An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

reply to post by Cassius666


At least one editor has resigned from Bentham because the paper was routed around them. The 'peer review' was a put up job and editors who have their reputations on the line will not allow such to happen. I have reviewed many journal papers in my career and I can say that any competent chemist would never have allowed this to be published as it is.
Samples of the original paint would have to be scraped from the beams and then the sample would have to have a chain of custody. Running any sample surreptitiously is not a good plan as it casts doubt on the results. For claims such as Jones is making, multiple analyses would be necessary. The best way to do this, if one could get the samples, would be to send them to several nationally recognized analytical laboratories along with samples of the dust. Replicates from multiple labs would be more believeable than some back-door runs by someone with an axe to grind.
I believe that this is unlikely to happen even if the samples are available. It would be more facile to correctly analyze the existing samples, as previously suggested, beginning with XRD. These are common instruments and costs would be minimal. A local industrial laboratory could provide the analysis and interpretation, removing Jones from the chain and providing an unbiased analysis. If the Jones team is honest about wanting to characterize the red chips, they could get donations from their supporters to do this. Results suggesting thermite would then instigate further analyses and more investigation. Jones would be a hero for bringing this forward and get all the limelight that he desires.

Given the history of repercussion against people who spoke out against the official conspiracy theory the reason why some scientists retired over the paper is a reason for debate in itself.

It is known what paint was used to coat the tower. An pure sample might not yield the same result as a tainted sample, but at the very least we can see if it is similiar. The curve of protective paint should look distinctively different than say the curve of black powder.

reply to post by Cassius666


Comparison DSC analyses are more difficult and would not provide the information that the XRD would. The easiest alternative is XRD and better characterization of his existing samples. That way there will be no doubt as to what is being analyzed as there was with the paint sample in Jones paper.

Can from a DSC reading be determined if an material is explosive? If I put black powder into a dsc machine, does the curve tell me if the material is explosive?

bump

reply to post by Cassius666


I have seen a DSC of black powder in a sealed ampule and the trace did not exhibit any characteristics that would suggest an explosive nature. An open boat DSC of a known explosive showed the electronic noise associated with sudden sample loss. I didn't run either of these and would have to look through the literature to find them.

What is the DSC curve consistent with?

Originally posted by Cassius666
What is the DSC curve consistent with?

It is consistent with an exotherm. In air, a DSC exotherm of a carbonaceous material is likely combustion.

DSC traces are not based on intrinsic properties of the analyte. They are dependent on the conditions of analysis. An example of intrinsic properties would be an IR absorbtion spectrum. Functional groups [such as
-OH, C=O, -CH3, -NO2, etc.) always absorb in the same regions and this allows the analyst to make conclusions as to the functional groups present in the sample.
An example of extrinsic properties would be a gas chromatogram. The trace depends on column packing or coating, column diameter and length, flow rate, gas, detector type, temperature ramp, injection size, and solvent. Looking at an IR, one can make some immediate conclusions about the sample. Looking at a GC, one may be able to say that there are some minimum number of components, and that the early large peak is most likely solvent containing the analyte, but that is about it. DSC is the same way. The shape of the traces depend on the variables of analysis.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Spelling is nothing compared to chemistry or the mechanics of military-grade energetic materials.

Is this how low you have stooped? Your entire argument is based on an irrelevant typo?

What is the point in social commentary on technical issues, when you could just do the technical work and make your commentary something that can be verified?

As pteridine says, the experiment needs to be run under argon, or it is meaningless. By what stretch of the imagination is this an unverified point? If you don't understand the significance, go to school.

originally posted by: pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

Simply state your case. Show the analyses of the DSC traces. Reference whatever you like. I expect that the Jones team is helping you with this and that is alright, too. This is really their issue so they have a vested interest in the outcome plus deniability, should they have cause to invoke it.
As an aside, when you speak to them next, ask them whatever became of their plans for a second paper that would answer all of these criticisms. You once provided a link to the transcript of Jones interview on Norwegian radio. At that time [June? 2009] Jones discussed a second paper. He said: "This paper is nearing completion and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. I am more involved in the TEM and XRD studies which are also being vigorously pursued."

What happened to the second paper?

a reply to: neutronflux

Hi flux, it's been a while. The last post I saw on this was: off-guardian.org... As far as I know, the second paper was never published. Can you guess why?
It is so apparent that this is primer paint that it is hardly worth discussing. My various posts on ATS should have killed it using Jones' own data which, as a physicist, he should have understood. He is a lost soul trying to remain relevant. Harrit is an embarrassment as a chemist.
A quick search will get more hits in favor of a super secret thermite because real scientists don't bother with refuting the obvious again and again. Thermite won't work as a thin layer, no matter what. Even in bulk, thermite is untimable and ineffective for sequential demolitions which is why it is not used.
The actual secret is the incompetence of the Federal agency leaders and the substandard construction of the towers. These are now almost 20 years in the past and it is unlikely that there will be any reinvestigations unless QAnon reveals something. Even then it will be collusion and not demolition. The plan was to hit the towers and let whatever happened, happen. No need for anything else. In fact, damaged towers requiring dangerous disassembly would have extended the disruption for many years.
Thermite theory is done except for the technically uneducated new folk who wander along and 'discover' it every few years.

a reply to: pteridine

I think Jones gained a taste for publicity from his dealings with cold fusion in the 80’s? He attempted to regain notoriety through the truth movement.

I think Pink Floyd touched on this mindset in their song Wish You Were Here.

Did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

genius.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Jones is attention deprived and loves the limelight. He thinks his opinions are important. Bye, Stevie.