The 9/11 Forum

I have permission to upload email from some of the co-authors of the Harrit, et. al., Active Thermitic paper and Dr. Greening, viz., Professor Jones, Gregg Roberts, and Dr. Greening. (Gregg Roberts indicated that there might be selective emails that I shouldn't upload, so I will watch out for any so indicated.)

PLEASE DON'T POST IN THIS THREAD
You can comment in the original thread on the active thermitic paper, or start another thread.


This first post will be mostly a placeholder, because the folder I have designated for these emails only starts at 5/4, and I'm sure the earlier ones are in there somewhere. However, I want to get the show on the road.
ETA: I have found the emails prior to 5/4, and these have been added to this post. Hence, this post is no longer "mostly a placeholder".

I just want to make a couple of general points, first. One is that we all tend to get emotional, at times, and some of these emails reflect that. There are references to prior conflicts, which don't, strictly speaking, have anything to do with the issue of the red/gray chips. Secondly, scientific conflicts between groups of highly qualified scientists aren't unusual - I recommend Not Even Wrong, The Trouble with Physics, and also see the intro to the Alternative Cosmology Group. Fourthly, Dr. Greening is partly correct about online debates being a waste of time. However, I think part of the solution is developing software to support a hierarchically structured debate with degree of certainty, conflict, and agreement, on facts and arguments lower in the inference food chain, clearly showing the effects on "facts" and arguments higher in the inference food chain. I will eventually be starting an open source software project to create such a complex debate facilitating technology. Lastly, humans cannot escape their subjectivity completely. See this recent article. One of the purposes, and triumphs, of science, is it's ability to allow for objectivity. However, the practitioners of science are not-so-objective humans, so we will doubtless find enduring differences of opinion in this debate, just as we do in other scientific debates.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

Steven,

I must say that your paper presents a very interesting body of research on
the analysis of the WTC dust. However, one problem with the paper is the use
of EDAX to identify the chemical form of iron in the red chips. Using EDAX
in this way is not very reliable to say the least!

“Iron oxide” is potentially a very complex mixture of Fe-O bonded species:

Hematite = alpha-Fe2O3
Maghemite = gamma-Fe2O3
Magnetite = Fe3O4
Lepidocrocite or Goethite = FeOOH
Wustite = FeO

You need a technique like XRD to sort this mess out.

Back in the day I made regular use of a Phillips XRD instrument and I
frequently analysed “rust” from carbon steel corrosion deposits on nuclear
reactor pipework. XRD analysis is relatively simple to carry out, (which
means it’s inexpensive!), and could generate additional information on all
the phases that are present in the WTC chips. Thus I would expect to see, in
addition to iron and iron oxide, alpha-alumina, Al2O3, and possibly iron
aluminate, FeAl2O4. And, of course, you should detect metallic Al and/or
iron/aluminium alloys such as Fe3Al.

Frank

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

We raised the same questions amongst ourselves, of course -- and we
looked into XRD some time ago. We decided that TEM analysis is
probably better and certainly can be done with a smaller sample size,
which is an important consideration here.

This TEM analysis is now underway. I agree that such analysis is important.

Steven J

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

Gents,

Greening is correct that the FOUR samples we tested in detail, and
looked at a CLEAN surface following FRACTURING -- cannot be Tnemec/WTC
paint because they lack Zn, Cr, etc. (Mg lacking too).

He homes in on Fig. 14, the chip subjected to MEK treatment, which
shows a little Zn and Cr (and a few other peaks so small we didn't
label them). But he is not Quantitative at all, and he neglects the
fact that in subsequent plots AFTER cleaning in MEK, Zn and Cr are NOT
present in any of the XEDS plots (16,17,18) -- suggesting that Zn and
Cr compounds were indeed surface contamination.

This discussion underlines the importance of Jeff's TEM analysis to
pin down the chemical species of the iron oxide (and aluminum if
possible also).

I want to add that we STATED clearly in the text that this might
likely be the case, for this chip:

Right below the caption for Fig 13... "inspection, to have swelled out
from the gray layer by a fac-
Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was
acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting
spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks
for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sul-
fur, 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."

Isn't that caveat clear? That is basically Jeff's wording -- thank you, Jeff.

I would be interested if Greening makes a big deal of Fig 14 while
ignoring Fig 7 and Figs 16, 17 and 18 (post MEK, so that the chip has
been cleaned by MEK -- and Zn and Cr are missing).

Please note that traveling in the midwest makes computer contact
sporadic and difficult... but will do what I can.
In review, here is what I wrote to Greening earlier today.


"I would add that Figure 7 shows spectra from chips which had been
fractured so as to expose a fresh surface, because we were well aware
by this time of the problem of surface contamination by other WTC dust
(which is loaded with CaSO4 also Zn and Cr etc.).

Dr. Greening: Indeed, if you will examine Figs 16, 17, and 18 or
various regions on this same chip AFTER the MEK soaking, you will
observe no zinc... indicating that the MEK soaking with agitation has
removed surface dust/contamination. Excuse us for not cleaning the
chip before the first SEM/XEDS examination, but note that this is
essentially all pro bono work -- and we spent a great of "free" time
examining the chip after it had been soaked and were not in a position
to start fresh.

You claimed (Dr. Greening): "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. "

- I very highly doubt it: I challenge you to demonstrate your claim
QUANTITATIVELY or even semi-quantitatively. The mere presence of Si,
Ca, S, etc. is not enough for "essentially a perfect match", as you
must know."

Best wishes,

Steve
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones

Keep up the good work, <redacted> -- I answer below in CAPITALS.

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. Frederic Henry-Couannier.
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, (redacted) wrote:
(redacted)

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.

(redacted)
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.

(redacted)
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS FORM OF AL2O3, GAMMA-AL2O3.

(redacted)
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.

(redacted)

OF COURSE YOU ARE RIGHT, AND THE POSTER ON DU IS WRONG.


(redacted)

YES.

(redacted)

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THIS PAINT IS NOT THE SAME AS OUR RED/GRAY
CHIPS, WHICH IGNITE BELOW 450 C.

(redacted)

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.

(redacted)

CLEARLY YOU ARE RIGHT.

(redacted)

(redacted)

YES, THAT IS VERY LIKELY.
(redacted)

I AGREE THAT THE PAINT ISSUE APPEARS TO BE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE OF
THE DEBUNKERS.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

Thanks.
We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing
that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:
Thanks.
I think this would be chips provided to Mark Basile of New Hampshire
who has studied the red/gray chips using SEM/XEDS methods and
corroborated essential features of our discoveries, including bi-and
multi-layered chips as well as the elemental signature.
Mark has indicated to me a few weeks ago that he is preparing a paper
on his observations.

Dr. Frederic Henry-Couannier (sp?) has since then also studied the
chips and corroborated essential features... see attached, from him.
Note that there are no Zn or Cr peaks in his red material...
consistent with our Fig 7 for freshly-fractured red material (to avoid
surface contamination).

Steve
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

Frank,
You wrote:
1. " Harrit
> > et al’s “aluminium rich” area of the red chip has an O/Al ratio of 0.2
> > ± 0.01. "

Where do you get this number, 0.2 ± 0.01?

2. "This means that the
> > oxygen peaks in XRF-spectra emitted by materials with equal
> > concentrations of Al and O, are about ¼ the intensity of the aluminum peaks."

This depends on the energy of the electron beam, does it not? In Fig
17, the energy of the beam is 10 keV (as we reported in the paper).
What beam energy was used in the reference spectra you are using? Did
you take any difference in beam energy into account?

3. "> The most important features of the Figure 17 spectrum are a large Al
> > peak at 1.49 keV and a much smaller O peak at 0.52 keV. (The additional
> > C peak at 0.28 keV is probably organic carbon contamination and is not
> > relevant to the present discussion)."

Why is the C peak not relevant? Carbon is significant in the red
material and doubtless binds some oxygen, so that at least some of the
O seen in Fig 17 must be associated with C. This oxygen associated
with carbon cannot be chemically bound to Al, thus reducing the amount
of O available for Al2O3. You evidently did not take this into
account, for you assert without substantiation that the C peak "is not
relevant to the present discussion"--
please substantiate your assertion.

I await your answers, and you may email me directly if you wish rather
than going through metamars. metamars, you may post my reply at the web
site. I am still traveling, but will be back to my home on Saturday
(I hope; we are having some car trouble...)

Steven J
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

metamars,

I find this to be a wonderful suggestion and I would like to have the
LIBS testing done. Clarification please: can one contact either or
both of the following labs to have the LIBS done, and do you have any
idea of the cost?

(1) Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Illinois
University, DeKalb, IL 60115-2862, USA
(2) Caterpillar Inc., Technical Center, Bldg. K, 14009 Old Galena
Road, Mossville, IL 61552, USA

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Steven J

On 4/14/09, metamars wrote:
> > Please see the following. I strongly urge you to do such testing, which
> > looks to me like it would greatly reduce any uncertainty about whether or
> > not the chips could be any known painting or coating.
> >
> >
> > metamars
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > See http://www.springerlink.com/content/r19145r8870qr41t/
> >
> >
> > Taesam Kim1, Binh T. Nguyen2, Vari Minassian2 and Chhiu-Tsu Lin1
> >
> > (1) Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Illinois University,
> > DeKalb, IL 60115-2862, USA
> > (2) Caterpillar Inc., Technical Center, Bldg. K, 14009 Old Galena Road,
> > Mossville, IL 61552, USA
> > Published online: 20 June 2007
> >
> > Abstract Two algorithms—peak picking and peaks correlation—have been
> > compiled in a portable laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) system
> > and used specifically for spectral fingerprinting of paints and coatings,
> > which contain multiple ingredients and require several application steps.
> > The LIBS technique starts with a laser shot on the specimen surface,
> > detection of the emission of the elements present, and analysis of the
> > sample compositions. The LIBS system has been successfully illustrated for
> > the identification and analysis of coating substrates, surface
> > pretreatments, and primer and topcoat paints obtained in the lab and at
> > field sites. The results indicate that, despite the compositional complexity
> > in organic metal finishing, the spectral fingerprint of paints and coatings
> > can be effectively determined by the LIBS technique. The advantages of LIBS
> > technique over other conventional methods, such as EDX, are that it is
> > quasi-nondestructive (<100 ?m of sample size), requires no sample
> > preparation, is fast (within minutes), is user-friendly (for nontechnical
> > personnel), and is capable of application both online and at the field
> > sites.
> > Keywords Surface analysis - Laser spectral fingerprinting - Pigments -
> > Quality control - Correlation algorithms - Chromate - Phosphate - Aluminum -
> > Coating-substrate interface - Galvanized steel - Alloy-coated steel
> >
> >
> > Chhiu-Tsu Lin
> > Email: ctlin@niu.edu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones (to an 'outsider', who may have expertise in a helpful analytic method, LIBS, described above)

Dear Chhiu-Tsu Lin,

I wonder if you could answer a question about your LIBS analysis method.

I have a coating of whose origin and type I wish to learn about. Is
it possible for me to send you a small chip of this material so that
you could test it using your LIBS analysis, and tell me what you can
about it?

Please let me know what I can pay for this service as I would be glad
to accommodate and expedite this analysis.

Thank you,

Steven Jones

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening,

Steven,

My estimated O/Al ratio was measured directly off your Figure 17. I
remeasured it this morning and would say it's certainly well above 0.15. How
did you arrive at a value of 0.12?

Have you checked out the references to the Al2O3 spectra I posted on
"the911forum"? Then, perhaps, you would see my point ........

The electron exitation energy has some effect on XEDS peak ratios but since
Al and O emit at similar X-ray energies that are well below the electron
beam energy, this will not, I believe, substantially influence the O/Al peak
ratios.

My experience with C in surface analysis of a wide range of materials is
that it usually comes from oily (hydrocarbon) contamination. Indeed, an
electron beam can actually deposit carbon on samples from its interactions
with residual vacuum pump oil vapors. I think you really need another
analysis technique such as Auger Microprobe with argon-ion sputtereing to
determine the chemical state of the C in your sample. Simple
Energy-Dispersive X-ray analysis is NOT a good way to quantify O in most
materials; thus your identification of the iron as being Fe2O3 in your
Figure 18 spectrum is also very questionable.

Frank
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

Again, from the public library a response. Tomorrow we are on the road again, so I expect I will be out of computer contact after that. Dr. Farrer is the most qualified to answer these questions anyway. Dr. Farrer expressed confidence that the aluminum-to-oxygen ratio observed in spots in the post-MEK sample was sufficient for us to claim the presence of elemental aluminum, based on quantifications and his experience with his instruments an various samples. Also the post-ignition presence of elemental (reduced) iron and iron-aluminum-rich spehres.
OTOH, we noted that the Fe2O3 designation was tentative in the paper -- and these results Dr. Farrer is pursuing with TEM analyses. (As I have said before, at least twice before. I trust I will not need to repeat this again.) I should not overstep his right to declare the results he is getting using TEM, but will say that the essential results of the paper regarding constituents are being confirmed.



