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

[Miragememories]

Away fromm the chip, and away from the heat source it sat on, the gases would not reach required density or temperature. Please learn something about fire chemistry so that I do not need to waste time explaining away your ignorance.



Any art major would probably laugh at you on that one. The light value of the chip remains the same throughout, and cast shadows remain dark under the chip as the gases burn.

MASSIVE FAIL.

More like MASSIVE DENIAL on your part.

Which is what I expected.

MM

 

[grandmastershek]

More like MASSIVE DENIAL on your part.

Which is what I expected.

MM

And he bravely ran away, away...

 

[Miragememories]

How difficult would it be to put this to rest?

Get your favorite paint chip samples and video them sitting on a heating element.

Observe what happens around 430 C.

If so far you have a visual match, examine the residue to see if the match continues.

MM

 

[grandmastershek]

How difficult would it be to put this to rest?

Get your favorite paint chip samples and video them sitting on a heating element.

Observe what happens around 430 C.

If so far you have a visual match, examine the residue to see if the match continues.

MM

And there goes the BoP again.

 

[GlennB]

If I wanted to avoid disproving my pre-existing "chips=nanothermite" theory then I'd proceed exactly as Harrit et al. did. It was the worst kind of science in that it studiously avoided any test that might prove damning.

 

[Miragememories]

If I wanted to avoid disproving my pre-existing "chips=nanothermite" theory then I'd proceed exactly as Harrit et al. did. It was the worst kind of science in that it studiously avoided any test that might prove damning.

Try qualifying your comments with something other than unsupported opinion Glenn.

It would be most refreshing.

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

How difficult would it be to put this to rest?

Get your favorite paint chip samples and video them sitting on a heating element.

Observe what happens around 430 C.

If so far you have a visual match, examine the residue to see if the match continues.

MM

1) MM, you really cannot complain that Bentham paper has not been discussed thoroughly (and ad nauseam) Those red paint chips are by far the most "brainstormed" particles of anything in the history of internet.

2) You know well that is is not really easy to get some authentic red-gray chips from WTC dust.

3) How do we know that heated element used by Basile had 430 C at the moment of ignition? (I do not remember any proof from the linked lecture.)

4) Why Basile showed us just only one heated/burning chip? I can tell you one possible explanation: other chips were not really ignited and were only thermally degraded (without flame). Such autoignition of small paint chip containing flammable polymeric binder and pigments can depend on many factors, e.g. on some processes catalyzed on surfaces of miniature pigment particles at high temperatures. E.g., Laclede paint contained strontium chromate which is a very strong oxidizing agent. If some "pieces" of this anticorrosive pigment was present on the surface, they can easily "start up" the flame. Simply: we cannot expect for sure that all red-gray paint chips would autoignite on such heated element. But, in all of them, the polymeric binder would be anyway almost completely oxidized/degraded/gasified with exothermic effect at high temperatures. (Btw, we do not know if chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper were ignited in DSC device under air. Probably not, since heat was released quite slowly, in the range of ca 100 degrees C.)

5) Everything we know about red-gray chips so far is consistent with the "paint hypothesis". It is up to truthers to convince world that we are wrong. I think Although I am willing (in principle) to support our Laclede paint hypothesis with some real experiments, I am not going to die for it.

 

[Oystein]

...(Btw, we do not know if chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper were ignited in DSC device under air. Probably not, since heat was released quite slowly, in the range of ca 100 degrees C.)
...

Huh? What element don't we know? That it was done under air (yes, we do know that), or that they "ignited" (i.e. burned with atmospheric O)?
The pecise shape of the DSC curve depends on several factors. The peak being broad or narrow yields no definitive information. If the energy output of up to 7.5 kJ/g is correct, that would argue in favour of oxidation I think (though that's only my layman's gut feeling). Also, as 440°C is a plausible ignition point, or even slightly higher, for an unknown organic matrix, or epoxy, that makes ignition rather plausible, not?

 

[leftysergeant]

Get your favorite paint chip samples and video them sitting on a heating element.

Observe what happens around 430 C.

If so far you have a visual match, examine the residue to see if the match continues.

Why bother. Idiot boy Basile just proved that it was not a thermite chip.

It didn't damage the heating element.

 

[BasqueArch]

Mark Basile and his Search for the paint:
(excerpts from this discussion: http://911blogger.com/node/20998)
.........

Thickness of red chips:
"Thickness of the red layer is.. They vary a little bit, but basically they're on the order of a few sheets of paper (???), actually is... is the layer.. You know it's anywhere from like .. say then to thirty thousands in thickness."

Is seems that Mark Basile found red layers about 30 µm thick. This is a typical thickness of paint layers and, btw, it is in a good accordance with the thickness of "Laclede primer paint" (25 µm).

Does a painted therm*te layer .001" thick have enough energy to melt a 1/4" thick steel perimeter column? Half the energy is spent heating the air. According to NIST it takes two pounds of thermite to melt one pound of steel.

