135(3)_pt2</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.034965034965035" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">3.50%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.160839160839161" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">16.08%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0699300699300699" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">6.99%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.027972027972028" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">2.80%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.615384615384615" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">61.54%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0909090909090909" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9.09%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray(1)</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0135658914728682" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">1.36%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.38953488372093" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">38.95%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.124031007751938" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">12.40%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.416666666666667" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">41.67%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0562015503875969" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">5.62%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray(1)</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0145228215767635" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">1.45%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.446058091286307" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">44.61%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.153526970954357" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">15.35%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.340248962655602" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">34.02%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.045643153526971" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">4.56%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-4808L1616(3)_pt2</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0409356725146199" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">4.09%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.239766081871345" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">23.98%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.064327485380117" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">6.43%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.567251461988304" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">56.73%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.087719298245614" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">8.77%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-4795L1560(1)_pt1</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0656565656565657" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">6.57%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.282828282828283" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">28.28%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0909090909090909" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9.09%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0505050505050505" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">5.05%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.444444444444444" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">44.44%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0656565656565657" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">6.57%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Harrit's gray
layers: (This line: Arithmetic mean)</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0354067898211004" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>3.54%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.385029288569913" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>38.50%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.157678115968369" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>15.77%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.00%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.00904838995972935" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.90%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.361075004069813" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>36.11%</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.051762411611076" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>5.18%</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (a)</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.026281208935611" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">2.63%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.349540078843627" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">34.95%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.128777923784494" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">12.88%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0131406044678055" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">1.31%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.423127463863338" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">42.31%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0591327201051248" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">5.91%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (b)</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0364880273660205" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">3.65%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.381984036488027" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">38.20%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.144811858608894" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">14.48%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0102622576966933" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">1.03%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.371721778791334" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">37.17%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0547320410490308" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">5.47%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (c)
</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0404858299595142" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">4.05%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.431848852901485" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">43.18%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.194331983805668" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">19.43%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.290148448043185" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">29.01%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0431848852901485" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">4.32%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=20 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (d)</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0383720930232558" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">3.84%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.376744186046512" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">37.67%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.162790697674419" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">16.28%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.00%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.0127906976744186" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">1.28%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.359302325581395" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">35.93%</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.05" SDNUM="1033;0;0.00%">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">5.00%</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P STYLE="margin-top: 0.42cm; page-break-after: avoid"><FONT FACE="Albany, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=4>Discussion</FONT></FONT></P>
<P>I notice that Millette's graphs tend to have relatively larger
peaks on the high side of the energy spectrum than Harrit's: On
average, the ratio between the K-alpha and L-alpha level of Fe in
Millette's graphs is 47.68% / 10.05% = 4.74. In Harrit's samples,
that ratio is 36.11% / 15.77% = 2.29 – less than half. Of
course, both K-alpha and L-alpha represent the same amount of Fe per
sample – the differences in relative peak height thus do not
represent differences in relative element abundance. So in order to
compare the Fe:O ratio, it would be wrong to compare O with the
far-away Fe-K-alpha level. I think it is a better idea to compare O
with the nearby L-alpha level of iron. These ratios are:</P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<TABLE COLS=2 WIDTH=100% CELLPADDING=2 CELLSPACING=0>
<COL WIDTH=237>
<COL WIDTH=133>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=20 BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Sample</B></P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ffff99" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Ratio Fe(L-a)
: O(K-a)</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Millette's
gray layers:</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.337" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.337</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119X0135(3)_pt2</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.434782608695652" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.435</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray(1)</P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.318407960199005" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.318</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray(1)</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.344186046511628" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.344</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-4808L1616(3)_pt2</P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.268292682926829" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.268</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">9119-4795L1560(1)_pt1</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.321428571428571" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.321</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>Harrit's gray
layers:</B></P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.407" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm"><B>0.407</B></P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (a)</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.368421052631579" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.368</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (b)</P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.37910447761194" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.379</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=18 BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (c)
</P>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#e6e6ff" STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.45" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.450</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD HEIGHT=20 STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">Chip (d)</P>
</TD>
<TD STYLE="; border: none; padding: 0cm" SDVAL="0.432098765432099" SDNUM="1033;0;0.000">
<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="border: none; padding: 0cm">0.432</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P>Here is a plot of the individual samples in both datasets, ordered
from highest to lowest Fe:O ration within each set:</P>
<P><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MilletteAnalysis/Fe-O-ratios_MilletteHarrit.jpg" NAME="Grafik1" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=546 HEIGHT=314 BORDER=0>
</P>
<P>While the Fe:O ratio appears slightly lower in Millette's samples,
the difference isn't major (on average, Harrit e.al. and Millette
differ from each other by ~20%). In any case, Millette's gray layers
would appear slightly more oxidized (higher Fe:O-ratio means lower
O:Fe-ratio), assuming the relative heights of neighboring peaks can
be compared across the studies. I conclude that the data provided by
both Harrit e.al and Millette indicate the presence of iron that is
oxidized to a comparable degree.</P>
<P>All samples also show some carbon. In Harrit's samples, the ratios
C : Fe(L-alpha) are all within a narrow band from 0.204 to 0.252
(mean: 0.225), while Millette's scatter from 0.095 to 0.722 (mean:
0.413). I caution the reader that XEDS signals for C are very
sensitive to many influences, and variation in the data doesn't
necessarily reflect an equal degree of variation in abundance.
</P>
<P>On the other hand, 2 of Millette's 5 samples show some Al, and
none Mn, while 3 of Harrit's 4 samples show some Mn, but no Al.
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-top: 0.42cm; page-break-after: avoid"><FONT FACE="Albany, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=4>Conclusions</FONT></FONT></P>
<P>It would appear that all 9 samples are consistent with oxidized
carbon steel; but while Harrit may well have 4 samples from the same
steel, it appears that Millette's specimens may be different steel
alloys. I find it possible that the 9119-5230M3451B specimen may be
the same, or a similar, steel that Harrit e.al. looked at, while the
9119X0135(3), 9119-4808L1616(3) and 9119-4795L1560(1) specimens are
different steels on account of their Al-content and probably too high
carbon content.</P>
<P>This finding
</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>lends confidence to the belief that both Harrit an Millette
looked at red-gray chips where the gray layer is oxidized structural
steel and red the layer is mineral pigments in organic matrix</P>
<LI><P>reinforces the suspicion that there are several different
kinds of red-gray chips in WTC dust</P>
<LI><P>highlights the need to carefully identify and distinguish
these different kinds of red-gray chips before any particular
conclusions or further study are contemplated.</P>
</UL>
<P STYLE="margin-top: 0.42cm; page-break-after: avoid"><FONT FACE="Albany, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=4>References</FONT></FONT></P>
<P>[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.
Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.
Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: <A HREF="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe</A>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31. Figure 6.</P>
<P>[2] James R. Millette: <A HREF="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf">Report
of Results: MVA9119. Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray
Chips in WTC dust. Prepared for Classical Guide, Denver, 29 February
2012</A>. Appendix D: SEM Analysis of Cross-Sections (20 kV)</P>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-12796624606836834262012-03-18T18:57:00.000+01:002012-03-22T23:56:26.036+01:00How Mark Basile confirms that red-gray chips are not thermitic<H1>1. Abstract</H1>
<P>Mark Basile has presented his analysis of red-gray chips he found
in dust collected in lower Manhattan very shortly after the collapse
of the World Trade towers on 2001/09/11 [1]. He concludes that his
experiments confirm a similar but more comprehensive study published
by Harrit e.al. [2]. Harrit e.al. have in turn accepted Basile's
findings as confirmation of their conclusions: That the red-gray
chips are thermitic in nature.</P>
<P>I will show that this conclusion is not warranted in any way.
Instead, Basile's favorite specimen is organic by nature, with at
most 1.3%, but perhaps 0%, of the heat of reaction coming from a
thermite reaction, the balacnce, 98.7%-100%, from ordinary organic
hydrocarbon combustion.
</P>
<P>If this result is a “confirmation” of Harrit e.al., as
9/11 Truthers like to point out, then clearly this puts in grave
doubt the affirmation that Harrit's chips were of thermitic nature.</P>
<H1>2. Introduction</H1>
<P>Mark Basile is a chemical engineer whose name is the second among
those that Harrit e.al [2] thank for in their Acknowledgments (page
30). He held a videotaped presentation at the Porcupine Freedom
Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire on June 26th, 2010 at 4pm [1].
According to the presentation, between 30:00 and 31:26 minutes, he
received a bag with “a few table-spoons” of dust
collected by Janette MacKinlay in January 2008. Janette MacKinlay is
also the contributor of dust sample 1 to Harrit e.al.</P>
<P>Basile isolated various dust particles from the sample, using a
magnet and a petri dish, among them “iron based microspheres,
Red/gray chips, Red chips, Rust, Wire”, also “Silicate or
glassy spheres”. One particular red/gray flake, designated
“#13” (he calls it “his lucky thirteen”), was
photographed through a microscope, analyzed using XEDS and then
heated till ignition, and the burning recorded on video through a
microscope.</P>
<P>Basile found iron and aluminium atoms in the red layer, and
concludes that the combustion he observed it probably thermitic.</P>
<H1>3. The data</H1>
<P>Here is the XEDS graph for chip # 13, shown at 39:30 in the video:</P>
<P><A HREF="http://s1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/MarcBasilePresentation/?action=view&current=Basile_39_30_Chip13_XEDS.jpg" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/MarcBasilePresentation/Basile_39_30_Chip13_XEDS.jpg" NAME="Grafik1" ALT="Photobucket" ALIGN=BOTTOM BORDER=0></A>
</P>
<P>He explains that the table of weight-% values is derived from a
standard software routine on the XEDS. I want to advise the reader to
be careful with such derivations: The peak height or x-ray counts in
XEDS spectra depend somewhat on a number of factors, such as surface
and bulk geometry of the sample, and the presence or absence of
materials that may tend to attenuate signals. The values aren't
wrong, but remember that they come with a certain margin of error
that is difficult to estimate.