On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Frank Greening <email redacted> wrote:

Steven,

My estimated O/Al ratio was measured directly off your Figure 17. I
remeasured it this morning and would say it's certainly well above 0.15. How
did you arrive at a value of 0.12?

No -- this was not my value, I did not give that value.
Farewell,

Steve

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

James,

Well what you are saying sounds a lot like someone telling me if you dont like NIST's steel analysis why dont you go and do your own.

Not very helpful really,

Frank



Steven,

I believe good science should not depend on Dr. Farrer's "experience",

It should depend on reproducibility!

Good luck with the TEM .......

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts:

Frank,

To the extent that it sounds like that, maybe you can see why we don't have a lot of respect for NIST's responses. NIST is a public body, ostensibly doing work in the public interest, with funding for this one project in the low to mid eight figures. Their one-liner, hand-waving dismissals which fly in the face of many well established facts are themselves incriminating. Nor does the public have reasonable access to WTC steel -- in contrast to WTC dust samples, which hundreds of New Yorkers (including public authorities) have reasonable access to -- and which in fact were reported on, in a strangely limited way, by USGS, RJ Lee Group, etc.

Why is it that WE had to do the research we did, or not see it done at all? Per NFPA 921, it was the FDNY's job to do what we did. What do YOU make of it when high-ranking professionals completely ignore the basic code of their profession -- not just here and there, but over and over? Not just at the margins, but at the core of the evidence? "Global collapse ensued," indeed. What utterly transparent absurdity.

We, on the other hand, working pro bono, have labored mightily in the midst of various challenges, not only to respond to fair-minded requests for interviews and such, but also to respond to many highly speculative criticisms, the vast majority of which seem unburdened by a close reading of our paper, and many of which are laden with personal insults and derision. I thank you for providing us with something different, but you can surely understand why some of us might be a bit short on patience for all of those who want to engage us in extended discussions about every imaginable alternative explanation for the facts, while NIST, FEMA, and all the others on the other side are allowed to completely ignore the only alternative to the official explanation that accounts for the facts. For every criticism you send us, a reasonably informed and objective person would send TEN to any given federal agency involved in "investigating" 9/11.

Gregg
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

James,

You are missing my point, which is that for you to tell someone to go and do their own research is not an acceptable way to deal with criticisms of your work. Frankly, I find it childish and unprofessional. I have been to many scientific conferences and engaged in debates with scientists at all levels all over the world and in many fields such as spectroscopy, corrosion, surface analysis, nuclear chemistry, etc. I have also spent many hours discussing scientific issues with Nobel prize winners such as Gerhard Herzberg and Robert S. Mulliken. However, in over 30 years of scientific debate, I have NEVER heard anyone tell a questioner to "go and do it yourself".

Frank
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

Gregg,

Thanks for your reasoned response. I agree with you about NIST and let me point out that I have written to them many times about their WTC Reports. I have even had a few replies but most of the time I am simply ignored, which is rather sad. However, I would suggest that getting WTC dust samples is not as easy as you imply. Indeed, I note that some JREFers are still whining about the true provenance of your samples. So, telling someone to "go and do your own research" is really a polite way of telling them to **** *** - you know what I mean?

By the way, believe it or not, I do appreciate the research efforts you and your colleagues have made in characterizing the WTC dust and you have gone about it in pretty much the same way I would have. However, good scientists - especially forensic scientists - should not have an axe to grind or wear their politics on their sleeves. This only diminishes the value of their work and raises the spectre of bias.....

Anyway, I wish you good luck with your future work, and may the truth prevail,

Frank
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

Frank,

You wrote: "And neither can anyone explain how such an unconventional material was used in the Twin Towers or indeed elsewhere in the WTC Complex."

Ah -- but supposing small fragments of C4 were found in the WTC dust (without taggant, to make it "unconventional") -- would you still insist that no one "can explain HOW such an unconventional material was used in the Twin Towers"?

I await your answer.

Regards,
Steve

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

Steven,

Have you found C4 fragments in the WTC dust? If you have you should report this finding because the C4 could be the high explosive that was set off by your nano-thermite detonators.

But you miss the point that C4 is most assuredly a conventional material, and there were conventional explosives stored on the WTC site - in Building 6 I believe.

So, I know your response would be: "But nano-thermites shouldn't be in the WTC dust."

Well, until you confirm the presence of nano-aluminum in your samples, I do not believe you have demonstrated the presence of nano-thermite materials in the WTC dust.

In addition, the only documented use of nano-thermite materials that I have seen is for detonators. But you need an ignitor! The only methods of ignition that are available appear to be thermal energy, mechanical shock, laser or electrical input. As this point I have to wonder: What's the point of using fancy high-tech detonators in the WTC, that require timed ignitors, to set off conventional explosives?

And, by the way, I just read this in a patent for Nano-Laminate-Based Ignitors (WO/2005/016850)

"The base Fe2O3/Al composite and its reaction products Al2O3 and Fe metal are frequently used in many common industries on a commodity scale"

Steven, your theory makes no sense!

Frank

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts:

All,

I'd like to respond as below, but I am unable to confirm the claim about ITAR. RawStory seems to have removed the article. I should have followed my own advice and archived it before it went down the memory hole. Now I am stuck in the Internet echo chamber. Every is posting the statement but I can't find the original source for it. Where's the URL for the part of ITAR that says this? I have done several site-wide searches but nothing mentions thermite, nano-thermite, or super-thermite.

If we can't confirm the quote below, is there another reliable source for the claim that sales of nano-thermite are restricted?

Gregg

-----

Frank,

In your focus on whether we have really found elemental aluminum, you seem to keep forgetting the other findings, of which you have offered no criticism: that the particles are nano-sized, intimately mixed, etc. The statement you have quoted in bold below says nothing about NANOthermite. Nanothermites are certainly not in common use; they are restricted as military explosives.

According to the Navy's Small Business Innovation Research, super-thermite "is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services."

Gregg
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts:

Frank,

In your tight focus on whether we have really found elemental aluminum -- which, pending your response, I believe we have successfully defended in the affirmative -- you seem to keep forgetting our other findings, of which you have offered no criticism: that the particles are nano-sized, intimately mixed, explosive, and yield iron-rich microspheres exactly like those ones also found in the WTC dust. Whatever it's made of, it goes BOOM! -- and would not be ubiquitous in the dust if it came from Bldg 6.

What is this, the OJ trial?! How can you even consider exonerating the culprit just because you're not sure one glove fits, when the other four DO fit?

The statement you quoted from the patent says nothing about nanothermite. Nanothermites are certainly not in common use, and they fit the definition of restricted munitions:

ENUMERATION OF ARTICLES
§ 121.1 General. The United States Munitions
List.
(a) The following articles, services
and related technical data are designated
as defense articles and defense
services pursuant to §§ 38 and 47(7) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2778 and 2794(7))....
(5) Spherical aluminum powder (CAS 7429–
90–5) in particle sizes of 60 micrometers or
less manufactured from material with an
aluminum content of 99% or more;
(6) Metal fuels in particle form whether
spherical, atomized, spheroidal, flaked or
ground, manufactured from material consisting
of 99% or more of any of the following:
(i) Metals and mixtures thereof:
(A) Beryllium (CAS 7440–41–7) in particle
sizes of less than 60 micrometers;
(B) Iron powder (CAS 7439–89–6) with particle
size of 3 micrometers or less produced
by reduction of iron oxide with hydrogen;
(ii) Mixtures, which contain any of the following:
(A) Boron (CAS 7440–42–8) or boron carbide
(CAS 12069–32–8) fuels of 85% purity or higher
and particle sizes of less than 60 micrometers;
(B) Zirconium (CAS 7440–67–7), magnesium
(CAS 7439–95–4) or alloys of these in particle
sizes of less than 60 micrometers;
(iii) Explosives and fuels containing the
metals or alloys listed in paragraphs (c)(6)(i)
and (c)(6)(ii) of this category whether or not
the metals or alloys are encapsulated in aluminum,
magnesium, zirconium, or beryllium;...

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf, pgs 466-467 and 470-471.

As we documented in Figures 15, 20, 21, and others, the constituent particles in our samples are well under 60 micrometers.

Whatever you say to this email, will you help us counter the denial and propaganda about "chain of custody" by posting responses on the various forums, noting the above? None of us to my knowledge has a license to purchase such restricted materials -- nor do any of the people who provided us with samples. If a court case were to arise, I'm sure everyone on our side would be happy to sign sworn affidavits regarding the provenance of the samples. Until then, let us consider that mosquito to have been squashed flat.

I've answered the questions you asked that Steven did not, and taken some of my time to do research that you could have done to ensure that your OWN criticism makes sense (not asking you to replicate OUR research), and again, to which the answers seem to be common sense. Of course materials with more explosive power than ordinary thermite, developed by US federal labs, are restricted -- given that years have passed since such materials and their properties were developed, allowing time for the government to act to restrict them!

May I now expect answers to my comparatively simple set of questions, rather than paragraphs about your views on other state murders? That information that was quite welcome, but it completely avoided everything I asked you about. Usually when people behave that way, there is a very good reason. It wasn't that you didn't have time, since you spent about as much time writing what you did write as it would have taken you to answer my questions. Perhaps it was merely an oversight, which you will now correct.

Gregg

From Gregg Roberts

(this first one was an answer to myself, which may be of interest to others)

There is no need for use #1. The aircraft impacts would generate plenty of sparks and white-hot metal to ignite the aerosolized jet fuel in many locations at once.

Use #2 doesn't account for the speed, symmetry, or explosiveness of the destruction. Videos show the wave of destruction racing down through the intact structure at times faster than the steel is falling right outside that wave. Only explosives can occur fast enough for this. And similar rapid, synchronized explosions had to be going off all across a given floor, otherwise the "tilt" that should have occurred from the unevenness of the initial damage would have occurred.

Gregg

I have speculated that the most plausible 911 nanothermite scenarios are the following, from most plausible, to least plausible:

1) incendiary, to make jet fuel turn into a fireball in about 1/3 second
2) slow CD, wherein a thin layer is applied to heat the columns, causing them to fail under their pre-existing loads
3) explosive CD

If 1) is, indeed, plausible, then I would further expect that one possible way to ignite a nanothermite igniter, itself is simple impact. That certainly solves any timing problems. But, in this case, I would also expect a chip to also ignite under action of a hammer blow.

Hence, my question: Are the red/gray chips stable to hammer blows, or will they ignite?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From Professor Jones
(also an answer to my email)

Interesting that the HOW question keeps coming up, when the WHO and WHY questions are clearly more pressing: once we find out WHO made this material and WHO placed in the building, investigation/interrogation can then find out HOW the nanothermite was used. Pressing justice is even more important!

I do not care to be distracted by "HOW" speculations that cannot be answered by any physical testing.

The question about whether the red material can be ignited by impact, OTOH, can be tested and is worthwhile.

Steve

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From Gregg Roberts

Yes to all this. Of course, some people pose the "how" question because they think the lack of a good answer to it proves we must have gotten the science wrong. But it doesn't, and Jim Hoffman has answered it well enough.

We know nanothermite can be set off remotely somehow. It doesn't matter whether it's by impact or heat. The test might be simple enough to perform, but if it doesn't go off with a hammer impact where does that leave us?

Gregg

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From Dr. Greening
addressed to "metamars"

To ensure that I dont "waste Prof. Harrit's time", I have removed his name
from the distribution.

The "Active Thermite" debate, (if there ever was one!), has now sadly
reached a state of stasis and stalemate. It basically boils down to this: do
you believe Harrit and Jones or not. Or stated another way: Are the red/gray
chips definitive evidence that "energetic" nanothermitic agents were
pre-planted in the WTC or are these chips explainable in some other, less
conspiratorial, way?

To begin to answer this question we need to consider just how unusual, (or
not!) these red/gray chips really are. Harrit et al. believe that the
red/gray chips are indeed very remarkable - so much so that these authors
insist that these chips simply could not be found in dust produced by a
"natural" collapse of the Twin Towers. Harrit et al. make this claim mainly
because of two characteristics of the chips:

(i) Their alleged engineered "nano-scale" structure

(ii) Their alleged "highly energetic" pyrotechnic properties

With regard to the first of these points it is quite evident that Harrit et
al. have based their characterization of the WTC red/gray chips almost
entirely by copying the work of scientists at Texas Tech University and the
Lawrence Livermore National Labs who have made and patented nano-structured
energy-dense materials for use as detonators and pyrotechnic agents. (See
the papers and reports of authors such as M. L. Pantoya, T. M. Tillotson, R.
L. Simpson, B. J. Clapsaddle and A. E. Gash, as well as Chapter 7 of the
book "Energetic Materials" by U. Teipel) It is therefore very significant
that these nano-technology materials scientists consistently and repeatedly
make use of scanning electron microscopy, X-ray analysis, and DSC to
characterize their samples - precisely the techniques used by Harrit et al
to characterize their red/gray chips. But in spite of this obvious attempt
to convince the scientific community that the WTC red/gray chips are indeed
the high-tech creations of dedicated "nano-engineers" toiling away in some
clandestine weapons laboratory, these chips are in reality quite low-tech
and decidedly micro, as opposed to nano, in scale and structure.

