The 9/11 Forum

by **bofors** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:44 am

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.

by **Dr. G** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:31 am

Bofors,

Please note that I worked in an analytical laboratory for 23 years. I used SEM, EDAX, Auger, SIMS, XRD, and optical microscopy on a daily basis. I also used GCMS, FTIR and DSC, etc, etc.

My typical sample would be some unknown corrosion deposit scraped off a pipe in a nuclear power station. I often did depth-profiling of such samples in my Auger microprobe using argon-ion sputtering but sometimes we first "cleaned up" the sample in an ultrasonic bath using methanol or DI-water. No one ever told me that was "a perfectly asinine approach".

As for not having an XEDS spectrum of Tnemec primer paint, that is true, I do not, but I do have its composition and its not too difficult to predict what its XEDS spectrum would look like using reference spectra which I do have. This leads me to conclude that Jones is incorrect in some of his arguments. For example, he speculates that the Ca and S peaks in one of his red chip spectra are due to the presence of gypsum. Well, I have a gypsum XEDS spectrum and the Ca/S peak ratios are incorrect for gypsum - the Ca is too high. This tells me that there is some other source for the Ca in this spectrum and I would suggest its from calcium silicate which is an ingredient of Tnemec primer paint. The Fe/Cr/Zn peak ratios are also correct for Tnemec primer paint. Jones has previously asked me about zinc in some of his WTC dust samples. Galvanized steel is one possibility, but zinc chromate from Tnemec paint is another ....

So you see, Bofors, I am simply asking a few questions and making a few comments about Jones et al's new paper. Jones claims he welcomes this kind of scrutiny, ....If Jones' conclusions are correct he should have nothing to worry about.

And if you also believe that Jones is on solid ground, you should have nothing to worry about too ......

by **metamars** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:29 pm

metamars wrote:
metamars wrote:
I suppose another possibility is that fashioning Al/Si chips might give you more bang for the buck not only by more intimately mixing Al and Si, but that the Si could also essentially function as the oxide layer in the 'planar' dimension. Only the edges would require a normal oxide layer.

What I was thinking about ito "intimate mixing" was forming a more effective eutectic. However, I got confused between Si and sulphur. Not much of a chemist, am I?

Looks like Si can be used for a eutectic with Al. Link here:

". A eutectic is formed with aluminium at 11% silicon. "

by **metamars** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:28 pm

I attach an XEDS plot for red material from a red/gray chip found in
WTC dust -- a separate sample from any of the FOUR in our paper, from
Dr. H<name redacted>.
His results confirm several major features of our results (compare our
Figure 7, for example).
Notice that there is NO magnesium or chromium in this material so that
it cannot be the Tnemec paint identified by Dr. Greening.

On 4/9/09, D. <name and email redacted> wrote:
> > Steven, I have some questions to defend your study more accurate, as the
> > "debunkers" already tried to seed scepticism:
> >
> > What's about the magnetic issue? Does elemental Al can be magnetic? Does
> > some kind of magnetic behavior rule out the classification as
> > super-thermite?

THE MATERIAL IS ATTRACTED BY A STRONG MAGNET. ELEMENTAL AL CANNOT BE
MAGNETIC, NO. THIS BEHAVIOR CAN BE DUE TO GAMMA-FE2O3, AS ONE
EXAMPLE, AND IN ANY CASE DOES NOT RULE OUT CLASSIFICATION AS
SUPER-THERMITE.

What about the traces Kevin produces in his own tests- were
> > they magnetic either?
I DON'T KNOW, I DID NOT TRY TO USE A MAGNET ON HIS MATERIAL -- WHICH
WAS PRODUCED NEAR THE END OF THE STUDY AND LONG AFTER THE PAPER WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JOURNAL TOCPJ.

What's about gamma-Al2O3 (?) That stuff is not a
> > residue of thermite, or is it?
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS FORM OF AL2O3, GAMMA-AL2O3.
> >
> > My point is: primer paint isn't magnetic either. Can you clear that up?

WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THIS MATERIAL IS PRIMER PAINT! INDEED, IF WHAT
YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN THE FACT THAT THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE MAGNETIC IS
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT.
> >
> > One poster on DU claims, that the superthermite probe ignites about 430°
> > Celsius means it could not made steel melt- but to mix up igniting
> > temperature and burning temperature is wrong, isn't it?

OF COURSE YOU ARE RIGHT, AND THE POSTER ON DU IS WRONG.
> > Furthermore as I translate the Jim Hoffman paper my understanding is that
> > it's a question of energy density and energy release rate, whose rates could
> > be similar to thermite or TNT at high end, depending on the mixture.
YES.

> >
> > <name and reference redacted> Boloboffin on DU posted some images
> > of NIST showing eroded WTC paint- but in the explanation it reads: paint was
> > heated to more than 650° C, evidently without ignition.
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THIS PAINT IS NOT THE SAME AS OUR RED/GRAY
CHIPS, WHICH IGNITE BELOW 450 C.
> > The pictures bare some similarity, but so does Kevins Slideshow on his own
> > superthermite compared to TWC dust.
> >
> > Why didn't you include these reference pictures in your study? Better even
> > the elemental analysis that I indeed had seen somewhere of both samples.
AGAIN, KEVIN'S SAMPLES WERE PRODUCED SOME TIME AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF
THE PAPER, AND HIS SAMPLES DO NOT SHOW THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS AS
THESE CHIPS (E.G., NO AL-SI-C PLATE-LIKE STRUCTURES, AND DIFFERENT
IGNITION TEMPERATURE). HIS WORK IS A START TOWARDS TRYING TO
REPLICATE THESE RED/GRAY CHIPS AND SHOWS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO
REPLICATE THEM.
> >
> > The other claim is that the elemental analysis matches not for superthermite
> > in the spikes of some elements- but that's clearly nonsense, as no one knows
> > the exact compound, but one doesn't need to accept that it indeed is
> > aluminothermic material.
CLEARLY YOU ARE RIGHT.
> >

> > What do you made out of the sulphur found at the WTC 7 probe? Is it possible
> > that more than one thermite / Thermate compound was used?
YES, THAT IS VERY LIKELY.
> >
> > The paint issue is nonsense, but maybe the last line of defense / denial of
> > the "debunkers". The shaddy isolation of the trusses was discovered in 1995,
> > a time when nano-primer-paint already could be existent and purchasable.
I AGREE THAT THE PAINT ISSUE APPEARS TO BE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE OF
THE DEBUNKERS.

by **Dr. G** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:00 am

Today I walked under an old "iron" railway bridge near my home and noticed several dark brown to reddish-orange colored "patches" on the concrete walk-way under the bridge. Closer inspection showed these "patches" were in fact chips of material that appeared to have fallen off the bridge. With my son's help I collected about ten of these chips, ranging in size from 1/2 to 1/4 inch wide and less than 1/8th inch thick. I dropped these "samples" into a plastic bag and took them home.

Now unfortunately I don't have an X-ray analysis laboratory in my basement so I did what I could with what I had at hand - a magnet, an AVO-meter, a low-powered microscope, my eyes ....

Using these simple tools I soon discovered:

* most of the chips were magnetic - some more so than others. Often one side, the lighter colored side, appeared to be more magnetic than the other....

* there were some bi-layered chips, dark gray on one side, reddish-orange on the other

* the bi-layered chips were generally less than 1 mm thick with the reddish-orange layer about 1/2 - 1/4 the thickness of the dark gray layer

* the reddish-orange layer was electrically non-conductive , while the dark gray layer was a good electrical conductor. This test was done using a 1.5 volt battery placed between the chip and the AVO-meter probe

These results are consistent with the expectation that atmospheric corrosion of structural steel, (including my old iron bridge), produces bi-layered oxides consisting of an outer layer of reddish-orange rust which is actually lepidocrocite, gamma-FeO(OH), and an inner layer of hematite , alpha-Fe2O3, or possibly goethite, alpha-FeO(OH). The outer layer is magnetic but non-conducting; the inner layer is non-magnetic, but conducting.

