Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

[leftysergeant]

I saw a video on the internet called "9/11 - Debunking the Debunkers - Exploding Primer Paint?". How could this experiment have been successful if it really was just paint? I think it was just paint, but still I'd like to know more about this.

You can get the same effect by sprinkling coarse black pepper onto the burner elements of an electric stove.

 

[Edx]

One truther told me recently on one of my videos:

The only mention of paint that I've heard is from retarded debunkers who claimed that the incredibly energetic and zinc-free red/gray chips were primer paint - even thought their chemical composition beared no resemblance to any paint ever created by man

- vidmanx0

 

[Animal]

NIST talks about the original WTC primer, called Tnemec. I wonder if they missed a second primer? Speculation: Part of the twin towers had already been stripped of asbestos-containing fire-proofing. Did they do a paint job at that occasion, too?

The towers were 30 years old. Lot of rework, strengthening of floor plates where required for tenants, antenna additions, misc. steel for hangers for new HVAC or other equipment.......the possibilities are near endless as to the source..........except in the mind of a troofer

 

[leftysergeant]

Even if this concentration figure is distorted somehow, chips are (at least according to Harrit et al.) probably particles of something which was used in really high amounts in the towers (?) Paint on fire extinguishers is not such a case, I think.

Lots of things have red primer on them. Furniture, fire extinguishers, some wall dividers, refrigerators. There are too many sources that one might not even think of.
There is still the big problem that every one of the chips contain silicon. There is no basis on which to conclude that anything containing silicon could be a form of thermite.

That the aluminum is stated to be contained mostly of plate-like structures indicates that the silicon is in the form of KAOLIN.

That's paint.

 

[Edx]

]
There is still the big problem that every one of the chips contain silicon. There is no basis on which to conclude that anything containing silicon could be a form of thermite.
.

THEY included silicon to make it look like paint. DUH

 

[Oystein]

What kind of paint can vigorously burn like that? I'm still confused.

Perhaps any kind that has its pigments in an organic matrix, such as resin, maybe?

 

[Oystein]

To skepticOfLies: as Oystein announced, this is not the thread about so called-nanothermite. Anyway, those infamous red chips did not burn very vigorously and released heat was quite low. Since differential scanning calorimetry in Harrit's paper was perfomed under air instead of inert gas and chips contained a lot of organic material (probably some binder), observed exothermic reaction over temperatures 430 degrees of C was very, very probably some oxidation of organic matter with oxygen from air. Consider some non-pyrotechnic layered materials, anything else does not belong here.

The heat released by 2 of the paint chips was higher than that of perfect thermite, so if that is the benchmark, it wasn't "quite low". "Vigorous", as I understand it, does not only refer to the heat release (energy density) but also, or more so, to the speed of reaction, which is power per mass unit, and indeed the DSC trace charts show that the paint reacted with much higher power peaks (Fig. 19: range from about 10 to 24 W/g) than the nano-thermite referenced from the Tillotson paper (Fig. 29: about 5 W/g).
So if the authors describe the reaction of the chips as "vigorous", I am not inclined to deny that.

You are of course right with all the rest: The heat release in a range from 1.5 to 7.5 kJ/g, and the ignition point around 430°C aren't untypical for a number of materials where organics and inert stuff are mixed. I once calculated that humans, despite consisting to 65% of inert water, have a net energy density around 8-10 kJ/g, so average human tissue would release mire energy in a DSC than those paint chips did.


But all this detracts from the question if anyone has made any progress towards identifying the particular paint that the chips consisted of.

 

[Oystein]

Aren't the construction beams painted with a corrosive-resistant primer prior to being sprayed with FRM as well?

That's a lot of beams, and a **** load of primer.

Yes, but we have some good evidence, provided by Sunsteeler via Steven Jones, that the 4 chips a-d in the Harrit paper are not that primer. Here write-down of the argument:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
Summary:
- The chips a-d are different from the chip they soaked with MEK to allegedly show "elemantal" Al
- Steven Jones, in a video presentation, showed an XEDS spectrum for red WTC primer (Tnemec, I believe)
- That spectrum was very neat fit with the MEK-soaked chip from the Harrit paper
-> The MEK-soaked chip was WTC1+2 structural steel primer, but the 4 other chips a-d were not.

 

[Oystein]

How about the antennae, that was painted red and white iirc. To be honest this paint could come from anything, until there is a proper scientific analysis then it will be impossible to narrow down. Hell we don't even know what the binder is. I suspect that there are other particles in the paint that haven't been analysed.

Only one way to find out but the people who have the samples will never release them to an independent lab.

Who knows what paint has been used where in construction and maintenance over decades.