With regard to point (ii) above, Harrit asserts that the chips are fragments
of an "energetic material". This claim is mostly based on DSC measurements,
but we need to consider: is it supported by experimental evidence? The
Harrit paper reports the energy content of the red chips to be in the range
1.5 - 7.5 kJ/g. This is in fact not very "energetic" at all when you
consider that common organic materials such as simple hydrocarbons or
oxygenated hydrocarbons contain far more energy per gram than the red chips.
Thus gasoline releases about 48 kJ/g, and stearic acid, found in plant and
animal fats, releases about 40 kJ/g upon combustion. Since carbon, in some
as yet unknown chemical state, is also found in the red chips, it is certain
that some of the energy content of the red chips is accounted for by this
non-thermitic ingredient. In fact, if the chips contained a mere 10 % of
graphitic carbon it would account for more than half of their energy
content!

Nevertheless, on page 28 of their paper, Harrit et al. offer another reason
to believe that the red chips are a highly energetic thermitic material:

". the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually
exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a
short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Figure 29."

This statement, also repeated in the Abstract to the paper, is simply not
correct and shows a complete lack of understanding of DSC by the authors of
the paper. Why do I say this? Well, Figure 29 is the DSC trace of a red chip
heated from 20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min and shows an exothermic
peak extending from approximately 420 - 470 deg C. Now, as someone who has
run many DSC analyses on a wide variety of materials, I know that the height
and width of a DSC peak depends on many factors such as the sample-holder,
the furnace atmosphere, the sample packing density, etc, but most of all,
DSC peak widths depend on the heating rate. Given that the DSC trace of
Harrit et al. was acquired at 10 deg C/min and has a FWHM ~ 25 deg C, one
can be certain that a different peak width would have been obtained if a
different heating rate had been used. Thus DSC peak widths are not
indicative of reaction rates. This is amply illustrated by many of the DSC
traces and the discussion given in Chapter 5 of the well-known chemistry
textbook "Thermal Analysis" by W. Wendlandt.

Finally, I should add that DSC is most effectively used to study reaction
rates if it is carried out in isothermal mode using the Avrami-Erofeev
equations to analyse the data. This experimental approach allows a rate
constant and an activation energy to be calculated for the reaction
responsible for an exothermic peak. I am surprised that a Chemistry
Professor at a well-respected University appears to be unaware of this
simple fact ....

Yes indeed Prof. Harrit, you had the temerity to tell me to take my time and
not waste yours, when perhaps I should be telling you to take your time, but
not waste mine!


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

James,

I do not believe you guys are being insincere. My point is that simply copying what the LLNL group did is perhaps not the best way to go. The LLNL group already had a good idea what they had made and did tests accordingly.

However, you have to treat the red/gray chips as a true unknown. Its much harder to find something you don't expect to be there. For example, have you tested for the presence of Li? (Its sometimes added to explosives).

I think isothermal DSC would be helpful, as would XRD and FTIR. I did a lot of work using vacuum pyrolysis-FTIR to produce and collect gaseous decomposition products of unknown deposits. It's great for the detection of CO, CO2, NO, NO2, NH3, etc. These are expected products from the decomposition of HMX, etc.

Metamars,

I could probably get access to some equipment at McMaster and possibly at other places.

Regards,

Frank

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From Professor Jones


The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point.

Now this is the point that is critical to the fact of a rapid reaction, which the paper emphasizes and James re-iterates and Frank Greening ignores:
The formation of iron-rich spheres of micron+ sizes DURING the ignition,
Shown in Figs 20 and 21 AND 25.

The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures and is more important, IMO, than the narrowness of the DSC trace. We carefully examined the red/gray chips in each case BEFORE ignition and there were NO spheres of micron+ sizes in the pre-ignition samples.

Yet Greening ignores these data -- let's see if he will now address them, correctly, and not as he misunderstood Newton's Third Law.

Steven J

PS -- I have added Niels back into the discussion and note that Greening chides Niels, even after Greening removed Niels from the list of recipients. (Which is, of course, unfair to Prof. Harrit on Greening's part.)

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones

Excellent point, Danny. We did not observe ANY spheres in the red/gray chips prior to ignition. One can look in the images we acquired pre-ignition also, you will not see any spheres there either. And yet there are MANY spheres observed after ignition, as seen also in the Figures I listed in my last email.

It is POSSIBLE that there were extremely tiny spheres prior to ignition, for example aluminum less than 10 nm, which were so small that we did not see them.

There were abundant iron-rich spheres above 1 micron in the residue post-ignition, totally absent pre-ignition.

Also, I think that reliance on JREF or the911forum writing, which has not been published in a peer-reviewed venue at all, is non-scientific. Let them try to publish if they think they have any valid objections.

Further, I am still waiting to hear from Greening on these points.

Steven J

PS note: I have been restricted in that I am not allowed to use the electron microscopes where used before, any more, a move by "administrators" which I am not happy with...

(note from metamars: the PS note by Jones, above, is an example of resistance to serious inquiry which Professor Jones has had to put with from Day 1. )

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

from Dr. Greening

Steven:

Your refusal to acknowledge that the way you (and your co-authors) have used DSC tells us nothing about the rate of reaction of the red chips, is duly noted. Sadly you appear to never have heard of isothermal DSC. I would be happy to provide you with a word file containing my notes on this topic but I suspect you are too close-minded to accept my offer of help on this.

But let me point out that S. Lobbecke et al. in Chapter 10 of the book "Energetic Materials" have this to say about the DSC analysis of these substances:

"The thermal analysis of energetic materials requires particularly exact experimental procedures. Owing to the strong exothermic decomposition reactions, small sample sizes of < 1.0 mg, slow heating rates and open sample crucibles are required. The sample itself has to be well characterized in advance ....."

As examples of proper DSC technique Lobbecke et al. discuss the DSC of ammonium dinitramide and hexanitrohexa-aza-isowurtzitane (CL-20) and use heating rates of 0.5 deg C /min. Thus your use of a 10 deg C/min heating rate on samples of your red/gray chips appears to be inappropriate to say the least.

I find it interesting, and quite telling, that in your e-mail below you continue to harp on about "the fact of a rapid reaction" but now DSC is not the proof of fast reaction kinetics! No, the formation of iron-rich microspheres is the proof! I have never heard any chemist use the physical state of a reaction product to draw conclusions about a reaction rate! Nevertheless, let's consider your IRON-RICH SPHERES. Now these might be of some value to your theory but the XEDS spectrum of the residue from the ignition of your red/gray chips is far from convincing because it shows lots of Al, Si and O, along with some Fe - elements which are all found in your starting material! And are you unaware that magnetic "iron-rich" microspheres are found in abundance in coal, wood and municipal waste incinerator fly ash?

Frank


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening to Frank Legge

Frank,



No, there is nothing wrong with my logic! I really wish you would take the time to read Chapter 5 of Wendlandt’s book “Thermal Analysis”. If you did you would not be so keen to compare your DSC trace with Tillotson’s unless you can prove to me that the Netzsch 404C DSC used by your group has the same instrumental characteristics as the TA Model 2920 DCS used by Tillotson.



As I have already mentioned in a previous e-mail, a DSC peak shape depends on all of the following factors:



Furnace atmosphere, size and shape

Sample-holder material and geometry

Nature and location of the thermocouple

The heating rate

The sample mass, particle size, and packing density

The thermal characteristics (conductivity, heat capacity) of the sample



Because of all of these variables/uncertainties you cannot conclude, as you apparently do, that <redacted quote from Legge>.



Now while this is a good example of how quickly you guys jump to conclusions, your comments about the iron-rich microspheres constitute an even greater leap of faith! Here I am referring to your amazing non sequitur: <redacted, as it is a quote from Legge, which is more than a couple of words and from whom I don't have permission to quote>



The simple answer to this question is already embodied in my last response to you and your group: Iron-rich microspheres are found in almost any incinerator ash and they generally also contain significant quantities of Si, Al and O plus traces of Ca, Mg, Ti, etc.



But let’s be clear on this: the Harrit et al. paper actually says nothing about “balls of iron”. The microspheres reported in the Harrit paper could at best be described as "iron-rich", with Al, Si and O always present. But let me remind you, this is also true for the magnetically separated microspheres found in incinerator ashes – they contain mostly Fe, Al, Si, and O. (And I have plenty of references to support this claim)



Now since the red/gray chips and the resultant microsphers contain Fe, Al, Si and O we must look at the appropriate phase stability diagrams for systems such as FeO-Al2O3-SiO2 and consider the associated melting points.



An iron oxide phase in the presence of silica and alumina results in a rapid fall in the overall melting point. For example, fayalite, 2FeOSiO2, has a m.p. of 1205 deg C. The ternary system fayalite-hercynite-iron-cordierite which is essentially FeO-Al2O3-SiO2 with traces of Ca and/or Mg, has a liquid eutectic at 1088 deg C.



Need I go on?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:


Greening claim: " The microspheres reported in the Harrit paper could at best be described as "iron-rich", with Al, Si and O always present. But let me remind you, this is also true for the magnetically separated microspheres found in incinerator ashes – they contain mostly Fe, Al, Si, and O. (And I have plenty of references to support this claim


Now since the red/gray chips and the resultant microsphers contain Fe, Al, Si and O we must look at the appropriate phase stability diagrams for systems such as FeO-Al2O3-SiO2 and consider the associated melting points."

Bull****! Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper:







Look again at the data (above) -- there is no Al in evidence. Furthermore, the amounts of Si and Ca and especially S here is trivial. The melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C, yet the DSC reached only 700 C, insufficient to cause melting of iron or iron oxide.

Nice try, Dr. Greening. You do like to "bull****", don't you? You were caught in the act earlier in our discussion of Newton's Third Law... now this!

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From Professor Jones
Re-sending with Fig. 21 attached, since it evidently did not transmit properly in the previous email....
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From Professor Jones

(To metamars; I had offered to not upload any more emails that I was being cc'd on, from Professor Jones, as other participants did not want their writings published)

I think that Greg Urich is trying to maintain a civil discussion at his forum; I do not see the same effort at JREF. I have learned that mockers do not produce good science, through many years of experience.

One of the disadvantages of this type of email discussion is that others' emails are presumably not seen -- such as Dr. Legge's. Nevertheless, I do not withdraw my permission.

<redacted personal information>

Steve

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

Steven,

Thanks for pointing out Figure 21 to me! That's very interesting, especially when compared to Figure 25 from the same paper since both of these Figures purportedly show XEDS spectra of particles remaining after the ignition of red/gray chips; but, surprise, surprise, they are quite different! Now how could that be? Apparently some of the post-ignition microspheres contain Al and some doesn't. This suggests to me that there are at least two entirely different kinds of red/gray chips which is not what your paper says.

And, by the way, I have to say that Figure 21 is rather strange. The alleged "microsphere" has a white fluffy appearance which is inconsistent with a metallic particle. The microsperes in Figures 24 and 27 are more typical of metallic particles since they are quite smooth and dark. Bright, whitish particles in an electron micrograph are a sign of specimen charging which is indicative of a non-conducting material, not a metallic substance!

But turning to the rest of your e-mail, Steven, it really is now quite obvious to me that you really dont understand DSC at all! Let's look at one of the amazing claims made by you in your e-mail:

"The melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C, yet the DSC reached only 700 C, insufficient to cause melting of iron or iron oxide".

It is very instructive to compare this nonsense with a much more meanigful comment from the other Professor in your team, Prof. Harrit, who e-mailed to say:

"And of course, a DSC instrument cannot fully resolve an event where the temperature jumps to 1500 degr. in milliseconds (or micro?)."

You see Steven, Prof Harrit has it right and you, as I say, obviously do not understand your own DSC results. A DSC measures the difference in the thermocouple signals comming from an inert reference material permamently installed in the instrument and a sample inserted in the instrument for testing. The differential output signal is converted to an energy output (per gram of sample) and plotted against the furnace temperature. However, even if the instrument's furnace temperature is reading, say 500 deg C, the sample can momentarily be much hotter than this if it's undergoing an exothermic reaction. Indeed, if what you say is true, your DSC instrument could never generate any iron microspheres now could it?

