Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

reply to post by Darkwing01

Excerpted from Henryco reference:
www.darksideofgravity.com...

"Gray conductive layer : Fe, O sometimes Mn and Cr trace.
Compatible with structural steel. Iron not much oxidized.

Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces,
aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one
found in the red layer of the red/gray chips.
Some chips already carry light gray deposits with spherical metal
particles they can expel when heated.

Photo [not posted on ATS; see original ref] from an independent searcher showing the red layer from a
red/gray chip separating from the gray layer: possible origin of red chips.

These chips dont react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn
most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion.
Photos, spectra and analyses:
www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf "


Your comment "You know and I know that that was political pressure that motivated the resignation and nothing else" has no basis in fact. You may wish to believe it but journal editors are not worried about PC; they are worried about their scientific reputations which are reflected in the quality of their journal papers.

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

PRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION
A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.

“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.
“I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”, says Marie-Paule Pileni ..."

and this link talks about the prank paper but more importantly says that the Bentham pubs are not members of
the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA).
oaspa.org...
"Publishers which seek to become members of OASPA must demonstrate that their journals operate peer review, and that appropriate editorial processes are in place."

Your statement: "Remote activation of thermite and/or other charges is well attested in the literature, there is no need for a single cable to be laid. But one can only guess at the exact methodology" resorts to the old standby that says "I don't know what did it or how it was done but I have a feeling that something wasn't right. Buildings fell differently in the Hollywood disaster movies and that means that this was CD."
If you have a theory, and all it is "one can only guess at the exact methodology" you are in the same boat as the hologram planes and DEW. Because you claimed demolition, you should be able detail how it was done. Methodology guessing is not the way to go if you want to be taken seriously. If you claim that demoliton devices can act on a target in 150 milliseconds, it is up to you to provide the details.

Your comment "The Harrit article certainly is not evidence for thermate or Viton thermite, but it is consistent with sol-gel thermite in general. The binder is in question, but that isn't a major consideration in the end, although obviously it would be good to know exactly what it was" once again assumes that the red chips are a sol-gel thermite. They have not been show to be such.

Here's the microsphere from Henryco's red-red paper:

Very small microsphere (maximum magnification used here as in Fig8_below)?:
Most probably one of the microspheres from the surface of the red material was expelled.
Encountered only once after heating more than ten red-red chips. Very different from what we see when a red/gray chips has reacted: always produce molten iron (much bigger microspheres, chips looses its red color).

Emphasis is areas I'm concerned with.

Which only leads me to ask these questions again:

So we're supposed to compare chips that have "shiny gray areas before heating!" with chips that don't have these "shiny gray areas" before heating?

Why does this French scientist all ready see "spherical metal particles" before heating and they are readily apparent in all his photographs, while the red/gray chips only show them after heating?

Why could this guy "not fracturate or select a clean area" so we could actually get a spectra of a fresh, uncontaminated red layer, rather than showing only spectra with all the surface contamination?

Why could this guy "not fracturate" his chips to see if there were microspheres in the red layer rather than just "microspheres from the surface"? Shouldn't this guy fracture his chips to see if these microspheres are actually in the red layer?

And I'll add a few more questions I have:

Why is it only one chip out of ten produced a microsphere which he states is probably "from the surface of the red material"? Why do the Harrit chips not have these microspheres on their surface?


If the "carbon burns" in Henryco's samples why is it they do not "always produce molten iron"? If combustion can produce molten iron from the chips, shouldn't it do this with all of Hernryco's samples?

Now, let's look at the quote from Henryco's red-gray chip paper:

"Gray conductive layer : Fe, O sometimes Mn and Cr trace.
Compatible with structural steel. Iron not much oxidized."

Now for some reason Henryco likes to remake his paper while leaving out crucial parts. (I have three different versions saved) If we go here we can see the original version in french (I can't find an archive for the english version):
original paper

Now in his PDF from 2008 the quote above says:

- Couche grise conductrice: Fe, O parfois traces de Mn et Cr.
Compatible avec de l'acier structurel. Couler sombre: Fer peu oxyde.

Even though I don't read French, the emphasis is mine. If I go to my original English version created on 4/13/2009 it's translated as:

" - Grey conductive layer: Fe, O sometimes Mn and Cr trace.
Compatible with structural steel. Dark color: Iron not much oxidized."


