Jones & Ryan research errors.

It seems a grevious error has turned up in the research of Mr. Kevin Ryan as reported by Professor Jones. (Surprise, surprise)


From slides 87 and 88 of the Jones power point PDF:

But sol-gels to hold the thermite might leave telltale
residue, 1,3-diphenlypropane (1,3-DPP)…
www.rsc.org...: “Pore size effects in the pyrolysis
of 1,3-diphenylpropane confined in mesoporous silicas”
(Research by chemist Kevin Ryan)

• Analysis of the WTC dust showed:

• “One molecule, described by the EPA's
Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that
dwarfed all others":
• “1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never
observed it in any sampling we've ever
done," Swartz said.”

There are a number of problems with this “research.”

First, this compound was not detected in a dust analysis as claimed by Jones and Ryan, but in an ambient air analysis. Even a water chemists and a physicist should know enough about environmental chemistry to understand that there is a fundamental difference in the two matrix’s.

Furthermore, the samples were collected over 2 weeks after 9/11. Thus, the compound detected was an airborne contaminant emanating from the smoldering debris, and not associated with the dust of the collapse. Thus the implication that this compound was somehow liberated in the collapse is totally and deliberately misleading.

And finally, the compound detected was not 1,3-diphenlypropane (1,3-DPP) as claimed but a much more complex compound: 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene]. Thus Mr. Ryan has failed to satisfy the burden of proof that this compound is something that could not have been produced in the smoldering fires, and only as the result of an explosive “sol gel” mixture.

Erick Swartz, et al., “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Other Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Collected in New York City in Response to the Events of 9/11" Envtl. Sci. Technol. 37:3537-46 (2003). The
unusual PAH is 1,3-diphenylpropane-[1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene], apparently a hormone-disrupting
chemical, associated with polystyrene other plastics. The PAHs compared with the emissions from the Los Angeles
episode are the heavier 3 to 5-ring PAHs. Sampling occurred on September 26 and October 4, 6, 10 and 20, 2001.
EPA also reports that four samples were taken for PAHs on September 22, 2001, but the results “were below EPA’s
level of concern.” U.S.E.P.A., Daily Summary: Saturday, September 22, 2001).

www.gothamgazette.com...

Concentrations of over 60 nonpolar semivolatile and nonvolatile organic compounds were measured in Lower Manhattan, NY, using a high-capacity integrated organic gas and particle sampler after the initial destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC). The results indicate that the remaining air plumes from the disaster site were comprised of many pollutants and classes and represent a complex mixture of biogenic (wood-smoke) and anthropogenic sources. This mixture includes compounds that are typically associated with fossil fuel emissions and their combustion products. The molecular markers for these emissions include the high molecular weight PAHs, the n-alkanes, a Carbon Preference Index ~1 (odd carbon:even carbon ~1), as well as pristane and phytane as specific markers for fuel oil degradation. These results are not unexpected considering the large number of diesel generators and outsized vehicles used in the removal phases. The resulting air plume would also include emissions of burning and remnant materials from the WTC site. Only a small number of molecular markers for these emissions have been identified such as retene and 1,4a-dimethyl-7-(methylethyl)-1,2,3,4,9,10,10a,4a-octahydrophenanthrene that are typically biogenic in origin. In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site. These emissions lasted for at least 3 weeks (September 26-October 21, 2001) after the initial destruction of the WTC.

pubs.acs.org...

Thus we have one more example of flawed and biased research from the 9/11 truth seekers’ group.

Are these flaws and errors the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead, sloppy research, or are they the result of increasing desperation on the parts of Jones and Ryan?








[edit on 24-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 24-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Thus, the compound detected was an airborne contaminant emanating from the smoldering debris, and not associated with the dust of the collapse. Thus the implication that this compound was somehow liberated in the collapse is totally and deliberately misleading.

Too bad they aren't arguing that it was released during any natural collapse.

They are investigating the possibility of the "smoldering" and collapse mechanisms resulting from a kind of thermite, which would not just cause things to bust up as in the unproven theories you yourself support. It's as if you are unable to think hypothetically, or step out of your box, so to speak, and everything must make sense compared to what you already believe.


Speaking of bias or what-have-you, though, if you want to assert that they are being misleading in their research, how do you reconcile with yourself the fact that NIST utterly failed to back up any of its own assertions of floor failure in any of its tests? How do you continue to accept NIST as fact, with such a double standard? They failed to support themselves, published the results of tests that also failed to support their material, and yet the work of this organization is sufficient for you, even as you pick tiny holes in the work of Jones, et al.


