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

[leftysergeant]

This thread is a good example of the obvious reasons why Jones doesn't want independent verification of his experiments...

More importantly, it shows why every problem which raises any questions should be examined by persons with the broadest possible repetoire of skills and experience.

Most of the people on Jones' side are analytical chemists, and not among the brightest in their fields.

I don't think that Jones, Harrit or Ryan want to ask themselves any inconvenient questions.

 

[Oystein]

...
Anyway, a question for administrator: can I edit again the post #256 somehow?

You could write directly to Myriad or LashL and ask them to do the editing for you. Don't count on any moderator to read every post in the forum.
I don't think however that they'll oblige.

 

[Oystein]

...
Most of the people on Jones' side are analytical chemists, and not among the brightest in their fields.
...

You forgot a "not", didn't you??

 

[twinstead]

I don't think that Jones, Harrit or Ryan want to ask themselves any inconvenient questions.

But isn't asking oneself the inconvenient questions one of the cornerstones of the scientific process?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Given that the floor elements all took the express route down the inside of the towers, you shouild expect nearly all of it to have been ground away. This was the devil's own rock tumbler, with multi-ton pieces of grit slamming into the metal elements. I doubt that much paint was left on any of them by the time they reached the end of that maelstrom.

I am certain that it is mostly rust. If you look at the end of that top rail next to the bunched-up laces on the left edge, you will see that there is a dark area with slightly rusty margins. The paint has been stripped completely away, exposing the black oxide that coated the steel before it was painted. Heat and steam converted most of this black oxide to the red form (will some chemist help me out here? I am looking at it from the background of a casual construction and foundary worker.)

On the other hand, it is also a good match with the sort of colors you will see in steel recovered from a really hot fire scene days afterward.

I really doubt that any great amount of the pigment remains on the steel.

If almost all Laclede paint is supposed to be stripped away from the steel during collapses... this is an additional reason why to do some research on its imitation But still, research on some remaining particles of the original paint would be better) Concerning black and red iron oxide forms, I do not know at the moment (as a polymer chemist).

 

[leftysergeant]

But isn't asking oneself the inconvenient questions one of the cornerstones of the scientific process?

Which is why those three clowns get no respect here.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Leftysergeant: I am not sure if these chemists are really bad, they seem to me to be just tragically biased in this case.

- Looking to my visual documentation, I should buy a better camera. Up to now, my expenses in this case were 60 Czech Crowns (ca 3 US Dollars) for the epoxide adhesive, I should spend more money here)

- Today, I gave samples of my Laclede imitation to TGA measurements (both under air and under nitrogen), up to 700 ^oC (the end temperature of Harrit´s DSC curves) and one sample will be heated in the special oven up to 700 ^oC under air. We will have a look on them by some good microscope. EDAX is available here...

- But do not expect too much since I simply cannot afford any really extensive research in this matter. Just several samples are allowed for me...

- To my surprise: there are 3 DSC devices in our institute, but none of them is running under air. All of them rutinelly use inert atmosphere. It seems that I have got a completely opposite problem here than Harrit´s team had... No DSC measurements under air easily available

- Concerning sample of Laclede imitation heated up to 700 ^oC (heated but not exposed to flame) under air, I am basically looking for the iron-rich microspheres formed during alleged t....ic reaction described by Harrit and Jones. If present, this could be great, kind of proof I think. If missing in the Laclede imitation "ash", no wonder - even Henryco had not clearly found them in the burned red chips.

- In my first Laclede imitation preparation, dark red-brownish iron oxide was used. Do not expect, therefore, brightly red chips in any (possible) color video, photo or microphoto All of them will be simply dark red-brownish because of iron oxide used....

 

[Sunstealer]

Leftysergeant: I am not sure if these chemists are really bad, they seem to me to be just tragically biased in this case.