So he's basing his conclusion on the dark color. Is this a proper analysis? Where's his tests to confirm the iron oxide is "not much oxidized"? Are we able to look at something and by it's color determine it's make up?

But the main thing that gets me about his original paper is this from the very first page:

Ce sont les tests cruciaux que je n'avais pas les moyens d'effectuer en particulier la calorimetrei a l'ignition des chips rouges et l'usage de solvants pour isoler et identifier les differentes composantes du melange thermitique qui apportent la demonstration definitive de sa nature

English version:
"However it is the crucial tests which I could not perform, specially calorimetry at ignition of the red chips and usage of solvents enabling the isolation and identification of the various components of the mixture that produce actual evidence for the nanothermitic nature of the red part of the chips."

So why can't he run these "crucial tests"? Why can't he isolate and identify the components?

But then what's interesting about this red-gray chip paper is he actually found a chip that matches superficially with the Harrit samples. What were the results of his ignition tests on this chip?

We don't know because even in his latest version of the paper he states:

(the previously analyzed chip could not be recovered for an ignition test)

What does he mean "could not be recovered"? He took pictures of it and analyzed it throughout the paper. What happened to it? Did he lose it? Did it just disappear?

reply to post by NIcon


Consider this quote above: "Gray conductive layer : Fe, O sometimes Mn and Cr trace.
Compatible with structural steel. Iron not much oxidized."
The gray layer is from the structural steel. Harritt missed that point early on and called it a ceramic. The photos on the site show the red portions peeling from the gray layers. Why did Jones not find plain, or nearly plain, chips? Because his arbitrary magnetic separation would not collect chips that were not attached to a layer of structural steel oxide coating.

As to fracturing the chips and properly analyzing them, both Jones and Henryco should have done so. Jones just assumed that the spheres were formed. Note also the elemental maps in Jones paper, fig 10 [c and e] of aluminum and silicon, that show that the Al is most likely tied up as an aluminosilicate. Jones aluminum analysis and lack of an XRD experiment are telling.

The conditions of combustion are not the same as best we can determine. Jones had his chips in a 55 mL/min air stream. Based on what I read, it looks like Henryco put the red chips, some with gray areas, in a furnace, in air, and heated them to 900C with no reaction other than combustion.

I am disinterested in the outcome of the analysis. I will not profit from either outcome. Jones, of course, does. I think all the evidence points toward paint, but if Jones would do the analysis properly and not begin with a desired conclusion, I wouldn't criticize his work. As it sits, there are too many questionable points that prevent the conclusion of thermitic reaction. Once he has shown a non-combustion reaction, he has to then determine what the reaction is and how it might demolish the buildings. That is one of the major flaws in "the WTC fell through demolition" as even if the primer paint were thermite, it wouldn't compromise the structure. As it is, there is no evidence for demolition. This is the 'truthers last gasp' and when they find out the truth, they will be disappointed.

I recommend that if you need a conspiracy, go with the coverup of the incompetence of high level Bush appointees. There is nothing to analyze without FOIA materials and I suspect that much of the incriminating evidence was verbal communications and lost forever, but if there are coverups, that is likely where they will be.

ETA: I was wrting this response when you posted your next set of comments. Certainly both analyses are lacking in rigor. I also believe that both were limited by lack of access to facilities. I suspect that these were done on the cuff as favors to the people involved or were limited by what each scientist had available. When all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

reply to post by pteridine

Consider this quote above: "Gray conductive layer : Fe, O sometimes Mn and Cr trace.
Compatible with structural steel. Iron not much oxidized."
The gray layer is from the structural steel. Harritt missed that point early on and called it a ceramic. The photos on the site show the red portions peeling from the gray layers. Why did Jones not find plain, or nearly plain, chips? Because his arbitrary magnetic separation would not collect chips that were not attached to a layer of structural steel oxide coating.

I did consider that quote and I'm not sure if you saw my post directly above yours? What analysis did Henryco use to determine "Iron not much oxidized"? From what I can tell from previous versions of his paper he based it soley on the "Dark colour."

How come he didn't split the chip and get a fresh sample surface to se if the MN and Cr were actually in the gray layer and not just surface contamination?

As to fracturing the chips and properly analyzing them, both Jones and Henryco should have done so. Jones just assumed that the spheres were formed. Note also the elemental maps in Jones paper, fig 10 [c and e] of aluminum and silicon, that show that the Al is most likely tied up as an aluminosilicate. Jones aluminum analysis and lack of an XRD experiment are telling.

Again if you would just read the "Jones" paper you would see they did fracture the chips.

From their paper (all emphasis is mine):

"In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by BSE imaging and XEDS."

"Newly fractured cross sections of red/gray chips from the four different dust samples are shown by BSE imaging in Fig. (5). These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples."

"Fig. (5). BSE images of cross sections of red/gray chips..."

"X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6,7)"

"BSE images of small but representative portions of each red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8)."

"XEDS maps of the cross-section surface of the red layer were acquired at a beam energy of 10 kV."

"Fig. (8). BSE images of cross sections of the red layer from each of the dust samples 1-4 shown in (a)-(d) respectively."

"Fig. (9). SE image of the cross section shown in Fig. (8a)."

"Fig. (10). This shows a BSE image (a) and XEDS maps (b-f) of the red-layer cross section of a red/gray chip from dust sample 1."

"The ratios of these elements appear to be similar especially when this analysis is performed on a clean cross-section of the layers."

Thanks for the recommendation about me needing a conspiracy. However, I have a recommendation for you as I've found many points that you get wrong about the paper. My recommendation is READ THE PAPER FIRST before commenting on it.

Also, let's get a third view from Mark Basile about what they find before ignition:

www.youtube.com...

at 4:49
"if you take these chips and section them and look at them before you ignite them there are no iron microspheres, there no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips. It's only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released."


www.youtube.com...

at 44:22
"I've cut into these chips a dozen, if not hundreds times, and I've never found an iron microspheres inside, I've never found a film of iron inside. It's not there until the chip reacts."

reply to post by pteridine

Certainly both analyses are lacking in rigor.

It's easy to say that when you haven't read the paper, don't understand what it says, or are extremely biased against what you are reading.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by pteridine

 

Certainly both analyses are lacking in rigor.

It's easy to say that when you haven't read the paper, don't understand what it says, or are extremely biased against what you are reading.

You should take your own advice and actually read what henryco wrote. Look at the EDAX spectra of the spheres that he analyzed. I posted the link in this thread several times. Try not to let your extreme bias show.

Jones elemental map also says aluminosilicate filler in red paint. The gray layer is the gray oxide coat commonly found on structural steel. Jones didn't bother to separate the substrate from the coating because he and his crew are incompetents and/or have an agenda to find thermite. No money-making bias for publicity-hound Stevie Jones.
Jones has proved nothing with his paper and henryco, also expecting to find thermite, has inadvertently added some heretical content to the thermite demolition religion.

You should take your own advice and actually read what henryco wrote. Look at the EDAX spectra of the spheres that he analyzed. I posted the link in this thread several times. Try not to let your extreme bias show.

What exactly are you pointing out to me about the EDAX of the spheres in Henryco's paper? Were these spheres just found in the dust along side the "red-red chips" or were they the ones all ready attached to the red layer of his red-red chips? From the pictures he supplies they look like they were just loose microspheres? They couldn't come from his red/gray chip because he doesn't mention any visible spheres on that chip and we know he didn't ignite that chip. Also, if they were actually attached to the red layer of his red-red chips, why were they all ready visible before heating the chips? Why are they not visible in Harrit's samples even after fracturing? I've asked this a few times, yet why won't you answer this question?

Jones elemental map also says aluminosilicate filler in red paint.

How can you tell the aluminum and silcon are joined from the elemental map? If they were combined, why is there no aluminum in Fig 16 of their paper? Why is there just a trace amount of Silicon in Fig 17? I know in the past you told me even the strongest solvent would not break the bond of an aluminosilicate, then what explains these two spectrums? I asked this of you in the past but never got a response. Can you answer it today?

To be fair, how do we know if the aluminum and silicon are joined in Henryco's work? Do we look at the spectrum and say "Yessiree bob, dat dare is an alumeenum seeleekit"? Isn't more work required? I think so, as Henryco said in the original version of his paper:

"However it is the crucial tests which I could not perform, specially calorimetry at ignition of the red chips and usage of solvents enabling the isolation and identification of the various components of the mixture that produce actual evidence for the nanothermitic nature of the red part of the chips."

