Dr. G wrote:Now this is very significant because the XEDS spectrum you present in Figure 14 of your report is essentially a perfect match for Tnemec red primer paint, particularly because of the Zn and Cr content.
As you have no XEDS spectrum for the Tnemec red primer, this is a ridiculous statement.
And, unfortunately, this represents a serious inconsistency in your paper; namely that the spectrum in Figure 14 is quite different to the spectra you present in Figures 6 and 7 of your paper – spectra that you claim are representative of the red chips.
Umm, no... the underlying XEDS spectrum of Figure 14 appears to be the same as the spectra in Figure 7. It seems quite obvious that the surface of the chip used to generate Figure 14 has been contaminated. Post-MEK treatment (which should "clean" the surface) XEDS, Figures 16-18, seem to confirm it.
Thus I think your paper is seriously flawed because it leaves one wondering how you could acquire no less than eight spectra of red chips that have no Zn or Cr and yet choose to investigate the chemical properties of a chip that contains these elements. Simply stating that the difference between the chips analysed in Figs 6 & 7 and the chip analysed in Figure 14, is due to “surface contamination”, is not very convincing.
Seriously flawed? Please, what you are complaining about only relates to the MEK experiment which was primarily designed to show that the chips were not merely red paint. It has nothing to do with the main finding of the paper, which is of course that these chips are thermite-based pyrotechnics.
I have to ask why would you use a contaminated particle to do your chemical testing when you were able to acquire plenty of spectra of contaminant-free particles? I would, at least, subject the supposedly contaminated particle to an ultra-sonic bath to see if the contamination could be removed or reduced.
Ultra-sonic bath? Warning: Removed offensive language. /Administrator
The proper way would be some kind of ion-milling. But again, there is really no point.
Figures 6 & 7 make is perfectly clear that these chips, from a variety of dust samples, are the same material and that they are not composed of Zn or Cr or Ca, hence effectively ruling out the Tnemec red primer as being the source.
Thus I find it a serious omission that you do not even mention the possibility that at least some of the red chips might be red primer paint fragments, especially when this explains the presence of Zn and Cr in the one chip you select for additional chemical testing.
Greening, at best you have found a minor flaw in the experimental methodology used. Given that this is forensic science conducted with extremely limited sample material and resources, expecting the paper to be perfect in every way is not reasonable.
However, until the red chips are exactly identified as a particular thermite pyrotechnic there may be some small possibility that they are something else. So it does seems that Tnemec red primer should be more conclusively ruled out as the source as it would seem to be one of the few legitimate "possible" alternatives. Hopefully, someone willl generate XEDS spectra and SEM images from WTC Tnemec red primer samples to end the baseless speculation. Even just contacting Tnemec company scientists would probably be worth doing as they should be able to rule out that the red chips are their primer on the basis of this paper.
Otherwise, this is a very solid and convincing paper. It is really hard to imagine that these red chips are anything but a thermite pyrotechnic given the numerous ways to irrefutable prove not only controlled demolition of the World Trade Center but also that the entire 9/11 event and subsequent Anthrax attack was a staged False Flag operation.