- Looking to my visual documentation, I should buy a better camera. Up to now, my expenses in this case were 60 Czech Crowns (ca 3 US Dollars) for the epoxide adhesive, I should spend more money here)

- Today, I gave samples of my Laclede imitation to TGA measurements (both under air and under nitrogen), up to 700 ^oC (the end temperature of Harrit´s DSC curves) and one sample will be heated in the special oven up to 700 ^oC under air. We will have a look on them by some good microscope. EDAX is available here...

- But do not expect too much since I simply cannot afford any really extensive research in this matter. Just several samples are allowed for me...

- To my surprise: there are 3 DSC devices in our institute, but none of them is running under air. All of them rutinelly use inert atmosphere. It seems that I have got a completely opposite problem here than Harrit´s team had... No DSC measurements under air easily available

- Concerning sample of Laclede imitation heated up to 700 ^oC (heated but not exposed to flame) under air, I am basically looking for the iron-rich microspheres formed during alleged t....ic reaction described by Harrit and Jones. If present, this could be great, kind of proof I think. If missing in the Laclede imitation "ash", no wonder - even Henryco had not clearly found them in the burned red chips.

- In my first Laclede imitation preparation, dark red-brownish iron oxide was used. Do not expect, therefore, brightly red chips in any (possible) color video, photo or microphoto All of them will be simply dark red-brownish because of iron oxide used....

It's the gray layer iron oxide that forms the majority of the spheres in the Harrit et al paper. Fig 20 and 23 show post DSC residue where it's clear that a lot of the red material remains but the gray layer has formed spheres. I would expect some in your experiment though. Fingers crossed.

 

[alienentity]

..

- To my surprise: there are 3 DSC devices in our institute, but none of them is running under air. All of them rutinelly use inert atmosphere. It seems that I have got a completely opposite problem here than Harrit´s team had... No DSC measurements under air easily available

Maybe you should send a sample off to Jeff Farrer at BYU. They routinely use air in their DSC machines...

I'm with you on the qualifications of the chemists in the Jones/Harrit team. I looked at the list of publications of Harrit recently, and I see nothing in his history to indicate that he has expertise in nanothermitic materials.
http://aneta.org/NielsHarrit_org/
Certainly Steven Jones does not have such expertise.

However, IIRC, neither Mssrs Jones and Harrit initially came to doubt the mainstream consensus on 9/11 until they were influenced by David Ray Griffin, and at least one of them (I think Harrit) found the collapse of WTC 7 suspicious.
That is, neither came to their suspicions thru scientific inquiry in their areas of expertise. Rather they acted as laymen, then used their scientific training to construct rationales for these opinions.

This confirmation bias is the main problem, IMO.

 

[leftysergeant]

You forgot a "not", didn't you??

I am saying that they are analytical chemists (though this may not be exactly the right word) in that they have some capacity to figure out what is in a substance. They are just clueless as to how it should behave in the real world.

They can compile statistics, but they do not interpret the statistics well.

They do seem to have come to the conclusion, after a lot of screwing around, that one of their chips was Tmenec. Tmenec forms a remarkably small proportion of the total WTC dust. Were it the only kind of paint used on the structural steel, this would immediately look wrong, given the degree to which the collapse apparently ground the LaClede paint from the floor trusses.

The Jones team forgot to ask first what should have been present in the dust and in what quantities. They have, instead, just reported what they found and what they take it to represent.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi pteridine,
I don't think I have seen you around here, so happy to see you in my thread, especially since you seem to have a good grasp on the topic!
The information about Al stages is news to me. Not sure if anybody has thought of this before, and if and how we can eliminate that as a problem. I think I remember that C coating of ...whatever... poses a problem for determining C content. Does that ring a bell?

Anyway, the goal here is not to identify all the flaws that Jones, Harrit and co committed on their way to a moronic conclusions, but to make the best of their work and identify the paint. I think we are already quite certain that the gray layer is oxidized, flaked-off steel. If we could identify the type of steel ... but I think data resolution is too bad for that. As a second best option, we should formulate a theory about the gray layer ("it's Axx steel that oxidized when... and spalled off such and such..."), then, using literature, make predictions about how that would look like in the experiments that were in fact done: EDS spectra, microscopic appearance, electrical resistance, magnetism, ... If we find our predictions are a good fit with experiment, our theory is viable - and the only theory out there, afaik.

