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

[Ivan Kminek]

As for grey layers - this is again an issue for Sunstealer. We only know from XDES that they contain iron, oxygen and a little of carbon.

But let say we are able to prove somehow that these grey layers were parts of WTC floor joist oxidized steel (painted by red primer by Laclede company). We know all these truther folks: they would very soon come with a new bizzare hypothesis that at least some of these joists were in fact "painted" with nanot...t" and red chips studied by Harrit were indeed not ordinary paint but highly explosive super duper hyperpaint particles) "This part of the inside job/CD preparation was especially tricky," they would say, "since nanothermite looked like ordinary red primer." As usually, they would not care about such "details" like how these joists hidden between floors and ceilings were massively painted with nanorhermite. But perhaps, I am making truthers even more crazy than they usually are in this case)

 

[Oystein]

Let's not worry about what truthers will say or think. Let's just write a very solid, convincing paper

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I still wonder why Harrit et al. published XEDS spectra in such comparatively low resolution since this team apparently had better, original spectra (e.g. Fig. 5, Harrit's whitepaper). I understand why Harrit expanded a spectrum of chip (a) in his explanation WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT: there was probably the lowest content of chromium in the chip (no visible bump on the baseline at 5.4 KeV), and chromium was unwanted element in this fig, since it was present in the Tnemec paint (zinc chromate). Why to magnify this stuff? But as regards the original Bentham paper, spectra are not well resolved (peaks of metals and other elements are too little because of huge peaks of carbon).

I will anyway try to find if expanded XEDS spectra of chips (b) to (d) can be available, e.g. in some lecture of Jones or Harrit. Remember the chip (e) and Sunstealer!

Anyway all this requires a quite good connection and my connection to JREF was again lost for almost 1 hour. Perhaps some massive attack of truthers? Or maybe even JREF inside job?

 

[Oystein]

...Anyway all this requires a quite good connection and my connection to JREF was again lost for almost 1 hour. Perhaps some massive attack of truthers? Or maybe even JREF inside job?

This seems to happen every afternoon (in Europe).

 

[Marokkaan]

Ivan,

some more ideas what we can do:

The gray layer has so far received no attention in this thread, and very little attention by Harrit e.al.
If we find more information on what the LaClede paint was painted on (type of steel), then maybe we can predict what we'd expect to find, and compare with the data by Harrit, however little that is.

I think we have by now collected enough observations and ideas for a first draft or summary of a "paper". Well, blog post. If I find the time and consentration...


Hey, have any of you guys noticed that our resident truthers (tmd, Marokaan, RedIbis...) and 9/11-agnostics (femr2, ...) are staying out of this thread? Sole exception is Bill Smith, who carefully avoids adressing the evidence we are collecting

Believe me i support the attention at the red/gray chips.

So i can not wait until you guys showing a peer reviewed article to refute the findings of harrit et al

 

[Oystein]

Believe me i support the attention at the red/gray chips.

So i can not wait until you guys showing a peer reviewed article to refute the findings of harrit et al

Why do you expect a peer reviewed article? Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.


Oh - I think I know: You do believe it was peer reviewed, don't you? Well, buddy, you were lied to, and you are believing a lie then.

 

[Marokkaan]

Why do you expect a peer reviewed article? Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.


Oh - I think I know: You do believe it was peer reviewed, don't you? Well, buddy, you were lied to, and you are believing a lie then.

Well show me you can make a peer reviewed article, and embarrass those truthers

 

[Ivan Kminek]

So, basically, we can not expect any Sr signal in any other XEDS spectra of red chips, since there is always a "pathological overlap" of Sr and Si signal, as Almond pointed out in his outstanding contribution #156.

But we can still look for the XEDS spectra containing better visible Cr signal at 5.4 KeV. Remembering chip (e) and Sunstealer, I have just looked at the same Steven Jones' lecture, in which Sunstealer found his proof that chip (e) was a particle of Tnemec primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120.

