The Problem with Microspheres
Steven Jones claims that the discovery of metallic microspheres found within the WTC dust is proof of the use of thermite to destroy the 3 towers. Are microspheres the "smoking gun" Steven Jones claims?
Frank Greening, PhD Chemist, has asked some thought-provoking questions concerning possible multiple origins of these said micro-spheres. The author, among others, attempted to stimulate an open discussion between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on this subject to help get to the bottom of this issue.
Listed below is a summary of possible objections to considering WTC microspheres as a "smoking gun".
When I e-mailed Frank to sum up his objections to the microspheres argument, he wrote me the following reply:
You ask me for a list of objections to the notion that iron-rich microspheres in samples of WTC dust are evidence for the use of thermite to bring down the Twin Towers. I think my main objection is that there appears to be a whole variety of microspheres with different chemical signatures. This suggests that most of the microspheres have a natural, chaotic, origin from many different source materials, all of which have simple explanations for their presence in the WTC remains.
However, I do need to see more X-ray spectra with an indication of how abundant a particular type of sphere is. (I think Jones claims to have analysed "hundreds" of particles!) Right now I think I have seen about 8 spectra and, as I say, these spectra are all quite different - some have Si, some do not; some have S, some do not; some have Ca, some do not; some have Cu, some do not...... and so on.
There ARE certain types of microspheres that would perhaps be hard to explain in the debris of an "ordinary" office fire, but so far I have not seen any in the analytical data on the WTC dust published by Jones or anyone else.
Cheers,
Frank
Frank and Steven's E-mail Exchanges
Frank posted on the JREF forum on 12-26-07
Quote:
Some Recent E-mail Exchanges with Steven Jones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven,
I would like to contribute to this research, so I will answer your questions
about OXYGEN, etc.......
It is well known that oxygen is not well Characterized by EDX, especially EDX done on old instruments. In fact, if you look in McCrone's book, which was published in 1973, none of the samples show oxygen peaks! Thus we have entry 432 "Zinc Oxide" which only has peaks for zinc! Clearly, the absence of oxygen peaks does not mean the absence of oxygen in the sample! The
spectra in McCrone's book were probably recorded with an electronic "gate" to eliminate low energy X-rays entirely. This was done because so-called
pulse pile-up of low-energy X-rays in first eneration EDX instruments caused detector saturation. Thus the low-energy peaks were not recorded. This is why the lightest element reported in any sample listed in McCrone's
book is Na with an X-ray at 1.04 keV. Nevertheless, McCrone's Particle Atlas
remains a very useful source of X-ray data of dusts, minerals, etc.
Even using a modern EDX instrument I would be very careful about quoting a quantitative oxygen number. Why is this? Well, light elements like carbon, oxygen and nitrogen emit very low energy X-rays ~ 0.5 keV or less. These X-rays are not very penetrating and have trouble escaping from the surface of the sample and passing through the window of the detector. However, oxygen also tends to chemisorb on the surface of many materials, enhancing the oxygen peak. The net result is that oxygen is not reliably measured by
EDX. For this reason I used Auger electron analysis, with a touch of argon-ion sputtering to removed chemisorbed species, to quantify elements
like C, O, N, in fly ash. This technique does not use X-ray emission to detect elements.
Now as for the particular spectrum in McCrones's book I forwarded to you, it was just one example of a combustion-related material that has microspheres and high iron. I will forward the spectrum of the incinerator ash as well.
It shows microspheres and iron is present in significant concentrations too. But please remember McCrone's sample was NOT magnetically separated. I am quite sure a magnetically separated ash sample, such as the one you have for the WTC dust, would show high iron by definition!
And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile.
Regards, Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Query
Frank,
1. As you read my query, you'll notice that I said I thought some sort of
cooperation could be worked out -- with you. When I made reference to those "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries I was not thinking about you , but rather two or three others, out of perhaps a couple hundred collaborators I have worked with. I learned to be very careful before forming
collaborations.
At the same time, it is true I would have to get to know you better before
establishing a full collaboration if such were desired.
2. "Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"
a. Where is the oxygen? Oxygen is a major component of almost all the
iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied -- often the PRINCIPAL component.
b. How do these "fly-ash" spheres form, given the high melting point of
iron (about 1530 C)? Do the incinerators use forced-air?