In natural environments, species such as Al and Si are readily incorporated into iron oxide lattices in corrosion films on ferrous alloys.

As for Jones et al's chips, I still wonder why they are magnetic, ..... but it is interesting that enhanced magnetism is well-known in Fe-Al-Si alloys such as "Sendust"; gamma-FeO(OH) or gamma-Fe2O3, maghemite, is used in magnetic recording media such as tape, tape-heads, hard drives, credit-cards, etc.

It is also interesting that the WTC columns were covered in insulating materials such as Monokote, Blazeshield, gypsum and vermiculite that are rich in calcium, iron, potassium alumino-silicates.

P.S. The XEDS data for WTC steel samples given in Table 6-3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C are worth a look ....

by **metamars** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:55 am

Dr. G wrote:
Now unfortunately I don't have an X-ray analysis laboratory in my basement so I did what I could with what I had at hand - a magnet, an AVO-meter, a low-powered microscope, my eyes ....

Have you considered making friends with a local university material scientist? If you explained the red/grey chip issue, gave him a copy of the Jones, et. al. paper, etc., you might get him interested. I'll bet you're quite the charmer, in person. If you achieve that, then maybe Jones, et. al., will give you some of their chips, and you can analyze them with your new material scientist friend, together.

BTW, googling: SEM images "paint chip"
gets some hits, including http://www.jeolusa.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?EntryId=572&PortalId=2&DownloadMethod=attachment

by **metamars** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:07 pm

I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist (well, not really), but an hour and 12 minutes after I posted the second of the following, the JREF thread it was on was closed. These two posts of mine suggest a way to make aluminothermic AL/Si platelets, and why you might want to do so. Frankly, the only person who was likely to say anything worthwhile about these post was SunStealer - otherwise I wouldn't care. Most of the comments were inane.

Besides the ubiquitous inane comments, there were flat out wrong statements made by debunkers, such as
* (macro thermite) "has the EXACTLY the "nano properties" of a chunk of the same stuff that is a billion times bigger."
* "Higher energy release per unit mass than TNT suggests that the material isn't thermite."
* "The energy density of "super thermite" is exactly the same as that of the same thermite composition with a greater particle size."

I made a correction in the following: I had written:
"Besides packing more Al per unit volume, a platelet morphology, by minimizing the ratio of Al to Al oxide" , which should have been "Besides packing more Al per unit volume, a platelet morphology, by maximizing the ratio of Al to Al oxide"

=========================================

Playing with Platelets

There may be other options. E.g., you can buy silicon in nano-scale platelet form.

You can deposit Al onto silicon via sputtering.

( and perhaps other methods of physical vapor deposition? not sure if this means elemental Al )

As for the motivation to do so, I have absolutely no idea about cost (and absolutely no intention to research it), but aside from that, referring to "MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION"

we see that:

nanometer scale spherical particles in nanothermite are 20-120 nm

oxide shell thickness is 1-8 nm

consider middling values of 50 nm and 4 nm, about 26% of your particle is taken up in the oxide shell. You are also wasting the space in between spheres.

Perhaps platelets made on nano-silicon platelet substrates help you pack more elemental Al, per unit volume. Especially if Al-oxide shells are "sticky" as they form Al nanothermite in the normal, spherical form, thus leaving huge pockets of empty space to fill. (BTW, IIRC, the Ph.D. thesis I linked to gets into compressing nanopowders. If not that one, then definitely the master's thesis mentioned above.)

If it does this, and saves you money, that would be a double motivation for doing so.

Once again, I remind everybody that I am not a domain expert. Thus, my sputtering speculations may sputter!