</P>
<P>Later in the presentation, between 41:43 and 42:00, Basile shows
how such a red chip burns. I note his dramatic description of the
event, but basically I just see something burning. So where does the
heat of that reaction come from?</P>
<H1>4. Discussion</H1>
<P>Through most of this discussion, I will use the most
“thermite-friendly” data and assumptions. By this I mean,
I will take the data points where thermite ingredients were most
abundant. I will assume that iron was indeed Fe<SUB>2</SUB>O<SUB>3</SUB>
and enough aluminium indeed elemental. I will assume that all of
these intgredients contributed to a thermite reaction, with no losses
and almost prefect execution. I will try to minimize the amount of
hydrocarbons and its energy contribution so that the thermite
reaction becomes as dominant as it can get.</P>
<H2 CLASS="western">4.1 Chemical composition - “thermite
friendly”</H2>
<P>The elemental composition that Basile shows in that table above
translates into a mix of chemical compounds. Let's see what that mix
looks like under the assumption that it contains the maximum amount
of thermite, and minimum amount of other energetic compounds. To do
so, I will use the weight-% figures in the first line, as the values
for iron and aluminium, the main ingredients of thermite, are higher
there.</P>
<P>Basile himself explains at 39:46:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>In large part, it's an organic material of some sort</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>I agree fully: According to his quantification, more than 72% of
the red layer are carbon. Basile knows that almost all of the carbon
is bound with oxygen and hydrogen (and possibly other elements mixed
in) to form hydrocarbons. This immediately means that <I>more</I>
than 72% of the red layer is some kind hydrocarbon: Hydrocarbons also
contain, as the name implies, hydrogen (H), which doesn't show up in
an XEDS graph because it is too light. In many organic compounds, the
molar (atom count) ratio of C:H is between 1:1 (for example Benzene,
C<SUB>6</SUB>H<SUB>6</SUB>, which is a building block for many more
complex molecules, including epoxies or TNT) and 1:2 (for example
MEK, C<SUB>4</SUB>H<SUB>8</SUB>O, an organic solvant), which
translates to mass ratios between carbon and hydrogen between 12:1
and 6:1. Staying on the careful (“thermite-friendly”)
side, 72% of organic C in the red layer implies at least an addition
of 72%/12 = 6% H by weight (increasing the sums of weights to 106%,
if you will). Almost all hydrocarbons also have oxygen in their
molecules, and certainly the nearly 20% of O are not bound to the
metals.</P>
<P>Now let's try to use up as much of all the elements in inorganic
compounds as we can – with the exception of aluminium, which I
will assume to be totally elemental (an unrealistic assumption –
Al is <I>always</I> oxidized on its surface):</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>All the silicon is fully oxidized as SiO<SUB>2</SUB></P>
<LI><P>All the iron is fully oxidized as Fe<SUB>2</SUB>O<SUB>3</SUB></P>
<LI><P>All the sulfur and some of the calcium is assumed to be
contamination with gypsum: CaSO<SUB>4</SUB>.2H<SUB>2</SUB>O (this
adds a tiny, almost negligible amount of H, which I do take into
account)</P>
<LI><P>All the chromium and some of the calcium is calcium chromate:
CaCrO<SUB>4</SUB></P>
<LI><P>The remainder of calcium is calcium carbonate (this will
remove a bit organic carbon): CaCO<SUB>3</SUB></P>
<LI><P>All the potassium is potassium carbonate (removes more C from
organics): K<SUB>2</SUB>CO<SUB>3</SUB></P>
</UL>
<P>If you do that, you will find that of the 19.83% oxygen in
Basile's table, only 4.86% can be accounted for by inorganic
compounds, while almost 15% must be part of the hydrocarbon matrix;
Not more than 3% of the carbon could be explained as inorganic
(inert) carbonates of calcium and potassium. The hydrocarbon matrix
would have C:O:H in ratios of about 12:3:1 by mass, or 5:1:5 by atom
count – this assuming a hydrocarbon very poor in hydrogen. A
C:O molar ration of 5:1 is not far from the 6:1 ratio that I computed
for a typical cured epoxy (unpublished private work), but any
commenter is invited to correct me on that point.</P>
<P>The most “thermite-friendly” composition of the red
layer computes thus to, by weight:</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>87.8% hydrocarbon matrix</P>
<LI><P>3.54% iron oxide (thermite ingredient)</P>
<LI><P>1.58% aluminium (elemental, thermite ingredient)</P>
<LI><P>7.08% other inorganic compounds</P>
</UL>
<H2 CLASS="western">4.2 Stoichiometric thermite</H2>
<P>The thermite reaction is</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm">Fe<SUB>2</SUB>O<SUB>3</SUB> + 2 Al →
Al2O3 + 2 Fe</P>
<P>1 mol of Fe<SUB>2</SUB>O<SUB>3</SUB> has a mass of 159.69 g, and 2
mols of Al have a mass of 53.96 g, so if you want to mix these two
ingredients in ideal (what the chemist calls “<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometric">stoichiometric</A>”)
proportions, you'd have to take 159.69 / (159.69+53.96) = 74.7%
iron oxide, and (the balance of) 25.3% pure aluminium.</P>
<P>In Basile's red layer, these components appear 3.54 : 1.58,
or 69% : 31%. So there is relatively too much Al –
and indeed, I unrealistically assumed that all the Al would be
elemental, when in fact at least some of the Al will always be
oxidized, as the top few nanometers of all aluminium surfaces react
with oxygen almost instantly. A few nanometers sounds like very
little, but of course Basile, like Harrit e.al., claim we are dealing
with nano-thermite, so a few nanometers is significant!</P>
<P>If you want to pair 3.54% by weight iron oxide stoichiometrically
with Al, you need 3.54% * (74,7%/25.3%) = 1.20% aluminium, which
means <B>the mass fraction of ideal thermite in Basile's red layer is
at most 3.54% + 1.20% = 4.74%</B>.</P>
<H2 CLASS="western">4.3 Energy content of thermite and hydrocarbons</H2>
<P>What's the maximum energy density of thermite? According to [2],
page 28,
</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>the theoretical limit for thermite alone [is] (3.9 kJ/g)</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>The value is actually a little closer to, but still slightly
under, 4.0 kJ/g, but as no reaction actually reaches the theoretical
upper limit, 3.9 is a good (and optimistic, i.e. “thermite-friendly”)
value to go with.</P>
<P>As shown above, at most 4.74% of the red layer can consist of the
thermite ingredients in perfect proportions, so this thermite would
contribute only 3.9 kJ/g * 4.74% = 0.185 kJ/g
of energy to the red layer, per mass of the same.</P>
<P>What's the energy density of the organic matrix? Since we don't
know what hydrocarbon we are looking at, and since it is difficult to
find tabulated values for energy density of organic polymers such as
epoxies, I can only provide estimates. But it is well known that
practically all hydrocarbons combust or degrade exothermally under
air when heated sufficiently (after degradation,. Reactions will
continue and can be quite complex). Wikipedia [3] lists a few organic
materials and they energy density under air (the unit MJ/kg is the
same as kJ/g, since 1 MJ = 1000 kJ, and
1 kg = 1000g):</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>46 kJ/g: Some plastics (Polypropylene, Polyethylene), petrol,
Diesel fuel</P>
<LI><P>37 kJ/g: Body fat:
</P>
<LI><P>26 kJ/g: Polyester</P>
<LI><P>23 kJ/g: PET plastic</P>
<LI><P>16-18 kJ/g: Carbohydrates (sugars, starch). Wood, PVC,
proteins</P>
<LI><P>15 kJ/g: Dry cowdung and cameldung</P>
<LI><P>5 kJ/g: Teflon plastic</P>
</UL>
<P>The low value is actually fluoropolymer, in which fluor dominates
over hydrocarbon, and it is a flame retardant material. I find that
practically all pure hydrocarbons have an energy density of 15 keV or
more, sometimes much more. It is certainly reasonable to expect that
the same is true for the hydrocarbon matrix of the red layer.</P>
<P>With the hydrocarbon constituting 87.8% of the red layer, would
contribute 15 kJ/g * 87.8% = 13.17 kJ/g
of energy to the red layer, per mass of the same.</P>
<P>All the other inorganic compounds have been assumed to already be
fully oxidized, they are inert. These 7.08% of the red layer mass
would contribute nothing to a combustion, or 0 kJ/g.</P>
<P><B>To sum up: hydrocarbons would contribute 13.17 kJ/g to the
red layer, and thermite 0.185 kJ/g, in the most
“thermite-friendly” case, for a sum of 13.36 kJ/g.
Thermite contributes 1.4% to this heat, and hydrocarbons 98.6%. In
other words, hydrocarbons provide more than 71 times reaction energy
than thermite.</B></P>
<H2 CLASS="western">4.4 Less “thermite-friendly”
assumptions</H2>
<P>Each time I made assumptions, I chose the values such that
thermites's relative contribution to the heat realease would be
maximized. I chose...</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>the data set with the higher abundance of Fe and Al: Factor
1.5</P>
<LI><P>the highest possible energy density of thermite: Factor 1.3</P>
<LI><P>the lowest realistic energy density of hydrocarbon: Factor
1.2-1.7</P>
</UL>
<P>In addition, I assumed that as much aluminium would be elemental
as could be possibly oxidized by the available iron oxide. There is
no reason to assume that <I>any</I> elemental Al would be present.
Taking into account these factors, hydrocarbon heat release would
dominate that of thermite more realistically by a factor (71 x 1.5 x
1.3 x 1.2) ~ 166. If there is any thermite at all, that is.</P>
<P>Here is how I derived these three factors:</P>
<H3 CLASS="western">4.4.1 Basile's second line</H3>
<P>I used Basile's first estimate of elemental fractions, with 2.63%
iron (3.54% iron oxide) as the limiting factor of thermite abundance.
In his second line, there is only 1.73% iron, which, if completely
oxidized, would be 2.33% iron oxide. Stoichiometric mix with 0.79%
pure aluminium gives us 3.12% thermite – that's less than the
first case by a factor of 1.5</P>
<H3 CLASS="western">4.4.2 Thermite never perfect</H3>
<P>Even if you could mix thermite stoichiometrically, it would never
react 100%. Certainy, a loss of at least 30% can be expected,
especially since the aluminium- and iron oxide particles must be so
few and far between in the matrix, at such low abundances (well under
5% each). This gives another factor of at least 1.3</P>
<H3 CLASS="western">4.4.3 Hydrocarbon more energetic</H3>
<P>I chose an energy density value for the unknown hydrocarbon on the
low end of the scale of typical values. Certainly, a value between 18
and 25 kJ/g is realistic, and an even higher one possible. This gives
another factor of 1.2 – 1.7 or even more</P>
<H1>5. Conclusions</H1>
<P>I have shown that Basile's data proves that the red layer of his
red-gray chip #13 consists of at least 87.8% combustible
hydrocarbons. I further showed that, assuming the most
“thermite-friendly” values of everything, at most 4.74%
of the same material could be ideal thermite. I finally computed
that, under the same “thermite-friendly” assumptions,
thermite contributes at most 1.4% of the heat when the chip is
burned. Allowing for the maximum possible amount of elemental Al
given the data, but more average assumptions, it turns out that the
hydrocarbon matrix provides more than 100 times the heat that
thermite possibly could. The conclusions are inevitable:</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>The red-gray chip is not thermitic by nature – it's
combustion is dominated (99-100% of the energy output) by reactions
other than than the thermite reaction</P>
<LI><P>Basile's data presentation in no way confirms the presence of
thermite</P>
<LI><P>Basile shows that the hydrocarbons in red-gray chips can burn
vigorously, invalidating any claims by Harrit e.al. that the vigor
of the combustion is a sign for thermite at work</P>
<LI><P>If Basile, Harrit e.al. as well as other 9/11 Truthers are to
be believed that “Basile's results confirm Harrit e.al.'s
results”, then they must no accept that these results speak
clearly against a thermitic nature of the red-gray chips</P>
<LI><P>Alternatively, 9/11 Truthers should retract their stance that
Basile's data “confirms” Harrit e.al.</P>
</UL>
<H1>6. References</H1>
<P>[1] Mark Basile: <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc">911
Dust Analysis Raises Questions</A>. Videotaped presentation at the
Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire on 26th June
2010, 4pm</P>
<P>[2] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.
Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.
Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: <A HREF="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe</A>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31</P>
<P>[3] Wikipedia: <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density">Energy
Density</A>. Retrieved on 2012/03/18</P>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-7132292669857195332012-03-16T10:41:00.000+01:002012-03-22T23:56:26.036+01:00Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer<H1>Abstract</H1>
<P>There was not only one steel primer used on WTC tower structural
steels, but at least one other primer:</P>
<P>LaClede Standard Primer is a zinc-free paint formulation with
which the floor joists of the twin towers were painted.
