On July 20, 2014, Chris Mohr stated that:
"Beachnut, you are wrong when you say that "Jones and Harritt did no test find out what the dust was." Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released. Steven Jones then went on to do a THIRD test, as he wrote here: “After our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.”Part One: The XRD could not conclude if the aluminum is elemental or in a compound like kaolin.
So you see Beachnut, Jones/Harrit/Ryan/Farrer did the tests all right, they just didn't like the results and never published them! Gotta stay accurate about these things ya know..." http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=10128557&postcount=55
The XRD testing is about establishing the EXACT form of the aluminum seen in the XEDS graphs in Harrit et al. The MEK test reveals indirectly that the aluminum is in elemental form, as figure 17 shows there is no other element present for bonding the aluminum in a compound.
But Dr. Jones apparently tried to confirm this finding with more sophisticated XRD analysis which can potentially allow the DIRECT identification of the structure and form of crystalline materials. The XRD records the pattern of your material and compares it to a database and matches it to a known material, if it is on file, sort of like a fingerprint can be matched to a known print on file. If you think there is aluminum-oxide present, the XRD can confirm it and tell you exactly what form of an oxide you have, and if you think you have kaolin it can confirm that.
BUT in this case the XRD was not able to match the pattern to ANY KNOWN form of aluminum. This does not mean the aluminum signals observed by the XEDS are not there as Rev. Mohr seems to think. Of course not. The XRD result is in other words INCONCLUSIVE since it cannot answer the question whether or not the aluminum in the chips is in elemental form or bound in a compound (such as kaolin)...there was no identification of any material and hence no conclusion. The XRD does not rule out elemental aluminum or aluminum compounds; it simply could not identify the form/structure of the aluminum.
Part Two: No aluminum-bearing compound = no kaolin = Millette debunked!
Chris Mohr has managed to not only misinterpret data he does not understand to support his faith, but also accuse Harrit et al of hiding the data to protect their conclusion. The funny and sad thing is that Rev. Mohr does not understand that IF he wants to continue to interpret the XRD data as some sort of an ultimate debunking of Harrit´s aluminum data, he will also debunk Millette´s preliminary report which says the aluminum is in the aluminum-bearing compound known as kaolin. That´s right, the XRD detected "no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound"...NO ALUMINUM COMPOUND = NO KAOLIN!
Reverend Mohr may have made an honest mistake but he had already been warned about this little predicament via email correspondence some time ago.
The evidence for Harrit´s aluminum is covered in this recent article, which is basically one chapter of an extensive essay covering the Harrit-Millette debate: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/07/dr-harrits-aluminum-data.html It covers that quote by Dr. Jones and Rev. Mohr had of course read this essay.
Part Three: But what does that XRD result really mean?
Rev. Mohr refers to a comment that Dr. Jones made on 911blogger, but Mohr omits other comments which are needed for context:
"Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0203/perepezko-0203.html"And Jones clarifies what is meant by "no aluminum found in a form recognized by this method" in a comment:
"The reference here speaks of amorphous aluminum alloys; I have found that even the existence of this amorphous form relating to aluminum is surprising to some scientists who somehow had not heard of it." http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses#comment-257482And then comes the comment that Rev. Mohr cites, but he has taken it hopelessly out of context by omitting the discussion that leads up to it. This comment actually means that the XRD just like the TEM did not recognize this form of aluminum:
"I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments." http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses#comment-257534
Again, this does not mean there is no aluminum there; it simply means the XRD could not recognize the form of aluminum, and therefore it could not say whether it is elemental aluminum or a compound. It could perhaps be argued that the samples are too small to work with, but it would not make sense that the XRD could not "read" or identify something as mundane and common as kaolin, since that is commonly done: http://bioge.ubbcluj.ro/studia/pdf/2004/Benea-Gorea.pdf
It makes much more sense that the hard-to-identify aluminum is something a little bit more exotic, for example a synthetic nano-material for thermite. Dr. Jones pointed out that the aluminum might be in an amorphous form, which means it lacks an ordered crystalline structure. This is because the XRD is mainly a technique to detect crystalline materials, but if the sample is amorphous or coated in hue of amorphous film, the XRD may not work:
Part Four: the FTIR
Rev. Mohr also states that, "Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released."
We already know from the comments by Dr. Jones discussed above that the TEM results were inconclusive just like the XRD, meaning they could neither support nor refute direct and conclusive identification of elemental aluminum. And Chris Mohr knew this before he posted that comment because I discussed the XRD issue with him via email. Chris Mohr also knows that Kevin Ryan has shown his FTIR results in public and that we have discussed them in several articles, including:
Chris Mohr also knows about this data because I discussed it with him and his fellow JREFer Ivan Kminek via email, and they even discussed the FTIR on their beloved JREF forum:
Chris Mohr also knows that Ryan´s FTIR data does not match Millette´s FTIR data, and that we have argued that this means Millette did not study the correct chips (same chips as Harrit et al). This would explain why Millette did not get the same results as Harrit et al when he soaked his chips in MEK solvent, and also why Dr. Jones´s XRD test did not detect kaolin: If Millette is right about finding kaolin in his chips, and if Harrit et al are testing the same chips, then the XRD should have easily identified the kaolin.
It is patently ridiculous that Rev. Mohr is trying to pretend that he does not know about Ryan´s FTIR data and what it implies.
Reverend Mohr probably also known that Kevin Ryan himself showed and discussed his FTIR data in an article that has been published by GlobalResearch (http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/5360964) and the Foreign Policy Journal (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/09/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/). And just like us, Kevin Ryan notes Millette´s FTIR data and that his own FTIR testing concluded "with a much different result."