Thanks for your comments, which I will consider more tomorrow.
Steven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Frank,
1. The plot you provided is from burning COAL, not paper, plastics, wood
etc. Or are you saying there was coal in the WTC?
2. Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? The oxygen content is
significant, yet the spectrum appears to be skewed, cut off at low X-ray
energies... please explain -- how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be
present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown -- not
the case in the one example you provided!
All of the iron-aluminum spheres I have found in the WTC dust show abundant
OXYGEN. Often O is the principal element in the spheres.
3. Can you get a Fe-O-K-Al-Si spectrum (with oxygen, O) and sphere
production from burning office materials? A few examples please -- if you
can do it.
4. This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the
caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant
difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps
occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron
melts at 1538 C)
Steven J
Reply sent Dec 25th:
Steven,
So, Steven, may I review where we presently stand in this debate. You have carried out EDX analysis of samples of WTC dust and claim that two types of particles detected by you in the dust serve as evidence for the use of thermite/thermate incendiary devices during the destruction of the towers. These particles are microspheres and thin “chips” that are iron and aluminum-rich. Since thermite is essentially a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum, and spherical particles are evidence of melting, you believe that Fe and Al in microspheres can only be attributable to thermite residues. (Am I correct so far?)
Now here you have me at a disadvantage because you have not published or made any of your EDX spectra available to me. The best I have to work with are video clips of some talks you have given where you show some overheads of EDX spectra. If I am to really get to grips with your research I need to see copies of the spectra. And, by the way, I notice you immediately posted the spectrum I sent to you on 9//blogger, but did not post one of your spectra for comparison. Why not? My spectrum is from a book that is readily available in any good science library, but the same cannot be said about your spectra.
Anyway, to return to the debate, I have countered your argument that the WTC dust contains thermite residues with the suggestion that your particles are more likely to be fly ash from the combustion of materials in the Twin Towers. As evidence I have offered two examples of EDX spectra that I found in McCrone’s Particle Atlas. In one of my e-mails I gave you some approximate peak height ratios from these spectra as an indicator of the elemental ratios in the samples because the Particle Atlas does not give any quantitative analytical data.
I know full well that peak height ratios in EDX spectra are not directly proportional to the elemental concentrations in the sample. There are X-ray absorption and emission coefficients that need to be considered which are sample-matrix dependent. Nevertheless, peak height ratios do offer some approximate indication of the sample composition, especially for elements with similar atomic weights. Thus I have at least demonstrated that iron and aluminum-rich microspheres may be produced by the combustion of carbonaceous materials such as coal, wood, cardboard and paper.
Now I see you are quibbling about me sending you the spectrum of coal ash, asking me somewhat rhetorically: Was coal being burnt in the Twin Towers? Here, I would say you are missing my point which is that the mineral matter in natural carbon-based fuels forms an ash residue after the fuel is combusted that always contains Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe �" precisely the most abundant elements, (after the ubiquitous oxygen), in your WTC samples as revealed by their EDX spectra!
And here it is my turn to quibble with a statement you made in your Boston talk of Decembe15th, 2007. In this talk you compare the EDX spectra of red chips and microspheres found in WTC dust samples with the spectrum from commercial thermite and claim that all the spectra are essentially the same because they show peaks from O, Al, Fe, K, and Si. Now this is indeed quite strange because Si is definitely NOT an ingredient of commercial thermite. What is even stranger is that in your Boston talk you do not mention S as a component of the microspheres. Yet sulfur was so important to you just a few months ago �" you know, back when you claimed that S was a key ingredient in the thermate variety of thermite used to demolish the Twin Towers. Now apparently, S has undergone a transmutation into Si! Perhaps this is why in your Boston talk you use the word “thermite” in place of your usual “thermate”. So what is it Steven: thermite or thermate?