Playing with Platelets, part 2

Another speculation as to platelets vs. spherical:

The MODELING thesis says:

Quote:
A combination of increased oxide shell formation temperature and increased oxide shell strength could be used to maximize the flame velocity in particles with increased relative particle size.

Besides packing more Al per unit volume, a platelet morphology, by maximizing the ratio of Al to Al oxide, might result in not just more energy, but relatively less power (i.e., a slower reaction). For one thing, I expect the oxide layer to break near the platelet edges (this is an uneducated guess, I hasten to add), and to do so under less pressure than would be required to break an oxide layer of equal thickness in the spherical case. * This would tend to negate the dispersion melt mechanism as a contributor to flame propagation. Hence, your nanothermite will have it's power profile shifted back towards that of the micron-thermite type, while simultaneously generating more total energy.

If you look at Fig. 1 of MODELING, you can see that Aluminothermics already have dramatically superior energy density (per unit mass) than high explosives, but the energy density, per unit volume, of Al/Fe2O3 is only about 40% greater than high explosives. You can't change the inherent mass of reactants, but you can fiddle with the density. If you simultaneously increase the energy per unit volume, while slowing down the reaction, you can end up with a hotter, but quieter "explosion".

* from MODELING:
Quote:
The pressure inside the Al particle causes tensile hoop stress (σh) in the oxide shell. Due to the small thickness of the oxide shell (1 – 8 nm), it is almost defect free and therefore its ultimate strength (σu) approaches the theoretical maximum strength of alumina (σth) estimated at 11.33 GPa [11].

by **metamars** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:06 pm

In "An investigation of hardness and adhesion of sputter-deposited aluminum on silicon by utilizing a continuous indentation test", referred to above, they say that they can sputter on the aluminum at a rate of .23 nm/s . That was back in 1988.

by **Dr. G** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:24 am

Metamars:

I am quite familiar with the sputter coating of materials, but I would forget about it in the present context .... It takes 15 minutes to sputter coat a tea spoon and costs hundreds of dollars.

I would first consider natural sources of bi-layered chips such as primer paint or spalled corrosion scales before considering exotic laboratory-produced sputter-coated gizmos. The more "hi-tech" the material Jones et al. believe was used in the Twin Towers, the more risky, costly and unlikely the idea.

by **metamars** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:13 am

If there was 10 short tons of sputtered thermite, and 5 teaspoons weigh 1 pound, we're talking 100,000 teaspoons. At $400 each, that's $40,000,000.

That's a lot of money, but consider that the price of a single F-22 fighter will be something like $200 million (if they don't scrap the project). IOW, $40 million would be chicken scratch for a war machine which wants to suck far many more billions out of the American public, so that it can control the resources of hapless foreigners.

I certainly agree that the paint chip hypothesis should be explored fully. But I wouldn't rule out $40 million dollars of a special order, demolition agent, either.

by **metamars** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:27 am

Dr. G wrote:Metamars:

I am quite familiar with the sputter coating of materials,

Would it be possible to create an Al vapor, and just allow it to condense on the Silicon? I don't remember how nano aluminothermics are made, but if you did the above, and slowly introduce oxygen into your system, would you not then get Al/Si/Al-oxide platelets that were stable, in the same way the Al/Al-oxide is stable in the usual nano-aluminothermic?

If the above is possible, would it be cheaper than sputtering?

by **metamars** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:32 am

metamars wrote:If there was 10 short tons of sputtered thermite, and 5 teaspoons weigh 1 pound, we're talking 100,000 teaspoons. At $400 each, that's $40,000,000.

Ooh, I just realized that that's a bad comparison. Assuming the sputtering coating is in the micron range, your spoon will overwhelmingly be composed of iron.

by **metamars** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:13 am

metamars wrote:
Dr. G wrote:Metamars:

I am quite familiar with the sputter coating of materials,

Would it be possible to create an Al vapor, and just allow it to condense on the Silicon? I don't remember how nano aluminothermics are made, but if you did the above, and slowly introduce oxygen into your system, would you not then get Al/Si/Al-oxide platelets that were stable, in the same way the Al/Al-oxide is stable in the usual nano-aluminothermic?

