Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

Pteridine? Goodoledave? Anyone care to help me with these? I especially thought you two would be interested being so vocal about the ridiculousness of the thermitic chips paper, and the fact you said they were paint chips? Where did you come up with the basis for your claim that there paint chips?

1.Are there any other studies of the dust independent of the Jones group?

2.Are there any studies that mention these chips?

3.Does anyone here have a alternate idea as to what exactly the chips are?

4.Do they actually make paint like this what is it used for typically?

5.Do we know if it was used in the towers?

6. A/Could this be what FEMA was looking for when they said that there was some kind of "high corrosive attack" on the steel in that famous paragraph?

B/If the chips are able to be lit with a torch and then they flame up extremely hot leaving liquid metal spheres would it not be to far of a stretch to think they were most likely ignited after the jet impacts and that these chips of whatever it once was could be what heated up the steel so hot?

reply to post by Stillresearchn911

I think they are paint or a coating of some sort. The idea that they are evidence of thermite is a stretch. Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and has a small sample size. He rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint with the red chips. He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this possibility; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the chips with a more agressive solvent, which would allow analysis of individual components. His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data. He is a publicity hound who can only get admiration and respect from people who do not understand his sleight of hand tricks.
If you want to investigate conspiracy theories, Jones is a dead end with his own agenda and unbiased science is not part of it. Read all the conspiracy stuff and all the debunkings and see for yourself what is more believeable.

reply to post by Griff


I said it looks like paint or a coating because of its laminar structure. Jones has to prove it is what he claims it is and he doesn't. His experiments and analytical protocols are fatally flawed. See my previous posts.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff

 

I said it looks like paint or a coating because of its laminar structure. Jones has to prove it is what he claims it is and he doesn't. His experiments and analytical protocols are fatally flawed. See my previous posts.

Ah, I see. So, you claim it is paint without even knowing that there is a paint out there with these physical properties?

Now, who's the one being a bit biased?

reply to post by Griff


Griff - Others...

Looks like a complete rebuttal is in the works of Mr. Jones & Company's paper.

In part:

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.

We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

darksideofgravity.com...

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

forums.randi.org...

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes

Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

forums.randi.org...


Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination



Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

forums.randi.org...

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

www.scielo.org.ar...

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

Sunstealer

[edit on 11-4-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox


No where did I see an MSDS sheet claiming a specific type of paint with the exact same physical qualities as these chips. If you can come up with one, I'll join the paint band wagon.

BTW, most steel coatings and paints I have been researching have a combustion point well over 500C when they are still wet and still have their most flammable chemicals in them.

Until you come up with a paint that ignites when dry at 480C (or whatever the specific temperature was) I have to say that this paint doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff

 

I said it looks like paint or a coating because of its laminar structure. Jones has to prove it is what he claims it is and he doesn't. His experiments and analytical protocols are fatally flawed. See my previous posts.

Ah, I see. So, you claim it is paint without even knowing that there is a paint out there with these physical properties?

Now, who's the one being a bit biased?

I said it looks like a paint or coating based on the evidence. This is based on chemical and physical evidence that Jones shows, not what was written on a website.
Finding an MSDS sheet on paint of an uncertain origin is a waste of time. MSDS sheets list what is in the paint, as applied, but have nothing about CURED paint or multiple layers of cured paints. That requires a bit of chemical analysis that any competent analytical chemist can do. It does not appear to be thermite and that is what Jones set out to prove by selective and incompetent analyses. Jones' science is poor and does not prove anything.

This particular topic is beyond me but I thought I might just throw this in as it may be relevant to discussion:

Standard Protective Red Chromate Primer No. 10001

Formulation:

Pigment 28.5%
________________________
Iron Oxide 55.0%
Aluminum Silicate 41.0%
Strontium Chromate 4.0%


Vehicle 71.5%
__________________
Unmodified Epoxy Amine 45.0%
Deionized Water and Amine 55.0%


Also this

Tnemec 99 Red Metal Primer

www.tnemec.com...

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Pteridine? Goodoledave? Anyone care to help me with these? I especially thought you two would be interested being so vocal about the ridiculousness of the thermitic chips paper, and the fact you said they were paint chips? Where did you come up with the basis for your claim that there paint chips?