Two relatively irrelevant slides out of a 175-page presentation on inconsistencies in the government story, that you pick out to take issue with, even while you subscribe to the information put forth in a report that boldly offered 0 evidence to support its conclusions. You see nothing hypocritical here?


PS -- I'm no chemist, but LaBTop is, and he seems to protest your conclusions here.

It means that DPP as a gas which is burning, emanates toluene and styrene.
Not the other way round.

Which is a moot argument btw, since it was not DPP which was reported, but a much more complex derivative of it.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by bsbray11]

OP. How come the Bush administration has provided absolutely no evidence to the public about 9/11? They have provided no proof of their claims and even the FBI recently said they had no evidence linking Osama to the collapse.

In retrospect we don't have any answers thanks to the governments lack of fourthcoming.

There are some pretty good videos from the second impact showing the results of what looks like to be thermite pouring out over the side.

You should take a look at that OP before trying to criticize a university professor. You are way out of your league.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by whokilledthekennedys]

Your first quote and source says Erik Swartz found the compound and the dates, but does not say if it was air only or dust samples. It does not say that he only collected air samples, it also does not say he did not collect dust samples. Is this the source Jones cited in his article?

The title of the report you are citing is "Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero

How the Bush Administration’s Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation

Interesting... YOU are citing a source implicating your administration in a CONSPIRACY?

Your second source says air samples continued to show 1,3-DPP over time. How would this be unexpected in a CD? What is the relation of the second source to Erik Swartz?

Interesting.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Try and spin it if you wish, but the fact is, Ryan and Jones are mischaracterizing the data.

Their implication is that the compound is indicative of an explosive is not supported by the actual data.

Cahill's data showed that most of the fumes from the fire were hot enough to rise quickly to high altitudes, but, "there were at least eight days when the plume was pushed down into the city. Then people tasted it, smelled it and saw it. But people who worked in the pile were getting it every day. The workers are the ones that I worry about most," he said. That concern that was echoed by EPA chemist Erick Swartz, who observed levels of hazardous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) six times higher than levels considered dangerous in smog. "The exposures at Ground Zero lasted for months," said Swartz. "The measurements we have seen are certainly worthy of the most serious kind of concern."

www.nycosh.org...

Combustion products continued to be emitted from the debris pile in the ensuing months. Dust was "no longer part of the plume per se after about day three or four because the rains came and washed some of the dust and smoke away," Lioy said. What was left were smoldering fires.

For example, they detected pinonic acid, which originally comes from a wood forest, naturally at some distance from the WTC site. Erick Swartz, who at the time worked for the National Exposure Research Laboratory, also saw a PAH ratio that indicated high diesel emissions and compounds known to be in wood smoke (for example, retene).
He pointed out that he also detected a compound he had never seen before in ambient air samples--1,3-diphenylpropane--which, he said, is associated with plastics. He thinks it is a unique marker for the WTC plume and is concerned there may be other compounds in the plume that people didn't even think to look for.

pubs.acs.org...


There were a number of hazardous materials released from the burning debris.

That doesn’t prove the presence of explosives, however.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There were a number of hazardous materials released from the burning debris.

That doesn’t prove the presence of explosives, however.

Labtop already exposed your misinformation regarding the compounds on this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It does not PROVE there were explosives, but it is VERY STRONG evidence that YET ANOTHER "something very odd" happened. The most likely "odd" occurence that could create the compound is...

There will be no PROOF here for either side. There can't be. There is only EVIDENCE, mounting piles of it... We must base our opinions and conclusions on this evidence.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There were a number of hazardous materials released from the burning debris.

That doesn’t prove the presence of explosives, however.

Labtop already exposed your misinformation regarding the compounds on this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It does not PROVE there were explosives, but it is VERY STRONG evidence that YET ANOTHER "something very odd" happened. The most likely "odd" occurence that could create the compound is...

There will be no PROOF here for either side. There can't be. There is only EVIDENCE, mounting piles of it... We must base our opinions and conclusions on this evidence.

You mised my response to that?

And as Labtop pointed out, It isn't the same compound that was detected, just like I pointed out above.

So even he agrees with me on that point.

"most likely "odd" occurence that could create the compound is..."

Burning plastics! How odd is that!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
"most likely "odd" occurence that could create the compound is..."

Burning plastics!

How odd is that!

I believe that Labtop will still tell you burning polystyrene will not produce the compound in question.

You avoided that part of his statement.

part D. of the Sierra Report.
www.gothamgazette.com...