Here, at the time 4:22, we can see an XEDS spectrum of some red chip (surface not cleaned) measured by a truther Mark Basile. The chromium peak is clearly visible there. There are, however, also other elements detected in the spectrum: Ca, K, S, Na, Ti and even Cu. All these elements (including chromium) could be present in the accidental contaminants on the uncleaned surface, so this is probably not the good proof of chromium as a component of the chip. But even so, it seems that Mark Basile could provide us with some more interesting spectra.

Here is a Mark Basile lecture "911 Dust Analysis Raises Questions‬" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#at=17. At the time 39:30, we can see another XEDS spectrum of some red-grey chip (here freshly broken one). Chromium peak was again marked there (together with some very common elements like Ca, Na and S). M. Basile even calculated the concentration of all elements somehow and found that there was about 0.18 wt% of chromium and about 2 wt% of iron. (Btw, there was about 73 wt% of carbon found in this particular chip, which, by itself, seems to deconstruct a possibility that this chip could be any thermite, as was noted by leftysergeant). Pehaps this provides us with an another partial info on chromium presence, but further XEDS spectra of red(-grey) chips are still highly needed...

 

[Oystein]

Well show me you can make a peer reviewed article, and embarrass those truthers

You replied, but forgot to answer the question: Why?

 

[Oystein]

...I have just looked at the same Steven Jones' lecture, in which Sunstealer found his proof that chip (e) was a particle of Tnemec primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120.

Here, at the time 4:22, we can see an XEDS spectrum of some red chip (surface not cleaned) measured by a truther Mark Basile. ...

Here is a Mark Basile lecture "911 Dust Analysis Raises Questions‬" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#at=17. At the time 39:30, we can see another XEDS spectrum of some red-grey chip ...

Ivan, you're amazing

I wonder if these guys ever put those presentations (I mean the powerpoints, PDFs or whatever format for written text and images they like) out on the internet, and nut just low-fi youtubes of them.

 

[Marokkaan]

You replied, but forgot to answer the question: Why?

You dont know even why? Even when i told you the reason?

 

[bill smith]

Why do you expect a peer reviewed article? Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.


Oh - I think I know: You do believe it was peer reviewed, don't you? Well, buddy, you were lied to, and you are believing a lie then.

You mentioned the grey layer. Can you list any known characteristics of the material and any observationa you have about it ?

 

[Sunstealer]

As for grey layers - this is again an issue for Sunstealer. We only know from XDES that they contain iron, oxygen and a little of carbon.

But let say we are able to prove somehow that these grey layers were parts of WTC floor joist oxidized steel (painted by red primer by Laclede company). We know all these truther folks: they would very soon come with a new bizzare hypothesis that at least some of these joists were in fact "painted" with nanot...t" and red chips studied by Harrit were indeed not ordinary paint but highly explosive super duper hyperpaint particles) "This part of the inside job/CD preparation was especially tricky," they would say, "since nanothermite looked like ordinary red primer." As usually, they would not care about such "details" like how these joists hidden between floors and ceilings were massively painted with nanorhermite. But perhaps, I am making truthers even more crazy than they usually are in this case)

I did actually do some investigation into the gray layer in chips a-d. I'm leaning towards oxidised steel due to the characteristic shape of the spectra in comparison to others, although it could be an micaceous iron oxide which is used as an undercoat. I'll try to find that later.

It's very telling that the truthers including Harrit et al ignore this layer. Hell even in their very own paper they show different gray layers that aren't of the same chemical make up. It's bizarre. (See Fig 31 and 33 in comparison with samples a-d)

The only source for steel that I can think of is from Henryco, the french truther. If you look at Henryco's EDX work you can see he's analysed some of the red gray chips. His chips had 3 layers - the red layer, the gray layer and a third layer which looks very crystalline and appears to be the parent material. Unfortunately his powerpoint presentation is poor. He marks the spots at which his analysis took place on the sample, but in the following slides the number for each spot is missing - it's cut off from each slide due to him not resizing the spectra graphs properly (top rhs). I asked him about this, but he didn't understand so there is no correlation between graphs and samples. He also didn't break his samples in half so there's likely to be contamination.