Sorry Steven, no need for nanothermites! Silicates and iron oxides, with traces of Al, Ca, Mg, Ti and K impurities, can undergo all sorts of reactions well below 1300 deg C - try reading some books on steelplant refractories and slags if you dont believe me .....


//////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:


On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Frank Greening wrote:

Steven,

Thanks for pointing out Figure 21 to me! That's very interesting, especially when compared to Figure 25 from the same paper since both of these Figures purportedly show XEDS spectra of particles remaining after the ignition of red/gray chips; but, surprise, surprise, they are quite different! Now how could that be? Apparently some of the post-ignition microspheres contain Al and some doesn't. This suggests to me that there are at least two entirely different kinds of red/gray chips which is not what your paper says.

And, by the way, I have to say that Figure 21 is rather strange. The alleged "microsphere" has a white fluffy appearance which is inconsistent with a metallic particle. The microsperes in Figures 24 and 27 are more typical of metallic particles since they are quite smooth and dark. Bright, whitish particles in an electron micrograph are a sign of specimen charging which is indicative of a non-conducting material, not a metallic substance!

1. Bull**** again.
As stated clearly in the paper,

"Using back-scattered electron (BSE) imaging, spheres

were selected in the post-DSC residue which appeared to be

rich in iron. An example is shown in Fig. (21) along with the

corresponding XEDS spectrum for this sphere. "

That is, Fig 21 was acquired using BSE imaging, and therefore the bright whitish appearance demonstrates relatively high Z, that is high iron content, as seen in the corresponding XEDS spectrum, and not charging! This claim of yours, made with CHUTZPAH and (!) is just plain wrong: "Bright, whitish particles in an electron micrograph are a sign of specimen charging which is indicative of a non-conducting material, not a metallic substance!" Not true of BSE imaging! Will you admit your error, which is clear here?
Further, this tiny sphere appears quite shiny and metallic in an optical microscope.

#2: Greening: "Thanks for pointing out Figure 21 to me! That's very interesting, especially when compared to Figure 25 from the same paper since both of these Figures purportedly show XEDS spectra of particles remaining after the ignition of red/gray chips; but, surprise, surprise, they are quite different! Now how could that be? Apparently some of the post-ignition microspheres contain Al and some doesn't. This suggests to me that there are at least two entirely different kinds of red/gray chips which is not what your paper says."

No, this does not mean there are "at least two entirely different kinds of red/gray chips" , once you look at experimental data on products from thermite as we have done experimentally for years now. Have you ever done experiments with thermitic materials before? Evidently not, or you would not make such assertions with such Chutzpah.

I have done many such experiments, in an effort to understand known thermitic materials, to compare with what we observe in our analyses of the WTC dust. The attached photo shows residue from thermite, the larger object on the right. Look closely and you will observe rounded nodules in the upper left quadrant for this thermitic (post-ignition) residue. We found that the rounded nodules are nearly pure iron (with some oxidation which could have occurred while hot in air). OTOH, the surrounding material has iron AND aluminum and oxygen etc. -- the ingredients in the unignited thermite. Thus, we find both types of product after igniting thermitic material (just one batch): nearly pure iron (with oxidation but no aluminum) AND iron-aluminum-oxygen-rich material. I have also looked at the small spheres also typically produced by igniting thermitic material, and the spheres produced show the same results with two principal types of spheres: nearly pure iron (with oxidation but no aluminum) AND iron-aluminum-oxygen-rich material. Perhaps our geologist (Bradley Larsen) will wish to explain how this "Differentiation" occurs in the molten product.

Thus, the results in Fig 21 and Fig 25 are both consistent with post-reaction thermitic residue. " two entirely different kinds of red/gray chips " are not required at all.

3. Prof. Harrit is correct in correcting the last part of your email:
<quote from Professor Harrit redacted>

And yes, I did understand that -- despite your insulting bull****; note that we say in the paper:




"The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest

in this study; none were observed in these particular chips

prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demon-

strate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above

the 700 ˚C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the

high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high tem-

peratures indicate that a chemical reaction occurred. "


Did you not read this?


Steven

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening

Sorry Drs Jones and Harrit, it is you who claim: "the DSC reached only 700 C, insufficient to cause melting of iron or iron oxide".

And it is I who said: "the sample can momentarily be much hotter than this if it's undergoing an exothermic reaction"

Which of these statements provides a better explanation of your DSC experiments?

A little less obscurantism and repeated reference to bovine faecal material would sure help move things along ...........

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

Right, Frank Legge -- of course we recognize that the SAMPLE momentarily reached temperatures much hotter than 700 C -- hence the molten iron/iron/oxide spheres. This is stated in other words in the paper. And so I trust you will respond to him, Frank Greening and explain -- and also respond to points 1 and 2 in my previous email, which point out your blatant errors.

David Chandler was right, I think, to note that blatant errors made with chutzpah, such as you made in your discussion (Greening) of Newton's Third Law, should be called "bull****". I very rarely use the term, but it clarifies the blatant errors you have made Dr. Greening and highlights your lack of response to these points, that is, your lack of admitting that you have made these errors. Now-- will you address points 2 and 3 from my previous email, or will you spew out more bull****?

Steve
PS -- Thank you, Brad, for commenting on the empirically observed differentiation.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From Professor Jones:

Oops -- of course I meant "points 1 and 2" in the second paragraph, consistent with "points 1 and 2" in the first paragraph... corrected below.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It is interesting that you are all so angry at me and are demanding all sorts of apologies, when your collective behaviors could hardly be described as exemplary! And I would add that in all my 30 + years of dealing with professional scientists I have never encountered such scatological language from a former professor in what I thought could be a reasoned debate between “gentlemen and scholars”.



May I suggest, before you respond with anymore of your allegations and demands for recompense from me, you all go and read the Book of John Chapter 8, verses 1 – 11 ……



However, I will admit one mistake on my part, namely that I missed the fact that Figure 21 was a BSE image although this is not very well indicated in your paper. However, interpreting that image as evidence of an iron-rich microsphere is a bit of a stretch to say the least. In fact I would say your alleged “metallic” spheroid looks a lot like the distinctly non-metallic amorphous blob of material located above and to the left of it. I also wonder why you failed to do any X-ray mapping of all the material shown in Figure 21 as you did for the material in Figure 15. And you give no indication where on the microsphere the XEDS spectrum in Figure 21 was taken. Thus I am far from convinced that your iron-rich microsphere is any sort of evidence of a thermite residue.



Interestingly too, you fail to mention that the particle in Figure 21 contains some nickel as evidenced by the small peak at 7.4 keV. The presence of nickel is actually very interesting but I guess you guys know everything about red chips so I wont bore you with my theory as to the significance of the nickel …….. .



And one more point:



Was it not your very own Steven Jones who was telling the world not so long ago that the Twin Towers were brought down by THERMATE?



Whatever happened to THERMATE?



Is it long forgotten, ……. like last year’s American Idol?


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts

To metamars, then Greening in the PS:

You can post any of my comments unless I state or stated otherwise in the thread. I always try to assume that posting of my comments might accidentally happen, so I (usually) try to watch what I say in any email.

Thanks for taking the time to help others benefit from this discussion.

Gregg

P.S. Dr. Greening, when someone posts nonsense, doesn't correct it himself, and doesn't acknowledge our correction of it, bovine waste is a good word for it, because emotion has already intruded and led that person astray. Moreover, most scientific issues are neither as important to humanity to get right, nor as well-designed to evoke all manner of denial and obfuscation, intended or otherwise, as 9/11. Therefore a certain elevated level of strength of wording, relative to other issues, is both understandable and sometimes warranted. We don't mean any disrespect to you or your intentions by using that word -- only to the quality of thinking and writing that went into the particular point we're referring to.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

Dear All,

First off, if I have offended anyone it certainly was not my intention and I think the record shows that I have generally refrained from snide remarks, unlike some members of your group. You have to recognize that in this current round of e-mail exchanges I am one (lone) voice against nine, and I am at a severe disadvantage because I have no WTC dust samples and I have not seen all of your data. If I appear to misunderstand a point or two in your paper you should perhaps accept that parts of the paper are confusing, light on important details, or poorly written.....

Nevertheless, I do not accept that I have ever posted "nonsense" but, on the contrary, I have to say that I feel some of your views and the "science" you use to back up your claims with regard to what happened to the Twin Towers are in my opinion (and the opinion of many critics around the world) best described as "nonsense". Interestingly, you all dodge the question: How was your (alleged) nanothermite actually used? And when I start to ponder this question I soon find myself thinking that the whole idea is indeed nonsense. I have, as a mental exercise, even proposed my own conspiracy theory - that the WTC thermal insulation was laced with ammonium perchlorate (AP) - and have provided as much or more evidence for this hypothesis as your team has for nanothermite. Simply put, an AP theory makes more sense than your mysterious nanothermite ignitors which make no sense at all! And let's not forget that not so long ago Steven Jones was telling the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!

I would say that if you guys really believe you have "hit the mother lode" with nanothermite, you are approaching the dissemination of this discovery the wrong way. You should (probably with the help of lawyers) be writing to the FBI, Homeland Security, NIST, FEMA and to other law enforcement/ disaster mitigation agencies and inform them of your discovery. You shold be writing to the managers and scientists at National Labs such as LLNL, NASA, Los Alamos, etc. You should be writing to politicians, activists and the media. An article in an obscure Chemical Physics Journal is not going to influence anyone bacause most academics are ivory-towered, blinkered specialists who are indifferent to anything but their own careers and ambitions.

Finally, debating nanothermite on the internet is really the biggest waste of time of all. As we have seen, it's an exercise in BS and bombast for some and a source of entertainment for many others; this is really too bad, but as Shakespeare so aptly said about life: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Frank

P.S. metamars, you can quote anything I have written as long as I get a cut of the royalties!

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts:

First off, if I have offended anyone it certainly was not my intention and I think the record shows that I have generally refrained from snide remarks


Yes, and we appreciate that.

, unlike some members of your group.


You, too, are unlike most members of the group known as "9/11 debunkers," in terms of the ratio of heat to light, and personal remarks. I fully acknowledge that.

However, in terms of you not fully acknowledging that you got some very basic points wrong, you are acting like the worst of the debunkers. When we finally do enough work to get you boxed in, you simply disappear from the "box" and turn your attention to a different issue. How are we supposed to ever get anywhere if those are the rules? That is frustrating and puzzling, and it seems to suggest that you are not engaging your mind in the issues with the same level of traction as the number of words that you write will lead others to think you must have done.


You have to recognize that in this current round of e-mail exchanges I am one (lone) voice against nine, and I am at a severe disadvantage because I have no WTC dust samples


If you had dust samples, what would you do with them?

Why don't you ask NIST for some dust samples? They'd surely love to shut us up... And there would be no question of chain of custody. Unless what they provide you has no red/gray chips at all. Hmm. What do I mean by that?

and I have not seen all of your data. If I appear to misunderstand a point or two in your paper you should perhaps accept that parts of the paper are confusing, light on important details, or poorly written....


That's possible ...but it isn't consistent with what David Griscom wrote about our paper.

Nevertheless, I do not accept that I have ever posted "nonsense"


You don't accept that David Chandler proved that ... resoundingly?


but, on the contrary, I have to say that I feel some of your views and the "science" you use to back up your claims with regard to what happened to the Twin Towers are in my opinion (and the opinion of many critics around the world) best described as "nonsense".


But when you try to explain HOW our views are "nonsense" (or even just understandably mistaken) and back up your general opinion with scientific arguments -- you cannot even get Newton's Third Law and the nature of our DSC tests correct.

Interestingly, you all dodge the question: How was your (alleged) nanothermite actually used?

We don't "dodge" it. We have explained many times (maybe not many times to you, I don't remember) that it's a red herring, and an impossible and inappropriate burden for us to answer definitively. Jim Hoffman has done us all the service of proposing a speculative answer -- which your compatriots will of course sneer at and dismiss out of hand precisely because it's speculative. Catch-22. We can't possibly know for sure how an unprecedented, highly ambitious use of highly advanced explosives was carried out, because it has never been done before and we aren't experts in such logistical details. That's one of the things that a real investigation would try to answer.

Lest you try to drive a wedge into my statement that "we aren't experts in such logistical details," remember that someone who IS an expert in the nearest precedent to such an operation, Danny Jowenko, has declared that WTC 7 was brought down by CD, "without any doubt." [His arguments against the Twin Towers being unconventional CD are invalidated by his inability to imagine (see below) CD being started at the top of a structure, and of much more explosives being used than necessary.]

And when I start to ponder this question I soon find myself thinking that the whole idea is indeed nonsense.