The sol-gel process requires the solution to be cast and heated to evaporate the binder, not applicable to the vertical steel surfaces of the towers.

The paint binder would occupy at least 20% of the volume. Assuming the binder has no deleterious effect on the energy release, the therm*te would have needed to be 1/4" x 2 x 2 x1.2 = 1.2" thick at least , assuming half the heat is efficiently transmitted to the steel.

For the wrapped exterior and interior columns it would have been painted at the time of construction, 1.2" minimum thick, but we know the exterior columns were covered with 2" of fibrous fireproofing instead.

A total paint layer 1.2" thick at 30 mils each would have to have been applied in at least 1200 separate layers, and impossible to have escaped notice of the architects, engineers, contractor.

Where's the paint binder spectra in the Harrit samples?
How active is this painted therm*te 31 years after its application?
How is it ignited?

 

[Miragememories]

1) MM, you really cannot complain that Bentham paper has not been discussed thoroughly (and ad nauseam) Those red paint chips are by far the most "brainstormed" particles of anything in the history of internet.

2) You know well that is is not really easy to get some authentic red-gray chips from WTC dust.

3) How do we know that heated element used by Basile had 430 C at the moment of ignition? (I do not remember any proof from the linked lecture.)

4) Why Basile showed us just only one heated/burning chip? I can tell you one possible explanation: other chips were not really ignited and were only thermally degraded (without flame). Such autoignition of small paint chip containing flammable polymeric binder and pigments can depend on many factors, e.g. on some processes catalyzed on surfaces of miniature pigment particles at high temperatures. E.g., Laclede paint contained strontium chromate which is a very strong oxidizing agent. If some "pieces" of this anticorrosive pigment was present on the surface, they can easily "start up" the flame. Simply: we cannot expect for sure that all red-gray paint chips would autoignite on such heated element. But, in all of them, the polymeric binder would be anyway almost completely oxidized/degraded/gasified with exothermic effect at high temperatures. (Btw, we do not know if chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper were ignited in DSC device under air. Probably not, since heat was released quite slowly, in the range of ca 100 degrees C.)

5) Everything we know about red-gray chips so far is consistent with the "paint hypothesis". It is up to truthers to convince world that we are wrong. I think Although I am willing (in principle) to support our Laclede paint hypothesis with some real experiments, I am not going to die for it.

So get some paint and do your own damn test if you think paint is what they tested.

Otherwise, all you are doing is wheel spinning speculation.

Dr. Harrit et al did test for paint and published their results.

You and Oystein et al can't be bothered to see if any paint can be heated and approach the Bentham paper observations.

Talk about your lame attitude.

**** or get off the pot as they say.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Why bother. Idiot boy Basile just proved that it was not a thermite chip.

It didn't damage the heating element.

Yes why bother, since you might discover you are wrong and you certainly wouldn't want to prove that would you?

MM

 

[tsig]

Why bother. Idiot boy Basile just proved that it was not a thermite chip.

It didn't damage the heating element.

This is not the steel damaging thermite.

 

[leftysergeant]

This is not the steel damaging thermite.

It also appears not to be the bright kind, either.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Huh? What element don't we know? That it was done under air (yes, we do know that), or that they "ignited" (i.e. burned with atmospheric O)?
The pecise shape of the DSC curve depends on several factors. The peak being broad or narrow yields no definitive information. If the energy output of up to 7.5 kJ/g is correct, that would argue in favour of oxidation I think (though that's only my layman's gut feeling). Also, as 440°C is a plausible ignition point, or even slightly higher, for an unknown organic matrix, or epoxy, that makes ignition rather plausible, not?

I am no expert in the chemistry of burning, Oystein) Anyway: of course that chips were heated in air both in DSC machine and on the element made by Basile. But, the results of heating can be strongly dependent on the heating rate (among others). If it is low - as those 10 degrees per minute in DSC machine -, flammable gaseous products of oxidation/degradation of polymer binder are also created slowly and their concentration around the chip could not be high enough for self-ignition of this gaseous mixture. Therefore, the binder is only degraded/oxidized further and no real (observable) flame is created. I think that this "scenario" could be valid for chips in DSC machine.
Of course, those 440 degrees C is quite "fine" temperature for self-ignition of epoxies. But, self-ignition could be observed in some cases and not in others. I would expect that auto-ignition of binder is normal when sample is heated quite quickly.
Btw, I have not found any direct info about auto-ignition temperatures of epoxy resins in the scientific or technical literature. I only know for sure that, at temperatures around 400 degrees C, all epoxies are massively degraded/oxidized, with the dramatic loss of mass.