</P>
<P>The painted area of these LaClede-painted floor joists in both
towers was roughly 600,000 m<SUP>2</SUP> while Tnemec is only known
to have been specified for about 400,000 m<SUP>2</SUP> of perimeter
column surface. For the rest of the structural steel – core
columns, hat truss and others, a total of 300,000 m<SUP>2</SUP> the
primer used isn't known.</P>
<P>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.</P>
<H1>Introduction</H1>
<P>Back in May 2009, Niels Harrit wrote “Why The Red/Gray Chips
Are Not Primer Paint” [1]. In it, he shows the composition of
Tnemec Red, which has, among others, Zinc Yellow as it's main
pigment. He then shows, in his Fig. 5, the XEDS spectra of the red
layers of four red-gray chips labeled (a)-(d) from WTC dust, which he
and 8 others had characterized in a paper published in April 2009
[2]. Result: Since Chips (a)-(d) contain no Zn, they can't be Tnemec.
I agree with this finding – these four chips indeed are not
Tnemec.
</P>
<P><B>But Tnemec wasn't the only steel primer used in the WTC! </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
far as is known, Tnemec was the specified primer for the WTC
perimeter columns[3].</SPAN></P>
<P>At least one other primer has been applied to WTC steel: LaClede
Steel Company, manufacturer of the floor trusses [4], used their own
shop primer, or LaClede Standard Primer with the following
composition [5]:</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>Pigment: 28.5% by weight</P>
<LI><P>Iron Oxide: 55%</P>
<LI><P>Aluminium Silicate: 41%</P>
<LI><P>Strontium Chromate: 4%</P>
<LI><P>Vehicle: 71.5%</P>
<LI><P>Epoxy Amine and other: 100%</P>
</UL>
<P>I find this <B>false</B> claim, that there was only one primer
(Tnemec) used in the WTC towers, quite often in recent articles by
people who want to defend Harrit e.al.'s claim that the red-gray
chips are somehow nano-thermitic, for example at AE911T [6a]. These
authors need to understand that they err: They have so far overlooked
LaClede Standard Primer!</P>
<H1>LaClede Standard Primer</H1>
<P>The above formulation of LaClede Standard Primer can be broken
into chemical elements, with a few reasonable assumptions:</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>“Iron oxide” is hematite, chemical formula Fe<SUB>2</SUB>O<SUB>3</SUB>,
a red pigment. Hematite pigments are bright red at particle sizes
between 100 and 300 nanometers, and in that size it is universally
used in all kinds of paints.</P>
<LI><P>“Aluminium Silicate” is kaolin, chemical formula
Al2Si2O5(OH)4, a clay mineral very commonly used in paints to
control gloss consistence. Kaolin appears naturally in platetelets
some micrometers across and some tens of nanometers thick, which
tend to stack.</P>
<LI><P>The cured epoxy vehicle is polymeric and it is difficult to
give a sum chemical sum formula, but it is dominated by carbon (C,
68% by weight), oxygen (O, 13%), hydrogen (H, 9%) and nitrogen (9%)</P>
</UL>
<P>With these chemical formulas, I computed the elemental composition
of LaClede Standard Primer:</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>C: 48% by weight</P>
<LI><P>O: 21%</P>
<LI><P>Fe: 11%</P>
<LI><P>H, N: 7% each</P>
<LI><P>Si: 2.5%</P>
<LI><P>Al: 2.4%</P>
<LI><P>Sr: 0.5%</P>
<LI><P>Cr: 0.3%</P>
</UL>
<P>Using DTSA-II, a free multiplatform software package for
quantitative x-ray microanalysis [7], I simulated a bulk sphere with
the above chemical composition, using the same 20 keV that Harrit
e.al. used:</P>
<P><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/LaClede/LaClede_Sphere25micron_01.jpg" NAME="Grafik1" ALIGN=BOTTOM BORDER=0>
</P>
<P>The five larges peaks are, from left to right: C, O, Al, Si and
Fe. Note the relative height: C is nearly twice as high as O; O is
higher than than Al and Si; Al and Si are nearly equal; Fe is perhaps
70% of Si. Note that there is a small bump for Cr (chromium) at 5.4
(keV) on the x-axis, but none for Sr (strontium). The reason why
strontium is invisible is that its main peak would be nearly exactly
where the Si peak is, so it is hidden under the much larger Si
signal.</P>
<P>We have estimated that the total painted surface area of the
LaClede floor joists was about 600,000 m<SUP>2</SUP> in both towers
combined, or 50% more than the surface area of the exterior columns
that were painted with Tnemec.</P>
<H1>Discussion</H1>
<P>Compare the XEDS graph of LaClede primer with Harrit's chips
(a)-(d):</P>
<P><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig07_ab.jpg" NAME="Grafik2" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=782 HEIGHT=546 BORDER=0>
<BR><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig07_cd.jpg" NAME="Grafik3" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=782 HEIGHT=546 BORDER=0>
</P>
<P>Now notice: C is again the highest peak by far, O is second in
three of the four chips. Al and Si are nearly the same, Fe is
typically about 70% of Si. And there is a small bump at 5.4 keV in
chips b and d, which is chromium!</P>
<P>In [1], Harrit presents a more detailed XEDS graph for chip (a):</P>
<P><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/LaClede/Harrit_figure-5b.png" NAME="Grafik4" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=782 HEIGHT=546 BORDER=0>
</P>
<P>Do you see how Harrit has detected Cr (chromium) and even Sr
(strontium) in trace amounts? Yep, there are also signals for S and
Ca. Perhaps a tiny inclusion of gypsum, but I wouldn't bet on that.</P>
<H1>Conclusion</H1>
<P>I have shown that Harrit's argument, re-gray chips (a)-(d) can't
be primer because they are not consistent with Tnemec, falls flat on
its face, because Tnemec was not the only primer used on WTC steel.
Another primer that must be considered is LaClede Standard Primer,
and there could be even other primers of which no documentation seems
to exist (we don't know for example which primer, or primers, was
painted on the core columns and beams).</P>
<P>I have further shown that the XEDS spectra of chips (a)-(d) are
very much consistent with the the paint formulation of LaClede
Standard Primer.</P>
<P>I call on all honest and science-minded people in the 9/11 Truth
Movement to reject Harrit's claim that chips (a)-(d) can't be primer
as premature and consider LaClede Standard primer as a possible
source for some of the red-gray chips. Tnemec may be another such
source of other chips; in fact it seems that the MEK-soaked chip in
[2] is consistent with Tnemec, as I have shown in another post [8] –
this MEK chip can't possibly be identical with chips (a)-(d)! [9].</P>
<P>I further call on all students of [2] to realize that Harrit e.al.
have analysed several different kinds of red-gray chips, and not
pretend they are all basically the same.</P>
<H1>References</H1>
<P>[1] Niels H. Harrit: <A HREF="http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf">Why
The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint</A>. Open Letter, May 2009</P>
<P>[2] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.
Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.
Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: <A HREF="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe</A>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31</P>
<P>[3] Carino, N. J.; Starnes, M. A.; Gross, J. L.; Yang, J. C.;
Kukuck, S. R.; Prasad, K. R.; Bukowski, R. W.: <A HREF="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101041">Passive
Fire Protection. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of
the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A)</A>. 2005. Page
87: “...Series 10 Tnemec Prime (99 red), which is the primer
that was specified for the exterior columns”</P>
<P>[4] Luecke, W. E.; Siewert, T. A.; Gayle, F. W.: <A HREF="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101017">Contemporaneous
Structural Steel Specifications. Federal Building and Fire Safety
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-3A)</A>.
2005. Table 3-5, p. 21</P>
<P>[5] Gross, J. L.; Hervey, F.; Izydorek, M.; Mammoser, J.;
Treadway, J.; <A HREF="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101042">Fire
Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems. Federal Building and
Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NCSTAR
1-6B)</A>. 2005. Appendix B, p. 157 of the PDF</P>
<P>[6a] AE911Truth Staff: <A HREF="http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/617-faq-7-arent-the-red-gray-chips-identified-in-the-wtc-dust-merely-primer-paint-from-the-wtc-steel-structural-elements.html#continue">FAQ
#7: Aren’t the Red-Gray Chips Identified in the WTC Dust Merely
Primer Paint from the WTC Steel Structural Elements?</A>. Architects
& Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2012/03/15. Retrieved 2012/03/16</P>
<P>[7] Chuck Fiori, Carol Swyt-Thomas, and Bob Myklebust: <A HREF="http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div837/837.02/epq/dtsa2/index.html">DTSA-II
Desktop Spectrum Analyser</A>. Retrieved 2012/03/15</P>
<P>[8] Oystein: <A HREF="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html">Steven
Jones proves primer paint, not thermite</A>. 2011/03/31</P>
<P>[9] Oystein: <A HREF="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html">Why
red-gray chips aren't all the same</A>. 2012/03/14</P>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com274tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-85351648094210105542012-03-14T14:34:00.000+01:002012-03-14T14:34:23.687+01:00Why red-gray chips aren't all the same<H1>Abstract</H1>
<P>Ever since Harrit e.al.'s paper "Active Thermitic Material
discovered" (<I>ATM</I>, [1]) was published in April 2009, the
world of 9/11 debaters (a small world, by the way) was split into two
camps:</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>9/11 Truthers who believe <B>all</B> the chips are
super-secret high-tech military-grade beast of extremely energetic
nano-thermite. Note the stress on „<B>all</B> the chips“</P>
<LI><P>Skeptics who see that the chips are not all the same, are not
thermitic, but very probably different kinds of paint instead.</P>
</UL>
<P>In this post I will show that one particular chip in <I>ATM</I>,
the one they soaked in MEK and present in Fig. 12-18, cannot possibly
the same kind of material as the four chips they present in Fig.
2-11. Assuming that both represent the same material is preposterous.
The most benign explanation for why the authors make that assumption
is wishful thinking. We can rule out simple error or that they
overlooked something, because it has been pointed out to them more
than once in the past that the chips are different. A less benign,
but perhaps more probable explanation would be outright fraud.</P>
<H1>Visual comparison</H1>
<P>Here are the chips I am talking about – first, the four
chips they first present. I usually refer to them as chips (a)-(d):</P>
<P><A HREF="http://s1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/?action=view&current=ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig02.jpg" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig02.jpg" NAME="Grafik1" ALT="Photobucket" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=593 HEIGHT=456 BORDER=0></A>
</P>
<P>As you can see, the red layers all look pretty much like they
could be the same stuff, perhaps paint. Color is very similar, finish
is very similar. Same goes for the gray layer, which could be
metallic for all we know (and yes, Harrit e.al. figure out correctly
that the gray layer is a bulk of oxidized iron). Notice that we can
see and roughly measure the thickness of the red layer in the inset
of Fig 2(d): It is roundabout 15µm thick.</P>
<P>Next up, the MEK-chip:</P>
<P><A HREF="http://s1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/?action=view&current=ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig13.jpg" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig13.jpg" NAME="Grafik2" ALT="Photobucket" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=378 HEIGHT=321 BORDER=0></A>
</P>
<P>Whoa – what's up there?? The photo is totally out of focus!
So yeah it is generally some kind of red and there seems to be some
gray on the right, but does it have the same finish as (a)-(d)?
Frankly, I can't tell! How thick is the layer? We can't tell from the
photo, but Harrit e.al. included another image. In the following, the
chip is shown after they had soaked it in a solvent called MEK for 55
hours.
</P>
<P><A HREF="http://s1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/?action=view&current=ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig12.jpg" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig12.jpg" NAME="Grafik3" ALT="Photobucket" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=380 HEIGHT=609 BORDER=0></A>
</P>
<P>They explain on page 17:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>The red layer of the chip was found, by visual
inspection, to have swelled out from the gray layer by a factor of
roughly 5 times its original thickness.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>In Fig 12(b), the red layer, on the left, is between 250 and 300
µm thick, aproximately, so before soaking it was 50-60 µm.
Quite a bit more than the 15 µm of the red layer of chip (d)
above, eh? (In <A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig05.jpg">Fig.
5</A>, it is possible to roughly measure the thickness of the red
layers of chips (a) and (b): approx. 32 and 13 µm
respectively). So does that MEK chip look the same as the others?
Hmmmm maybe, maybe not. Maybe not.</P>
<P>Harrit e.al. show high-magnification BSE (a form of electron
microscopy) images for chips (a)-(d) in Fig. 4, <A HREF="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig05.jpg">Fig.
5</A> and Fig 8, where you can see the grains (identified by Harrit
as hematite) and platelets (almost certainly kaolin, a natural clay)
in the organic matrix. Unfortunately, no such BSE images exist for
the MEK-chip, so we can't compare it to chips (a)-(d). The only other
data we have is XEDS.</P>
<H1>XEDS spectra</H1>
<H2 CLASS="western">An introduction to XEDS (SEM-EDS)</H2>
<P>(You may skip this section if you are not interested in technical
details of this method)</P>
<P>XEDS (X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, also abbreviated
SEM-EDX, see Wikipedia [2]) is</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>...an analytical technique used for the elemental
analysis or chemical characterization of a sample. […] a
high-energy beam of charged particles such as electrons or protons
(see PIXE), or a beam of X-rays, is focused into the sample being
studied. […] The number and energy of the X-rays emitted from
a specimen can be measured by an energy-dispersive spectrometer. As
the energy of the X-rays are characteristic of the difference in
energy between the two shells, and of the atomic structure of the
element from which they were emitted, this allows the elemental
composition of the specimen to be measured.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>In an XEDS graph, the location of a peak along the x-axis
identifies a chemical element, while the height of the peak along the
y-axis is indicative of the relative abundance of the element in the
sample. Please note first that equal peak heights of two different
elements do not automatically mean same abundance, although this is
roughly true for many elements (for example, it is true for aluminium
and silicone), but not all (for example, if strontium and chromium
were equally abundant by mass, then the first peak of strontium at
1.81 keV would be only about 75% the height of the chromium peak at
5.41 keV. This is also dependent on factors like “accelerating
voltage and/or contaminating surface films” [3]). A second
note: The lightest elements, from hydrogen (<SUB>1</SUB>H) typically
to beryllium (<SUB>4</SUB>Be) don't show up at all in an XEDS graph
(depending on the device, not even up to carbon or nitrogen). The
next lighter elements up to chlorine (<SUB>17</SUB>Cl) only have one
peak associated to them. Starting with potassium (<SUB>18</SUB>K),
more than one peak may show up, but in most cases, only one or two
are dominant. Last note: Peak height scales with abundance. So if you
double the abundance of, say, silicone in your sample, the Si-peak
will be twice as high (roughly). If you want to look up only which
elements have peaks at which energy levels (measured in keV –
kilo Electronvolts), you may refer to [4]. Just klick on the element
symbol you are interested in, and look in the column “Edge
Energies”. Usually, the K-alpha level is your first major peak,
K and K-beta for secondary peaks. Elements heavier than arsenic
(<SUB>33</SUB>As) don't have important K-levels below 10 keV and are
more usually identified by L-alpha or L-beta.</P>
<H2 CLASS="western">The spectra of Harrit e.al.</H2>
<P>Harrit e.al. provide XEDS spectra for chips (a)-(d) in Fig. 7, and
a spectrum for the MEK-chip (before soaking) in Fig 14. Let us first
take a close look at all the peaks in Fig. 7 (shown below) and see if these four
graphs are similar enough so we can be confident that all four show
the same material. All have major peaks for 5 chemical element (from
left to right, the major peaks: Carbon (C), oxygen (O), aluminium
(Al), silicone (Si), iron (Fe)). In figure 7(c), Harrit e.al. have
also labelled small peaks of natrium (Na), sulfur (S), potassium (K)
and calcium (Ca). In addition, we think there are tiny but
discernable signals for S and Ca in (a) and (b) as well, for chromium
(Cr, K-alpha = 5.41 keV) in (a), (b) and (d), and titanium (Ti,
K-alpha = 4.51 keV) in (d). While the small peaks could always be
some sort of contamination (either on the surface, or of the minerals
contained in the chips; for example, kaolin usually has small
inclusions of Ti and Ca), the major elements do show up in comparable
relative peak heights:</P>
<OL>
<LI><P>In all four chips, C is by far the highest peak, being
several times (2.85x to 7.45 time, average 4.3 times) as high as the
second highest, peak, O</P>
<LI><P>O is the second highest in 3 graphs, and barely beaten by Si
in 1. O has between 85% and 300% the peak hight of Si (average:
161%)</P>
<LI><P>Si and Al follow in third and fourth place, at almost the
same hight. Al has between 87% and 110% the peak hight of Si
(average: 96%). This result is consistent with both elements
appearing in equal molar amounts.</P>
<LI><P>Fe (K-alpha) is always the fifth-highest peak, reaching
between 51% and 81% of Si (average 70.5%)</P>
<LI><P>Note that none contain zinc (Zn) or magnesium (Mg), and all
have at most traces of Ca and S</P>
</OL>
<P>Here is Fig. 7:</P>
<P><A HREF="http://s1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/?action=view&current=ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig07.jpg" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig07.jpg" NAME="Grafik4" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=476 HEIGHT=632 BORDER=0></A></P>
<P>Now compare this to the MEK-chip, Fig 14:</P>
<P><A HREF="http://s1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/?action=view&current=ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig14.jpg" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig14.jpg" NAME="Grafik5" ALT="Photobucket" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=380 HEIGHT=331 BORDER=0></A>
</P>
<P>It is very obvious that none of the characteristica of Fig. 7 are
found here: For starters, Al is not among the 5 or 6 highest peaks,
it is only number 7. Instead, Ca clocks in as the sceond highest
peak. So let's go through the list item by item:</P>
<OL>
<LI><P>C is <B>not</B> the highest peak, it is only the 3<SUP>rd</SUP>-highest.
Instead of being at least 2.8 times as high as O, it has only about
60% of the height of O.</P>
<LI><P>O is much too abundant – relative to C (and,
coincideltally, to Al) by a factor of at least 4.7</P>
<LI><P>Si and Al are not about equally abundant. Si-peak is too high
relative to Al by a factor of 1.8</P>
<LI><P>There is way too much Fe relative to both Al and Si: Fe
should be near 68% of Al, but it is actually 2.75 times as high.
This means, too abundant by a factor of 4.</P>
<LI><P>The Ca peak is HUGE, it should only be a trace. The S-peak is
BIG, it should at most be a trace. There should be no Zn at all.
There is a peak between Zn and Al that Harrit e.al. did not label,
but which certainly represents Mg. There should be no signal for Mg.</P>
</OL>
<H1>Discussion</H1>
<P>How do Harrit e.al. explain these differences between Fig 7 and
Fig 14? Here's how (page 17):</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the
expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included
calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of
these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to
the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface
of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to
contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in
the buildings.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>So pretty much all of the Ca, all of the S, 75% of the Fe, 80% of
the O, 45% of the Si, all of the Zn, all of the Mg is contamination?
Gypsum, eh?</P>
<P>Here are three XEDS graphs for gypsum from the WTC [5]: <A HREF="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/GYPSUM-01.jpg">Gypsum-01</A>,
<A HREF="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/GYPSUM-02.jpg">Gypsum-02</A>,
<A HREF="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/GYPSUM-03.jpg">Gypsum-03</A></P>
<P>Note that in the first two of the graphs, S peak is higher (by about
35% and 32%) than Ca, and in the third, which also has (calcium-?) carbonate, S
is 33% lower than Ca. McCrone ([3] page 638) has S about 9% lower. This is to be expected, as the chemical formula for gypsum is CaSO<sub>4</sub>·2H<sub>2</sub>O - notice how Ca and S both have one atom in that molecule, their molar abundance is equal, their atomic weight is not much different (S: 32; Ca: 40; that's a ratio of 1:1.25). So, if you assume that gypsum is a major contaminant in Fig. 14, you
must take off as much (+/- 33%) S as Ca – until you run out of
S. Now, in Fig 14, Ca is 3 times as high as S. If you claim all of
the S is from gypsum, and you remove all of it, <b>and</b> If I grant you that
you may remove 33% more Ca than S, then the Ca peak is <b>still</b> almost as
high as Fe, and higher than Si and Al. And the Fe-peak is still too
high relative to C and Al, Si is too high relative to Al. So
obviously, even if gypsum explaines all of the “contamination”
with S, it would still constitute only a minor part of all of the
“contamination”. In fact, to make Fig. 14 look similar to
Fig. 7, you must</P>
<UL>
<LI><P>remove 80% of the oxygen (highest peak)</P>
<LI><P>remove 95% of the calcium (2nd highest peak)</P>
<LI><P>remove 75% of the iron(4th highest peak)</P>
<LI><P>remove 45% of the silicone (5th-highest peak)</P>
<LI><P>remove 95% of the sulfur (6th-highest peak)</P>
<LI><P>remove all of the Zn</P>
<LI><P>remove all of the Mg</P>
<LI><P>remove most of the Cr</P>
</UL>
<P><B>In other words: On average you must declare two thirds (65%) of
the six most abundant elements to be contamination.</B></P>
<P>This is absurd. Preposterous. Wishful thinking. If not fraudulent.</P>
<H1>Conclusion</H1>
<P>A much better explanation is in order: Since no data exists, other
than the base color and magnetic attraction, that shows that the
MEK-chip is the same material as chips (a)-(d), since the visual
appearance is doubtful, since the layer is too thick, and since the
XEDS data shows that at least 65% of the mass of this chip is
different from chips (a)-(d), the best and obvious conclusion is:
</P>
<P><b>The MEK-chip is of a different material than chips (a)-(d). The
assumption that the differences can be explained as contamination
does not survice scrutiny and must be firmly rejected.</b></P>
<H1>References</H1>
<P>[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.
Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.
Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: <A HREF="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe</A>. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31
</P>
<P><A NAME="firstHeading"></A>[2] <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEM-EDX">Energy-dispersive
X-ray spectroscopy</A>. Wikipedia, retrieved 2012/03/14</P>
<P>[3] Walter C. McCrone and John Gustav Delly: The Particle Atlas
Edition Two, Volume III: The Electron Microscopy Atlas. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers Inc., 1973, page 579</P>
<P>[4] Illinois Institute of Technology: <A HREF="http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html">Peridiodic
Table</A>. Last retrieved 2012/03/14</P>
<P>[5] US Geological Service: <A HREF="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html">Particle
Atlas of World Trade Center Dust</A>. Open-File Report 2005–1165:
On-line Report, öast retrieved 2012/03/14</P>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-57608063927357552722011-03-31T14:48:00.005+02:002018-07-15T14:15:42.792+02:00Steven Jones proves primer paint, not thermite<p><i>Update July 04, 2015: The links to References [1]-[3] were broken, I updated them to new URL's. This also changes the timestamps in the video. I also re-formated the section headers and renamed the section "Footnotes" -> "References". Additional remark: I incorrectly wrote that chips a-d were the same as the four chips tested in the DSC and presented as Fig. 19 in Harrit et al. Today I know this is wrong; I keep this article as it was, regardless.</i></p>
<p><i>Update July 15, 2018: The links to References [2] and [3] were again broken, I updated them to new URL's. The timestamps in the video remain the same. I also moved the link to Sunstealer's post at JREF to the References as <sup>[5]</sup></i></p>
<p>This post elaborates on a great find made by poster "<b>Sunstealer</b>" in the former JREF Forum (now ISF - International Skeptics Forum) <sup>[5]</sup>
</p>
<h1>Abstract</h1>
<p>
In their paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"<sup>[1]</sup> of April 2009, the authors sought to identify the chemical nature of tiny "red-grey chips". In November 2009, one of the authors, Steven E. Jones, presented new data in Sydney, Australia<sup>[3]</sup>. This new data proves that the authors had looked at two different materials, and that one of them is primer paint from WTC steel. At the same time, it invalidates two of the main conclusions of the paper, namely Conclusion 3 ("<i>Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material</i>") and Conclusion 6 ("<i>From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.</i>"), as well as the main conclusion ("<i>we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material...</i>")
</p>
<h1>Analysis of chips in Harrit e-al., April 2009</h1>
<p>
In their paper, the authors of [1] looked specifically at five reddish dust chips:
</p>
<ul>
<li>The first four are labeled (a)-(d) on page 10 and first subjected to analysis by SEM imaging (Fig. 2), BSE imaging (Fig. 5, 8) and XEDS spectroscopy (Fig. 7, red layer), and were later burned in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC), yielding energy releases of 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g. I will refer to these as "samples a-d"
</li><li>The fifth is described in section 2, pages 15-19, and was first soaked in MEK for hours, and then subjected to photomicrographing (Fig. 13), XEDS spectography (Fig. 14) and BSE imaging (Fig. 15). This sample was <i>not</i> tested in a DSC. I will refer to this chip as "MEK sample"
</li>
</ul>
<p>While it bears noticing that the photos of samples a-d versus MEK sample show only superficial similarity (the MEK sample is about 4 times thicker, with no apparent grey layer, and looks less uniform; they all just happen to be reddish), a very stark difference shows in the XEDS spectra:
</p>
<p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaQnHww6taRP-1FkfskgkoAPtH3RkkvbbBliMiJmS5zAd6zw6SAtkg4ESO20jEFpq6JeC4jgrGzljWpfJLJkRuEsYg5TVMx_hgpaQ7AY4JOR09o5EV5Gnpb8pNm2-DDz9rZa9vMymVMSe3/s1600/Harrit-Fig07.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:both; margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaQnHww6taRP-1FkfskgkoAPtH3RkkvbbBliMiJmS5zAd6zw6SAtkg4ESO20jEFpq6JeC4jgrGzljWpfJLJkRuEsYg5TVMx_hgpaQ7AY4JOR09o5EV5Gnpb8pNm2-DDz9rZa9vMymVMSe3/s1600/Harrit-Fig07.jpg" /></a>
<br>Fig. A: XEDS spectra from red layers of samples a-d
</div>
</p>
<p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5UV2I2CYKCwt1qlEJXE6Mic7j11NMmvjD9LhEb7VGPS5_fh5KTj4C3fV52ndiZNCcyVJIoi-xdN6RR07SxJ4d8l6aQSRatJA3u5jcQgsiBpczrr4KczoeG_HyScYXKogbJHZu1eucLSdW/s1600/Harrit-Fig14.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5UV2I2CYKCwt1qlEJXE6Mic7j11NMmvjD9LhEb7VGPS5_fh5KTj4C3fV52ndiZNCcyVJIoi-xdN6RR07SxJ4d8l6aQSRatJA3u5jcQgsiBpczrr4KczoeG_HyScYXKogbJHZu1eucLSdW/s1600/Harrit-Fig14.jpg"></a>
<br>Fig. B: XEDS spectrum from red layers of MEK sample
</div>
</p>
<p>The differences are striking: While samples a-d are very similar, with noticable peaks of C, O, Al, Si and Fe (only sample c appears contaminated with traces of Na, S, Ca and K), the MEK sample is dominated by O and Ca, has a higher peak for S than for Al, and also features Zn and Cr, two elements seen in none of the four other samples. Notice that there is a small peak at about 1.2keV, that isn't labelled, and two others at about 3.35keV and 5.9keV.
</p><p>The conclusion is obvious and inescapable: <b>samples a-d are the same material, the MEK sample is a <i>different</i> material</b>. It follows that any results that the authors find for the MEK sample cannot be applied to samples a-d. The authors hand-wave these results by speculating on surface contamination (p. 17). But this is not confirmed by any tests. We must assume, for the moment, that the MEK sample is of a different material than samples a-d, and that the finding of elemental Al in it (dubious as this is in itself) cannot be extrapolated to samples a-d.
</p>
<h1>New data from November 2009 presentation</h1>
<p>Is it possible to find a better explanation for the presence of the other elements, and identify the material of the MEK sample? Yes, it is, and the data comes from co-author Steven E. Jones, who delivered a presentation about 9/11 on November 14, 2009, in Sydney, Australia. This presentation is available on Youtube<sup>[2]</sup>. Jones presents data obtained from primer paint that was scratched off of a piece of structural steel from the World Trade Center (possibly 55th floor of the South Tower)<sup>[3]</sup>. Here is a screenshot from 35min:36sec of that Youtube presentation:
</p><p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXetiKPnAJHnCtFPwZNA789D8CRFVmsBuahnN7eoSkwcq9dKJ9elK2zKBf_nMOLL6iPVXoel5kLOazSPTc-Ros3J9WLWVQw4pSIt0DYCdy8Pam_uLpBJQ4Dv2Y_ViHfq1OPI7WOFKj13qU/s1600/JonesPrimerPaint-2m51s.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXetiKPnAJHnCtFPwZNA789D8CRFVmsBuahnN7eoSkwcq9dKJ9elK2zKBf_nMOLL6iPVXoel5kLOazSPTc-Ros3J9WLWVQw4pSIt0DYCdy8Pam_uLpBJQ4Dv2Y_ViHfq1OPI7WOFKj13qU/s1600/JonesPrimerPaint-2m51s.jpg"></a>
<br>Fig. C: Screenshot from Jones-presentation in Sydney. On the left: samples c and d from [1]; on the right: XEDS spectrum of WTC steel primer paint
</div>
</p><p>Jones notices, correctly, that these spectra are of different materials. However, he fails to notice that the spectrum on the right is very similar to the spectrum in Fig. 14 of [1]: The MEK sample! A comparison of these two spectra shows, from left to right:
</p>
<ul>
<li>0.28keV: both have a high peak for C
</li><li>0.54keV: both have a high peak for O
</li><li>0.71keV: both have a medium peak for Fe
</li><li>1.02keV: both have a small to medium peak for Zn
</li><li>1.25keV: both have a small peak for Mg
</li><li>1.49keV: both have a medium peak for Al
</li><li>1.74keV: both have a medium to high peak for Si
</li><li>2.31keV: both have a small to medium peak for S
</li><li>3.31keV: both have a small peak for K
</li><li>3.69keV: both have a high peak; for sample a-d it is labelled "Ca", for the primer paint it is labled "C". I propose that one of the two lables is in error. Should be Ca in either place<sup>[4]</sup>
</li><li>4.01keV: both have a small to medium peak for Ca
</li><li>5.41keV: both have a small peak for Cr
</li><li>5.95keV: both have a small peak for Cr
</li><li>6.40keV: both have a high peak for Fe
</li><li>7.06keV: both have a small peak for Fe
</li><li>8.64keV: both have a small peak for Zn
</li>
</ul>
<h1>Discussion and Conclusions</h1>
<p>These similarities are so striking, that we may conclude: The <b>MEK sample was primer paint from WTC, while samples a-d were not</b> It bears repeating that Harrit e.al. [1] provide no evidence for elemental Al in samples a-d, as they separated Al in a different material, namely primer paint, without noticing it.
</p><p>The conclusions of Harrit e.al. (red layer being unreacted thermitic material) hinge on the alleged observation that the red material found in the dust
<br>a) is always the same
<br>b) contains Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>
<br>c) contains elemental Al
<br>d) burns vigorously
</p><p>Jones' new data shows a) to be incorrect. c) is shown for the MEK sample only, d) is shown for samples a-d only.
</p><p>We have to reject the main conclusions of Harrit e.al.: They have not shown that the red-grey chips contain unreacted thermite. In fact, they have failed to identify the composition and nature of samples a-d. However, we now know that the MEK sample is simply primer paint.
</p><p>Jones goes on in his talk to commit a major blunder: At 37:30 in the video [3] he presents this slide, which claims that the MEK chip contains no Zinc. This is directly refuted by Harrit e.al.[1], Figure 14, which shows two XEDS peaks for Zinc, at 1.02 and 8.64keV!
</p><p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyCsVedOEhTKl7BSPPhDtXVMjLueSoz66_lrkjaTEuwUNqoPORZi_4exfqw-UZbmkSjYdSb3xHDQotyhbftHjTaqPy9uG9TEGQVwRtMmRgD5SE053i8jdqqt8eefPmOXeszePNZ-9wo_Cg/s1600/JonesPrimerPaint-4m42s.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyCsVedOEhTKl7BSPPhDtXVMjLueSoz66_lrkjaTEuwUNqoPORZi_4exfqw-UZbmkSjYdSb3xHDQotyhbftHjTaqPy9uG9TEGQVwRtMmRgD5SE053i8jdqqt8eefPmOXeszePNZ-9wo_Cg/s1600/JonesPrimerPaint-4m42s.jpg"></a>
<br>Fig. D: Screenshot from Jones-presentation in Sydney
</div>
</p>
<h1>References</h1>
<p>[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: "<a href="http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7">Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe</a>"; The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, pp. 7-31
</p><p>[2] Steven E. Jones: "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uht5E-LHFw">Steven Jones 2009 "Science and Society"</a>"; Presentation in Sydney, Australia, on November 14, 2009
</p><p>[3] ibid, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uht5E-LHFw&t=2135">starting at 35m35s</a>
</p><p>[4] Energy values for all elements can be checked at <a href="http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html">http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html</a>. There is the K-alpha value of 3.69 for Ca, but none in that vicinity for C.
</p><p>[5] "Sunstealer": International Skeptics Forum (formerly: JREF Forum) - Thread "The sad case of Niels Harrit" - <a href="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6959549#post6959549">Post #536</a>.