That's because you are falling prey to the argument from ignorance -- a classic fallacy. Your inability to imagine something has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it's possible or even feasible.

I have, as a mental exercise, even proposed my own conspiracy theory - that the WTC thermal insulation was laced with ammonium perchlorate (AP) - and have provided as much or more evidence for this hypothesis as your team has for nanothermite. Simply put, an AP theory makes more sense than your mysterious nanothermite ignitors which make no sense at all! And let's not forget that not so long ago Steven Jones was telling the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!

He announnced that as a possibility, he retracted it when further evidence became available, and he has explained all this. Real scientists do all that. What's your point about him having changed a detail about his stance?

I would say that if you guys really believe you have "hit the mother lode" with nanothermite, you are approaching the dissemination of this discovery the wrong way. You should (probably with the help of lawyers) be writing to the FBI, Homeland Security, NIST, FEMA and to other law enforcement/ disaster mitigation agencies and inform them of your discovery.

We are, first of all (many of us) recovering from the sustained pro bono efforts required to get this paper done on top of everything else we're all doing. Give us a few more weeks to get moving on those things. I started a letter to the FBI last week but have been traveling to see my parents, etc. I'll finish it and send it within a week or so.

NIST is obviously part of the cover-up so I have no plans to write to them myself. But I have no objection if others think there might be some benefit to that.

You shold be writing to the managers and scientists at National Labs such as LLNL, NASA, Los Alamos, etc.

I agree, and we will be doing so soon (at least I will).

You should be writing to politicians, activists and the media.

The mainstream media is quite practiced at either ridiculing us or ignoring us. I alerted my own local TV station with TWO discreet phone calls and then a highly professional letter. SILENCE, as usual, is the response. We also notified the local media around San Francisco with the attached press release about the recent AIA conference and AE911Truth's presence there. Not a single member of the mainstream media showed up or called from that area.

An article in an obscure Chemical Physics Journal is not going to influence anyone

You should have seen the eyebrows that got raised at the AIA convention. MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ANY OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT POINT TO CD, such as free-fall of WTC 7. Once they hear of them, 80% respond positively -- despite the many fears and other psychological obstacles.

bacause most academics are ivory-towered, blinkered specialists who are indifferent to anything but their own careers and ambitions.

You're totally moving the goalposts. When we didn't have such a paper, that was the reason to ignore us. When we had only a few engineers, then that was the reason. Now the reason for some is that the journal isn't prestigious enough.

Some people will always have a reason.

Finally, debating nanothermite on the internet is really the biggest waste of time of all.

The Internet's inventors would be hurt to hear you say that. Academic discussion was its second stated reason for being.

Is it the medium that makes it a waste ... or some interlocutors' refusal to debate with full intellectual integrity?

As we have seen, it's an exercise in BS and bombast for some and a source of entertainment for many others; this is really too bad, but as Shakespeare so aptly said about life: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

An excellent reference to describe most of the debunkers' comments, at JREF and most other places.

G

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones (to metamars)

Just one question -- How will you know that the red chip ignited?

(We did a LOT to establish that!)

Steve

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:21 PM, metamars wrote:

I had suggested to Henry, a physicist in France who has some of the chips, that he whack one with a hammer to see if it ignites. Turns out that that was probably a good suggestion. According to this page

http://books.google.com/books?id=aZtEAA ... &resnum=10


a 2 lb hammer swung at 20 feet per second, which drives a nail 1/2 inch into hard wood, would exert 521 lbs of pressure. A typical nail head is much smaller than 1/10 of a square inch. So, maximum pressure of a hammer blow on a nail head will exceed 5,210 lb/in^2, or 35.9 MPa

Consequently, I predict that if you start a nail into hard wood, then glue one of the chips onto the head of a nail, then finally whack it once again, hard, if it's nano-thermite, it will ignite. (Recall that the yields of Al Oxide are in the MPa range. I don't remember exactly how many MPa, and am too lazy/tired to look it up. However, if it's not quite enough to ignite the chip, then I fully expect a sledge hammer to do the job.)


ETA: Actually, glueing it may completely exclude gaseous oxygen, which may prevent a thermite reaction from becoming self-sustaining. So, instead of glueing it, he should cut a thin piece of scotch tape to hold it in place, which will still let some air in from the sides.


metamars

PS: If it DOES ignite, the entertainment value of having debunkers explain to us how everyday paint primer will ALSO ignite if his by a hammer will more than compensate for the loss of a chip.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones (to metamars)

Good -- you will need to do a filming to record the expected flash. IMO, not a "flame" but a flash, yes.
And yes, if ignition occurs -- and it might! -- then you will have iron-rich microspheres.
Then do the same thing with paint --> no microspheres!
Steve


On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM,metamars wrote:

I had assumed you'd get a flame. Is this not correct?

Also, I expect that you will end up with microspheres.

BTW, I've thought about it a little more. You don't want to waste the opportunity to do a good filming of an igniting chip. So, instead of whacking it with a hammer, attach a nail, pointy side down, to a drop hammer device. The point will serve as a focal point of pressure, which you will aim at the center of the chip. This should also allow for a good camera angle.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts:

If it's glued from the bottom with a tiny bit of super glue, it wouldn't be cut off from much air at all. And if it's glued gray side down, it shouldn't matter if the entire bottom were covered by glue.

However, the thermite reaction itself should be self-sustaining regardless. It's the expansion of gases from the combustion of the organic matrix that might require oxygen.

G

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

A new thread, yet no specific response (sigh) to the enumerated points directed towards F. Greening from the last thread. Why not, Frank -- why will you not answer points 1,2,3? I will repeat them below for your convenience in responding, but first the latest bombastic error:

Greening: "Simply put, an AP [ammonium perchlorate] theory makes more sense than your mysterious nanothermite ignitors which make no sense at all! And let's not forget that not so long ago Steven Jones was telling the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!"

4. I do not know why "nanothermite ignitors" "makes no sense at all!" as you claim. Why can not super-thermite matches (also called ignitors) be used, for example, to set off conventional demolition explosives such as C4 or HMX as suggested in the paper? Indeed, why is not this an answer to your question of "How" which you incorrectly say "you all dodge the question: How was your (alleged) nanothermite actually used? " (Greening, email earlier today.) Have you not read in the paper about super-thermite matches? This is one hypothesis for How it was used in part, and I think just as good as your AP-in-insulation hypothesis (especially since we have evidence for superthermite while there is no published evidence for AP).

5. Greening: "And let's not forget that not so long ago Steven Jones was telling the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!""
No, I never said that. Again the bombastic explanation point associated with unsubstantiated BS. I never told "the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!" This is clearly a straw-man argument, which sounds plausible but which was never so articulated by me. Rather, I have pointed to evidence for thermate present in the Towers stating that explosives or cutter-charges were almost certainly ALSO present in order to bring down the Towers-- since thermate alone would NOT account for the manner in which the Towers were observed to fall. (Noting again that I use the term "thermate" to mean "thermite plus sulfur", not "thermate-TH3!) The evidence for the presence of thermate includes the high-temperature corrosion and sulfidation in WTC steel as reported by Worcester Polytechnic Institute scientists -- and the orange-colored material which flowed from the So Tower just minutes before its demise. I have never retracted that hypothesis nor the relevant evidences, but rather have now added the finding of an unignited and highly energetic (red) material found in the WTC dust.

Now you may wish, Frank G, to address 4 and 5 above, while finally addressing specifically also points 1,2,3 from before:


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

correcting a typo: "Again the bombastic explanation point" should be "Again the bombastic exclamation point"

Clarification: "especially since we have evidence for superthermite while there is no published evidence for AP" should be
"especially since we have evidence for superthermite while there is no published evidence for ammonium perchlorate in the WTC dust or other WTC residue."

From Gregg Roberts:

Frank G and all,

Let me retract my claim that Steve made a retraction, and clarify why I thought so.

When I referred to what I thought was Steve's "retraction," I was referring only to an initial, TENTATIVELY EXPRESSED statement he made in an email about what was being found in the microspheres. I was misremembering that it was about the chips, which was the context of the conversation with you and the others here. A few microspheres we tested had sufficient sulfur to be considered the reaction product of thermate; most of them did not. I recalled this from an email from a couple of months ago. Thus, the PAPER never went on to claim that "nano-thermate" was found, hence there was no need to retract such a claim.

I should have asked you, Frank, what retraction you were referring to, instead of assuming I knew, and speaking for Steve. But I NEVER thought that Steve had retracted his claim that thermate was probably ONE of the ingredients used. Where did you get the idea that Steve had retracted THAT? The orange spout and FEMA's finding of a "high temperature corrosion attack with sulfidation" support it. Additional explosives might also have been used.

Please don't let this message push Steve's messages off the radar....

Gregg

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:
(Funny characters were in the original that I received have been corrected)


It’s becoming rather tiresome to be addressing so many of your alleged “points” only to have you write back falsely accusing me of not addressed them. Thus I would suggest that all you “Active Thermitic Material” proponents re-read my e-mails; but this time try reading for comprehension. In this way you could hopefully start to address MY POINTS and admit the flaws in your paper!



To make this easier for you I have created an abridged version of my main points:



1. On page 28 of the Harrit et al. paper the authors offer their main reason for believing that the red chips are a highly energetic thermitic material:



“… the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Figure 29.”



This statement, also repeated in the Abstract to the paper, is simply not correct and shows a complete lack of understanding of DSC by the authors of the paper. Why do I say this? Well, Figure 29 is the DSC trace of a red chip heated from 20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min and shows an exothermic peak extending from approximately 420 – 470 deg C. Now, as someone who has run many DSC analyses on a wide variety of materials, I know that the height and width of a DSC peak depends on many factors such as the sample-holder, the furnace atmosphere, the sample packing density, etc, but most of all, DSC peak widths depend on the heating rate. Given that the DSC trace of Harrit et al. was acquired at 10 deg C/min and has a FWHM ~ 25 deg C, one can be certain that a different peak width would have been obtained if a different heating rate had been used. Thus DSC peak widths are not indicative of reaction rates. This is amply illustrated by many of the DSC traces and the discussion given in Chapter 5 of the well-known chemistry textbook Thermal Analysis by W. Wendlandt. I should add that DSC is most effectively used to study reaction rates if it is carried out in isothermal mode using the Avrami-Erofeev equations to analyse the data. This experimental approach allows a rate constant, and an activation-energy, to be calculated for the reaction responsible for an exothermic peak.



2. You claim: “the red/gray chips reacted faster than Tillotson’s sample”. Now while this is a good example of how quickly you guys jump to conclusions, your comments about the iron-rich microspheres constitute an even greater leap of faith! Here I am referring to your amazing double negative non sequitur: “ Does not the production of a ball of iron not prove the thermite reaction by itself?”



The simple answer to this question is: Iron-rich microspheres are found in almost any magnetically separated incinerator ash. In general such microspheres also contain significant quantities of Si, Al and O plus traces of Ca, Mg, Ti, etc. But let’s be clear on this: the Harrit et al. paper actually says nothing about “balls of iron”. The microspheres reported in the Harrit paper could at best be described as iron-rich, with Al sometimes present, and Si and O always present. But let me remind you, this is also true for the magnetically separated microspheres found in incinerator ashes – they contain mostly Fe, Al, Si, and O. Now since the red/gray chips and the resultant microspheres contain Fe, Al, Si and O, we must look at the appropriate phase stability diagram for the system FeO-Al2O3-SiO2 and consider the associated melting points. An iron oxide phase in the presence of silica and alumina results in a rapid fall in the overall melting point. For example, fayalite, 2FeOSiO2, has a m.p. of 1205 deg C. The ternary system fayalite-hercynite-iron-cordierite has a liquid eutectic at 1088 deg C. Thus the reaction products detected after the ignition of the red/gray chips do not require that the m.p. of iron (~ 1535 deg C) was reached during the reaction because the Harrit paper actually presents no evidence for the formation of “balls of iron”. Only a technique like XRD could distinguish between elemental iron and iron oxide.



3. I will admit one mistake on my part, namely that I missed the fact that Figure 21 was a BSE image although this is not very well indicated in the Harrit paper, (a convenient obfuscation of your part!) However, interpreting that image as evidence of an iron-rich microsphere is a bit of a stretch to say the least. In fact I would say your alleged “metallic” spheroid looks a lot like the distinctly non-metallic amorphous blob of material located above and to the left of it. I also wonder why you failed to do any X-ray mapping of all the particulate shown in Figure 21 as you did for all the particulate in Figure 15. And you give no indication where on the microsphere the XEDS spectrum in Figure 21 was taken. Thus I am far from convinced that your iron-rich microsphere is convincingly shown to be a thermite residue. Interestingly too, you fail to mention that the “iron particle” in Figure 21 contains nickel as revealed by the small peak at 7.4 keV. Are you ignoring this peak because it fails to fit your thermite paradigm?