 

[Sunstealer]

I still wonder why Harrit et al. published XEDS spectra in such comparatively low resolution since this team apparently had better, original spectra (e.g. Fig. 5, Harrit's whitepaper). I understand why Harrit expanded a spectrum of chip (a) in his explanation WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT: there was probably the lowest content of chromium in the chip (no visible bump on the baseline at 5.4 KeV), and chromium was unwanted element in this fig, since it was present in the Tnemec paint (zinc chromate). Why to magnify this stuff? But as regards the original Bentham paper, spectra are not well resolved (peaks of metals and other elements are too little because of huge peaks of carbon).

I suspect the low resolution was to save space so that they could cram in all the other crap like MEK, resistance, torch ignition "experiments". It really is a poorly focused paper.

I will anyway try to find if expanded XEDS spectra of chips (b) to (d) can be available, e.g. in some lecture of Jones or Harrit. Remember the chip (e) and Sunstealer!

Yes I came via that through shear luck. I think it was Bill Smith that posted that vid. Ironic eh?

I admire you for being able to watch these videos to look out for clues. I can't do it - the stupid hurts too much.

 

[Sunstealer]

So, basically, we can not expect any Sr signal in any other XEDS spectra of red chips, since there is always a "pathological overlap" of Sr and Si signal, as Almond pointed out in his outstanding contribution #156.

Yes I'll have to have a think about that post. I'm surprised that Sr doesn't appear at the lower KeV. I'm startled at how well the Monte Carlo simulation fits from Al down to Sr. Great work.

Here, at the time 4:22, we can see an XEDS spectrum of some red chip (surface not cleaned) measured by a truther Mark Basile. The chromium peak is clearly visible there. There are, however, also other elements detected in the spectrum: Ca, K, S, Na, Ti and even Cu. All these elements (including chromium) could be present in the accidental contaminants on the uncleaned surface, so this is probably not the good proof of chromium as a component of the chip. But even so, it seems that Mark Basile could provide us with some more interesting spectra.

Here is a Mark Basile lecture "911 Dust Analysis Raises Questions‬" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#at=17. At the time 39:30, we can see another XEDS spectrum of some red-grey chip (here freshly broken one). Chromium peak was again marked there (together with some very common elements like Ca, Na and S). M. Basile even calculated the concentration of all elements somehow and found that there was about 0.18 wt% of chromium and about 2 wt% of iron. (Btw, there was about 73 wt% of carbon found in this particular chip, which, by itself, seems to deconstruct a possibility that this chip could be any thermite, as was noted by leftysergeant). Pehaps this provides us with an another partial info on chromium presence, but further XEDS spectra of red(-grey) chips are still highly needed...

Omg he thinks this is thermite? Roflmao. Here's the slide.

Words just fail me, I mean they really do - and truthers swallow this utter, utter crap? He's got a quantitative analysis from EDX (and we have to be a little careful with that) which shows there is next to no possible reactive material in the sample yet still believes it's nanothermite.

Welcome to the worlds most inefficient nanothermite! /snigger.

Great work Ivan, brilliant - proving truthers wrong with their own data is fantastic. I'm gob-smacked at their stupidity, really am. Amazing. /shakes head.

 

[Sunstealer]

You replied, but forgot to answer the question: Why?

I wouldn't bother engaging the truthers in this thread, the material in it is way, way over their heads. There is nothing they can contribute. I'm far more interested in the actual data.

 

[bill smith]

I did actually do some investigation into the gray layer in chips a-d. I'm leaning towards oxidised steel due to the characteristic shape of the spectra in comparison to others, although it could be an micaceous iron oxide which is used as an undercoat. I'll try to find that later.