But the presence of Si in your samples is indeed very significant because Si is always found in the ash produced by the combustion of wood, paper or municipal waste. So let’s focus on ash from these materials because wood, paper and municipal waste would be quite similar to the office combustibles feeding the WTC fires. Furthermore, municipal solid waste MSW combustor ash is well characterized. See for example:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/mswcal.htm
Thus we see that MSW ash typically contains up to 21 % Si, 8 % Ca, 8 % Fe, 1 % K and 5 % Al. Spherical particles up to 60 microns in diameter have also been reported in MSW incinerator ash formed when this type of waste material is burned at ~ 1000 deg C:
http://suwic.group.shef.ac.uk/posters/p-ash.pdf
There is also considerable data available on the properties of ash from the combustion of pulp and paper waste. See for example:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/o...32/MQ64248.pdf
Here we find that Si, Al, Ca and Fe are the main elements found in ash produced by burning pulp and paper wastes. In addition the major portion of the fly ash thus derived is formed as molten droplets of fused inorganic material found in the as-received pulp and paper feed. It is reported that fusion of minerals such as quartz, feldspar and clay results in the formation of glassy spherical particles.
So, Steven, I think you need to eliminate all of these naturally occurring spherical particles that are routinely formed in office fires �" particles like your WTC microspheres that are rich in Si, Al, Ca, Fe, and K - before you start suggesting that such particles could only come from thermite, (themate?) combustion residues.
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: High temps needed to form iron-rich spheres, meaning of ratios
"Only the very lowest melting substances form spheres." -- quoting directly from the figure caption of the spectrum you sent. I agree with THAT comment. The caption also mentions "metal foil" as part of the incinerated material, and I suspect melted aluminum would be present. NOT melted iron! Which leads again to the question I posed to you yesterday, based on the first spectrum you sent, which you seem to have thus far neglected:
4. This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron melts at 1538 C)
With regard to the lack of oxygen peaks in the older EDX machine you showed, I understand the difficulty these machines had -- and accept your explanation that an older EDX system was used for these spectra. The version I am using was installed very recently and is state-of-the-art. I will ask the lab director how good the oxygen percentages are in this new system.
Meanwhile, this new system does provide percentages of Fe, Al, Oxygen, etc.
So I have to ask -- what is the meaning of the ratios you provided, e.g.,
"Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"
When you answer this, we can make more direct comparisons with the percentages provided by the new EDS system. (Take your time as I'm traveling to be with family for Christmas. Merry Christmas! btw, and I wish you a speedy recovery as a friend tells me you had surgery recently.)
Thanks for the conversation.
Steven
PS -- some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.
A fellow with the username "Crazy Chainsaw" posted via the JREF forum on 12-26:
Quote:
Frank at that time I did not know that magnetite was removed from fly ash used in concrete by magnetic drum separation.
Basically a big barrel filled with magnets that rolls over the fly ash, and picks out the magnetite so it can be sold.
Basically the same technique used by Dr. Jones. However there are certain uses of Fly ash that do not use magnetic drum separation.
Most of those use dry fly ash directly from the boilers.
They include addition of fly ash in slurry walls to increase the strength of those walls, and as drilling mud.
Filler and road base, soil stabilization, asphalt paving, and others, I also as you do believe the fires would have created micro spheres on their own from Chlorides and sulfates, similar to those in waste incinerators.
Dr. Jones has to show that the micro spheres are unique to thermite, or he has no evidence at all.
I am still working on a list of wire insulation plastics, Used in the towers, I would much rather research things that go boom when heated anyway.
That does seem to be what I am good at, well the next move is of course left up to Dr. Jones, he needs to show some evidence that he actually has any evidence.
Frank, posted 12-26:
Quote:
I do not believe that a temperature of 1536 deg C (or higher!) is necessary to form iron-rich microspheres. These type of particles are formed in incinerators that never get above 1200 deg C. In fact most of the chemistry involved in forming microspheres takes place in the temperature range 600 - 1000 deg C, well within the range of temperatures expected for the WTC fires. Think about it, if a waste incinerator gets above 1536 deg C the incinerator walls, which are usually made of carbon steel or low alloy steels, will melt!
Frank, 12-26:
Quote:
The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the m.p. of pure iron at ~ 1537 deg C is a complex process but is possible in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. Iron is transported as a volatile di or tri-chloride. FeCl2 has a m.p. of 677 deg C and allows "active" corrosion to occur with iron wastage rates as high as 100 g/m^2 per hour. The iron chloride is relatively unstable and decomposes but the iron does not wind up as a pure iron microsphere. As the very least it will be oxide (probably Fe3O4) coated and alloyed with other metals such as Al. Fly ash usually contains mullite, Al6Si2O13. This readily combines with iron oxide at ~ 1000 deg C to form an iron-rich aluminosilicate microsphere on cooling. Other elements such as K and Ca are also readily incorporated into these melts. This is the chemistry of CLAY minerals! As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite.
