Trying to catch up on comments while traveling...

"This article (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf) in the Journal of 9/11 Studies points out that at least 60% of the twin towers fell in the footprint. Thus if everything outside the footprint was turned to dust (it wasn't) there would be roughly 254,000 tons of dust.

Since the mass proportion of red/gray chips in the dust (as reported in the new article) is 1/1000. Then we are talking about something on the order of 250 tons which is alot."

Exercise care here: our "roughly estimated" percentage is based on a sample from which chunks of glass and concrete had been removed:
"Fifteen
small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted
from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable
glass and concrete fragments had been removed"

But you are evidently looking at the TOTAL amount of dust, so your estimate of 250 tons is WAY high!

I'm willing to roughly estimate "multi-ton" quantities -- the point is, these are easy to find in a reasonably sized sample of the WTC dust. USGS must have some of these chips in their samples -- and we ought to find a way to get these guys to look in the spirit of true science.

Finally, from the paper: "Further samples are being analyzed to refine this
estimate. "

Thanks for further comments... Can we get this paper announced via letters to the editor, etc.? Let's keep building momentum!

"

OK, we've got this new evidence, we've got Richard Gage and 600 other architects. We've got the facts and the people on our side. There are way more of us than we think. We are just isolated, we don't come together enough in a show of numbers. Can we march on Washington already and demand a new investigation based on this and the plethora of other facts we have? The weather is getting nice again, time to stretch the old bones after the winter. Let's get off our butts and doing something. Does anyone else want to march on Washington and demand 9/11 truth now?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

This report is just the beginning of inquiry into dust sample analysis. The report makes clear that many more people have independently collected dust samples on and around the days after 911. One of its lead authors, Steven Jones, asks not just how the un-reacted chips have gotten into a significant percentage of dust samples (likely 100% of the samples), but also who made these chip materials?

Fragmented high-tech explosives occur in an un-reacted state in WTC dust samples; that much is now a veritable fact. Furthermore, the reacted by-products, including small spheres of iron, are also present in these dust samples. The chemical reaction is predictable. When heated, oxygen that is bonded to iron jumps over and bonds to aluminum. During this jump of oxygen atoms, an enormous quantity of energy is released. It is now forensically documented that this chemical reaction has occurred on 911 at the WTC site.

Just as standard scientific inquiry and methodology have launched shuttles into space, designed life-saving medical procedures, and shown evolution to be the ordering process in biology, the very same scientific principles have identified a chemical reaction that has taken place on 911 in NYC. This chemical fingerprint has not been studied or even acknowledged by your government's inquiry organ, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. They have failed you.

The results of this new report should be regarded as a metaphorical nail in the coffin on this issue. Instead, since the people's acceptance has been hindered by a shattering paradigm, this report is merely an opening to further investigation. At the very least, this new report demands investigation. Why the chips and who made them? These questions will haunt the official version of 911 for times to come.

The people deserve inquiry, openness, and honesty.

There are other dust samples from the WTC. Duetch Bank hired a firm that found some of the same iron spheres Prof Jones found but has made no mention of these chips. These chips were in all 4 samples that the paper was based on, which indicates that the other samples including the Governments own samples from the USGS study would contain these chips as well. From one study....

"As a result of this investigation, it was determined that WTC Dust contains various solid phases that include asbestos and minerals, metals and mercury,organic pollutants and particles of various sizes and different morphological characteristics. The distinctive composition, solid phases, and unique morphological features have allowed for the development of a “WTC Dust Signature”: dust containing particles that, when occurring together, can be considered to act as identifying source tracers."
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMD...

That was from the RJ Lee Group. Prof Jones stated on Michael Woosley visibility 9/11 radio show that he asked these people if they found these chips as well. They are a commercial company and therefor wanted paid to reveal information derived from their work. He agreed but then communications broke down.

But the USGS is a Government agency. According to Prof Jones they wont give an answer to the question, were these chips in their samples as well? We have a right to know this. It looks like these are the people that should answer it. Are these samples still available? Can lawyers for truth help make sure any samples in Gov possesion do not get destroyed but made to answer the question- are these chips in your sample? Why have they not been mentioned if they are? And what is their explanation? If they claim they were never in any of their samples then why are they in everyone elses?

USGS___
For more information, contact:
Dr. Gregg A. Swayze
U.S. Geological Survey
303-236-0925
gswayze@usgs.gov

or
Todd Hoefen
U.S. Geological Survey
303-236-2456
thoefen@usgs.gov

or

Dr. Roger N. Clark
U.S. Geological Survey
303-236-1332
rclark@usgs.gov
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/spectra.samples/wtc01.all.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/sample.location.html

Also, isn't this an idication that if the Gov ever does answer wether they have these chips in their samples, the answer will be no....so we need to find out if these samples are still available and make sure they are not destroyed....

"Conclusions
Six bulk WTC dust samples, collected from locations in different directions, elevations, and from outdoor and indoor environments show relatively consistent abundance ratios of major and minor components. For the purposes of identification of WTC dust, these abundance ratios appear to be within the necessary limits of variability. Furthermore, the critical dust components can be identified easily and quickly using routine SEM and x-ray microanalysis techniques."