</p>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-81674027193717070892011-03-31T12:07:00.013+02:002012-07-10T01:49:09.690+02:00Some links on the Harrit paper<p>About the peer-review by David L. Griscom: <br />
<a href="http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/sittingbull/exklusiv-referee-der-harrit-studie-outet-sich-es-ist-ein-weltweit-angesehender-material-physik-professor.html">http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/sittingbull/exklusiv-referee-der-harrit-studie-outet-sich-es-ist-ein-weltweit-angesehender-material-physik-professor.html</a> </p><p>Steven Jones presents data that inadvertantly proves sample e (the MEK-soaked chip) is WTC steel primer: <br />
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6959549#post6959549">http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6959549#post6959549</a> </p><p>2nd Editor in Chief resigned over the Harrit et al. nanothermite paper: <br />
<a href="http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/editor-in-chief-resigned-over-harrit-et.html">http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/editor-in-chief-resigned-over-harrit-et.html</a> <br />
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=194752">http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=194752</a> <br />
<a href="http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/12/bentham-comedy-continues.html">http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/12/bentham-comedy-continues.html</a> </p><p>Opinion: 911 Movement Needs Clean Up and Focus on Activism <br />
<a href="http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/911-movement-needs-clean-up-and-focus.html">http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/911-movement-needs-clean-up-and-focus.html</a> </p><p>Review of Harrit: <br />
<a href="http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html">http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html</a> </p><p>Gunnar Ries debunks Harrit (critique of methods) <br />
<a href="http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/mente-et-malleo/skeptische-ecke/2010-01-29/befand-sich-nanothermit-zwischen-den-tr-mmern-des-world-trade-centers">http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/mente-et-malleo/skeptische-ecke/2010-01-29/befand-sich-nanothermit-zwischen-den-tr-mmern-des-world-trade-centers</a> <br />
<a href="http://amphibol.blogspot.com/2010/02/wie-sich-verschworer-selbst.html">http://amphibol.blogspot.com/2010/02/wie-sich-verschworer-selbst.html</a> <br />
Harrit replies: <a href="http://mysteries-magazin.com/index.php?op=news&func=news&id=5252">http://mysteries-magazin.com/index.php?op=news&func=news&id=5252</a> </p><p>Somebody at "Debunking the Debunkers" tries to debunk a post by me at JREF: <br />
<a href="http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/04/listening-to-debunker-arguments-is-like.html">http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/04/listening-to-debunker-arguments-is-like.html</a> </p><p>The Tillotson paper on sol-gel nanothermite that is referenced in figure 29: <a href="http://www.doeal.gov/FOIADOCS/DOC00329.pdf">http://www.doeal.gov/FOIADOCS/DOC00329.pdf</a> </p><p>Added 2011/09/05: </p><p>About Harrit lecture in Lillehammer, Norway, on 2009/05/23 on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZHGUd82wc">Youtube</a> </p><p>Transcript of what Norwegian Scientists said in that Youtube: <a href="http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php?t-7562.html">http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php?t-7562.html</a> Another version, more from the source: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110511192750/http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/">http://web.archive.org/web/20110511192750/http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/</a> </p><p>Mark Basile Video presentation "911 Dust Analysis Raises Questions": <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#!">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#!</a>
</p><p>
A good, practical article about the chemistry of thermite (many variants): <a href="http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite.html">http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite.html</a>
</p><p>
Technical Data Sheets for commercial iron oxide pigments, giving pigment shape and size: <a href="http://www.yipin.com/en/product.asp?series_fid=1">Yipin Iron Oxide Pigments</a>
</p>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-67656776238748594222010-11-09T17:37:00.000+01:002012-03-22T23:56:26.037+01:00Origin of Steven Jones' paint controll sample<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4602502#post4602502">1240 - Sunstealer:</a> "<span style="color: blue;">damn, metamars, be a good chap will you and find the bit in Jones' report where it details what paint he used. Thanks.</span>"
</p><p>
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4603228#post4603228">1354 - metamars:</a> "<span style="color: purple;">Thank-you. I just sent Professor Jones and email requesting the exact paint type, but as he didn't directly reply to my last email (though cc'ing me on others), I'm a little doubtful that I'll get a direct answer. We'll see.</span>"
</p><p>
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4603308#post4603308">1366 - Sunstealer:</a> "<span style="color: blue;">You can also ask him why he failed to put that crucial information in his paper and whilst you're at it slap his wrist for such a basic error, it's unforgivable for someone of a post graduate level. </span>"
</p><p>
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4603762#post4603762">1406 - metamars:</a> "<span style="color: purple;">Professor Jones has replied. He wants to know for which purpose the paint you are asking about is supposed to be for. (AFAIR, there was a test for resistance, and some burn tests).<br><br>Can you please formulate the paint question more precisely. As in "The paint you referred to on page X, paragraph y, for which z was claimed, is which exact paint?" </span>"
</p><p>
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4603926#post4603926">1422 - Sunstealer:</a> "<span style="color: blue;">Sure - I'm surprised he hasn't had more queries.<br><br>The following is from the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17 of the paper.</span>
</p><blockquote>2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent<br><br>
By employing some means to separate the different components of the material, the chemical compositions of the different particles in the red layer were more accurately determined. The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK. </blockquote><p>
<span style="color: blue;">Those are the paint specimens I and everyone is interested in - what are they (that requires detail). I presume that this same paint was used for all of the testing comparisons.<br><br>I'd also ask why that particular type of paint was chosen as opposed to any other.<br><br>I'll leave it there for the moment - thanks.</span>"
</p><p>
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4604193#post4604193">1467 - metamars:</a> "<span style="color: purple;">I submitted your post as the paint question. Actually, I broke it up into 2 questions, the last line in the quote above being question #2. </span>"
</p><p>
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4604542&postcount=1524">1524 - metamars:</a> "<span style="color: purple;">Professor Jones replied:</span>
<blockquote>We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing
that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.</blockquote>"Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-81812215476233907672010-09-13T16:18:00.067+02:002012-03-22T23:56:26.038+01:00Discussion of the Harrit ed.al. paper<a href="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM">Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe</a><br />
<br />
by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge,<br />
Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen<br />
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, pp. 7-31; 2009<br />
<br />
Discussed at<br />
<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293">JREF 1</a><br />
Particularly <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4588878#post4588878">Post 292 (Red layer is Paint with Kaolin pigments)</a>, <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4589113#post4589113">Post 299</a> (grey layer is Micaceous Iron Oxide, used in anti-corrosion primer)<br />
<a href="http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html">http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html</a><br />
A <a href="http://www.bastison.net/ALCHIMIE/Harrit.pdf">French paper</a> by Jérôme Quirant (Moorea34)<br />
Some physical and chemical properties of thermite and thermate are discussed <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Note on page numbers:</b> Each page of the PFD document has two page numbers: One written on top of the page, and the page number count of the PFD file. I will refer to pages by dual numbers as, for example "16(22)", meaning "page 16 of the PFD file (page 22 as written on top of page)".<br />
<br />
<b>Abstract</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have
studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade
Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate
sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked
similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a
Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The
properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy,
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy
(XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material
contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron
oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures.
Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that
elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are
intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the
chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430
°C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.
Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue
following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion
of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and
highly energetic.</blockquote>
<br />
<b>The authors</b><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Niels H. Harrit</b>: Associate Professor Emeritus, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 1975, Thesis: mechanistic photochemistry; has published on some nano-stuff, but his main method is Spectrophotometry, and his main research interests focus around organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence. <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=993148">Profile at AE911T</a></li>
<li><b>Jeffrey K. Farrer</b>: PhD in Material Scince. Lab manager (read: technician) for electromicroscopy at BYU. Non-facult. Has about 4 legit scientific paper to his credit (3 at the Journal of Materials Science). <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=991996">Profile at AE911T</a></li>
<li><b>Steven E. Jones</b>: Former Physics professor at BYU. The driving force behind this effort. <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=980182">Profile at AE911T</a></li>
<li><b>Kevin R. Ryan</b>: B.S. Chem; Chemist, former Underwriters Laboratories manager (read: technician). Has never published at any science jurnal, except on 9/11 CTs. <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999925">Profile at AE911T</a></li>
<li><b>Frank M. Legge</b>: Diploma of Agriculture; Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia (Chemistry). Has a US Patent (4,765,309 of 08/23/1988) on a tracking device for solar panels. A Frank M. Legge has 1 paper on fatty diet. No other scientific credentials can be found. <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=995940">Profile at AE911T</a></li>
<li><b>Daniel Farnsworth</b>: (Grad?) student at Department of Physics and Astronomy, BYU. Did not sign AE911T petition.</li>
<li><b>Gregg Roberts</b>: Business Analyst, Technical Writer/Editor, VBA Dev, Psych. B.A., UT Austin, 1990; Graduate Work in Social Work. <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999655">Gregg Roberts at AE911T</a></li>
<li><b>James R. Gourley</b>: Did not sign AE911T petition.</li>
<li><b>Bradley R. Larsen</b>: MS Geology, University of Utah; mineralogist for oil-gas and gold exploration for S&J Scientific Co.; <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=986143">Profile at AE911T</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Criticism</b><br />
<br />
The following weaknesses are found in the paper<br />
<ol>
<li>No proper peer-review</li>
<li>Uncertainty about the source and chain of custody of the samples</li>
<li>No comparison with thermite</li>
<li>Comparison with one, unkown paint only is inconclusive</li>
<li>Presence of C in all samples precludes DSC tests in atmosphere</li>
<li>Energy release of >3.9J/g is proof that materials other than thermite react at 430°C</li>
<li>The ignition point of 430°C is not shown to be indicative of any known thermite preparation and is contriaditcted by all known thermite preparations, which typically ignite above 900°C</li>
<li>The chip that was soaked in MEK has different spectrum from chips a-d</li>
<li>It is not clear how elemental Al was identified in chip e</li>
<li>Elemental Al is known to react with MEK, making it highly unlikely that elemental Al was found after soaking 55 hours in MEK</li>
<li>Comparison with images, formulae and spectra of known Kalolin preparations for paint show striking similarities with red layer</li>
<li>Comparison with images, formulae and spectra of known Micaceous Iron Oxide preparations show stiking similarities with grey layer</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b>Peer-reviewed?</b><br />
<br />
The authors, and their supporter and parroters, do not tire of pointing out that the paper had been subjected to a proper peer-review process when it was published at Bentham Open. But is this really so? Let's first look at how peer-review is usually done:<br />
A scientific journal has an editor-in-chief, and possibly more editors<br />
A paper submitted to a journal is first reviewed by the editor. The editor determines the subject matter, picks a few scientists whom she or he deems experts on the subject matter ("peers"), and sends them the submission for review<br />
The peers send back a critique, with recommendations that can be of the following nature: i.) accept without reservations ii.) accept with minor corrections iii.) reject, and ask author to resubmit when certain problems are fixed, iv.) reject right away (paper has no chance)<br />
The editor reads the peer-reviews, and then decides if and how to publish the paper<br />
<br />
So the role of the editor is absolutely central to the peer-review process.<br />
<br />
Bentham's "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" isn't exactly hustling and bustling and overburdening the editor-in-chief with hundreds of submissions to be processed. In fact, in all of 2009, the journal published only 4 papers (<a href="http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm">View journal articles</a>), totalling 46 pages.<br />
<br />
How was the paper handled by TOCPJ's editor in chief? Editor in chief was <a href="http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm">Professor Marie-Paule Pileni</a>. When the Danish science magazine videnskab.dk contacted Mrs. Pileni to get further information about the recently published Harrit-paper, they were <a href="http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911">in for a surprise</a> (<a href="http://translate.google.de/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videnskab.dk%2Fcontent%2Fdk%2Fnaturvidenskab%2Fchefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911">Translation</a>): Mrs. Pileni, the editor in chief, did not know that this paper had been published in her journal! She resigned immediately from her position at the Journal.<br />