It's very telling that the truthers including Harrit et al ignore this layer. Hell even in their very own paper they show different gray layers that aren't of the same chemical make up. It's bizarre. (See Fig 31 and 33 in comparison with samples a-d)

The only source for steel that I can think of is from Henryco, the french truther. If you look at Henryco's EDX work you can see he's analysed some of the red gray chips. His chips had 3 layers - the red layer, the gray layer and a third layer which looks very crystalline and appears to be the parent material. Unfortunately his powerpoint presentation is poor. He marks the spots at which his analysis took place on the sample, but in the following slides the number for each spot is missing - it's cut off from each slide due to him not resizing the spectra graphs properly (top rhs). I asked him about this, but he didn't understand so there is no correlation between graphs and samples. He also didn't break his samples in half so there's likely to be contamination.

I remember Jones saying that the grey material was very tough. He seemed to stress that point but said no more about it. And I seem to remember somebody (maybe Jones at another point) speculating that the grey material might have been part of some kind of casing.

 

[Oystein]

I did actually do some investigation into the gray layer in chips a-d. I'm leaning towards oxidised steel due to the characteristic shape of the spectra in comparison to others, although it could be an micaceous iron oxide which is used as an undercoat. I'll try to find that later.
...

I have some links in my blog:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2010/09/discussion-of-harrit-edal-paper.html
Here's what you wrote in april 2009 on the grey layer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4589113#post4589113

A grey layer of anti-corrosive primer under a red layer of primer paint of course poses a problem for the LaClede joist theory: According to specs, there should only be a red layer, and under it only steel.

 

[Sunstealer]

I have some links in my blog:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2010/09/discussion-of-harrit-edal-paper.html
Here's what you wrote in april 2009 on the grey layer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4589113#post4589113

A grey layer of anti-corrosive primer under a red layer of primer paint of course poses a problem for the LaClede joist theory: According to specs, there should only be a red layer, and under it only steel.

I revised my position a bit later on that with regard to MIO, I think I may have jumped the gun. It seemed to fit the bill very well at the time and I was pretty damn sure of it. However, on further examination I later thought it was more likely to be oxidised steel. Here is the comparison with the EDX spectra from the work on corroded steel.

I've also, in recent days been looking at iron oxide and steel spectra

http://www.springerimages.com/Images/RSS/1-10.1007_s10800-011-0290-3-4
http://www.springerimages.com/Images/MaterialScience/1-10.1007_s11249-010-9633-1-4
http://met-tech.com/short-term-overheat-rupture-of-t11-superheater-tube.html
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/html/430/43003711/43003711.html
http://www.springerimages.com/Images/Chemistry/1-10.1007_s10800-011-0290-3-5
http://www.cleancontrolling.de/popup.php?cont=partikelzoom&id=33&nr=2&lang=en
http://www.cleancontrolling.de/popup.php?cont=partikelzoom&id=30&nr=2&lang=en
http://www.cleancontrolling.de/popup.php?cont=partikelzoom&id=9&nr=2&lang=en
http://www.cleancontrolling.de/popup.php?cont=partikelzoom&id=12&nr=2&lang=en


And a picture of deposited iron oxide - photo 10.
http://geraldjeka.synthasite.com/failure-analysis-and-work-history-images.php

There is a characteristic "bremsstrahlung" between 1 and 6 KeV for all of these that match with the Harrit et al paper although Cr, Ni and Mn will have peaks for stainless steel and other contaminants due to corrosion in the above.

 

[Sunstealer]

I remember Jones saying that the grey material was very tough. He seemed to stress that point but said no more about it. And I seem to remember somebody (maybe Jones at another point) speculating that the grey material might have been part of some kind of casing.

The word "tough" has a very specific meaning in materials science.When you look at the SEM photos of the gray layer it can't be "tough". Infact it's obvious it's a brittle material, the fractures ans the fracture surface indicate that - the exact opposite of toughness. Again it shows that Jones doesn't know what he's talking about.