Steven Jones gave me permission to quote some questions which he posted in a private forum. I would be interested to see comments by “debunkers.” I would also appreciate it very much if anyone could post links to relevant pages by “debunkers.”
Steven Jones wrote:
I would like to know if debunkers have any reasonable explanation for:
1. The iron-aluminum-rich spheres shown in our latest paper — where the iron and aluminum contents both exceed 7% and where Silicon or Sulfur is also high (4% or above). (See Figs 3 and 4 in the latest paper, here: Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction (PDF), January 2008).
None of the explanations you summarized covers these observed spheres, that I can see, and these chemical signatures in spheres are quite common in the WTC dust.
By “the explanations you summarized,” he is referring to my re-posting of the quote from Frank Greening in this comment by ref1, here on my blog. ref1 quoted Frank Greening as saying:
To quote Frank Greening: If some of these sources were present before 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires.
Possible natural sources of his particles:
– Pigments and fillers used in plastics
– Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
– Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
– Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
– Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
– NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources
Anyhow, back to Steven Jones’s post:
2. What is their best explanation for the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust? Note that I brought up the “ordinary paint hypothesis” and presented arguments against it during my talk in Boston, Dec. 2007.
The above question was followed by a video link. Note that I do not publish video links on my blog since I myself cannot watch streaming video. (P.S.: I’ve posted the video link in my second post in the thread Steven Jones’s research, and critiques thereof in the “Skeptics” section of the Loose Change forum.)
To continue with Steven Jones’s questions:
Then do the “debunkers” have explanations for:
3. Why NIST refused to show visualizations [e.g., isosurfaces] to accompany their finite-element model? (See: Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? (PDF), September 2006)
4. The bright white flame seen on the corner of the South Tower just minutes before collapse? [NIST, 2005, Fig 9-44]
5. The flowing yellow-orange material from the same general spot, shortly thereafter? [NIST, 2005]
6. Do these guys agree with NIST that the “pancaking theory” of collapse is defunct? [NIST, 2006]
7. What do they make of NIST’s admission to a group of us, including 9/11-family members:
“This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction. … We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” [NIST, Sept. 2007 Response to April 2007 RFC, from NIST (PDF)]
(My quote from Steven Jones’s post has been edited to HTML-ize and prettify links, and to correct a few minor punctuation errors.)