<br />
A paper that has been published without the knowledge of the editor in chief has <b>not</b> gone through a proper peer review process.<br />
<br />
(Further notes: The journal has a whopping 95 people on the <a href="http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm">Editorial Advisory Board</a> - that is more than 2 advisors per page published in the whole of 2009! TOCPJ has not a single paper published in 2010. <br />
<br />
One has to wonder if the authors have tried to publish their paper at any journal that is not as obscure as TOCPJ. They would have saved money, because at TOCPJ, authors have to pay US$ 600 before their submissions are published!<br />
<br />
And finally, a post about the reputation of Bentham OA journals in general at <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4619501&postcount=538">JREF</a>)<br />
<br />
<b>Comparison with paint.</b><br />
<br />
Harrit ed.al. conclude that the red-grey chips don't come from paint. They determined this by running the same tests on a chip sample, and on paint samples:<br />
Page 11(17): "<i>The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. ... In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.</i>"<br />
Page 16(22): "<i>Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.</i>"<br />
Page 21(27): "<i>We measured the resistivity of the red material ... and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31]. ... On the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent.</i>"<br />
<br />
It is striking that they mention paint samples several times, did work on the,, but fail to say which paint they tested! There must be hundreds of thousands of different paints and primers on the market, thousands used in the WTC and on all the objects in it, and several that had widespread use in the construction of the towers. Whatever paint they tested, one can't generalize fron these results:<br />
- Some paints will get partly dissolved in MEK, but not all<br />
- Some paints will immediately burn to fragile ashes in hot flame, but not all<br />
- Some paints have high elecrical resistance, but not all<br />
<br />
It bears noticing that both elemental aluminium and Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> (rust) are very usual ingredients of many paints.<br />
<br />
Even more interesting is the authors' description of the red-grey chips as fitting very nicely a description of paint films: On page 20(26): "<i>Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of “hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed, the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips which survived the WTC destruction.</i>"<br />
<br />
In typical "truther" parlance one could say: "The red-grey chips <b>look just like paint</b>"<br />
<br />
I will further note in passing that thermitic materials, if "painted" on anything - that is: applied as a very thin layer - would bring so little chemical energy to a surface unit as to render it pathetically useless as an incendiary. The red layers are about 15 microns thick in some samples. It can be shown that one needs 3 volume units of thermite to melt 1 volume unit of iron, so a 15 micron layer of thermite could at most melt 5 microns of steel from a steel element. That is pathetically little! 15 microns thermite on a surface of 1m<sup>2</sup> is a volume of 15cm<sup>3</sup> and a mass of about 60g, containing about 240kJ of energy. Not even enough to heat 1 bottle (750ml) of water from room temperature to boiling point.<br />
<br />
<b>Ignition of thermitic material</b><br />
<br />
From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite">Thermite</a> (Wikipedia):<br />
"<i>Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires only a simple child's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkler" title="Sparkler">sparkler</a> or easily obtainable magnesium ribbon, but may require persistent efforts, as ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable. ... </i><i>Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not
ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.</i> <i>... The reaction between potassium permanganate and glycerol or ethylene glycol is used as an alternative to the magnesium method. ... However, this method can also be unreliable and the delay between mixing
and ignition can vary greatly due to factors such as particle size and
ambient temperature.</i>"<br />
<br />
Harrit ed.al. however claim to have ignited the red-grey chips, and started a thermitic reaction, at only 430°C: "<i>As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.</i>" <br />
<br />
Did they verify that superthermite has this property of igniting at only 430°C? No. On page 17(23) they state: "<i>We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study.</i>". They reference the following papers in conjunction with superthermite:<br />
[20] http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf<br />
[21] http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115856&action=detail<br />
[22] http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115976&action=detail<br />
[30] http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf<br />
The first 3 don't mention temperature of ignition. [30] explicitly states that super-thermite matches are particularly heat-resistant! See page 21(27):<br />
"<i>The Super-Thermite electric matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because <b>they resist </b>friction, impact, <b>heat</b>, and static discharge through the composition, <b>thereby minimizing accidental ignition</b>.</i>"<br />
We must conclude then that Harrit ed.al.'s assumption that a low ignition temperature may be indicative of superthermite is inproven at best. It isn't even specuation, as they give two separate reasons in the paper why we should believe thermite and superthermite only ignite at very high temps above 900°C. It is best characterized as wishful thinking. In the worst case, the assertion is outright fraudulent. The statement "<i>the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample</i>" is <b>wrong</b>. They did <b>not</b> have a known super-thermite sample that ignited at 430°C. The statement, on page 15(21) "<i>That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately 430 °C</i>" is <b>wrong</b>. As neither their own experiments nor the referenced literature indicate that any thermite reacts at 430°C, it is <b>not</b> true that the "highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately 430C" confirms that these reactions were thermitic. It remains unkown.<br />
<br />
<b>Energy release</b><br />
<br />
Several times in the paper, the authors label reactions or materials as "highly energetic": pp 1(7), 15(21), 19(25), 21(27), 23(29). This label is misleading.<br />
The authors admit that the thermite they are looking at (Fe2O3+Al) releases a theoretical maximum of 3.9kJ of energy per gram (p21(27)). They are themselves struck by the observation that their red/gray chips sometimes release more energy than that, which absolutely proves that whatever burned there could not just be thermite! This is quickly explained away by assuming that the samples also contain organic substances. These must have be even more "highly energetic" than thermite. How "highly energetic" are organic compounds? Here are some examples (all values are kJ/g):<br />
3.9: Thermite (Fe2O3 + Al)<br />
4.6: TNT<br />
7: strongest high explosives<br />
8: Household waste <br />
17: Sugar <br />
18: Wood <br />
18: PVC <br />
22: Potato chips <br />
23. PET<br />
26: Polyester (plastic)<br />
<br />
32: black coal<br />
38: Body fat <br />
41: Polystrene (plastic)<br />
43: Jet fuel <br />
46: Polyethylene, Polypropylene (Plastics) <br />
We find that pretty much <b>all</b> organic materials around us are a lot more "highly energetic" than thermite!<br />
<br />
Coming back to the finding that one sample released more energy than thermite could possibly contain. This shows clearly that the samples are "contaminated". We must assume it highly likely that all samples, including those that released less than 3.9kJ/g heat, were contaminated with unknown organic material. Which raises the question: Could it not be the organic component of the samples that ignites at 430°C? Fact is: Many organic materials ignite at temperatures ranging between 230°C and 500°C. This includes all sorts of resins on which paints and primers are based.<br />
<br />
The ignition point, and the energy released, point to small amount of organic materials. They are both nit typical for any known thermite. <br />
<br />
On to another topic: The paper is clear that whatever they are analysing there is not ordinary thermite: p. 19(25): "<i>All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite, not ordinary (macro-) thermite.</i>" What properties does nanothemrite have, other than consisting of nano-sized particles? The paper quotes this:<br />
"<i>... when the ingredients are ultrafine-grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly, even explosively [20]. Thus, there is a highly energetic form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite or “super-thermite ...</i>"<br />
This wording makes it appear as if the ultrafine grains and intimate mixing somehow make the mixture (even more) "highly energetic". This is not so. The energy content does not change because of the physical structure of the thermite. All that changes is the reaction rate, or energy release rate.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusions</b><br />
The paper lists 10 characteristics or observations, before coming to a conclusion. I will address each of the 10 observations:<br />
<blockquote>
1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.</blockquote>
They did not measure hydrogene, as that element is too light for their method (p.22(28): "<i>the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method</i>". The elements listed first are precisely those that would be expected to be most abundand in the dust of a building collapse, as they are the constituents of the main materials: Steel Aluminium cladding, concrete and plastics. Sulfur, lead and copper are also abundand in office buildings. It is unclear why barium is mentioned in the conclusions - no data in the paper lists barium.<br />
<blockquote>
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.</blockquote>
This is primarily due to the authors choosing their samples precisely because of this property. They specifically searched for nano-sized constituents, and could be sure to find some in any dust.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.</blockquote>
It remains unclear what that segregation was supposed to achieve. But ok, we learn that aluminium was present. No surprise here.<br />
<blockquote>
4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.</blockquote>
Actually, no. Conjecture. Nano-sized particles, incuding Fe2O3, are not at all unusual in paints. <br />
<blockquote>
5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.</blockquote>
No one is surprised. Rust is plentiful in buildings, and a very ordinary constituent of anti-corrosion primers.<br />
<blockquote>
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.</blockquote>
This is true. Fe2O3 and Al are indeed the main ingredients of thermite.<br />
<blockquote>
7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.</blockquote>
Not at all. There is no reference in the paper to that "independent observation on a known super-thermite sample". The paper itself references a paper that characterizes superthermite specifically as "heat resistant"!<br />
<br />
<br />Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-1949290774297940252010-09-11T22:15:00.010+02:002010-09-12T21:02:33.190+02:00OneVoiceMore suggests papers to readOn <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/PapaOystein">my youtube channel</a>, the user <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/OneVoiceMore">OneMoreVoice</a> has responded to my request to name papers by title, author, date and publisher that best support his allegations that the common story of 9/11 needs to be rewritten. These are his comments, made on 9/11/2010 (numbering in blue added by me for further reference):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Feel free to Google any of these technical works.<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(1) </span>"Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust" - Jim Hoffman<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(2) </span>"Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center
Catastrophe" - Dr. Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones,
and others<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(3) </span>"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center:
evidence for energetic materials" - By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley,
& Steven E. Jones<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(4)</span> "Mysteries of the Twin Towers" - R. Herbst<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(5)</span> "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis" - By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti</blockquote>
and<br />
<blockquote>
Here's another pile of scientists and scholars and professionals for you to browse:<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(6)</span> Journal of Engineering Mechanics:<br />
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen - Dr. Crockett Grabbe<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(7)</span> "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1" - Gordon Ross, Journal of 9/11 Studies<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(8)</span> "Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage" - Dr. Crockett Grabbe<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(9)</span> "Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories" - Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(10)</span> "Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2" - Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(11)</span> "The Destruction of WTC 7" - Vesa Raiskila<br />
<span style="color: blue;">(12)</span> "The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?" - Eric Douglas, Architect<br />
<br />
Do
me a favor. At least pretend to read some of these before you
challenge me to produce documentation. That kind of chicanery is beneath
an intelligent discussion.</blockquote>
It is telling that documents 6 to 12 are listed in that sequence on AE911truth.org's page <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/techarts.php">Technical Articles</a> suggesting that the list is not the result ofOneMoreVoice's own research, but simply copied and pasted from a website in which he places an inordinate amount of trust.<br />
<br />
These list refers to the following articles:<br />
(1) <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html">Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust</a> - Jim Hoffman, 911research.wtc7.net, 12/07/2009 (v. 1.03)<br />
(2) <a href="http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf">Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe</a> - Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 pp. 7-31, 2009<br />
(3) <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf">Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials</a> - Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones; The Environmentalist Volume 29, Number 1, 56-63; March 2009<br />