4. The main reason I have for doubting the alleged significance of the red/gray chips is that a thin layer of such an “energetic material” would not be capable of heating massive steel columns sufficiently to cause any thermal stress to the building. I base this conclusion on the following:



Calculation of the Heating Effect of a Thermite Coating on a Steel Column:



The thermite reaction of interest is Fe2O3 + 2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe



The energy released by 1 kg of a stoichiometric mixture of ferric oxide and aluminium undergoing this thermite reaction is 3988 kJ/kg.



Consider a 100-micron layer of this mixture coated on a steel column on an upper floor of one of the Twin Towers as proposed by Harrit et al.



For simplicity we shall assume the coated surfaces are on all four sides of a box column that is 20 cm wide spanning one 3.7-meter high floor. Thus we have a total surface area per column of 3.7 x 0.2 x 4 = 2.96 m^2. (We could also consider an equivalent wide-flange column)



The volume of our 100-micron coating is then = 2.96 x 100 x 10^-6 m^3 = 296 x 10^-6 m^3



The density of the thermite mixture is assumed to be ~ 4500 kg/m^3, so the mass of our thermite coating per one floor column length is = 4500 kg/m^3 x 296 x 10^-6 = 1.332 kg



Using the 3988 kJ/kg heat release of the thermite reaction we have a total heat release per one floor column length of 1.332 kg x 3988 kJ/kg = 5312 kJ.



Next we need to calculate the mass of steel that was exposed to this 5312 kJ of heat energy.



Column specifications for the upper floors of WTC 1 indicate that the typical mass of steel per column per floor was about 750 kg. (This would be the mass of a box column 3.7 meters long and 20 cm wide fabricated from four steel panels 3.25 cm thick)



The heat capacity of steel is 0.45 kJ/kg so 1 kg of steel requires 0.45 kJ to be heated by 1 deg C.



Therefore 750 kg of steel requires 337.5 kJ of thermal energy to be heated by 1 deg C.



The heat released by our 100-micron layer of thermite is 5312 kJ. Thus the expected temperature

increase is (5312/337.5) x 1 deg C, or about 16 deg C.



5. One of the corner stones of Harrit et al’s “Active Thermite” paper is the assertion that the bi-layered chips contain elemental aluminum. The basis for this claim is the XEDS spectrum presented in Figure 17 of the paper. Figure 17 shows the X-ray fluorescence spectrum of an area located within the red side of a WTC red/gray chip after exposure to methyl ethyl ketone for 55 hours. The key features of the spectrum are a large Al peak at 1.49 keV and a much smaller O peak at 0.52 keV.



On page 18 of the “Active Thermitic” paper Harrit et al. have this to say about the XEDS spectrum in Figure 17:



“Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminium significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus while some of the aluminium may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all the aluminium; some of the aluminium must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result.”



The “conventional quantification routine” referred to by Harrit et al. would be a computer program based on X-ray attenuation coefficients that are used to correct for the variable yields of X-rays emitted at different energies in different materials. The characteristic X-ray emissions of oxygen and aluminium are, as we have seen, ~ 1 keV. At this energy, the linear attenuation coefficient of X-rays passing through O is about four times that of these X-rays in Al. This means that the oxygen peaks in XRF-spectra emitted by materials with equal concentrations of Al and O, are about ¼ the intensity of the aluminum peaks.



This 1:4 O/Al peak intensity ratio is in fact observed in published spectra of alumina, Al2O3, which is very nearly 50 % O and 50 % Al (by weight!). Thus I would refer the reader to the XEDS spectrum of nano-Al2O3 in the paper by Xi Jin Xu published in Materials Letters 60, 2331, (2006), and the spectrum of Al203 particles produced by a thermite reaction reported by N. Ilic in Materials Characterization 42, 243, (1999). These spectra have an O/AL peak ratio of 0.26 +/- 0.4; Harrit et al’s “aluminium rich” area of the red chip has an O/Al ratio of 0.19. Thus the observed level of aluminium “enrichment” in the red chips, above the level of Al in pure Al2O3, is very small and shows that the red chips contain far more Al2O3 than elemental Al. Once again, only a technique like XRD could distinguish between elemental aluminium and aluminium oxide.



6. I consider the fact that Harrit’s red/gray chips “explode” when heated to a mere 430 deg C to be a big problem for the suggestion that red/gray nanothemite was coated onto steel surfaces in the Twin Towers prior to 9/11 and used to trigger other high explosives. If this really were the case, the structural steel in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 would have been subject to erratic and unpredictable deflagrations as the fires locally heated surfaces to temperatures above 430 deg C. This is hardly the way to go about a “controlled demolition” of these buildings, now is it!

Metamars:

You claimed there was a problem with my e-mail so you "edited it".

Please do not post my e-mails if you are going to butcher them like this.

What is this all about Metamars,

Swine Flu Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

Dr. G wrote:Metamars:

You claimed there was a problem with my e-mail so you "edited it".

Please do not post my e-mails if you are going to butcher them like this.

What is this all about Metamars,

Swine Flu Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

If you check your email, around 2 pm of 5/9, you will see that I told you (in an email)

Would you please resend this, but check it for weird characters, first?
I'm seeing all sorts of strange characters.

I didn't hear back from you, so in the meantime, I posted what I received. I did not "edit" anything. I'll be more than happy to overwrite the funky version with a version without the weird characters, if you'll kindly send me one.

It's quite possible that something is whacked out on my system, as I saw weird characters in my jreepad program, which has nothing to do with my email program. (And, in fact, is a java-based program, though I have no idea what relationship that bears to encoding or system fonts.) Anyway, why don't you resend your email (after checking it), and hopefully it won't be so mysterious this time.

ETA: I just checked the header in your email, and the content-type was EUC-KR (Korean). What's with that? I switched it to ISO-8859-1, and it renders fine. You needn't resend anything, though I suggest you check what your default email encoding is.

I'll post a cleaned up version of your email later on, tonight.


ETA #2: I have corrected the earlier version, which had funny characters in it.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

(note: I'll be very busy today, so not all of the types of emphases that Professor Jones used will be added, now. I will simply bold what he bolded. Later on (tonight or tomorrow), I will use larger fonts where he used larger fonts. I find it interesting, though doubtless of zero significance, that Professor Jones is more of a boldface, large font type of emphasizer, while Dr. Greening is an italics, underline type of emphasizer. )

From Professor Jones:

Dear Mr. Greening,
Your latest email contains examples of snide comments which you decried in a previous email and worse -- straw man arguments. Nevertheless, I will address your points, embedded and I have tried a different type-font to distinguish my comments.

2009/5/9 Frank Greening <email redacted>

It’s becoming rather tiresome to be addressing so many of your alleged “points” only to have you write back falsely accusing me of not addressed them. Thus I would suggest that all you “Active Thermitic Material” proponents re-read my e-mails; but this time try reading for comprehension. In this way you could hopefully start to address MY POINTS and admit the flaws in your paper!

Note the snide comments... "this time try reading for comprehension" and "In this way you could hopefully start to address MY POINTS " which we have already addressed (the main points previously raised)! Thus you are self-contradicting your previous email claim, "I think the record shows that I have generally refrained from snide remarks" (Greening).

As for your comment, "accusing me of not addressed them" -- How about our point #5, to take an example of a point which indeed you did not address -- let's try again, then:

5. Greening: "And let's not forget that not so long ago Steven Jones was telling the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!

""
No, I never said that. Again the bombastic explanation point associated with unsubstantiated BS. I never told "the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!" This is clearly a straw-man argument, which sounds plausible but which was never so articulated by me. Rather, I have pointed to evidence for thermate present in the Towers stating that explosives or cutter-charges were almost certainly ALSO present in order to bring down the Towers-- since thermate alone would NOT account for the manner in which the Towers were observed to fall. (Noting again that I use the term "thermate" to mean "thermite plus sulfur", not "thermate-TH3!) The evidence for the presence of thermate includes the high-temperature corrosion and sulfidation in WTC steel as reported by Worcester Polytechnic Institute scientists -- and the orange-colored material which flowed from the So Tower just minutes before its demise. I have never retracted that hypothesis nor the relevant evidences, but rather have now added the finding of an unignited and highly energetic (red) material found in the WTC dust.



You may wish to address this point, for it notes that you have misrepresented my views, in other words, you have put forth a straw-man argument (to your discredit).

Now for your laundry list:

To make this easier for you I have created an abridged version of my main points:



1. On page 28 of the Harrit et al. paper the authors offer their main reason for believing that the red chips are a highly energetic thermitic material:



“… the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Figure 29.”



This statement, also repeated in the Abstract to the paper, is simply not correct and shows a complete lack of understanding of DSC by the authors of the paper. Why do I say this? Well, Figure 29 is the DSC trace of a red chip heated from 20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min and shows an exothermic peak extending from approximately 420 – 470 deg C. Now, as someone who has run many DSC analyses on a wide variety of materials, I know that the height and width of a DSC peak depends on many factors such as the sample-holder, the furnace atmosphere, the sample packing density, etc, but most of all, DSC peak widths depend on the heating rate. Given that the DSC trace of Harrit et al. was acquired at 10 deg C/min and has a FWHM ~ 25 deg C, one can be certain that a different peak width would have been obtained if a different heating rate had been used. Thus DSC peak widths are not indicative of reaction rates. This is amply illustrated by many of the DSC traces and the discussion given in Chapter 5 of the well-known chemistry textbook Thermal Analysis by W. Wendlandt. I should add that DSC is most effectively used to study reaction rates if it is carried out in isothermal mode using the Avrami-Erofeev equations to analyse the data. This experimental approach allows a rate constant, and an activation-energy, to be calculated for the reaction responsible for an exothermic peak.

Our research has the advantage of being based on EXPERIMENTS, not just textbook- or theory-arguments. For example, when we heated a sample of epoxy paint in the DSC, we found that the DSC trace was an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE broader than that seen with the red chip in Fig. 29. Futher, in EXPERIMENTS done by Gash et al. and published by them, we find that they compare thermal analysis WIDTHS, as in their Fig. 6 and associated text. I point you to the paper by Gash et al., “Nanostructured Energetic Materials with Sol-gel Methods”, our ref. 21in “Active Thermitic Materials…” paper. Sample on the left in their Fig 6 shows micron Fe2O3/Al (2micron) -- BROAD peak -- compared with the trace on the right a nano-structured Fe2O3/Al sample -- NARROW peak. But perhaps the scientists at LLNL should not be showing such comparisons, Mr. Greening -- is this what you are saying?

There is more EXPERIMENTAL evidence for the rapid reaction of the red material, very direct. This is independent work by Mark B. in New Hampshire. He has done SEM/XEDS work also, and has added an important set of EXPERIMENTS in which he heats red/gray chips on a thin stainless-steel strip, and observes and records the heat-induced ignition. He has shared these data with me, prior to publication, and permitted me to describe some of his EXPERIMENTAL results which are apropos to this discussion:
There is seen a flash in the red material that moves rapidly through it in a "wave" in about a second or less -- but no flame is observed. The video-clip-series shows these effects clearly. OTOH, the gray layer shows no noticeable change or reaction. The chips in this case are not confined, and it is interesting to note a distinct swelling of the red material as well as the release of a gas (which is not observed to ignite in these tests). The identity of the gas?... future experiments!


Thus, EXPERIMENTS indicate that our interpretation of the width of the DSC trace is not so far off -- the reaction is independently demonstrated to be very rapid. It is unfortunate that Mr. Greening takes "theoretical" pot-shots at the research while failing to do actual experiments to back up his claims.
To me, the exciting scientific developments come not from mocking, but from actual EXPERIMENTS, which are ongoing.

2. You claim: “the red/gray chips reacted faster than Tillotson’s sample”. Now while this is a good example of how quickly you guys jump to conclusions, your comments about the iron-rich microspheres constitute an even greater leap of faith! Here I am referring to your amazing double negative non sequitur: “ Does not the production of a ball of iron not prove the thermite reaction by itself?”

Wait a minute -- I did not say this! Or, provide the actual quote. Unless you do this you have again demonstrated a propensity to mis-quote, to lie about what was actually said -- a propensity to use the straw-man type of deceptive argument... yet another example, unless you find the quote.