The gray layer is the gray oxide coat commonly found on structural steel.

It may very well be. But how do you know for sure? Are you just guessing because that's what you want to believe?

Also, more importantly, since I really don't believe you read the Harrit paper, if you had read the Harrit paper why did you believe they did not fracture the chips?

If you could just please answer some of my questions, rather than changing the subject.

reply to post by pteridine

Excerpted from Henryco reference: www.darksideofgravity.com...

"The numerous metallic microspheres at the surface of some of these chips point toward an obvious link with a high
power density process hence certainly related to the destruction technology employed to bring down the towers.
Other observations suggest other ways of understandingthe destruction of the towers:
● Some of the elements found in the red chips and microspheres perfectly match those obtained by transmutations
in the RECOM experiment discharges ( figure 3 in www.darksideofgravity.com/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf)
● Following the exposions, Rodriguez and others witnessed fireballs in the
lower ground floors of WTC (such fireballs are often
produced in electric discharges). 911stories.googlepages.com...
comparisonofwitnessaccountstorodriguezst
● Anomalous proportions of Baryum discovered byUSGS
in WTC dust. Largely above expectation from the
baryum inside the computers cathodic screens
at WTC. pubs.usgs.gov...
Even in the girder coatings where its abundance is difficult to
explain (baryum is a toxic and prohibited element in
construction materials) except if we follow the hypothesis that this
Baryum was playing a special role in the thermitic mixture
(baryum oxyde is well known as a catalyst"

"New possible way opened by the results of the Marseille analysis
of thermitic reactions) but this possible origin can also be excluded because one only finds traces of baryum. It still
remains possible however that a thermitic mixture was simply prepared in the same containers and following the
same system usually used by militaries to produce all kind of mixtures (baryum thermate, etc ,...) however the
presence of strontium in large proportions (even more difficult to explain because the element appears very rare in
soils) similar to the Baryum fraction suggest another possible explanation:
Baryum Titanate often mixed with strontium titanate is used as an insulating material in high capacitors which could
be used to trigger the thermite or other reactions by very powerful electric discharges in capacitors breakdown or
piezzoelectric discharges.
Anomalous abundances of some elements could also originate from a new and not understood physics which
regularly shows those kind of anomalies in lab experiments in the context of powerful électric discharges.
www.lenr-canr.org...
www.darksideofgravity.com...
One can also imagine that this physics secretly explored by DoD labs provided the intense heat required to weaken
the columns (by radiating micro lighting-balls).
The physics also allows to consider new highly powerful weapons, much more than conventional (non nuclear i.e
chemical) bombs but with a total absence of radioactivity or tritium. These might have been used at the WTC
instead of the most powerful non nuclear bombs: thermobarics.
Obvious arguments allow to exclude the use of nuclear weapons at the WTC however the level of destruction
(www.journalof911studies.com... … -jones.pdf) reached at the WTC cannot be explained by conventional
high energy explosives nor nanothermite weapons (only several times more powerful). "


_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Perhaps one should endeavor to read the whole paper, or at the very least the conclusion section before linking it?

Just a thought.

Besides, the key take away point I get from this is that this person reproduced the main findings but that his sample was different in one key respect. I never quite new why that would be, but I can venture a guess after re-reading the final two pages...

Besides, he reveals on the page you link, an a priori assumption that Jones tampered with the samples. What happened to not starting research from a conclusion...

If this article is all you have you have nothing.

A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.

She was the EDITOR, she was not a peer reviewer to begin with. But the fact that the EDITOR claims she did not know it was going to be published kinda undermines her credibility a tad, nes pas?

I don't see a substantive refutation though.

and this link talks about the prank paper but more importantly says that the Bentham pubs are not members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). oaspa.org...

It was a prank on a DIFFERENT JOURNAL!

Do you know which other magazines in the same stable as Science or Nature or The Lancet has been pranked like this or published shoddy research?

Some people make a hobby out of pranking journals.

Completely irrelevant to the paper in question.

Originally posted by NIcon
If the "carbon burns" in Henryco's samples why is it they do not "always produce molten iron"? If combustion can produce molten iron from the chips, shouldn't it do this with all of Hernryco's samples?

Yeah, I picked that up too...