D. EPA Did Not Find Health Hazards Because It Did Not Look for Them.
Throughout its assessment of WTC pollution, EPA repeatedly used outdated quipment and testing methods even though it knew that better methods were available and had used those methods in other pollution episodes. Also, for some contamination issues, EPA simply did not test at all.
1. EPA did not test the WTC dust for toxic organic chemicals such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, but independent tests found them at very high levels; EPA
also failed to disclose in public materials its own PAH air tests.
EPA failed to conduct tests for toxic organic chemicals (as opposed to metals or minerals) in WTC dust. This included the failure to test for an important category of chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).117 PAHs are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are commonly formed by incomplete combustion of oil, gas, garbage and other organic substances, and it is well known that PAHs become attached to airborne particulates. For this reason, EPA should have considered it likely that PAHs would be attached to dust particles generated by the
burning towers, and it should have tested for their presence in the dust. It did not.
A private test of dust collected from firefighters’ clothing reveal disturbing results. Several firefighters approached attorney Anthony Gentile, of the law firm, Godosky and Gentile, for legal assistance in obtaining compensation for their health impairment submitted the firefighters’ claims to the federal September 11th Victim Compensation Program, which provides compensation for current injuries but not for harm that may not arise and become detected until a future date. In the process of investigating their claims, however, he found significant evidence of potential future health risks.

Mr. Gentile contracted with an independent environmental testing firm, Toxicology
Consultants & Assessment Specialists, Inc., which tested samples of WTC dust collected from the firefighters’ boots. The environmental testing firm found high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”) in the dust. The testing firm compared its results to EPA’s Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (“HEAST”), which describe health based exposure criteria for soils .
It reported that the PAHs in dust/soil removed from the firefighter’s boots measured 42.87 mg/kg (PPM). It stated:
This extraordinarily high level of carcinogenic PAHs within inhaled
dusts and soils is in my opinion, nearly unprecedented and has placed
the firefighters at very high levels of future cancer risk. . . . [The
PAH levels are] in significant excess (over 42,000%) of the USEPA
HEAST recommendations. . . . Most notably, the two most potent
aromatic hydrocarbon carcinogens, benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, were measured at concentrations 115- and
422-times in excess of the USEPA HEAST criteria and the [New
York State] recommended soil cleanup objective limit.118
The firm expressed concern that the PAH levels so greatly exceeded both the federal and New York State guidelines for soil cleanup, and recommended that further sampling would be helpful to assess the risk levels.
A little-publicized 2003 study by scientists from Rutgers University, New York University other institutions had found that the levels of PAHs in the WTC dust were “high, especially in light of the extremely large masses of dust generated in this disaster.” That study of three bulk dust samples had found that PAHs levels in WTC dust were approximately three times higher than in airborne particles measured at a site in Jersey City.119 The leading scientist explained:
There’s normally 20-30 micrograms [of PAHs] per cubic meter in the
air, and you’re comparing that to three to six inches of settled dust,
so the concentrations are the same, but the . . . amount someone
would have come into contact with was much greater because the
amount of material was so much higher in lower Manhattan.120

In other words, the actual exposure risk from the WTC dust was much greater because of the sheer volume of dust released in the area. An estimated 200,000 to 2 million pounds of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were released in the first few days after the attack within half a kilometer of Ground Zero.121 As the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (“NYCOSH”) has explained, this means that between 8,000 and 80,000 pounds of respirable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons polluted the Lower Manhattan area during those first few days.122
EPA, however, failed to assess and ascertain this risk because, apparently, it failed to test the WTC dust for PAHs during the period of greatest exposure.
Oddly, EPA reports that it did not find PAHs in the outdoor air, either, stating, “As of April 2002, none of the 15 PAHs monitored were detected in any air samples.”123 A factsheet attached to a February 2002 statement by EPA Regional Administrator Jane Kenny implies that PAH sampling did not begin until November 2, 2001.124 In fact, EPA scientists from its Research Triangle Park in North Carolina published a paper in 2003 reporting the detection of the same PAHs that EPA Region 2 was monitoring (and reportedly not finding), and others as well – including a compound that has never before been reported in ambient air sampling. The researchers found certain types of PAHs to be about six times higher than the average values measured during a particularly intense Los Angeles photochemical smog episode.125 A writer for Science magazine stated that these measurements were large enough to generate “the most serious kind of concern.”126
Concern about PAH emissions are further supported by the results of a new study of
“window film.” Researchers from the University of Toronto took “window film” samples in lower Manhattan within a kilometer of Ground Zero six weeks after the September 11 attack and compared them with samples taken in Brooklyn upwind of Ground Zero. The new study reports that the PAH levels in the Ground Zero area window film were 10 times higher than the
(NEXT PAGE)

background levels in Brooklyn.127 If the PAHs on the Ground Zero area window film did come from Ground Zero, as appears probable,128 then they must have traveled to those windows through the air.
Even for the tests that began in November, given how high the levels were in the dust, EPA’s completely “non-detect” test results are a mystery. One question is whether or not EPA’s results may have been the consequence of using inadequate testing equipment and methods. Paul Bartlett, a pollution dispersion and modeling expert then with the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College, testified at the February 21 EPA Ombudsman hearing that EPA “didn’t do appropriate monitoring on the periphery of the site or further away.” He stated that EPA’s sampling approach in testing for the presence of toxic organic chemicals was too limited, and resulted in only an inadequate “snapshot” of actual conditions.129 He also noted that EPA’s failure to detect another volatile organic chemical, polychlorinated byphenyls (“PCBs”) was a signal that their air sampling methodology for organic chemicals was inadequate, explaining:
[W]e can always find PCBs. . . . It is everywhere. We have trouble
getting it out of our [control] blanks. . . . They are taking too short of
a sample . . . . But even then, you can detect them if you use a better
method. . . . They are using straight GC-MS, which is gas
chromatography and mass spectrometry, while everybody else is
using GCED, electron-capture detection method. It is actually a
cheaper method [and] is 100 to 1,000 times more sensitive.130
In other words, if EPA did not find PCBs, which are ubiquitous in the outdoor environment, it was not doing a good job of looking for them. He explained that EPA Region 2 used GCED technology in its analysis of PCBs in the Hudson River.131 If the above observations are correct, then by using less sensitive equipment and failing to take representative air samples, EPA failed to identify the presence of a class of toxic chemicals that independent tests found at significantly elevated levels.

Interestingly, in 2004, researchers funded by the National Institute for Environmental
Health Sciences re-analyzed “archived” fine particulates from air samples gathered by EPA from September 2001 through March 2002 for nine types of PAHs – and found PAHs to be present.
They determined that PAH levels “were consistently greater at Ground Zero” than a site seven blocks away, especially during the first two months after the attack. In particular, PAHs levels at Ground Zero measured 10 to 214 times higher during the first three days after the attack than levels at the site seven blocks away after 200 days had passed The researchers estimated that PAH air concentrations within the first three days after the attack were among the highest ever reported in the outdoor environment.132
When this study was released, the media reported that the researchers concluded that because the high PAH levels were “transient,” the increased cancer risk from PAH exposure should be low. A closer review of the study, however, indicates that this assurance may not be accurate.
– The researchers’ health risk estimate was based on averaging the short-term
intensive WTC exposure over a 70 year period, and comparing that to 70 years of
exposure to expected background levels of PAHs. This is not necessarily an accurate
risk comparison for a short-term intensive exposure incident.
– The researchers’ estimates of exposure were based on PAH content in dust from
particulate air filters that captured dust particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. They did not evaluate the impact of workers having ingested the dust, nor
did they consider that particles larger than 2.5 microns, as explained in the Background section of this report and Appendix A, sometimes were inhaled.
– The researchers themselves observed that Ground Zero area workers may have been exposed to much higher levels than their samples revealed, and residents may have experienced prolonged indoor exposure because indoor air is less diluted and PAH dust could be re-suspended through heating and ventilation systems and human
activities.
– They further acknowledge that their conclusion was based only on PAH exposures
in isolation from other WTC contaminants. They did not evaluate the multiple insults to the human body from the large volume of pollutants generated by the attack.
Finally, the researchers note that the high initial levels of PAHs may have been a factor in the impact on newborns of women who were exposed to the WTC pollution discussed in this Report.133
Unfortunately, EPA failed to “find” the PAH contamination that many other researchers found, and therefore failed to identify this risk to public health.
END

The box with the text above :
A comparison of known information on World Trade Center pollution and health effects with statements made or actions taken by federal administration.
What Was Known,What Was Said
is also quite revealing to those who unconditionally follow there federal governments.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
"most likely "odd" occurence that could create the compound is..."

Burning plastics!

How odd is that!

I believe that Labtop will still tell you burning polystyrene will not produce the compound in question.

You avoided that part of his statement.

I'm sure labtop would be happy to explain the difference between polystyrene and styrene.

I've admited that I said styrene, when I meant polystyrene.

Burning a polymer will produce all kinds of wierd PAH compounds.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

LabTop, that info on PAH's at ground zero is interesting, but it really doesn't support Jones and Ryan at all.