All such indirect metallurgic research would be useful.
Even my little indirect (but otherwise real) research on Laclede imitation could be useful, if I am lucky enough. (If not, does not matter, I have spent just several hours on the preparation of samples).

But still: having at hand just several real chips of genuine Laclede paint on the rusted steel would be much more useful. If such samples look as chips (a) to (d) under microscope and have the same/very similar XEDS signatures, these would be proofs good enough.

 

[Oystein]

I am saying that they are analytical chemists (though this may not be exactly the right word) in that they have some capacity to figure out what is in a substance. They are just clueless as to how it should behave in the real world.

We have 3 physicists, 1 business analyst, 1 with a degree in agriculture, 1 geologist, and only 2 actual chemists on that team.

They can compile statistics, but they do not interpret the statistics well.

They do seem to have come to the conclusion, after a lot of screwing around, that one of their chips was Tmenec.

Huh? When? Where?

Tmenec forms a remarkably small proportion of the total WTC dust. Were it the only kind of paint used on the structural steel, this would immediately look wrong, given the degree to which the collapse apparently ground the LaClede paint from the floor trusses.

What do you base this claim on?

The Jones team forgot to ask first what should have been present in the dust and in what quantities. They have, instead, just reported what they found and what they take it to represent.

I see no fundamental problem with that. For all I care, this is just a fun quest to identify the identity of certain randomly picked particles. Doesn't have to matter where they are from or why we are looking at them in the first place. We could think of this as some kind of homework assignment in school, with no connection to real world events.

 

[Oystein]

All such indirect metallurgic research would be useful.
Even my little indirect (but otherwise real) research on Laclede imitation could be useful, if I am lucky enough. (If not, does not matter, I have spent just several hours on the preparation of samples).

But still: having at hand just several real chips of genuine Laclede paint on the rusted steel would be much more useful. If such samples look as chips (a) to (d) under microscope and have the same/very similar XEDS signatures, these would be proofs good enough.

I am currently not able to focus on this, and will be gone travelling from today till monday.
If nobody steps in, I'll try to find out who to write to (at NIST?) to ask if and where some floor truss remains are saved, and how paint samples can be secured from there.
We'd then need someone to actually go there...

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I am currently not able to focus on this, and will be gone travelling from today till monday.
If nobody steps in, I'll try to find out who to write to (at NIST?) to ask if and where some floor truss remains are saved, and how paint samples can be secured from there.
We'd then need someone to actually go there...

This would be really great (such a direct inquiry to NIST). I am also going to be rather busy because of some planned traveling (a visit of polymer conference in Turkey from 2nd to 9th September) so not much time remaining to beat nanothermite people already before a tenth anniversary of 9/11 attacks of islamists

Meanwhile... I have spent some time this morning with NCSTAR1-3c Report (http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101019). It seems that not much paint had been left not only on floor trusses, but even on core columns (?)

There is a Table 6-2 on the analyses of structural elements. One of them was floor truss labeled C-115. There is a note: "No paint available for analysis". But this truss was probably subjected to high temperature.

On the other hand (for Sunstealer) there are interesting microphotos of steel of this floor truss - Fig. 6-24 to 6-28.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Just for the record (a conference in Turkey must wait): a citation from this NIST older report http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05032.pdf (including some paint examination and paint mapping):

"The paint samples tested were taken from exterior columns. Burn test were proposed for core columns to establish the same calibration, but sufficient material with intact paint on the core columns could not be isolated. The Tnemic series was in common use in high-rise construction steel at the time of the erection of the WTC, and it is assumed that the paint on the core columns that was imaged in this study (a very limited sample) was also of this type..."

No mention on paint applied on floor trusses there.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Again some running remarks (before I get some results on Laclede imitation heated up to 700 ^o)...):

Concerning expected thermal behavior of common polymer binders (like epoxides), Dr. J. Stejskal from our institute told me:
- Under air, such polymers are usually completely oxidized/degraded/vaporized during heating up to such high temperatures, with the very little/none carbon material left.
- Under inert atmosphere, polymers frequently (but now always) "carbonize/graphitize" at such conditions, forming (dark) complex polyaromatic residues, sometimes close to the graphite structure. Such reactions proceed just because of lack of oxygen.