The simple answer to this question is: Iron-rich microspheres are found in almost any magnetically separated incinerator ash. In general such microspheres also contain significant quantities of Si, Al and O plus traces of Ca, Mg, Ti, etc. But let’s be clear on this: the Harrit et al. paper actually says nothing about “balls of iron”. The microspheres reported in the Harrit paper could at best be described as iron-rich, with Al sometimes present, and Si and O always present. But let me remind you, this is also true for the magnetically separated microspheres found in incinerator ashes – they contain mostly Fe, Al, Si, and O. Now since the red/gray chips and the resultant microspheres contain Fe, Al, Si and O, we must look at the appropriate phase stability diagram for the system FeO-Al2O3-SiO2 and consider the associated melting points. An iron oxide phase in the presence of silica and alumina results in a rapid fall in the overall melting point. For example, fayalite, 2FeOSiO2, has a m.p. of 1205 deg C. The ternary system fayalite-hercynite-iron-cordierite has a liquid eutectic at 1088 deg C. Thus the reaction products detected after the ignition of the red/gray chips do not require that the m.p. of iron (~ 1535 deg C) was reached during the reaction because the Harrit paper actually presents no evidence for the formation of “balls of iron”. Only a technique like XRD could distinguish between elemental iron and iron oxide.

We've been over this before and I have noted that Dr. Farrer is doing follow-up work using TEM methods which confirms certain details of our analysis. As I have noted before, TEM works fine with the small grains observed in the red material whereas XRD would require a relatively large sample -- I think you may agree that TEM is better than XRD for these samples. (But you seem reluctant to agree to anything, even the clear and obvious such as this).

Further, in independent EXPERIMENTS performed in France (Univ. of Marseilles, if I recall correctly) by Frederic H-C, spheres produced by igniting red/gray chips are again observed -- spheres which were NOT present before the ignition (as is our case also, as previously explained by Daniel Farnsworth and myself). Mark B. has made the same observation. "Another theory (Mr. Greening's) brutalized by a gang of FACTS", to cite a commonly used expression regarding the importance of actual experiments. Of course, I will let them detail their results but I wish to emphasize that we answer questions using EXPERIMENTS and replication by other scientists. This is the path of experimental verification.

3. I will admit one mistake on my part, namely that I missed the fact that Figure 21 was a BSE image although this is not very well indicated in the Harrit paper, (a convenient obfuscation of your part!)

Oh brother -- we explained that Fig 21 was a BSE image in the TEXT of the paper near the Figure, and yet you call this " a convenient obfuscation of your part!" What BS! You missed it, Frank! It was there in the text clearly and I quoted it to you from the text of the paper before. What do we have to do to avoid your false accusation of "obfuscation" -- surround each point in the text with flashing neon lights?

However, interpreting that image as evidence of an iron-rich microsphere is a bit of a stretch to say the least. In fact I would say your alleged “metallic” spheroid looks a lot like the distinctly non-metallic amorphous blob of material located above and to the left of it.

Why do you says this that this "blob" is non-metallic? Do you have XEDS data to back up your claim? You need to read the discussion below Fig. 21.

I also wonder why you failed to do any X-ray mapping of all the particulate shown in Figure 21 as you did for all the particulate in Figure 15. And you give no indication where on the microsphere the XEDS spectrum in Figure 21 was taken. Thus I am far from convinced that your iron-rich microsphere is convincingly shown to be a thermite residue. Interestingly too, you fail to mention that the “iron particle” in Figure 21 contains nickel as revealed by the small peak at 7.4 keV. Are you ignoring this peak because it fails to fit your thermite paradigm?

You're kidding, right? Are you really claiming that the "small peak" at 7.4 keV is statistically significant?

4. The main reason I have for doubting the alleged significance of the red/gray chips is that a thin layer of such an “energetic material” would not be capable of heating massive steel columns sufficiently to cause any thermal stress to the building.

Another example of the straw-man argument -- we did NOT claim that a "a thin layer of such an “energetic material” would... be capable of heating massive steel columns sufficiently to cause any thermal stress to the building."
I really think that the straw-man argument is a form of lying, but I will let the reader decide if this is good form. Yes, I generally call it "Bull****", rather than using the term "lying".

I base this conclusion on the following:



Calculation of the Heating Effect of a Thermite Coating on a Steel Column:



The thermite reaction of interest is Fe2O3 + 2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe



The energy released by 1 kg of a stoichiometric mixture of ferric oxide and aluminium undergoing this thermite reaction is 3988 kJ/kg.



Consider a 100-micron layer of this mixture coated on a steel column on an upper floor of one of the Twin Towers as proposed by Harrit et al.



For simplicity we shall assume the coated surfaces are on all four sides of a box column that is 20 cm wide spanning one 3.7-meter high floor. Thus we have a total surface area per column of 3.7 x 0.2 x 4 = 2.96 m^2. (We could also consider an equivalent wide-flange column)



The volume of our 100-micron coating is then = 2.96 x 100 x 10^-6 m^3 = 296 x 10^-6 m^3



The density of the thermite mixture is assumed to be ~ 4500 kg/m^3, so the mass of our thermite coating per one floor column length is = 4500 kg/m^3 x 296 x 10^-6 = 1.332 kg



Using the 3988 kJ/kg heat release of the thermite reaction we have a total heat release per one floor column length of 1.332 kg x 3988 kJ/kg = 5312 kJ.



Next we need to calculate the mass of steel that was exposed to this 5312 kJ of heat energy.



Column specifications for the upper floors of WTC 1 indicate that the typical mass of steel per column per floor was about 750 kg. (This would be the mass of a box column 3.7 meters long and 20 cm wide fabricated from four steel panels 3.25 cm thick)



The heat capacity of steel is 0.45 kJ/kg so 1 kg of steel requires 0.45 kJ to be heated by 1 deg C.



Therefore 750 kg of steel requires 337.5 kJ of thermal energy to be heated by 1 deg C.



The heat released by our 100-micron layer of thermite is 5312 kJ. Thus the expected temperature

increase is (5312/337.5) x 1 deg C, or about 16 deg C.



5. One of the corner stones of Harrit et al’s “Active Thermite” paper is the assertion that the bi-layered chips contain elemental aluminum. The basis for this claim is the XEDS spectrum presented in Figure 17 of the paper. Figure 17 shows the X-ray fluorescence spectrum of an area located within the red side of a WTC red/gray chip after exposure to methyl ethyl ketone for 55 hours. The key features of the spectrum are a large Al peak at 1.49 keV and a much smaller O peak at 0.52 keV.



On page 18 of the “Active Thermitic” paper Harrit et al. have this to say about the XEDS spectrum in Figure 17:



“Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminium significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus while some of the aluminium may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all the aluminium; some of the aluminium must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result.”



The “conventional quantification routine” referred to by Harrit et al. would be a computer program based on X-ray attenuation coefficients that are used to correct for the variable yields of X-rays emitted at different energies in different materials. The characteristic X-ray emissions of oxygen and aluminium are, as we have seen, ~ 1 keV. At this energy, the linear attenuation coefficient of X-rays passing through O is about four times that of these X-rays in Al. This means that the oxygen peaks in XRF-spectra emitted by materials with equal concentrations of Al and O, are about ¼ the intensity of the aluminum peaks.



This 1:4 O/Al peak intensity ratio is in fact observed in published spectra of alumina, Al2O3, which is very nearly 50 % O and 50 % Al (by weight!). Thus I would refer the reader to the XEDS spectrum of nano-Al2O3 in the paper by Xi Jin Xu published in Materials Letters 60, 2331, (2006), and the spectrum of Al203 particles produced by a thermite reaction reported by N. Ilic in Materials Characterization 42, 243, (1999). These spectra have an O/AL peak ratio of 0.26 +/- 0.4; Harrit et al’s “aluminium rich” area of the red chip has an O/Al ratio of 0.19. Thus the observed level of aluminium “enrichment” in the red chips, above the level of Al in pure Al2O3, is very small and shows that the red chips contain far more Al2O3 than elemental Al. Once again, only a technique like XRD could distinguish between elemental aluminium and aluminium oxide.

Once again, as I have re-iterated several times, we are using TEM rather than XRD for this follow-up testing. However, I should add that we have done EXPERIMENTS to check the quantification method, using known Fe2O3 (as reported in the paper) as well as oxygen-bearing compounds, also including aluminum/oxygen compounds of known composition. These results gave us confidence in our results FOR THIS SEM/XEDS device, using actual CONTROLS. Did Xu and Ilic use the SAME equipment, Frank, with the SAME conditions, and did they do CONTROLS such as we did? I highly doubt it. But go ahead and tell us, Frank -- answer the question.

6. I consider the fact that Harrit’s red/gray chips “explode” when heated to a mere 430 deg C to be a big problem for the suggestion that red/gray nanothemite was coated onto steel surfaces in the Twin Towers prior to 9/11 and used to trigger other high explosives. If this really were the case, the structural steel in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 would have been subject to erratic and unpredictable deflagrations as the fires locally heated surfaces to temperatures above 430 deg C. This is hardly the way to go about a “controlled demolition” of these buildings, now is it!

Wow, yet another straw-man (BS) argument: "the suggestion that red/gray nanothemite was coated onto steel surfaces in the Twin Towers prior to 9/11 and used to trigger other high explosives."
I don't see how a coating of "red/gray nanothemite ...coated onto steel surfaces in the Twin Towers prior to 9/11" could be successfully " used to trigger other high explosives" either -- But I never made such a suggestion! Again, I note that the straw-man argument is a form of lying or BS to be a bit more polite.
Your response?

Steven J

ETA: There are only 2 large fonts available on this forum (by default, anyway; I haven't tried to hack the HTML), and Professor Jones' email is apparently using a lot of fonts. However, if I tried to modify all text to fit what's available in this forum, a)It would take a LOT of time and b) not convey a lot of essential information.)

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

(note from metamars: I asked Dr. Legge for specific permission to quote an email of his, in the interest of making the exchanges more civil, and he granted me permission to quote the first 2 paragraphs. )

Steve,

<I redacted what I had posted here, at the request of Dr. Legge. (Hopefully he will let me explain, more fully, later, as the motivation is a positive one.) From the subsequent email, in which Dr. Legge expressed the hope that I had not already posted what was here previously, he clarified, as immediately follows:>
ETA: Greening questioned this remark; “ Does not the production of a ball of iron prove the thermite reaction by itself?”

<this is the reason for the redaction + addition, which I referred to, above>
ETA #2: These words replace words which could have been interpreted as suggesting that Steven Jones accused Frank Greening of lying, while in fact he did not, he merely asked Greening for his source.


It was I who made this remark and I stick by it. If you start with nanostructured iron oxide mixed with other components, and heat it to a mere 700 C, and then find a ball of iron, orders of magnitude larger than the original particles of iron oxide, it is proof of a reaction temperature far higher than possible from the combustion in air of an organic material. It is proof, even if the iron product is not pure and has a melting point substantially lowered. I invited Greening to suggest what chemical reaction, other than a thermitic reaction, could account for it. So far he has not replied.

<redacted>

Regards
Frank L


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts:


Thanks for all this, Steve.

Before Frank says it, let me note that the reaction wave travels through conventional explosives at thousands of feet per second. Thus:

There is seen a flash in the red material that moves rapidly through it in a "wave" in about a second or less

is far too slow. I'm not saying it disproves that the red material is nanothermite, but I think the conditions of the experiment do a very poor job of demonstrating its explosive characterisitics. Discussion?

G

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Greening:

Mr. Jones,

Yes, I can play the "Mister" game too old chap, but it is rather childish dont you think?

And yes, do try to read for comprehension please. Here's exactly what I said: "I would suggest that all you “Active Thermitic Material” proponents re-read my e-mails; but this time try reading for comprehension."

Clearly this comment, like many others I have made, was directed to the entire list above, not just to you Jones! But you have to get all excited and rant in eighteen point font: "Wait a minute -- I did not say this!" about some quote(s) you think I am attributing to you. Well, JONES: when I say "someone said something" in an e-mail thread with dozens of e-mails and with eight or more participants, I think you need to read all the e-mails I have received from this group (I believe you, Jones, were c.c-ed on all of them) to see what your illustrious colleagues have said too ....... If one of you made a point, I assume it's endorsed by all of you. If you disagree with a statement from one of your co-authors, take it up with them not me!

And you did indeed present THERMATE to the world as the be-all-and-and-all not so long ago. And this is NOT a strawman argument because you have never retracted THERMATE have you? We should be seeing S in your samples, shouldn't we, ...... No? So tell me PROFFESOR, what happened to the S in your samples, did it transmute (muon-catalyzed-wise) into Si?

Jones, I consider this debate closed because the insult-to-info ratio coming from you and your crew is now off-scale! You and your friends appear to be incapable of debate. Harrit certainly got us off to a good start with his "dont waste my time comment", and it's been downhill all the way since then, .... right Mr. Jones? May I therefore suggest you guys stick to presenting your ideas to your own "kind" so you can receive the adulation of your adoring fans and avoid questions from the Doubting Thomases!

However, I will say this:

1. You can only compare the width of DSC traces done on the same machine acquired with the same operational settings. (Dont you know that!?!)