We have several properties of that paint:

1. XEDS spectrum
2. Micrographs
3. DSC traces
4. Specific resistivity = roughly 10 ohm*m
5. No significant dissolution, only swelling, in MEK

I can't assess how reliable the last two items are. #4 suffered from small sample size, and the result may be dominated, to the point of being worthless, by the admitted contamination with gray material. #5 is somewhat dubious as we cannot know which of the at least two different kinds of red material they tested with MEK.

However, in principle, with what we already know about the paint (some ingredients, pigment size, ...), it might be possible to find candidate paints from catalogues, and then test their resistivity and dissolubility in MEK.

 

[Oystein]

I have a six minute clip of Dr.Steven Jones describing the red-grey chips. It might help to focus minds here. I will post it if you think it helps. If not I won't.

Nope, won't help. He denies the obvious, that the chips are paint.

 

[Oystein]

To me, it seems like the other red-grey chips were simply another type of primer. NIST focused on the Tnemec primer because that was the substance they did their chipped/cracked paint test on to determine the temperatures the structural steel got to. Nowhere does NIST claim that Tnemec primer was the only primer used during the construction of the WTC. There are other, non-structural bits of steel that were primed with what was probably a less expensive, easier to apply material.

The similarity of the two materials is probably due to the fact that both used iron oxide as a pigment. Iron oxide is cheap, easy to produce, and provides excellent protection as an anti-corrosive coating. As far as identifying the specific mix and manufacturer, that would likely be a fool's errand. Without direct access to the chips, it's impossible, and without someone at least narrowing down the list of potentials, it's really difficult.

Based on my experience analyzing dust and particulate, whenever I see a dual colored material, especially red/grey chips, I always think primer paint. That's also supported by the McCrone Particle Atlas, which identifies layered chips as possible primer paints that have flaked off the parent material. They are very common.

Yes, I agree, to me this is also the most likely source. So the task would be to find out which other primers were used. If we can do that, that would immediately limit the list of candidates.

If NIST determined that Tnemec was one of the 1-n primers used on WTC-steel, how did they determine that the samples they tested were actually Tnemec? Did they do a chemical analysis to compare to known Tnemec properties? Or is it known as fact that all the structural steel was coated with it? How much non-structural steel would there be in the towers, relative to the structural? Where in the building would we find the bulk of non-structural steel?

 

[Oystein]

I don't think there's any chain of custody, so what's to prevent him from testing anything he wanted and claiming it came from NY.

I disagree. I see no reason not to assume good faith about what the paper tells us about the chain of custody, and given the fact that we have four samples from four locations, and in each they found very similar such chips, I am satisfied that that dust did in fact originate from the WTC collapses.

 

[bill smith]

Nope, won't help. He denies the obvious, that the chips are paint.

What about Professor Harrit ? I have a longer clip in which he discusses the paint chips ?

 

[Oystein]

What about Professor Harrit ? I have a longer clip in which he discusses the paint chips ?

The professor Harrit who didn't notice he was looking at hematite until long after he published that paper, and only after he was told what it was? That professor Harrit? The incompetent one?
No, don't think his words will help. I expect a serious case of CYA.

 

[bill smith]

The professor Harrit who didn't notice he was looking at hematite until long after he published that paper, and only after he was told what it was? That professor Harrit? The incompetent one?
No, don't think his words will help. I expect a serious case of CYA.

Um...what's the deal here Oystein ? Is this thread exclusively for people who believe that the unreacted thermite chips were paint ? It sure looks like it.

 

[DC]

What about Professor Harrit ? I have a longer clip in which he discusses the paint chips ?

what are all those experts doing with their evidence? beside selling DVD's and books?
They themselfe know it is not evidence or they would at least try to go to courts or would work to get an international court interested in the case, but they do not do anything in that direction.
they are charlatans.

 

[bill smith]

what are all those experts doing with their evidence? beside selling DVD's and books?
They themselfe know it is not evidence or they would at least try to go to courts or would work to get an international court interested in the case, but they do not do anything in that direction.
they are charlatans.

They may not offer the chips for independent analysis but..suspiciously..no government or other reputable body of scientists ask for samples to test. It would be an easy way to do away with the nanothermite question altogether- if it can be done.

But neither side seems ready to do the right thing. They just leave it all hanging in the air. Suspiciously.

In the beginning, say after the 2007 Boston lecture Professor Jones may have reconsidered sending the chips to a reputable lab for independent analysis. Imagine if he had sent the chips to Princeton for instance ? A simple phone call from the Whitehouse would have guaranteed a result refuting the nanothermite chips. The theory would have been dead in the water from the beginning. That goes for any and all so-called reputable institutions.