Curious to find Pteredine would choose to link THIS in his defense.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I'm sorry, Darkwing. I think I may have ruined your three week long conversation with Pteridine by asking too many questions.

Originally posted by NIcon
If the "carbon burns" in Henryco's samples why is it they do not "always produce molten iron"? If combustion can produce molten iron from the chips, shouldn't it do this with all of Hernryco's samples?

A golden question Thanks NIcon for the exposure

reply to post by NIcon

I'm sorry, Darkwing. I think I may have ruined your three week long conversation with Pteridine by asking too many questions.

Tut tut, and just when it was starting to liven up too

reply to post by Darkwing01


We can liven things up again. There are too many unrelated questions and I have been too busy elsewhere to sort through them. Nicon has a fine collection that he would like me to address. Start with one topic and we will go through it.
As an example, you said that the editor was not a peer reviewer. That is correct; the editor sends the paper out to peer reviewers, collates the responses, and then determines if the paper is to be published, rejected, or if the paper will be published after corrections. Without the editors approval, no paper will be published. This paper was not approved by the editor and she would have rejected it without review as being off-topic because the paper did not fit her journal in that the topic was not related to the subjects that the journal published. It was as though someone published a Redbook article on relationships in Hot Rod magazine. This casts even more doubt that the paper was ever peer reviewed.

reply to post by pteridine

As an example, you said that the editor was not a peer reviewer. That is correct; the editor sends the paper out to peer reviewers, collates the responses, and then determines if the paper is to be published, rejected, or if the paper will be published after corrections. Without the editors approval, no paper will be published. This paper was not approved by the editor and she would have rejected it without review as being off-topic because the paper did not fit her journal in that the topic was not related to the subjects that the journal published. It was as though someone published a Redbook article on relationships in Hot Rod magazine. This casts even more doubt that the paper was ever peer reviewed.

And yet, there it is right there still in the journal available online for you to download. It has not been retracted.

The only thing this casts doubt on is the honesty of editor when she gave her reasons for quitting.

Look I don't know what the editorial structure is at that magazine, maybe the lead editor does not review every article. But so what? It is not the editors role to peer review the submission, so whether she saw it or not has zero bearing on the quality or the veracity of the paper.

en.wikipedia.org...

Editors of scholarly books and journals are of three types, each with particular responsibilities: the acquisitions editor (or commissioning editor in Britain), who contracts with the author to produce the copy, the project editor or production editor, who sees the copy through its stages from manuscript through bound book and usually assumes most of the budget and schedule responsibilities, and the copy editor or manuscript editor, who performs the tasks of readying the copy for conversion into printed form.

The primary difference between copy editing scholarly books and journals and other sorts of copy editing lies in applying the standards of the publisher to the copy. Most scholarly publishers have a preferred style guide, usually a combination of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and: (a) either the Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA Style Manual, or the APA Publication Manual in the US; or (b) the New Hart's Rules in the UK. The New Hart's Rules are based on "Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers", published by the University Press, Oxford (1893). Since scholars often have strong preferences, very often a publisher will adopt different styles for different fields. For instance, psychologists prefer the APA style, while linguists might prefer the MLA style. These guidelines offer sound advice on making cited sources complete and correct and making the presentation scholarly.

This is a CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS paper published in a CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS journal. I don't see how you could miss the topical relevance.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

This is a CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS paper published in a CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS journal. I don't see how you could miss the topical relevance

Maybe because the paper is not about Chemical Physics. See my revious refs and 911blogger.com...
“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

reply to post by pteridine


What else would you classify a paper analyzing the chemistry and physical reaction of an unknown substance as?

Sociology perhaps?

reply to post by Darkwing01


It should have been submitted to a forensic journal, materials journal, or an analytical chemistry journal. Bentham has materials science, nanoscience, and analytical chemistry journals, which are more appropriate for the topic. The editor was correct and the paper did not belong in her journal.

reply to post by pteridine


You get funnier all the time Pteredine...

Have a look at the range of articles in the New Journal of Chemistry:
pubs.rsc.org...

Here is the blurb for the particular journal in question:

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is an Open Access online journal which publishes research articles, reviews and letters in all areas of chemical physics.

(my highlight)

And here is the suggested conflict of interest for said editor:
911blogger.com...

Really Pteredine, please try to be a little less predictable.