Unlike our anonymous GL's, I took it upon myself to contact Dr. Jones and ask
about the reasoning for the presence of oxygen during the DSC testing.

It turns out that our GL's know nothing about this DSC testing and are simply
blowing smoke. 24 knot smoke at that

THis is my message to and from Dr. Jones received only minutes ago:

Dr. Jones,

I read through your thermite dust study and found it quite fascinating.
You, and the other scientists have ruffled many feathers in the loyalist
community.

The most popular excuse is that the experiments are invalid because
oxygen was present during the DSC testing.

Aside from other proof such as the chemical signature, mircoscopic images
and energy release compared to the control sample, what is the proper
response to those who use the 'oxygen' excuse in a debate?

My thought thus far is that the control sample was also tested in air, yet
the "chip samples" were able to produce a higher energy peak over a shorter
duration of time - proving explosive, and energetic material is present in the dust.

Is this accurate?

Thanks again for your quick reply!
Tino

Tino,

Your answer is a good start -- more importantly, we find that iron oxide has been reduced to iron in the process, as we find spheres in the ignition residue which have more iron than oxygen.

The formation of these iron-rich spheres shows the thermite reaction because:
1. elemental iron is produced, and
2. very high temperatures were reached, beyond that which can be reached by burning hydrocarbons, to produce molten iron and iron oxide -- as shown by the formation of spheres.


We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper.


Further discussion on the nanothermite discovery can be found here:
zelikow.wordpress.com...



-- a discussion between Swedish nanoscientist Prof. Nilsen and myself at the bottom. I have responded to him as you will see, and await a further response from him Here is the start of that discussion:


Attachment from Nilsen (grey) with comments from Jones (white) :

I wish to thank you for a careful reading of the paper. I will answer and comment point by point after initial comments.

You write: “If one first assumes that the red scales are of paint, and on metallic iron. Then it is easy to assume that the paint may be some sort of corrosion inhibition layer.”

We have learned the composition of the “corrosion inhibition” or primer paint actually used on the WTC towers from a NIST document; see attached paper by Prof. Niels Harrit (Univ. of Copenhagen and first author on the paper). We find that zinc, chromium and magnesium are significant components of the paint used – yet these elements are ABSENT from the red material, as demonstrated in Figure 7 of our paper. Thus, the red chips cannot be the primer paint used.

On the other hand, the elements which are present in the red chips, namely aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon (Fig. 7) – are precisely those expected in formulations of nano-thermite as described in the literature and delineated in the paper.

Furthermore, iron oxide is found in grains approximately 100 nm across and aluminum in plate-like structures about 40 nm thick – and these particles appear quite uniform and intimately mixed across the four separate samples. It is this ultra-fine, nano-scale structure of the Al and iron oxide in the red material that is emphasized in the paper, which we expect for nanothermite, and that we ask Prof. Nilsen to address. (The term “nano” does not yet appear in your comments to us, perhaps an oversight.)



Best wishes,


Steven Jones