(4) <a href="http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf">Mysteries of the Twin Towers</a> - R. Herbst; ?; Rev. 12.0 February 2009<br />
(5) <a href="http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt.pdf">The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis</a> - Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti; Journal of 911 Studies; January 14, 2009<br />
(6) <a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf">Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Se en</a> - Crockett Grabbe; Journal of Engineering Mechanics Volume 136, Issue 4, pp. 538-539 (April 2010)<br />
(7) <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf">Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1</a> - Gordon Ross; Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 1 June 2006<br />
(8) <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf">Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage</a> - Dr. Crockett Grabbe; Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 14 August 2007<br />
(9) <a href="http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html">Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories</a> - Kevin Ryan; ?; March 28, 2006<br />
(10) <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC">Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001</a> - Jerry Lobdill; Journal of 9/11 StudiesVolume 12 June 2007<br />
(11) <a href="http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html">The Destruction of WTC 7</a> - Vesa Raiskila? (article itself contains no credit); personal blog; first published April 2005, latest revision not dated<br />
(12) <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf">The NIST WTC Investigation--How Real Was The Simulation?</a> - Eric Douglas; Journal of 9/11 StudiesVolume 6 December 2006<br />
<br />
<br />
Following my quick comments to these. I will strike out those item numbers that I find ill-suited for the debate of specific issues. I will bold those items that I find well-suited. Those item numbers that have no special formatting I have not decided upon, and would need some convincing.<br />
<br />
<strike>(1)</strike> This is merely a digest of (2), seeking to explain the findings of (1). I propose we skip this article and go straight to (2)<br />
<b>(2)</b> Arguably the most important, most widely claimed, and practically the only paper that purports to contain direct proof of thermite. I will definitely respond to it at length.<br />
(3) Claims that unusual materials were found that somehow might be explained by the use of thermite or "superthermite". However, nowhere in the article is a mechanism proposed that indeed would constitute such an <i>explanation</i>. No physical or chemical properties of thermite are discussed at a level of measurements and numbers that could serve as a base to determine whether some observations could indeed follow from these. The article remains vague and speculative and not very conductive to formulationg an alternative hypothesis about the macroevents of 9/11<br />
<strike>(4)</strike> Is a summary of many issues raised by the TM and thus not at all responsive of my challenge to support specific claims with specific research. While maybe valuable as a summary, it seems to contain no original reasearch. It is also not realistic to debate all issues raised there on leisure time within a short space of time of days or weeks.<br />
<b>(5)</b> The "jolt" referred to in the title of the paper is taken from Bazant and Zhou's <a href="http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf">Addendum to ‘‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis’’</a> - Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2002, page 369. Quote: "...<i>if the upper part had the height of only 3 stories, ... the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. <b>Instead of one powerful jolt, this</b> could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.</i>". This is the only mention of a "jolt" in the Bazant and Zhou papers, and nothing that NIST picks up upon. MacQueen and Tony Szamboti construe this note as Bazant and Zhou predicting a powerful jolt in the real world, if the upper block behaved as a rigid block, when it impacts the first upper block floor after collapse initiation. <b>That assumption is false</b>. Bazant and Zhou, in their original paper, present a theoretical <i>best case</i> scenario with regards to column survivability, that would eventuate if all upper block columns were to impact corresponding lower block columns simultaneously. They show that even in that best case scenario, the kinetic energy and momentum picked up by the upper block during its initial fall through the first destroyed floor (3.7m) would suffice to fail the structure below, and send the tower to unterminable cascading collapse. However, in the real world, a scenriao would play out that is <i>worse</i>. In <i>any</i> case, including the vast majority of cases that would <i>not</i> have "<i>a powerful jolt</i>", global collapse is expected, as the structure in no way is capable of absorbing the initial momentumg an energy.<br />
The paper is discussed at <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639">JREF</a>.<br />
<strike>(6)</strike> This article discusses a paper by K.A. Se en in the February, 2008, Vol. 134 No. 2 of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics , pp. 125-132. I can't access that paper without paying a hefty price to the journal, therefore I can't debate that discussion.<br />
<b>(7)</b> Refuted by <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf">To whom it may concern</a> - Frank R. Greening, Volume 2 August 2006. Discussed at <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584">JREF</a>. Main flaw: Ross calculates energy lost to "Momentum losses", and also energy lost to pulverization of concrete. However, momentum losses of energy occur through inelastic collision, and the energy lost in that inelastic collision mainly goes into material strain, <i>such as pulverization of concrete</i>. Ross thus accounts for that strain twice! He discounts 304MJ twice for pulverization in upper and lower block, when in fact he should not deduct these 608MJ at all. His energy balance thus turns from a "Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ" to an Energy Surplus of 218MJ! In other words: Correcting Ross for this obvious blunder will lead to the prediction that the initial collapse cannot be arrested, and will propagate.<br />
<b>(8)</b> Has several silly assumptions. I'd take the challenge, but really this paper should not be used by any CTist. It is pretty embarrassing. Some silly assumptions: a) Cars are only or mainly damaged by material that was ejected high in the towers, and then fell freely without being further pushed by anything. I contend: Most of the debris was blown by strong horizontal winds close to street level after most of the collapse had occurred, and kinetic energy been deflected to all four sides b) That "squib" (Figure 4) contains large parts. I see no reason why not most or all of it should be small particles (dust). With all those nearby cameras on the towers, that large squib should be found much more clearly elsewhere. Image quality (resolution, contrast) is very bad. The image is taken from <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_jets_frames.html">911research.wtc7.net</a>, frame 7. There, you will notice that this squib "suddenly" appears between frames 5 and 6, then only intensifies between 6 and 7, and hardly changes position between 7 and 8, and 8 and 9, while the big debris cloud above rapidly falls and finally engulfs the squib from frame 10 on. this shows that the material ejected in that squib must have been ejected rapidly, then slowed much, and then have remained afloat, indicating that it is mainly dust.<br />
<strike>(9)</strike> This is a political opinion piece, and a rant with many personal accusations, but not a scientific paper. He repeats some of the old strawmen ("not enough to melt steel") and even brings up the long-discredited "Larry said pull it" silliness. Claims that "<i>live loads on these columns can be increased
more than 2,000% before failure occurs.</i>" - from a 1964 news piece! That statement is plain preposterous, and if Ryan knew anything about structural engineering, he'd know that. Maybe that quote talked about live loads (office contents)? We don't know. He attacks the pancaking theory - which is not the incumbant theory today. When Ryan talks about steel properties and UL certification, it bears keeping in mind that Ryan is NOT a metallurgist, or structural engineer, or did ever do any work in fields related to steel construction. He is a chemist. Degree unknown. He worked at UL in the the field of water treatment (environmental health) and is out of his field of expertise when he questions UL's involvement in steel certifiction! I tend to dismiss this article as unscientific.<br />
debunked at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-3-kevin-ryan-of.html<br />
<strike>(10)</strike> The assumption of "white hot temperatures" is unfounded, and not supported by images of glowing liquid flows from the 80th-82st floor of the WTC2 prior to collapse. The paper further <i>asummes</i> that "<i>The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2 tower very shortly before the building fell</i>", instead of proving it. It <i>assumes</i> that "<i>[i]t appears that in the WTC [thermite] was used to cut structural steel in an early phase of controlled demolition</i>". It misleadingly states that thermites "<i>release a large quantity of heat</i>", when in fact they release a lot less heat (per mass unit) than, for example, fule or paper. "<i>Spectre Enterprises’s patent for a linear pyrotechnic cutting device</i>" is not applicable to cutting structures as large (thick) as steel columns. Lobdill states that "<i>thermate is said to have superior steel cutting capabilities compared with thermite</i>" and believes that this is "<i>for reasons that have not yet been fully explained</i>". What is known however is that sulfur does not add to the energy release. Sulfur is know to lower the melting point of steel, that os probably why thermite+sulfur works better. On page 6: "<i>Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S.</i>". Who?? And why? On page 7, the claim is made that iron-rich spheres can <i>only</i> be created by melting iron. No reference is given. The conclusion finally does not make any claims about any events of 9/11. The purpose of the paper was not to prove any claim about 9/11. I therefore tend to eliminate this paper from the debate. It may howeber be useful as a reference for debate claims made elsewhere.<br />
<strike>(11)</strike> This blog entry ,akes a number of claims, none of which original. It repeats outdated (debunked) claims about freefall and collapse duration. It is not a paper.<br />
<strike>(12)</strike> From the Abstract: "<i>This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, <b>although not necessarily incorrect</b>, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers.</i>" Sounds legit. I will concede, without debate, that very likely, the model simulations done by NIST deviate somewhat from reality and are in part uncertain. This does not, however, lend any credibility to any competing claims, if these are made. I therefore think this paper is not suited as a topic for the kind of debate I envision in this blog. It may be valuable as a reference for debate on claims made elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<br />Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-15474758846257247362010-09-09T16:24:00.000+02:002010-09-09T16:24:05.565+02:00Rules of the Debate<ol>
<li><b>The Topic</b> of our debate will be <b>a claim that you make</b>. It should be a claim that, if true,would help to refute the common narrative of the events of 9/11 ("19 members of Al Quaeda hijacked 4 planes, caught America's defences by surprise, flew them into buildings, and that alone caused caused all the death and demolition"). You should have evidence for it. That evidence should be available in books or on the internet, so you can make references to sources. You should be able to explain why your claim implies that the common narrative is not correct, and what else you think is correct. Very important: I want you to pick <b>a very narrowly and specifically defined claim</b>, that has specific implications. For example: Saying "the air force was stood down" would not be very narrow or specific. The sort of claim I want to debate might be as narrow and specific as: "General Arnold issued an oral order to NEADS in Rome to delay the launch of the alarm fighters at Langley AFB at some point between 9:03 and 9:15". Another example: Saying "There were pools of molten steel at GZ" would be a little vague (how do you know? Where? When?). Better claim would be: "Rescue worker John Doe spotted a pool of molten steel underneath the rubble of building WTC5 on September 22, 2001, as he told a reporter of the NYT a week later".</li>
<li><b>The Goal of the debate</b> is not to prove or disprove the whole story of 9/11 or any alternative theory. The objective <b>is to evaluate your claim</b>. Is it true? Is it proven? Does it imply what you think it implies? In other words: Is this claim a good argument in the overall debate about what happened on 9/11? The answer does not have to be a yes or no. Could be a number of things. Claim is proven true, and does have implications. Or claim is proven false and should not be used any longer. Or claim is true, but does not mean anything that merits its use. Or we can't determine if the claim is true or not. </li>
<li><b>Your Objective</b> therefore should be to present <b>the best and strongest claim you have</b>: The one that you are most convinced of. The one that has the strongest evidence for it. The one that has the most damning implications. Chose wisely! Because <b>My Objective</b> will be to show that your claim is not true, not proven, or does not have serious implications, and to conclude <b>that you really have nothing </b>at all in your hands against the common narrative, as your one best claim turned out to be unconvincing.</li>
<li><b>To Participate</b>, you have to sign up to blogger.com and become a member of my blog. Contact me somehow and kindly ask me to invite you to this blog. Indicate the topic you wish to discuss. <b>I will then invite you become a member of this blog</b>, so you can write bog postings.</li>
<li>You present your claim by writing a new blog posting. We will debate by writing comments. We may agree over time to edit postings, or write new postings. For example, I might ask you to clarify a few things, link to sources, etc.</li>
<li>Quite likely, we will not agree on an outcome. I realise it is hard to convince me, and hard to convince most of you. But I promise I will consider everything you say fairly.</li>
<li><b>Netiquette</b>: I will not call you names, and you will not call me names. You will not accuse me of being bribed, a member of the NWO, etc., and I will likewise abstain from making such accusations.</li>
<li><b>Stay on topic!</b> Since you picked the claim you want to defend, thart is exactly the topic we will discuss. Stick to it! If your claim is "John Doe spotted a pool of molten steel underneath WTC5", you would be off-topic if you argued that "Jane Doe spotted molten metal dripping from WTC1", unless you can convince me that her molten metal is the same that John saw. If your claim is that General Arnold ordered a stand-down, don't tell me that the LearJet of Payne Steward was intercepted some years earlier, as that has nothing to do with any orders given in 2001.</li>
</ol>Oysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.com0