More Greening-Jones E-mails
Frank, posted 12-27
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 317 Quote:
: More Greening/Jones E-mails
Location: Chicago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items
Steven,
I guess you didn't spend too much time reading my last e-mail! You know the part where I said:
"Thus we see that MSW ash typically contains up to 21 % Si, 8 % Ca, 8 % Fe, 1 % K and 5 % Al. Spherical particles up to 60 microns in diameter have also been reported in MSW incinerator ash formed when this type of waste material is burned at ~ 1000 deg C".
I also provided a link to a site that includes micrographs of microspheres in MSW ash. Did you check the link out? I guess not!
And as for coal fired boilers, a little research will show you that iron-rich microspheres are a well documented component of coal fly ash even though pulverized coal combustion temperatures are less than 1400 deg C. So you must accept that iron-rich microspheres do not need temperatures of 1538 deg C or higher to form in a coal/wood/paper combustion environment. If you cannot accept this fact there is no point in continuing this "debate"
The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the m.p. of pure iron at ~ 1537 deg C is a complex process but is possible, indeed probable, in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. The WTC fires produced lots of HCl from the combustion of PVC and oxides of sulfur were present from sources such as lead acid batteries, residual fuel oil and gypsum. In such a chemical soup, iron is transported as volatile di or tri-chlorides. FeCl2 has a m.p. of 677 deg C and allows "active" corrosion to occur with iron wastage rates as high as 100 g/m^2 per hour. The iron chloride is relatively unstable and eventually decomposes but the iron does not wind up as a pure iron microsphere. At the very least it will be oxide coated, (probably with Fe3O4), and alloyed with other metals such as Al. Fly ash usually contains mullite, Al6Si2O13. Pure mullite has a high m.p., ~ 1828 deg C, but small additions of K2O and/or CaO lower the m.p to below 1200 deg C. These complex Al/Si/K/Ca/O phases readily combine with iron oxide at ~ 1000 deg C to form iron-rich calcium/potassium aluminosilicate microspheres on cooling. Steven, as long as your microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite.
And on the topic of Si in commercial thermite, I was always under the impression that thermite is a mixture of finely divided iron oxide and aluminum with small amounts of accelerants/oxidizers based on K, Mn Sr or Ba compounds. You, on the other hand, claim this is NOT the case simply because you detected Si in your thermite combustion residues. Did you carry out your thermite tests in a sand pit? I ask this question not to be facetious; I simply wonder why anyone would add a silicon compound to thermite! Anyway, please provide a reference for your assertion that thermite usually contains Si - a manufacturer's analysis sheet would be helpful in this regard.....
One final comment:
May I recommend that you read two very interesting articles by Ken Kosanke et al.:
"Characterization of Pyrotechnic Reaction Residue Particles by SEM / EDS" in J. Forensic Sci. 48(3), 531 (2003)
"Pyrotechnic Reaction Residue Particle Analysis" in J. Forensic Sci. 51(2), 296 (2006).
These articles discuss the problem of identifying pyrotechnic reaction particles in the presence of soil or "dirt". On page 535 of the first article we read:
"Although a little too simplistic to make it a general rule, most common geologic particles will have silicon and calcium as the most prevalent X-ray peaks, whereas pyrotechnic material will generally have little, if any, of these elements present."
Then on page 299 of the second article we see two EDS spectra labelled as "Dirt" and "Dirt plus pyrotechnic reaction residues". The spectra are essentially identical with peaks, (in order of intensity), identified as: Si, Al, Fe, Ca, K, S.
We can debate this in the New Year, if you wish, but until you can show me that iron-rich microspheres COULD NOT be present in the WTC dust without "added" thermite, I think we won't have much to talk about!
Regards,
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: High temps needed to form iron-rich spheres, meaning of ratios
Frank,
Your latest response ignores (again) my questions in (4.) below.
Further, you state: "Now this is indeed quite strange because Si is definitely NOT an ingredient of commercial thermite."
This statement is demonstrably incorrect, and indeed I demonstrated that Si is in fact a component of the sample of commercial thermite I tested -- both in the unreacted thermite sample (in with iron oxide chips) and in the spheres which formed from reacting the commercial thermite. This observation I made was and is important to the discussion. Experiments trump authoritative statements from you or anyone else.
I am leaning to suggest we take this discussion to a forum, such as PhysOrg, beginning January 2 (as I leave town tomorrow once more, and then will be with family for New Years' eve and day). This would also permit further posting of PPT slides, or EDS plots and SEM images, as I did some time ago on a forum of STJ911.org.
Let's think about this... Jan. 3 would be as soon as I could reasonably begin such a public discussion.
Steve
PS -- Carroll -- you will have to flesh out your question about PAC's and ferric chlorides, put into context of the WTC destruction, so I can fathom what you are asking when you say "What about PAC's..." etc.
Steven J
On Dec 24, 2007 9:16 AM, Steven Jones wrote:
"Only the very lowest melting substances form spheres." -- quoting directly from the figure caption of the spectrum you sent. I agree with THAT comment. The caption also mentions "metal foil" as part of the incinerated material, and I suspect melted aluminum would be present. NOT melted iron! Which leads again to the question I posed to you yesterday, based on the first spectrum you sent, which you seem to have thus far neglected:
4. This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron melts at 1538 C)
With regard to the lack of oxygen peaks in the older EDX machine you showed, I understand the difficulty these machines had -- and accept your explanation that an older EDX system was used for these spectra. The version I am using was installed very recently and is state-of-the-art. I will ask the lab director how good the oxygen percentages are in this new system.
Meanwhile, this new system does provide percentages of Fe, Al, Oxygen, etc.
So I have to ask -- what is the meaning of the ratios you provided, e.g.,
"Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"
When you answer this, we can make more direct comparisons with the percentages provided by the new EDS system. (Take your time as I'm traveling to be with family for Christmas. Merry Christmas! btw, and I wish you a speedy recovery as a friend tells me you had surgery recently.)
Thanks for the conversation.
Steven
PS -- some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.
On Dec 24, 2007 7:39 AM, greening wrote:
Here is the incinerator ash spectrum. You will note that the caption reads "partly burned paper, wood, plastic, etc...
Frank
Frank posted on 12-28-07
Quote:
Chainsaw:
We occasionally found maghemite in corrosion films on our nuclear reactor pipework. It is difficult to identify unequivocally because its XRD pattern is a lot like magnetite.
Metamars:
You can analyse microspheres using a wide variety of techniques. Surface analysis using electron or ion beams allows you to look at the detailed structure of each particle and has resolution down to 1 micron or less. The other way to go is to do a destructive wet chemical dissolution of a sample, (followed by AA or ICP), to get a total (average) elemental composition of a bunch of microspheres. This approach would be useful to get information on minor elements such as Mn, Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Zn, Pb, etc. These minor elements could provide useful "fingerprints" that might help explain the origin of the spheres. I used to have access to all these techniques, but I doubt that I could get a "freebee" from my old buddies to analyse WTC dust.
By the way, I think the combustion of computers and other electronics, as well as paint pigments and plastic "fillers" could all contribute to the formation of iron-rich microspheres. I still say that thermite should give only Al, Fe and O residues with very little Si, K, Ca and Ti. Jones need to focus on particles that have no Si, K, Ca, Ti..... that's if he can find such particles!
and
Quote:
One point I would like to clarify is that there are obviously several different types of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. Some appear to be similar to fly ash and consist of iron-calcium-potassium alumino silicates. Others are mostly aluminum-iron alloys with an oxide coating -these would be of greatest interest! There are also some that are almost pure iron which are probably cutting/welding debris. Right now Prof. Jones is sitting on a set of spectra obtained from many such particles. We need to see ALL of these spectra and classify them according to their major/minor peaks and relative occurrence in the set of spectra. I trust that Prof. Jones will show us EVERYTHING he has in this regard and NOT be selective.
Frank, on 1-15-08:
Quote:
Chainsaw:
Only time will tell if Dr. Jones will share any more information with us....
