I attach an XEDS plot for red material from a red/gray chip found in

WTC dust -- a separate sample from any of the FOUR in our paper, from

Dr. H<name redacted>.

His results confirm several major features of our results (compare our

Figure 7, for example).

Notice that there is NO magnesium or chromium in this material so that

it cannot be the Tnemec paint identified by Dr. Greening.



On 4/9/09, D. <name and email redacted> wrote:

> > Steven, I have some questions to defend your study more accurate, as the

> > "debunkers" already tried to seed scepticism:

> >

> > What's about the magnetic issue? Does elemental Al can be magnetic? Does

> > some kind of magnetic behavior rule out the classification as

> > super-thermite?



THE MATERIAL IS ATTRACTED BY A STRONG MAGNET. ELEMENTAL AL CANNOT BE

MAGNETIC, NO. THIS BEHAVIOR CAN BE DUE TO GAMMA-FE2O3, AS ONE

EXAMPLE, AND IN ANY CASE DOES NOT RULE OUT CLASSIFICATION AS

SUPER-THERMITE.



What about the traces Kevin produces in his own tests- were

> > they magnetic either?

I DON'T KNOW, I DID NOT TRY TO USE A MAGNET ON HIS MATERIAL -- WHICH

WAS PRODUCED NEAR THE END OF THE STUDY AND LONG AFTER THE PAPER WAS

SUBMITTED TO THE JOURNAL TOCPJ.



What's about gamma-Al2O3 (?) That stuff is not a

> > residue of thermite, or is it?

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS FORM OF AL2O3, GAMMA-AL2O3.

> >

> > My point is: primer paint isn't magnetic either. Can you clear that up?



WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THIS MATERIAL IS PRIMER PAINT! INDEED, IF WHAT

YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN THE FACT THAT THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE MAGNETIC IS

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT.

> >

> > One poster on DU claims, that the superthermite probe ignites about 430°

> > Celsius means it could not made steel melt- but to mix up igniting

> > temperature and burning temperature is wrong, isn't it?



OF COURSE YOU ARE RIGHT, AND THE POSTER ON DU IS WRONG.

> > Furthermore as I translate the Jim Hoffman paper my understanding is that

> > it's a question of energy density and energy release rate, whose rates could

> > be similar to thermite or TNT at high end, depending on the mixture.

YES.



> >

> > <name and reference redacted> Boloboffin on DU posted some images

> > of NIST showing eroded WTC paint- but in the explanation it reads: paint was

> > heated to more than 650° C, evidently without ignition.

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THIS PAINT IS NOT THE SAME AS OUR RED/GRAY

CHIPS, WHICH IGNITE BELOW 450 C.

> > The pictures bare some similarity, but so does Kevins Slideshow on his own

> > superthermite compared to TWC dust.

> >

> > Why didn't you include these reference pictures in your study? Better even

> > the elemental analysis that I indeed had seen somewhere of both samples.

AGAIN, KEVIN'S SAMPLES WERE PRODUCED SOME TIME AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF

THE PAPER, AND HIS SAMPLES DO NOT SHOW THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS AS

THESE CHIPS (E.G., NO AL-SI-C PLATE-LIKE STRUCTURES, AND DIFFERENT

IGNITION TEMPERATURE). HIS WORK IS A START TOWARDS TRYING TO

REPLICATE THESE RED/GRAY CHIPS AND SHOWS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO

REPLICATE THEM.

> >

> > The other claim is that the elemental analysis matches not for superthermite

> > in the spikes of some elements- but that's clearly nonsense, as no one knows

> > the exact compound, but one doesn't need to accept that it indeed is

> > aluminothermic material.

CLEARLY YOU ARE RIGHT.

> >



> > What do you made out of the sulphur found at the WTC 7 probe? Is it possible

> > that more than one thermite / Thermate compound was used?

YES, THAT IS VERY LIKELY.

> >

> > The paint issue is nonsense, but maybe the last line of defense / denial of

> > the "debunkers". The shaddy isolation of the trusses was discovered in 1995,

> > a time when nano-primer-paint already could be existent and purchasable.

I AGREE THAT THE PAINT ISSUE APPEARS TO BE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE OF

THE DEBUNKERS.