2. The fact that you have no comment on my calculation of the heat output from a chip, is VERY telling! Those red/gray chips couldn't reheat a plate of cold fish and chips now could they!

3. Try blowing up Figure 21. There's nickel, no doubt about it!

4. Until all you "Active Thermitic Material" proponents demonstrate (by XRD for example) the presence of metallic aluminum in the red chips and metallic iron in the "ash" left by the ignition of the chips, you really have nothing that would convince anyone that you have found some sort of "loaded nanothermite gun"; except, perhaps, if you were talking to a room full of Jones' groupies. You see, the trouble is, there is no gun and there is no bullet-riddled body. But worse yet, you guys have no theory!

Get over it and maybe join forces with Dr. Wood, at least she has a theory!

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Danny Farnsworth:

Mr. Greening,

I have largely stayed out of this debate, but this is really getting out of hand. First, addressing somebody by a more respectful title than using their first name isn't childish. If you read some sort of sarcastic tone into Dr. Jones's use of a respectful title, then perhaps you are projecting. It is obvious that this debate has become heated, and parts of it have been immature (on both sides), so the best thing to improve the tone here is increased respect. In response to this increased respect, you insulted Dr. Jones for it. That is not impressive in the least, nor is it appropriate for a mature discussion about the facts.

Regarding the facts:

1. You did not respond to the point about LLNL's own comparisons of DSC traces between nanostructured thermite vs micron structured thermite. Obviously, while the width of traces will vary based on the conditions you mentioned, width can be useful in certain circumstances for understanding reaction rates. Nanostructured thermite had a faster reaction rate than micron structured thermite in LLNL's work, and it had corresponding narrower peaks. Epoxy paint had a much wider DSC compared to the red chips, with both of them run on the same machine with the same settings. The bigger mistake you're making on this point is that you have objected to DSC width comparisons in isolation, as if the rest of the evidence that Dr. Jones cited could simply be ignored. The behavior of paints vs red chips in DSC, in solvents, and their corresponding appearances afterward, to include the formation of iron spheres that did not previously exist on the red chips is not something you can honestly ignore. If all we had was that DSC comparison, in isolation, your point would be much stronger, and I agree that it would be ideal to run the same experiment on a sample of LLNL's nanothermite. Having not acquired nanothermite, the rest of the evidence we have available, including the intimate nanoscale mixing of elemental aluminum and iron oxide, still strongly suggests that this material is likely nanothermite. If you could suggest an alternative material that meets these characteristics, that would be appreciated. Running tests is good. Running your mouth without having run tests is not good. You are not saying to anybody "My tests disagree with theirs!" You are saying, "I disagree with their tests!" I'm sorry. That's pretty weak.

2. Obviously, if the thermitic demolition theory is correct, this nanothermite cannot be solely responsible. I recall Dr. Jones saying as much. Perhaps it was some sort of igniter? I haven't tried covertly destroying any high rise buildings lately, so I can't tell you exactly where or how in the building it was used. But it's quite apparent that it *was* used. I have to be honest: I do not like our theory because of what it implies, but the evidence of a demolition is overwhelming. If somebody could credibly debunk our research, I would be very happy about it. But even here, you are calculating the heat output of the red/gray chips, implicitly conceding that they are thermitic in nature. That you have very limited imagination about how or where they might be applied in a controlled demolition doesn't change this point.

3. Whether that image was labeled with Ni or not may have been my responsibility, depending. I don't recall this particular one, since I took a lot of images and data, and it was some time ago. Looking at Fig. 21, the machine likely did not identify it as Ni, and had I labeled it myself, it likely would have been between 0.10% and 0.4%. Considering the margin of error when using the XEDS, you can have things appear ever so slightly in one run, and then do the same run under identical conditions in the same spot and have it not appear. If you look very closely, you can distinguish a slightly larger bump next to another slightly smaller bump, and generally, that's noise. If you want to get excited about what might be trace Ni, fine. It is not impossible that there could be trace nickel as surface contaminant or alloy (though the number of samples without even that slight bump suggest it is not alloy). It is impossible to tell, from that graph, whether that is the case, as it is statistically insignificant. So, I disagree. There is a doubt about it, for the reasons I just outlined.

4. This point was addressed before you made it (or remade it). On very small scales, TEM is effective for identifying elemental aluminum. If you use XEDS on a very small sample, and you get solely aluminum back, without oxygen, you can be confident that it is elemental aluminum. Similarly, Fe2O3 can be identified on the same scales, if you get back solely iron and oxygen in ratios of 2 to 3. Moreover, what's this "you have no theory" nonsense? I hope you aren't trying to just make things up. Please, could you support this statement or retract it? Because the last I checked, our theory is that buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosive material, supported by documenting video and audio evidence, eyewitness reports, and forensic analysis of the dust indicating unignited thermitic material is still present and was present at the time of the towers' collapse.

It really harms your credibility when you make such obviously false statements. Unfortunately, you have harmed your credibility in discussion with us previously, as well. You have also failed to respond to several of Dr. Jones's points in the same breath that you said, "The fact that you have no comment on my calculation of the heat output from a chip, is VERY telling!" The "non-metallic" blob went unaddressed. LLNL's comparisons of nanothermite versus micron-structured thermite went unaddressed. Mark B.'s experiment went unaddressed, as did the point about your failure to conduct any experiment whatsoever. The best argument you can make is one that makes reference to empiricism and reality, and doggedly you have refused to do so. Why will you not conduct experiments? You believe we are wrong, and you make a fuss with exclamation points and all, but you are unwilling to do what is necessary in science: conduct experiments.

I think Prof. Harrit was right to say this has been a waste of time. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to concede obvious mistakes you've made in your reasoning, and you apparently have never had any intention of being open to an opposing point of view. Perhaps you could say the same about us. The time spent arguing with you has been time not spent on more productive efforts. You are now trying to portray yourself as a skeptic, a doubting Thomas waiting for evidence, who is merely asking questions. But that is not what you are. You have, in this discussion, been willfully blind to evidence and argument that was presented to you. It is a mistake if you believe that we are only interested in talking with people who already agree with us, as it is a mistake to believe that we simply agree with each other all the time. Prior to the publication of this paper, we had a great deal of debate and back and forth until we had consensus about the paper, and that was with more than one rewrite in response to reviewers' comments, as well.

To quote Monty Python,
"This isn't an argument! It's contradiction!"
"No it isn't."
"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition! Not the automatic gainsaying of whatever your opponent says!"
"It can be!"
"Oh, you're impossible."
"No I'm not."

You're impossible.

-Daniel Farnsworth

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Gregg Roberts:

I must disagree that saying, "I disagree with their tests!" is inherently weak. And saying FG should go do his own tests is something I thought we'd already moved past. There's nothing inherently wrong with him saying we are drawing overly strong conclusions from one or more of our tests. (He, of course, is showing his bias by never acknowledging the implications of ALL the work we did.) Of COURSE it's easier to criticize than to create. That doesn't mean we have to keep reminding him of that. That has nohing to do with whether he's correct.

How about if we ask David Griscom about these DSC and XEDS/XRD questions? Would anyone mind if I forwarded him JUST the criticisms without FG's name or address, and ask him how strong/valid is the criticism? Griscom had many criticisms along the way, but our use of all the tests that we eventually used and what we concluded from them did not seem to be among them. Maybe he missed something and would agree with FG ... or maybe he would say FG is "full of it" on this point... It would seem Griscom should have caught it, if FG is as "obviously" right has he thinks he is. But since Griscom agrees with us on 9/11, maybe FG's points somehow escaped his notice.

G

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

Frank --

In my email this morning, I responded to you point by point. But you responded only to selected points, rather than point by point, much as you have done before. I agree that this discussion has basically ground to a halt -- because a soliloquy on your part is not a discussion.
I explained that a distinct font would be used to make my responses distinct, so I was not ranting despite your remark: "But you have to get all excited and rant in eighteen point font". No, I was not all excited and ranting, but the font was used as explained.. Nor is your conflation of "thermate" with "nanothermite" valid. Nor did I EVER write or say that thermate alone would suffice to bring down the Towers, but rather wrote that explosives would be needed (in addition).

My main gripe with your soliloquy today is that it ignores the additional data collected by on-going experiments which I described to you -- the comparison we did of the DSC trace for paint vs. for red/gray chips, the controls we did for the quantification of elements (using known chemical compounds as controls), the TEM studies, the independent clip by researcher Mark B. showing the very rapid ignition of the red material accompanied by gas generation, (He also observes microsphere formation.) Why did you not comment on these points?

Thanks to Danny for his timely response today, from the viewpoint of the experimenter. It was exciting to see the data roll in, wasn't it, Danny? And you're right, we worked on and resolved a large number of issues prior to publication, realizing that follow-on work and writing would of course be important as expected for a pioneering study such as this.

What is this highly-structured, active material doing in the dust of the WTC? Who made the stuff in multi-ton quantities and who put it in the buildings? These are the questions we have raised. And relevant research continues now on several fronts.

Thanks to all, even you, Frank,
Steve



////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Legge:

Frank,

I would like to draw your attention back to an earlier criticism you made relating to the red chip paper. You had argued that there was no proof that the red material was thermitic. I had asked you a question in the hope of obtaining a debate about the evidence discovered by performing DSC on a red chip. The question was this:

Does the production of a ball of iron not prove the thermite reaction by itself?

You dismissed this on the grounds that fly ash could account for any iron-rich microsphere. Microscopic examination of the red chip prior to DSC did not reveal the presence of anything that looked like a metallic sphere, either a reaction product or a piece of fly ash. I would like you to look carefully at the following argument and see whether you might reconsider.

It is clear from analysis that the red chip material contains nanoscale iron oxide mixed with other components, which include an organic material, silicon and aluminium. If you heat a sample to a mere 700 C, as was done in the DSC experiment, and then find a ball of iron, orders of magnitude larger than the original particles of iron oxide, you can make certain conclusions:

1. The production of a metallic sphere is proof of a temperature high enough to achieve a molten state. Even if we allow that the iron may have contained impurities of oxygen and silica to produce a eutectic, it is still proof of a reaction temperature far higher than possible from the combustion in air of an organic material.

2. This high temperature is proof that an exothermic chemical reaction occurred.

3. This proves that at least some of the aluminium present initially was the free metal.

Do we not have here a stepwise proof that the thermite reaction occurred even if we decide that the XEDS analysis should not be relied upon? Can you suggest any other feasible chemical reaction which could have produced a molten metallic product?

We appreciate the effort you are putting into criticizing this paper as we want to be able to answer all questions that arise.

Regards
Frank Legge

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Dr. Legge (6/21/2009):

Hi Frank G,

Good to see you still have a sense of humour! You must be laughing as you wait to see how many people will swallow your equations! Re the first equation, a glance at the Gibbs Free Energy shows how difficult this reaction is. I once read an article on how the early Africans made iron using charcoal. They worked very hard on bellows to provide the air necessary to get the temperature up. It was clear that excess charcoal was necessary to provide the energy for the reduction reaction by its combustion in air. You can get an idea how hard it is to get free iron from the oxide by studying the history of development of the process. It is unlikely that the early smelters ever produced molten iron, depending instead for many centuries on hammering the spongy product to produce a workable material.
http://ies.lbl.gov/iespubs/42774.pdf

In the modern blast furnace the reaction is known to occur stepwise, with the reduction of Fe203 to Fe3O4 by CO as the first step. As the material sinks and becomes hotter the conversion of Fe3O4 to FeO starts at 600 C. Only when the material sinks to the lowest, hottest region of the furnace does liquid iron appear. With the red chips, in contrast, we see that modest heating to 430 C is enough to start a self-sustaining reaction, very quickly running the temperature high enough to produce the iron-rich material in molten form.

I think we can also rule the first equation out simply by noting that the chips were red, not black, as they would have been if suffused with sufficient carbon.

Regarding the second and third equation pair, it is difficult to see what you had in mind here as there is no production of free iron, as occurs with the red chips. The net effect of these equations is to reduce FeO to Fe3O4 and to reduce water and carbon dioxide to methane. Surely it would take a lot of energy to unburn CO2 to methane, so I look forward to your calculation of Gibbs Free Energy for this.

We can of course rule out this proposition categorically on the grounds that water and CO2 were not present initially in the chips and free iron is not present in the equation product, and it will be amusing to see if anyone fails to notice this.

Your further suggestions about how the free iron might have been produced by heating a red chip, if it contained no free aluminium, is eagerly awaited.

Frank L.


Frank Greening wrote:
> Here are three (non-thermic) reactions, .... there are more I'm sure ....
>
> 2Fe2O3+3C=4Fe+3CO2
> 2FeO+SiO2=Fe2SiO4
> 6Fe2SiO4+2H2O+CO2=4Fe3O4+6SiO2+CH4