One thing to remember is that we now have the ability to detect these compounds at extremely low concentrations like we never have before.

I am not intimately familiar with the ins and outs of these detailed theories,but it seems that the critical points for this thread are:

1. 1,3-diphenlypropane was cited as being detected
   
2. 1,3-diphenlypropane is strongly indicative of explosives being used (but doesn't necessarily demonstrate that they were)
   
3. 1,3-diphenylpropane-[ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] was detected, NOT 1,3-diphenlypropane
   
4. 1,3-diphenylpropane-[ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] is best explained as being a result of burning materials from the building

Which of those is anyone disputing at this point, and why? If I understand correctly, HR disputes 1 & 2 and accepts 3 & 4. What about anyone else?


Also, if a page is cited, or some outside source, please provide a url and quote a small amount, not the entire page.

I said it nearly all already in the other thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But your last remark,

One thing to remember is that we now have the ability to detect these compounds at extremely low concentrations like we never have before.

is not correct.
From my last post (yes Nygdan, I agree, a seemingly big chunk of that report, but as you can see, it still is not enough, people do not really READ) :

They are using straight GC-MS, which is gas
chromatography and mass spectrometry, while everybody else is
using GCED, electron-capture detection method. It is actually a
cheaper method [and] is 100 to 1,000 times more sensitive.130

Nygdan,
I can not trust your point 3, since you can read already from the Sierra Report how scientifical research has been tampered by political pressure.
In this case it was an outsource firm outside of EPA, I hope a real independent firm.
But better save than sorry, I do not have the greatest trust in any research around 9/11 anymore, from all US sources. The possibility that even "clearly" federal opposed sources tamper their research is getting bigger by the day, since in my opinion, some very influencial people in the US are fighting for their lifes, if compliancy or worse, by them, will be unearthed.
They will use every dirty trick from their past and present books.

Your point 4 is just as valid as me saying that it as well could be a decomposition product of an explosive aero gel used to mold explosive charges.
It will be damn difficult, if not impossible, to proof either of us wrong, without a 10 million dollar research grant. I'm not fishing for a grant btw.

So you are rejecting that 1,3-diphenylpropane-[ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] was detected, because the reports may have been tampered with.

"rejecting", that's not the same as "trust".

I do not trust EPA's results. And I believe I may say, not without reason.
See the Sierra Report.

And I just found out here
pubs.acs.org...
that :
""Erick Swartz, who at the time worked for the National Exposure Research Laboratory,""
worked in fact for EPA, since NERL is part of EPA. ( www.epa.gov... )
And Eric was co writer of this piece,
pubs.acs.org...
where NERL mentioned
1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] .

oaspub.epa.gov...

The mixture also includes emissions of burning and remnant materials from the WTC site. The molecular markers for these emissions include retene and 1,4a-dimethyl-7-(methylethyl)-1,2,3,4,9,10,10a,4a-octahydrophenanthrene which are typically biogenic in origin. In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenyl propane [1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] is found in significant concentrations. This species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polyvinyl chloride materials, which are believed to be in abundance at the WTC site. These emissions lasted for over three weeks (9/26/01-10/20/01) after the initial destruction of the WTC

Correction:

OK, one of the points I made at the beginning of this post is incorrect.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
the compound detected was not 1,3-diphenlypropane (1,3-DPP) as claimed but a much more complex compound: 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene].

One of the sources that I used had the chemical nomenclature wrong. It is not
“1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene]” but rather
1,3-diphenylpropane; [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene]. In other words

1,3-diphenylpropane

and

[ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene]

are the same compound using different nomenclature systems.


lb.chemie.uni-hamburg.de...

It doesn’t change my conclusion, however, that Jones and Ryan are slowing smoke (pun intended) on this one.

reply to post by HowardRoark


So you went off half-cocked, accusing degreed scientists of having made a bonehead error, when in fact you are the one who made the error, rushing to judgment, and apparently not seeking any peer review of your statement, before making it public. And you have the audacity to cast another general, unsupported aspersion on their work, right on the heels of your non-apology? Please. You have no honor, sir.

And, you didn't really even state your self-correction strongly enough. "1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene" is an attempt at a IUPAC name for 1,3-diphenylpropane. Whether it is correct I am not sure -- the rules are complex. But the fact that you did not recognize that the second name was simply from a different but widely accepted nomenclature in chemistry suggests that you are way out of your element and that you let your opinions sway your judgment. Why should people trust you on anything you write from now on?

Jones and Ryan would mop up the floor with you in a debate.