The claim that it was paint didn't come from me. I sincerely doubt this was paint, since Jones did get one thing right, at Least- this stuff really is flammable. Using this as a paint would dangerous as hell, especially in a skyscraper.

Personally, I think this material came from the structure itself. The towers were both giant collections of both aluminum and steel, and the report states this Material was found at four random Locations from around ground zero. The fact that it was even found is in itself proof that they had to have come from a very large Source of the stuff. I don't see why it's such a Leap of Logic to state it was produced from the materials of the towers during the collapse by some as yet unknown process. When the towers collapsed, they threw dust and debris all over the place.

I'm not aware of anyone else who's analyzing this dust, as pretty much everyone else believes Jones is barking up the wrong tree with this bit. Jones' belief in conspiracy is more of a matter of faith, than it is fact.

reply to post by godless


I think that to anyone who has taken the time to look at this, that this is not news but it does serve to confirm what was already so painfully obvious.

Soon the people who saw this on TV will be along to tell you that you are crazy and that I am suffering from PTSD.

Don’t waste your time trying to convince them of what is right in front of their noses because the truth is that some of them don’t really care about 9/11 and hate all Arabs while others are being paid to keep up that farce of a story while others are worried that the majority will find out who was taken into custody that day and who benefited from this attack.

I see 9/11 Truthers and kindred spirits in my journey through life and I would encourage you to prepare for what’s coming and try to wake up people around you instead of trying to wake up paid bloggers , if people like you don’t survive what is being planned Humanity has lost its last chance at freedom.

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Like this hollow redwood and oak. Neither are about to implode nor even collapse under their own weight.

It depends. Is your hypothetical hollow tree on fire from 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel after a jet liner hit it?

The construction of the floors is irrelevant - they don't support the building. The core columns on the inside, and the perimeter columns on the outside which support the floors are the significant components and they are indeed box-like.

Bait and switch. The core and perimeter columns aren't where the structural failure was, it was at the horizontal support braces that held up the floors. I looked at the photos of the columns as you did, and they clearly show they were snapped like a twig, not exploded, melted, nor cut.

We really are going around in circles if you use your interpretation of what happened to the WTC as an analogy for what happened at the WTC. Your pancaking building isn't an analogy - its a fantasy.

Unless you can show that the floors evaporated or winked out of existence during the collapse in some way, the floors necessarily had to have pancaked since every video footage of the collapse ever taken shows the floors fell straight down. Your not liking the fact does not in any way make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the debate is over what caused the initial structure failure which led to the collapse, not over the specific mechanical process of the collapse itself.

An analogy is something you can point to in the real world that actually happens. Something that resembles to some degree the implosion of the twin towers, but does not involve demolition charges. I can think of no such thing, nor apparently can anyone else.

...and yet I note you are entirely unable to explain why the analogy is incorrect. I think that pretty much says it all.

reply to post by CameronFox


Careful now. Some people here might say that Kaolinite doesnt exist and that you are desperate to turn to such alternate ideas. Its such a shame that science is no longer taught properly in schools and universities. After all, even a student of basic geology would recoginze kaolinite and its uses in paints.

reply to post by pteridine


Avoidance of the issue noted.

BTW, it doesn't have to the MSDS. It can be information on a website for all I care.

Question: Do primers and paint dry combust at 480C?



[edit on 4/11/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Griff
Powdered coffie creamer can combust.
www.youtube.com...

Flour can combust and explode.
Grain silos can explode.

By God Griff! All these ticking time bombs everywhere. In your cabinet, on farms. Even the ink toner in your copy machine can explode.

However, what you do not seem to nitpick at is how Jones screwed up the test by having a source of oxygen being blown ONTO the sample as it is heated. The others were correct Griff. If Jones wanted to prove it was thermite, he should have put it in a ZERO oxygen environment and then ignited it. However since he did not, and supplied additional oxygen onto the piece being tested, the test itself is inconclusive as Jones botched it. Anything wil burn if you put fire and a source of oxygen onto it.

reply to post by GenRadek


While true that powdered flour et al will explode, they will not when mixed into a paste (paint/primer).

Nice try though.

As far as the "thermite" being combusted with an oxygen source, I'll ask the same question of you that I asked of pteridine. If Jones retests and the substance combusts in a non-oxygen environment, will you concede that it is not paint/primer?