I can judge from this: if the chips (a) to (d) in Harrit's paper were paint particles and were heated up in the oxygen atmosphere, we can expect just one important change in their XEDS signature: the missing (or very small) peak of carbon after heating (since all carbon stuff was oxidized/burned/vaporized). This is roughly what we really see in Harrit's paper (compare Fig. 7 and Figs. 21, 25 and 26). It is a pity that Harrit did not publish XEDS signatures of areas outside of these "microspheres".

Concerning microspheres: I was quite surprised when I found that fly ash (as a very possible main source of microspheres found in the WTC dust) consist almost solely of various such tiny round things (source: corresponding entry in Wikipedia or Google image search using "fly ash" as keywords.)

 

[Oystein]

...
I gathered powdered iron oxide and a form of aluminosilicate called Nanoclay. ...

Ivan,
do you have any more information on this Nanoclay? Technical info, data sheet, manufacturer, price per kg, ...
I am especially interested in particle size

 

[WilliamSeger]

(We need to establish the nomenclature of the parts of the truss assembly if we look any closer at this element.)

This type of truss is called an Open Web Steel Joist (OWSJ). The top and bottom "chords" are made from standard steel angles, and the "web" is made from rolled bar stock.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan, do you have any more information on this Nanoclay? Technical info, data sheet, manufacturer, price per kg, ...
I am especially interested in particle size

You can find the specification of this Nanoclay (kind of montmorillonite) here: http://www.nanocor.com/tech_sheets/G105.pdf . Citation: "Montmorillonites have a sheet-type or platey structure. Although their dimensions in the length and width directions can be measured in hundreds of nanometers, the mineral’s thickness is only one nanometer." (But these "nanosheets" are probably easily stacking, forming "multisheets".)

I cannot be sure, how the behavior of this nanoclay (used in my first paint imitation) is close to the "aluminum silicate" used in Laclede paint. Even elemental composition can be different.

I also do not know (and cannot know) how close is my iron oxide to the iron oxide used in Laclede paint.

Moreover, I have used universal epoxy instead of special epoxy dispersion for electrocoating.

All this may influence the thermal behavior of the paint imitation somehow, e.g. size of iron oxide particles can influence a formation of rounded iron-richer particles observed in the heated chips by Harrit (but not by HenryCo; and also Mark Basile did not observed such "microspheres" but just some not very clearly visible "iron-rich" elongated droplets in the burned "Lucky Thirteen" chip).

In short: this mixture is just the first attempt to prepare something comparatively close to Laclede paint, since we cannot expect that the thermal behavior of such a mixture can be found in the literature. So once again: if this imitation shows the similar exotherms as chips (a) to (d) and rounded shiny particles are formed during heating under air, this would be great. But even so, the behavior of some other imitation using different chemicals (e.g. kaolinite as aluminosilicate, different iron oxide, and transparent epoxy paint instead of universal epoxy) should confirm such "preliminary results" for publishing these data in any scientific publication (?)
Anyway, the investigation of the real Laclede paint would be definitely more useful, straightforward and convincing.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

...Btw, there is an entry "Grind: #4 Hegman gauge" in the specification of Laclede paint. If I understand, this should mean (http://www.byk.com/en/instruments/p...ion/fineness-of-grind-gages-hegman-gages.html) that pigment particles up to 50 μm could be present in that paint, but as the biggest ones - the most of pigment particles could be much, much smaller...

Another entry in Laclede specification: "Gloss: 30-50". This should mean that paint has "semi-gloss" or "egg-shell" surface. Up to now, I have found no correlation of the paint gloss (usually measured by some reflectance method) with the paint surface smoothness... Anyway, we cannot be sure that surface of the red layer of chips (a) to (d) was not affected/changed, e.g., during collapses...