"Data presented here suggest that the presence and relative abundance of the three MMVF components – slag wool, rock wool, and soda-lime glass – along with the presence of concrete particles and gypsum could be used as a primary diagnostic signature for WTC dust. Secondary signature components could include FeOx, ZnOx, silica, and chrysotile."
http://www.epa.gov/WTC/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf

"Secondary signature components could include FeOx, ZnOx, silicia, and chrysotile"...could it also include nano thermetic particles? They need to officially say wether these particles exist in their samples.

1. Far from "refusing" to speak before university or other groups to defend the findings of this paper, I welcome such opportunities. I spoke on these results at a colloquium of the physics Dept. in Sept 2008 at Utah Valley University (about 28,000 students last I heard -- a large university). I will be speaking at Univ of Calif at Davis (and in Sacramento) on April 20- May 1, mainly on the red/gray chips and iron-aluminum rich microspheres and high energy yields which they generate upon ignition, and later this year in Australia. I welcome serious questions from other scientists.

2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-
tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."

In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."

This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!

I have an appointment in 3 minutes, gotta run. More later.
Best wishes to all who seek the truth... I admit it helps if you know the science to counteract the noise the debunkers generate. Note that the ultimate test for them is not to rant on forums like JREF but to PUBLISH A REFUTATION IN AN ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL, if they can do it! Until then, our paper stands.

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

What you need to know about "Peer-review"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19780

AUDIO interviews... Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762
and...Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762

Blogger Node regarding Nano-Technology for the layman and historic thermite renditions.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19396

A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario...A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means
by Jim Hoffman Version 1.0, April 3, 2009
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html
Three New Extensive Resources at 911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090406021051532

stj911.org PRESS RELEASE
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice - http://stj911.org/

April 6 & 8, 2009 - 9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark
Interview on TV with Niels Harrit
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19805

Deseret News: "Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19781

Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust

Video by: ThisWeekInFascism
April 04, 2009

audio clips of interview with Dr. Steven Jones 3/25/09: http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered In Dust From The 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

brief info:
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=996

download paper:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...

Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice:
http://stj911.org/

911truth.org:
http://www.911truth.org/

Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Here is Another:

Thermite Scientifically Confirmed in 911

UnslaveMee
April 05, 2009

A team of nine scientists have unearthed startling data from dust gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11. They discovered that scattered throughout the dust samples were red and gray chips of 'active thermitic material', or an un-reacted pyrotechnic explosive.

Link to Open Chemical Physics .. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...

Link to story source .. http://pimpinturtle.com/2009/04/05/sc...

AND ANOTHER: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in 9/11 Dust
femr2
April 05, 2009

http://www.bentham.org/open... Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Ke...
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ope...

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

pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ope...

Super-thermite mainstream in Belgium newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws.

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland/article/detail/812082/2009/04/07...

Dr Jones...just curious after reading the article below. Can silicon serve as a eutectic?
(Last P of "Properties of Aluminum") http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/alumin.htm
[Sidenote: I toured an aluminum melting plant last year. They had very strict policies in order to avoid thermite reactions in the melt. ...it was kind of interesting.]

John A MITCHELL
Herblay France ,

bonjour ,

I have a printed picture (A4) of the photo on the top of the page behind my desk at work. It is great and gives me a chance to show it off, however it is only in black and white. A color photo would be even better.

Is there the same photo in color. I looked up on the internet but have not found one with the same quality.

If someone has this chip photo in color please put it here on 911blogger.com

Thanks

John

Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden.

Hmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lead

Chemical properties
With iron oxides and with elementary iron, lead tetroxide forms insoluble iron(II) and iron(III) plumbates, which is the basis of the anti-corrosive properties of lead-based paints applied to iron objects.
When heated to 500 °C, it decomposes to lead(II) oxide and oxygen. At 580 °C, the reaction is complete.
2 Pb3O4 → 6 PbO + O2
Nitric acid dissolves the lead(II) oxide component, leaving behind the insoluble lead(IV) oxide:
Pb3O4 + 4 HNO3 → PbO2 + 2 Pb(NO3)2 + 2 H2O

Use
Lead tetroxide is most often used as a pigment for undercoat paints for iron objects. Due to its toxicity its use is being limited. In past it was used in combination with linseed oil as a thick, long-protecting anticorrosive paint. Also combination of minium and linen fibres was used for plumbing, now replaced with PTFE tape. Currently it is mostly used for manufacture of glass, especially lead glass. It finds limited use in some amateur pyrotechnics as a relatively potent oxidizer.

Physiological effects
When breathed in, lead tetroxide irritates lungs. In case of high dose, the victim feels metallic taste in mouth, chest pain, and abdominal pain. When ingested, it gets dissolved in the gastric acid and gets absorbed, leading to lead poisoning. High concentrations can be absorbed through skin as well; therefore it is important to keep the safety precautions when working with lead-based paint.