By the way, here is another thought on this topic:
There are probably many minor, or trace, elements to look for in the WTC microspheres whose concentrations relative to a major element like Fe or Al could provide key forensic evidence as to the contribution of a particular source, ( e.g. paint, ash, electronics, welding fume, thermite, etc), to the total mass of microspheres.
However, energy dispersive X-ray analysis is not sensitive enough to detect and quantify with sufficient precision many of the elements I am thinking of. Thus I would use other analytical techniques (e.g., AA, ICP, NAA, etc), to get some concentrations for some key minor (i.e. less than say 1 %) elements.
Thus I would look for Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Sb and Mo in the microspheres and compare the values with the concentration to Fe. This could potentially tell you where the Fe is coming from, (e.g. structural steel, galvanized steel, welding electrodes, etc). Also I would analyse for Ag and compare it to Al. Why this one? Well did you know that the aluminum alloy facade on the Twin Towers was actually an Al-Ag alloy specially developed for this purpose by Alcoa. No Ag in microspheres containing Al means the Al is not coming from the Al facade....
Frank on 1-16:
Quote:
Lapman:
Dr. Jones has sent me some EDS spectra of WTC dust but I have agreed not to discuss them on a public forum such as this so I will keep my word...
TAM asks on 1-16:
Quote:
You know I respect the "keeping quiet" out of respect for his request...that is not the issue.
The issue, in my opinion, is his (Jones) DELIBERATE refusal to make his samples and data PUBLIC for INDEPENDENT scrutiny with resulting refutation OR confirmation of his findings.
And yes, I am aware that such things go on, but I am also aware of how WEAK any conclusions produced from such FLAWED science are.
Can any one, ANY ONE, give me one GOOD, VALID reason why Jones would continue to keep his samples private and unexposed to independent analysis? If his findings are legitimate, would not an independent analysis confirming them be THE BEST THING THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN TO THE TRUTH MOVEMENT???
and Chainsaw answers:
Quote:
It is a publication issue, the material must not be made available before publication.
If published it will be available though the publication, Dr. Greening is also I believe thinking of doing a publication, so some of his evidence as well can not be released.
My work will probably not be published so I do not think it matters that much.
while Frank remarks:
Quote:
Perhaps Jones is simply being very careful and following in the foot steps of NIST:
"I'll trade you my microsphere report for your WTC 7 report".
I can tell you this, however, that I have not seen enough data from Dr. Jones to carry out any scientific assessment of the origin of the WTC microspheres.
But on the other hand Jones is not obliged to show me anything!
Frank posts on 3-1-08:
Quote:
Sizzler:
I am still researching the WTC dust as best I can! I just wish Jones would publish all his spectra and let everyone have a look at them. He is not helping anyone by acting coy!
I have tried to engage Jones in a serious debate on the WTC dust and I think the record shows that I have not attacked him personally. Nevertheless Jones did not answer my last e-mail to him (from about 2 months ago) so I am somewhat stymied in commenting further on his research.
As it now stands I see Jones prevaricating and flip-flopping on these microspheres. So I have plenty of questions and very few answers....... How abundant are the spheres really? How does Jones rule out welding/cutting debris in the dust from construction activities? Do the spheres all contain K and S, and/or Si? Has Jones considered AlFeSi eutectic melting? What about the Mn content? Has he or anyone else tried XRD on some samples to look for species such as FeAl2O4 or AlFe2?
If Jones really thinks he is onto something he should just spell it out.
The last we hear of Frank on this issue is on 3-14:
Quote:
Sizzler:
The Figure 5 spectrum is what I would expect for welding fume. I say this because of the Mn enrichment relative to Mn in A-36 or A-242 structural steels.
To which Sizzler, who argues for CD, replies:
Quote:
And he characterizes it as being "rather typical".
hym...
At this point the thread, and this interesting argument, just "up and died".
Inconclusive Conclusion
It seems pretty clear to the author that we have an interesting debate going on over the question of microspheres...or rather we would if Steven Jones would actually participate in it.
Pretending that Frank Greening doesn't exist does not bolster Steven's case.
The author has posted the e-mail exchanges in their entirety so that the reader can form their own opinions.