 

[Oystein]

I am no expert in the chemistry of burning, Oystein) Anyway: of course that chips were heated in air both in DSC machine and on the element made by Basile. But, the results of heating can be strongly dependent on the heating rate (among others). If it is low - as those 10 degrees per minute in DSC machine -, flammable gaseous products of oxidation/degradation of polymer binder are also created slowly and their concentration around the chip could not be high enough for self-ignition of this gaseous mixture. Therefore, the binder is only degraded/oxidized further and no real (observable) flame is created. I think that this "scenario" could be valid for chips in DSC machine.
Of course, those 440 degrees C is quite "fine" temperature for self-ignition of epoxies. But, self-ignition could be observed in some cases and not in others. I would expect that auto-ignition of binder is normal when sample is heated quite quickly.
Btw, I have not found any direct info about auto-ignition temperatures of epoxy resins in the scientific or technical literature. I only know for sure that, at temperatures around 400 degrees C, all epoxies are massively degraded/oxidized, with the dramatic loss of mass.

Ok I understand you now, I think. This might explain why the energy density of their samples (1.5 - 7.5 kJ/g) varied by a factor of 5: Maybe more of the gaseous products of degradation ignited before escaping in some of the samples than in others.

Hm if most of the exothermic reactions of epoxy take place below 400°C, why do we see a peak well above 400°?

MM is of course right: The best-case scenario ist to retrieve actual LaClede primer from actual WTC floor trusses, that ideally is still "pristine" (in particular: has not been subject to significant temperatures in the rubble pile). However I fear chances are slim to get a good enough sample.
If we ever get one, we should share it with Harrit, Basile and the bunch, so they can run the same tests, maybe even with the same equipment; and of course we should do the same tests, with our equipment.
If we can't get one, our theory won't get a final experimental verification. So what. Harrit e.al. don't have the exact same thermite that they think was used at the WTC - in fact, they don't even know what properties it would have, and (maybe more importantly) would not have. It is already clear that our theory explains their data a lot better than their theory.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Dr. Harrit et al did test for paint and published their results. MM

Are you able to understand that hundreds of various paints are available in the market and their properties differ dramatically? The comparison of behaviour of red-gray chips with just one paint was one of the most apparent nonsenses and childish mistakes in the Bentham paper. Those "experts" even did not have any idea that many paints (based on crosslinkable polymers like epoxies /e.g. Lalcede red primer/, alkyds /e.g. Tnemec red primer/ or polyesters) are in principle insoluble in anything! So, (among others) this "solubility test" in Bentham was completely worthless.
As regards "flame tests" with paint and chips, they were worthless as well for the same reason. Btw, red-gray chips in Bentham paper behaved thermally very similarly to my Laclede paint imitation heated up to 700 degrees C under air: their polymeric binder was almost completely degraded/evaporated and reddish matter was a result, since iron oxide remained unchanged (stayed red) - which is course a clear sign that no thermitic reaction took place...

 

[DGM]

If we ever get one, we should share it with Harrit, Basile and the bunch, so they can run the same tests, maybe even with the same equipment; and of course we should do the same tests, with our equipment.
If we can't get one, our theory won't get a final experimental verification. So what. Harrit e.al. don't have the exact same thermite that they think was used at the WTC - in fact, they don't even know what properties it would have, and (maybe more importantly) would not have. It is already clear that our theory explains their data a lot better than their theory.

Who have you contacted to try to obtain a sample? I might have some time next week to help if we can compile a list of possible sources.

 

[Oystein]

Who have you contacted to try to obtain a sample? I might have some time next week to help if we can compile a list of possible sources.

So far I only wrote an email to [email protected], inquiring if they know where such samples might be available. No reply.

For personal reasons I have not been doing any concentrated work on this topic during the last few weeks, only reading here and replying where I know ad-hoc answers.


ETA: DGM, your next post will be your 10,000th here, whoohooo

 

[Miragememories]

"Dr. Harrit et al did test for paint and published their results."

"Are you able to understand that hundreds of various paints are available in the market and their properties differ dramatically? The comparison of behaviour of red-gray chips with just one paint was one of the most apparent nonsenses and childish mistakes in the Bentham paper. Those "experts" even did not have any idea that many paints (based on crosslinkable polymers like epoxies /e.g. Lalcede red primer/, alkyds /e.g. Tnemec red primer/ or polyesters) are in principle insoluble in anything! So, (among others) this "solubility test" in Bentham was completely worthless.
As regards "flame tests" with paint and chips, they were worthless as well for the same reason. Btw, red-gray chips in Bentham paper behaved thermally very similarly to my Laclede paint imitation heated up to 700 degrees C under air: their polymeric binder was almost completely degraded/evaporated and reddish matter was a result, since iron oxide remained unchanged (stayed red) - which is course a clear sign that no thermitic reaction took place..."

And as would be reasonably expected, they tested paint that could be expected to have been used on WTC structural steel.

The only thing childish, is your opinion that they were wrong to test for the most obvious paint candidate; the NIST specified steel primer paint.

Like I said, if you are so sure that paint can account for similar results to those observed by Dr. Harrit et al, then it should not be too difficult for you to prove them wrong.

MM