If so, would you be willing to contact Jones et al to suggest combustion without oxygen to satisfy the "skeptics"?

Or will you again move the goal posts?

Also, where's the data showing that paint/primer combusts explosively at 480C?

reply to post by Griff


Well what is JOnes waiting for? He's had 7 years to do so.

No moving of goalposts here. However, the samples do have a strong correlation to kaolinite. Not thermite. But since Jonesy botched the whole thing, I am surprised you people still believe him.

Why nitpick over that? You know its amazing how you nitpick away at things like the temperature of the combustion of the mystery chip, and yet I have yet to see you even nitpick ONCE over anything Jonesy or anything else put forward by the so called "truth" movement. Maybe if you did so with such gusto of their "evidence" maybe you will see more holes there than here. Instead you ignore evidence that points more and more towards a certain type of primer/paint with kaolinite as a part of its matrix. Evidence that is bakced up with research and proof. All you have to do is look at it all and better understand it. But no, you rather nitpick ad ignore everything else. And doing so, you end up missing something important.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Did look into that and just off of a basic look it does appear that this Kaolinite stuff could have made its way into the towers in rather very large amounts also. That is if you connect the fact that apparently it was used in Portland Cement to make the cement lighter. Another simple search seems to say that Portland Cement was used in the construction of the towers.

Then you figure they were trying to make those cement slabs as light as they could for easier suspension. Maybe there was a lot of Kaolinite used in the towers cement slab floors it does make sense why theres so much in the dust clouds and why Niels Harrit thinks there would be as much as a 100tons as little as 10tons of the super thermite to bring the towers down.

I wonder if Kaolinite is flammable, everything I have found seems to say no. So why does theirs (Jones and co) flame up when lit with a torch?

Another thing like I said before I cannot believe that (even for another 15mins of fame) multiple people would get together who all have degrees and not be able to figure out that the chips are simple Kaolinite. Or any kind of material that was used to construct the towers that these guys somehow mis identified and even wrote a paper on it before figuring it out. Thats just totally insane, seems impossible or would have to be done deliberately to mislead people.

I will stay tuned into this b/c personally I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that there were supposedly explosives used to demo the towers yet the countless videos do not reveal the tell tale explosion sounds during the collapse. So for me in order for it to have been done it must have been something that created little to no sound at all to inflict serious damage to the apparently robust towers.

One has to keep in mind that what the government could be hiding in the NIST and FEMAs reports and all the countless theories is the fact that maybe the towers were ticking time bombs with some construction flaw that made it highly susceptible to collapse from fire.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Kaolinite is clay and is not flammable. It is used as a filler in many things, paint being one of them. The organic binder of the paint can burn but the iron oxide pigmemt and clay fillers will not burn.

Originally posted by TheComte
Sorry, but only a moron would believe that those three buildings collapsed in the fashion that they did without explosives of some kind. I've seen many buildings demolished and they all look the same; exactly like those buildings on that fateful day.

Looks like they found the smoking gun evidence.

Well it doesn't say much for that science teacher when even I (aforementioned moron) can debunk his VERY FAULTY observations about how WTC 7 collapsed. By watching his very own video I was able to see that the penthouse was starting to collapse long before the area that he was monitoring for mesurements. Watch his video and keep an eye on the antenna (a dish I think) on the roof. It twitches for one frame a very long time before the wall he is measuring starts to go. If he had bothered to look at the building from the other side (the video of which can be seen above in this thread which I'll get back to that in a sec) he would have seen the very event that is modeled by NIST and accounts for the time he says is wrong.
As for that video above. Why does it never show the 2 seconds prior to where it starts now? Because there is your smoking gun and it's in the hands of the conspiracy theorists. Crap. Their not even theorists any more but religious zealots. That missing 2 seconds shows the progressive collapse that I was able to detect with my own eye, in the very video that they claim is evidence of a controlled demo. If you weren't operating under the very misguided presumption that the building didn't fall right you would not be seeing all this allegedly supporting evidence. Stop it. You're scaring the children. Go back to square one and examine your primary evidence.
Who is truly the moron here?

EDIT: Theres a difference between looking for evidence and looking for proof.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Grimstad]

Click here to learn more about this warning.