But now that neothermite is fairly well established in the alternative scientific circle and has caught the public imagination Jones could insist on a test by Princeton in which he and other Truth Movement scientists would sit in with a view to to keeping them honest. It could be filmed for posterity. Can't say fairer than that.

Equally Prineton could ask Jones to sit in on their test on the same conditions.

This would resolve the issue one way or the other.

But...hey....nobody is doing the right thing. They are all leaving us hanging.

Am I suspicious ?.....Damn right I am.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now I am begining to wonder whether the floor elements would have been painted with the same primer as the columns. Were they manufactered in the same facility?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Let me pls summarize/repeat (in my genuine Czech English) what I have read concerning this matter (and sorry, I still can not make direct URL links)
1) Harrit et al. closely analyzed just 5 chips, which is for sure not very representative set of samples) (One can even wonder: were these researchers too lazy to analyze more chips? Or were they in hurry just because this research was rather illegal in their working places? (probably yes) Those red chips can have many origins, as some of you again pointed out, and even this „very minimal set“ of chips can be clearly divided into two groups: 1) chips (a) to (d) containing mostly iron, aluminum, silicon, carbon and oxygen; 2) chip (e) containing just mentioned elements, but also zinc, calcium, chromium and sulphur. Owing mainly to Sunstealer's effort, we know almost beyond any reasonable doubt (as was summarized by Oystein here: oystein-debate(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html ) that chip (e) was a particle of a WTC red primer paint Tnemec, since the resemblance of two relevant XEDS spectra is simply stunning and very convincing.
2) Chips (a) to (d) had all a very similar composition and since they were found in quite high concentration in the WTC dust collected in several distant places in Manhattan, they can be particles of something abundantly used in WTC. Moreover, another truther found very similar chips in other sample of the dust: www(dot)darksideofgravity(dot)com/marseille_gb.pdf. Since material of chips is brightly red (because of iron oxide content), it had to be used in places where this color does not matter (as in primer paints) or is chosen deliberately.
3) According to XEDS analyses, chips (a) to (d) contained iron (surely in the form of oxide) and very probably some aluminosilicate or perhaps some mixture of aluminum and silicon compounds (mainly oxides). Harrit et al. did not prove the presence of elemental aluminum (necessary component for any thermite) in those particular chips, e.g. since they did not analyze them using X-ray diffraction; and even if some metallic aluminum was originally present in the chips, this metal in such very fine plates would be inevitably highly oxidized to its oxides after several years of dust storage (which was pointed out e.g. by French truther on the mentioned darksideofgravity site). Italian scientist/debunker Enrico Manieri thinks (see his smart analysis of Harrit's paper undicisettembre(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html ) that aluminum and silicon were present in the form of vermiculite in the chips. He noted that vermiculite was used in high amounts in insulation of perimeter columns in WTC, but he did not mention if these insulations were red because of iron oxide content. Sunstealer thinks that silicon and aluminum in the chips were in the form of other aluminosilicate, kaolinite. It has to be added that aluminosilicates are generally very complex compounds with a quite variable composition. They are frequently employed as cheap components of many paints, insulations, plasters, adhesives and other construction materials. Anyway, in this particular case, the material we are looking for must be red in color. (Well, there are some other theoretical possibilities, e.g. chips originally contained fine particles of metallic iron, which was gradually oxidized to its red oxides, but this does not seem to be very probable.
4) According to analyses, chips (a) to (d) were not particles of Tnemec red primer. I think (but I am not sure) that NIST report did not mention any other red primer or other red layered material used in WTC. This is why I asked the question cited by Oystein at the beginning of this thread. Since I am too lazy to do anything else that googling in this matter, I am a little bit lost. Concerning “paint hypothesis” it is virtually impossible to google out anything about primer paints used ca 40 years ago, moreover, even information about composition of currently used red primer paints on factory web sites are frequently rather vague. It seems that somebody (not me) should ask some big manufacturer of paints with a long tradition and ask them what they know about old-time primers made mostly of iron oxides and aluminosilicates. But perhaps the best thing to do is to relax and wait, until another (independent) team comes with much better and really scientific analyses of those red-gray chips (best stored under vacuum, in the dark place and at low temperatures.
Sorry for this lengthy contribution, I am just little bit bored today)

 

[Oystein]

Um...what's the deal here Oystein ? Is this thread exclusively for people who believe that the unreacted thermite chips were paint ? It sure looks like it.

Exactly. Simply reading the OP would have sufficed to figure that out. I even bolded it:

The topic here is very limited: If the red-gray chips analysed by Harrit, Jones e.al. are paint...