If the above is possible, would it be cheaper than sputtering?

14 MJ / KG to melt and vaporize 1 kg Al

6 GJ energy in 1 barrel of oil

so you can vaporize 428 kg Al / barrel of oil

At $200 / barrel (say it includes the cost of forced oxygen; a sheer guess, btw)

you can create Al vapor at the cost of about 50 cents per kg

1 short ton is 907 kg, to the cost required to create 10 short tons of vaporized Al is of the order of:

$4,535

Not a problem for the NWO.

by **Dr. G** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:37 pm

Metamars,

I see little value in pondering all the ways one could make exotic magnetic bi-layered materials containing Fe, Al and Si. I'm sure there are many laboratory-scale methods that could be found in the literature to make all sorts of fancy coatings.

However, I believe it's more useful to consider how such materials could have been used to destroy the Twin Towers. And here's where I have problems, .... BIG problems.

I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate. And, by the way, you have not commented on this calculation as you said you would. Nevertheless, my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.

by **metamars** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:50 pm

Dr. G wrote:Metamars,

I see little value in pondering all the ways one could make exotic magnetic bi-layered materials containing Fe, Al and Si. I'm sure there are many laboratory-scale methods that could be found in the literature to make all sorts of fancy coatings.

However, I believe it's more useful to consider how such materials could have been used to destroy the Twin Towers. And here's where I have problems, .... BIG problems.

The question of "how" is interesting, but if you can prove that there was a CD agent present, it's sort of academic.

Also, a minimalist use of nanothermite might have been to make sure that kerosene-like jet fuel ignites into a big fireball. That would still show a non-official conspiracy, even if 911 truther's expectations of how thermite might have been used would not be supported.

Thus, I agree with Professor Jones, that the question of "if" is far more important than "how".

I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate. And, by the way, you have not commented on this calculation as you said you would. Nevertheless, my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

And? Your point is? See my comments, above.

I'm sorry I haven't gotten to your calculation, yet. I'm very 911-ed out, so please forgive me if I push off going through it, possibly for another week. (I try and leave this stuff until Sundays, but the general topic of the new paper by Jones, et. al., was more than I could resist.) For now, I'll note that Mackey's results are consistent with mine.

Mackey calculated that a 20 micron thermite layer, acting on a 6.35 mm thick column, would give a 24 deg increase in temp

so, to get a 600 deg increase in temp (again, assuming all heat goes into steel), you'd need 25 x as much, or 500 microns.

500 microns / 6.35 mm is about .079. I had calculated .04, in general, though I used an energy density of 4 MJ/kg, while Mackey used 7 MJ/kg. If I'd used 7 MJ/kb, I'd have calculated roughly 2% thickness of thermite. Since I only considered putting thermite on 1 side of a column, if you multiply 2% by 4, you get Mackey's result of .08.

Even if we accept his numbers, we know that multilayered nanofoils exist. It certain doesn't strain credulity, for me, to consider multilayered red/grey nanothermitic materials, especially as Jones, et. al., have some samples of multilayered chips.

BTW, I think the idea that a team consisting, in part, of guys with doctorates in physics hadn't even considered that a 20 micron, or even 100 micron, layer of nanothermite would not be sufficient to take out a column, is just ridiculous. It wasn't the purpose of the Jones, et.al. paper, to demonstrate a CD technique, and if he didn't give you a satisfactory answer about a problem that's quite secondary for him, even now, I don't think it's fair to make a big deal about it.

The 9/11 Forum

Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

4/9 AM email from Professor Jones

A Cautionary Tale of Bi-Layered Chips

Re: A Cautionary Tale of Bi-Layered Chips

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

How fast can you sputter, brutter?

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Re: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Who is online