This is an impressive work. Of course, I have always been impressed by the works of you guys, because ya'll put the pavement on the road to 911 Truth.

I am excited and look forward in seeing what happens with this. Great piece and a great plan.

Mucho gracias and appreciation from all of us Truthers out here for all the hard work and sacrifices you guys put into these type of endeavors.

~~~~~~~~~~
On a sidenote: Reed Elsevier Pub has been buying up so many journals that now libraries are having a difficult time being able to purchase as many journals as they used to. I wonder if Elsevier also influences publications indirectly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

Thanks for your tireless and rigorous effort to find the truth.

Best regards,

Juan

--------------------------------------------
WTC 9-11-2001 was a Neocon-Zionist conspiracy,
but Jews DID NOT do 9-11 -
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8914#comment-174921
The WTC was destroyed by controlled demo-
http://www.ae911truth.org

Thanks to all of the authors for this excellent, detailed scientific work!

It is indicting evidence of the government's failure to make even an attempt at a responsible audit or inquiry into the 9/11 crime scene in New York.

Well...THEIR OCT JUST WENT UP IN FLAMES!

Thanks again, men.
God bless.

AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Thank you for your diligent pursuit of justice.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Having used SEM and subsequently XEDS for elemental analysis in my own research...it is certainly a definitive method of identification...this is great stuff!!

Come on world....please, please, please see this work and understand what it means!!!

"This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper."

OMG. Waiting with bated breath. I can't imagine what'll happen if and when it gets published. Thank you for all your fabulous work! =o)

Excellent work.

If I understood correctly, the above paper ("Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction") has been accepted for publication in a scientific journal. In the meantime, it has been published in the Journal of 911 Studies (which, of course, is also a scientific journal).

In addition, another, different paper written by two of the authors will be published in a mainstream technical journal, hopefully within a few months.

Is this right?

If so, this is great! I hope there won't be any setbacks. That in mind, it may be best not to advertise the names of the journals until everything is certain.

When a paper such as this is written, I believe it should be offered to as many relevant journals as possible -- at once.

A few comments (some of them cosmetic) on the above article:

I find the argument highly persuasive and easy to follow (at least as easy as it can be for a layman).

I would add an empty line before each indented quotation. There is already an empty line after indented quotations.

"Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will
enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit
firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others."

This well-intentioned sentence sounds superfluous, as I suspect that no building can be designed to survive a controlled demolition.

Mr. Jones and Company: I've been defending your work as well as 9/11 Truth on JREF for quite some time. They have brought up some points I would like you to address so I can defend the work with full guns blazing. If we can address these, I plan on having a construction engineer from Purdue as well as Physics teacher examine the work as well to get their thoughts.
I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I was able to counter the sample claims. The others I can't really address from a layman's perspective.

1. In section 2 (Methods), the authors fail to specify whether the detector on the SEM is a silicon lithium Si(Li) detector or a silicon drift detector (SDD). This is actually quite important since the SDD has a high instance of coincidence peaking which can cause misidentification of certain elements. Looking at the spectra, it appears to be a Si(Li) detector, but that's an educated guess at best.
2. On page 2, in the section "Results", the author states, "The spherules found in the WTC dust were predominately iron-rich" without supporting his contention with a statistical analysis of the iron content of the particles available for analysis. He might mean that the particles he analyzed were iron rich, but that indicates heavy operator bias in selecting particles.
3. The author makes no mention of the particle correction routine used to determine the composition of the particles. He further makes no indication of standards collected, or of calibrations run to determine what the relative deviation of a standardless particle quant would be. This is an extremely important point. Jones is reporting "approximate" particle compositions to one decimal place, indicating that his analysis has a deviation of +/- 0.1%. It, of course, would be helpful if Jones were to actually report the actual two standard normal deviation, but I think we've already established that such considerations are for real research papers, not Jones's dreck. Anyway, J.T. Armstrong in Electron Probe Quantitation (pp 296) reported 2 standard deviations for particle analysis using conventional ZAF corrections as +/- 55% relative. In the case of the iron composition given as a caption in Figure 3, it should read Fe = 10.7% +/- 5.9%.
4. The caption under figure 4 states "The Fe-S-Al-O signature is striking, nothing like the signature of structural steel." This is a particularly appalling statement intending to somehow imply that all of the iron rich spherules from his "dust sample" had to be from structural steel or gypsum. Similar to what Dr. Greening has already pointed out, we can't simply assume that the only source of iron in the WTC dust was from steel. Nor can we assume that the temperatures necessary to vaporize the individual constituent elements of those spheres is what caused them to form in the first place. I mentioned rice husk ash in an earlier post which has an abundance of iron rich particles despite rather low burning temperatures. Crazy Chainsaw has also provided information regarding the vaporization of molybdenum at temperatures far below those required to vaporize the pure constituent metal.
5. The caption under figure 5 states "The O/Fe ratio of 1.5 suggests that Fe2O3 is present, iron (III) oxide." Regarding my analysis in point 3, Jones can not state with any certainty that the O/Fe ratio is actually 1.5. Furthermore, Jones seems completely unaware that hydrogen atoms are not fluoresced during XEDS. This means that Jones cannot, with any certainty, determine if the particles are Fe2O3 or Fe(OH)2,3,4 or any variant thereof.
6. On page 4, Jones reports the following, "No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports." This is further evidence that he simply rejects the possibility that fires caused this ash sample. The USGS report's purpose was not to comment on the source of the iron rich spheres. In fact, I can't imagine why any researcher, when presented with a sample of ash from a building fire would think twice about finding iron.
7. On page 4, Jones reports, "A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 Liberty Street shows a “mean of composition” of “Fe spheres” of 5.87% which is very high compared with “Fe spheres” found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% [1]." Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that Jones has decided to compare apples to oranges. He has chosen to compare the composition of ordinary building dust to ash from a building fire. And he thinks it's strange. Lunacy.
8. The next several pages operate on the following argument: Because the temperature required to vaporize a pure metal is really high, these spheres cannot form in normal office fires. Of course, this argument is completely useless unless you compare the results to a similar office fire or across a series of office fires. Jones is expecting the scientific community at large to believe that such elements are not found in office fires because he says so.
9. Finally, the appendix notes where Jones got his samples from. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't understand how any legitimate scientist could possibly believe the validity of Jones's source. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center. Suffice it to say that such forensic handling would certainly not be admissible in any court.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers