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

[Oystein]

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

FALSE.
For the purpose of their paper, they tested paint scraped from the BYU football stadium.
Later, Jones presented test results for primer from WTC perimeter columns - this appears to be very similar to the MEK-treated chip.

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.

FALSE.
You have not followed this thread well and that's why you write such dumb stuff.

There was not a single "the" NIST specified steel primer. There are at least two different primers used on WTC structural steel whose specifications can be found in the NIST reports.
Harrit, Jones e.al. did NOT test the other most obvious paint candidate: The LaClede standard primer specified for the floor joists.
In this thread, Ivan and I estimated the total painted areas of both perimeter columns (incl. spandrels) and floor joists and found that they are in the same ball park, so Tnemec and LaClede standard primer are about equally likely candidate. Since we know already that Tnemec can be rules out, LaClede standard primer becomes the most obvious candidate, and in fact Harrit's data are a good match for that 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

It isn't difficult to make a strong case, just read this thread without bias.

 

[Miragememories]

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

"FALSE.
For the purpose of their paper, they tested paint scraped from the BYU football stadium.
Later, Jones presented test results for primer from WTC perimeter columns - this appears to be very similar to the MEK-treated chip."

FALSE?

Why?

They did in fact do testing on primer paint removed from WTC steel.

"and there was a lot of debris that was sent with the beams. Some of that evidence came from that debris as well as coming directly off of the steel columns. That's where these initial samples came from...So we actually did some experiments to compare the elemental composition of primer paint from the World Trade Center steel that was taken off one of the Clarkson College beams. But it was taken from one of the beams used in the World Trade Center."

They did attempt to match the Tnemec primer paint formulation specified by the NIST.

Dr. Harrit looked into the primer paint claims as well. Here is a brief summary extracted from this letter; WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT-May 2009 ;

"This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips.

The primer paint applied to the steel beams of WTC is described and characterized in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D.2 ...Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet..."

I won't recite the whole letter, read it for yourself;
http://11-septembre.com/dossiers/Harrit/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf

His final conclusion;

"The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent.
The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST."

"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."

"FALSE.
You have not followed this thread well and that's why you write such dumb stuff."

Speaking of writing dumb stuff, your next statement certainly qualifies.

"There was not a single "the" NIST specified steel primer. There are at least two different primers used on WTC structural steel whose specifications can be found in the NIST reports.
Harrit, Jones e.al. did NOT test the other most obvious paint candidate: The LaClede standard primer specified for the floor joists.
In this thread, Ivan and I estimated the total painted areas of both perimeter columns (incl. spandrels) and floor joists and found that they are in the same ball park, so Tnemec and LaClede standard primer are about equally likely candidate. Since we know already that Tnemec can be rules out, LaClede standard primer becomes the most obvious candidate, and in fact Harrit's data are a good match for that paint."

From what I have read, the NIST primarily referred to the Tnemec primer paint.

The NIST used Tnemec primer paint and not LaClede primer paint for their primary steel temperature testing.

"Another argument depends on the thermal stability of the primer paint because you might wonder why should somebody paint the World Trade Center steel with a paint which reacts violently at 430 C. And even in the NIST Report, they used the thermal reactivity of the primer paint as a measure for the temperatures for which the steel beams had been exposed. They actually took a steel beam and put it into an oven and saw what happened to the primer paint upon heating. And if you keep the beam at 250 C, it starts cracking and its called mud-cracking because of how it looks. If you heat it further to 650 C, the mud-cracking becomes severe and beyond that temperature, what happens is scales are being formed because the organic binder actually starts charring. There are no basically organic compounds which are stable beyond 450 C. It has been converted to Carbon and it starts peeling off. And this experiment you can carry on to 800-900 C. I have done it myself. But these are pictures from the NIST Report. So, from looking at the mud-cracking of the paint, they could tell how hot the steel beams had been and I can tell you as a footnote, that they did not find any steel beams that had been beyond 250 C based on this way of measuring. What our point here is, what we found, takes off at 430 C but the primary paint is thermally stable. So that is why the red/grey chips are not primer paint."

You have not revealed anything special about LaClede primer that would justify all the emphasis you want to place on it. Your argument appears to be solely based on the simple fact that it was a primer paint that Dr. Harrit et al did not specifically eliminate as a candidate.

That concern would have some validity, if you could show some test results that even remotely resemble the test observations presented in the Bentham paper.

Like Ivan said, "Are you able to understand that hundreds of various paints are available in the market".

Should Dr. Harrit et al, have eliminated each and every one by testing, just to satisfy your desperate need to deny the existence of nano-thermite?

"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."

"It isn't difficult to make a strong case, just read this thread without bias."

I would suggest the strong bias is your own since you have failed miserably to make any case at all, but continue to pretend otherwise.

MM

 

[grandmastershek]

So basically MM's argument boils down to "Well I hope they did because if not they appear very incompetent, and that's not convenient. So I will just pretend they did".

Sorry MM. In any study you are supposed to specifically note what materials you used for replication purposes. Either way their methods were crap.

 

[DGM]

Like Ivan said, "Are you able to understand that hundreds of various paints are available in the market".

Should Dr. Harrit et al, have eliminated each and every one by testing, just to satisfy your desperate need to deny the existence of nano-thermite?


MM

No. They should have done it because there was no reason to think anything besides, damage, fire and gravity was involved. What they are suggesting requires extraordinary proof. They are the ones that should have covered all the bases. They did not. This is why they had to pay to have their work "published" in a vanity journal. Peer-review would have pointed this out.

 

[GlennB]

Should Dr. Harrit et al, have eliminated each and every one by testing, just to satisfy your desperate need to deny the existence of nano-thermite?

No, that would be an unreasonable demand.

A reasonable one - a necessary one in fact - is that they establish the thermitic properties of their samples. This requires them to ensure that it's capable of a self-sustaining reaction in the absence of gaseous oxygen. Nothing could be more fundamental to the question hand, could it? Did they do this? No.

A nice follow-up would have been to test the substance for the compounds it contained rather than just the elements. This would have been unneccesary should the step above have failed.

But they didn't. They failed in basic scientific methodology.

And yes, I know this has been said before in different ways. But performing a certain set of tests that support a pre-existing theory is a very easy way to appear to support that theory. Performing a rigorous set of tests that might disprove the theory is actually the essence of good science.

 

[Oystein]

FALSE?

Why?

They did in fact do testing on primer paint removed from WTC steel.

They did attempt to match the Tnemec primer paint formulation specified by the NIST.

Dr. Harrit looked into the primer paint claims as well. Here is a brief summary extracted from this letter; WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT-May 2009 ;

I won't recite the whole letter, read it for yourself;
http://11-septembre.com/dossiers/Harrit/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf

His final conclusion;

Where to begin to deconstruct all the inconsistencies...

First of all, let me repeat the claim that I made that you replied to:

"FALSE.
For the purpose of their paper [i.e. "Active Thermitic Material..." published at Bentham], they tested paint scraped from the BYU football stadium.
Later, Jones presented test results for primer from WTC perimeter columns - this appears to be very similar to the MEK-treated chip."

In that paper, you find the following passage:

The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

We know from direct conversation with Steven Jones where THAT paint control was sampled:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2010/11/origin-of-steven-jones-paint-controll.html

We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.

Now to your buddies:

Your Farrer-quote is not referenced, and makes no attempt to specify if that WTC paint from Clarkson College beams was used in any way for the paper "Active Thermitic Material...". If that's what he means, it appears like he is contradicting Dr. Steven Jones. The issue is not resolved at this point and I stand by my original claim: The paint that Harrit, Jones, Farrer e.al. soaked MEK for their paper "Active Thermitic Material..." to compare to one particular chip was not from WTC steel but from the BYU football stadium. It is thus not surprising at all that it exhibits properties different from the MEK-treated red-gray chip, which we believe is Tnemec, whereas the BYU football stadium control paint is very likely some other formulation.

The Harrit letter does not talk at all about any experiments anyone at all has done on samples of Tnemec from WTC steel. He only compares their well-know data from the red-gray chips with spec data found in the NIST reports and some technical data sheet. Since this letter was published after "Active Thermitic Material..." was out (in fact, the letter references "ATM..."), you would definitely expect him to mention any testing they had done on WTC Tnemec if they had done any testing on WTC Tnemec. Since the letter mentions no such testing, it seem reasonable to assume that they did in fact NOT test WTC Tnemec as part of the work towards "ATM..."

You apparently forgot by the way that I agree fully with Harrit's conclusion in the letter: Chips a-d are not Tnemec.

MM, could you please read Harrit's works more carefully and tell me if I am correct in my reading!

Speaking of writing dumb stuff, your next statement certainly qualifies.

It doesn't. You just lost focus and forgot what I said and was talking about

From what I have read, the NIST primarily referred to the Tnemec primer paint.

The NIST used Tnemec primer paint and not LaClede primer paint for their primary steel temperature testing.

Yes, so what? What is the relevance of that in the current context?

You have not revealed anything special about LaClede primer that would justify all the emphasis you want to place on it. Your argument appears to be solely based on the simple fact that it was a primer paint that Dr. Harrit et al did not specifically eliminate as a candidate.

Incorrect. If you had read this current thread more carefully, you'd know better than to write such ignorant stuff.

If you study Harrit's letter, the one you linked to in your previos post, you will find that in it he reveals that the red-gray chips contained traces of strontium and chromium. LaClede primer is specified to contain strontium chromate. Amazing, isn't it?
We know from "AMT..." that the main mineraly contained in the red-gray chips a-are aluminium silicate and iron oxide. And surprise surprisem these are the main pigments in LaClede standard primer as per specification.

What's more, Harrit e.al. found manganese in the grey layers. The LaClede steel used for the floor joists that were painted with their standard primer is mostly a grade whose main alloying material is manganes, at around or slighty over 1%.

These are the main reasons that justify the emphasis we put on LaClede paint: It contains exactly the things that Harrit found: aluminium silicate, hematite and strontium chromate in an orgamic matrix.

Strange that you missed all these arguments. I suggest you read this thread from the beginning, or hmm maybe from page 3 on. You will find references to the NIST report and learn where NIST gives us the LaClede primer specification. Then you will know that Tnemec is not everything that NIST talks about, and why Tnemec is not in our focus anymore.

That concern would have some validity, if you could show some test results that even remotely resemble the test observations presented in the Bentham paper.

The test observations presented in the Bentham paper ARE the test results that we need: We compare these results with specifications of LaClede standard primer, which was painted on the floor joists, and find it is an amazing match! That's exactly the same method Harrit used in his letter. Harrit concluded, correctly even though he did not actually test WTC Tnemec, that chips a-d are not WTC Tnemec, because the Bentham paper test results point to a different composition of the paint than the Tnemec that was specified for the perimeter columns. If Harrit had found the specification for LaClede primer in the NIST report and done the exact same study, he surely would have concluded that chips a-d could very well be that other primer. Unfortunately, it seem that Harrit e.al. have not read enough of the NIST report to know that there was at least one other primer that they did not account for, and whose composition matches their test results to a T.

Like Ivan said, "Are you able to understand that hundreds of various paints are available in the market".

Should Dr. Harrit et al, have eliminated each and every one by testing, just to satisfy your desperate need to deny the existence of nano-thermite?

No, of course not No one is saying that.
What they did is equally stupid: They compared with one (1) paint sample from BYU football stadium and concluded invalidly that all paints in the world, including all that might be used at the WTC, are not the same stuff as chips a-d.

Had you read this thread carefully, you'd have realized by now that Harrit e.al., by only testing one irrelevant other paint, overlooked a very real possibility.

I would suggest the strong bias is your own since you have failed miserably to make any case at all, but continue to pretend otherwise.

MM

Again, you have missed all the main points, facts and arguments raised in this thread. Read it again, read Harrit's letter more carefully, read Farrer's statements more carefully (pay attention to what he doesn't say!), read "ATM..." more carefully, open your eyes, and eliminate your own bias.

 

[BasqueArch]

Why did Harrit and Jones claim to test for Tnemec (cement spelled backwards) alkyd based paint, by using instead an epoxy based sample from BYU stadium exposed steel , as the control - they are two different chemical compositions.


How can anyone, amenable to reason, believe that a 30 microns painted coating of therm*te can melt 1/4" of steel.
Where's Harrit-Jones' confirming test for this?

Here's the test - no it can't

 

[Miragememories]

"We know from direct conversation with Steven Jones where THAT paint control was sampled:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...-controll.html"

"We know from direct conversation with Steven Jones where THAT paint control was sampled:"

There was no "direct conversation".

All you have is a claimed email extract by some anonymous person using the handle "metamars".

MM

 

[Oystein]

Why did Harrit and Jones claim to test for Tnemec (cement spelled backwards) alkyd based paint, by using instead an epoxy based sample from BYU stadium exposed steel , as the control - they are two different chemical compositions.
...

Uhm no, I think this is not what happened.

See http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
In November 2009, 7 months after they published at Bentham, Jones presented analysis results of paint scratched from some piece of WTC steel which apparently was Tnemec. That data was not included or hinted at in the Bentham paper. I believe this is what happened in sequence:

• Before April 2009: Jones, Harrit, Farrer analyse red-gray chips and use BYU football stadium paint as control for the limited issue of MEK solubility.
• April 2009: Paper published
• May 2009: Harrit in his letter presents some more detailed data from the chip analysis and compares with Tnemec specification, not Tnemec samples. Conclusion: Chips a-d are not Tnemec.
• Between May and November 2009: Jones and Farrer get hands on WTC Tnemec and analyse it
• November 2009: Jones presents new data that shows that chip "e", the one they treated with MEK, is quite probably Tnemec

I guess from this sequence that the interview with Farrer that MM quoted from was done well after April 2009, at a time when indeed they had cought up on the WTC primer paint sample.

 

[Oystein]

There was no "direct conversation".

All you have is a claimed email extract by some anonymous person using the handle "metamars".

MM

I have that. You have nothing.
I have shown you that, in May 2009, Harrit makes no mention of any tests on WTC paint samples, only refers to Tnemec specifications.

Farrer mentions testing WTC paint from Clarkson College in his interview with AE911truth that was uploaded to YT a year ago, in October 2010. He makes no mention of doing an MEK test on it, or a XEDS test. He is very vague about which test was done when with what intention.

You have so far shown no evidence that WTC paint was used for the Bentham paper. I think harrit's letter speaks for itself: They did not use WTC Tnemec for the Bentham paper.

 

[BasqueArch]

Uhm no, I think this is not what happened.

See http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
In November 2009, 7 months after they published at Bentham, Jones presented analysis results of paint scratched from some piece of WTC steel which apparently was Tnemec. That data was not included or hinted at in the Bentham paper. I believe this is what happened in sequence:

• Before April 2009: Jones, Harrit, Farrer analyse red-gray chips and use BYU football stadium paint as control for the limited issue of MEK solubility.
• April 2009: Paper published
• May 2009: Harrit in his letter presents some more detailed data from the chip analysis and compares with Tnemec specification, not Tnemec samples. Conclusion: Chips a-d are not Tnemec.
• Between May and November 2009: Jones and Farrer get hands on WTC Tnemec and analyse it
• November 2009: Jones presents new data that shows that chip "e", the one they treated with MEK, is quite probably Tnemec

I guess from this sequence that the interview with Farrer that MM quoted from was done well after April 2009, at a time when indeed they had cought up on the WTC primer paint sample.

Thanks Oystein.
I still don't understand it, but no matter. Harrit used BYU epoxy-based paint MEK control to compare to Tnemec alkyd based specs/actual sample. No? No matter.

Then Jones shows chip "e" is quite probably Tnemec, and admits this chip is not the ineffectual 30 micron supertherm*te.

He did admit that, right?

 

[Miragememories]

"Your Farrer-quote is not referenced..."

Much better than citing a source hiding behind a veil anonymity.

The Jeff Farrer quote came directly from his statements in these YouTube interviews;

YouTube Links;
http://www.youtube.com/wa..._A1TQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/wa...Y32Y4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/wa...2ReUo&feature=related

"...and makes no attempt to specify if that WTC paint from Clarkson College beams was used in any way for the paper "Active Thermitic Material..."

"and there was a lot of debris that was sent with the beams. Some of that evidence came from that debris as well as coming directly off of the steel columns. That's where these initial samples came from...So we actually did some experiments to compare the elemental composition of primer paint from the World Trade Center steel that was taken off one of the Clarkson College beams. But it was taken from one of the beams used in the World Trade Center."

Jeff Farrer stated that he received the WTC samples in 2006, well before the paper "Active Thermitic Material..." Since he worked closely with Dr. Jones, it would seem highly unlikely that he would keep his paint comparison tests a secret.

I guess maybe you should have asked your anonymous friend to ask Dr. Jones, if the elemental composition of the primer paint he used for the paper matched that of the WTC primer paint tested by Jeff Farrer?

MM

 

[DGM]

MM:
Why is it you don't care that more than one primer was documented to be used at the WTC? Do you believe they're all the same? Is this information too much for your "open mind" to handle?

 

[Miragememories]

"From what I have read, the NIST primarily referred to the Tnemec primer paint.

The NIST used Tnemec primer paint and not LaClede primer paint for their primary steel temperature testing."

"Another argument depends on the thermal stability of the primer paint because you might wonder why should somebody paint the World Trade Center steel with a paint which reacts violently at 430 C. And even in the NIST Report, they used the thermal reactivity of the primer paint as a measure for the temperatures for which the steel beams had been exposed. They actually took a steel beam and put it into an oven and saw what happened to the primer paint upon heating. And if you keep the beam at 250 C, it starts cracking and its called mud-cracking because of how it looks. If you heat it further to 650 C, the mud-cracking becomes severe and beyond that temperature, what happens is scales are being formed because the organic binder actually starts charring. There are no basically organic compounds which are stable beyond 450 C. It has been converted to Carbon and it starts peeling off. And this experiment you can carry on to 800-900 C. I have done it myself. But these are pictures from the NIST Report. So, from looking at the mud-cracking of the paint, they could tell how hot the steel beams had been and I can tell you as a footnote, that they did not find any steel beams that had been beyond 250 C based on this way of measuring. What our point here is, what we found, takes off at 430 C but the primary paint is thermally stable. So that is why the red/grey chips are not primer paint."

"Yes, so what? What is the relevance of that in the current context?"

Context?

It shows that even the NIST, who were aware of the LaClede primer, considered the Tnemic primer paint to be the one to use for their testing.

It also shows that the NIST, in their professional opinion, unlike your amateur opinion, did not consider the LaClede primer to have a formulation worthy of serious attention.

MM

 

[DGM]

Context?

It shows that even the NIST, who were aware of the LaClede primer, considered the Tnemic primer paint to be the one to use for their testing.

It also shows that the NIST, in their professional opinion, unlike your amateur opinion, did not consider the LaClede primer to have a formulation worthy of serious attention.

MM

Are you high? What does this have to do with what we're talking about? What was NIST looking to do? Was it the same thing as your heroes? Did NIST identify more than one primer?

 

[LSSBB]

Context?

It shows that even the NIST, who were aware of the LaClede primer, considered the Tnemic primer paint to be the one to use for their testing.

It also shows that the NIST, in their professional opinion, unlike your amateur opinion, did not consider the LaClede primer to have a formulation worthy of serious attention.

MM

Is this an Appeal to The Authority You Are Trying to Discredit?

 

[DGM]

Is this an Appeal to The Authority You Are Trying to Discredit?

No, It's clutching at straws trying to save his belief. It's what a person with a true "open mind" does.

 

[Miragememories]

"You have not revealed anything special about LaClede primer that would justify all the emphasis you want to place on it. Your argument appears to be solely based on the simple fact that it was a primer paint that Dr. Harrit et al did not specifically eliminate as a candidate.

"If you study Harrit's letter, the one you linked to in your previos post, you will find that in it he reveals that the red-gray chips contained traces of strontium and chromium. LaClede primer is specified to contain strontium chromate. Amazing, isn't it?"

Amazing? No.

Misrepresentation by you? Yes.

From Dr. Harrit's letter;

"Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium...The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!)... The signals from zinc and chromium could be from a surface contamination with primer paint."

So yes he acknowledges the possibility of your primer paint as surface contamination.

Nothing new there.

If this is your idea of carefully examining the facts Oystein, I'm not sure there is much point in responding to the rest of your pseudo scientific analysis.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"That concern would have some validity, if you could show some test results that even remotely resemble the test observations presented in the Bentham paper."

"The test observations presented in the Bentham paper ARE the test results that we need: We compare these results with specifications of LaClede standard primer, which was painted on the floor joists, and find it is an amazing match! That's exactly the same method Harrit used in his letter. Harrit concluded, correctly even though he did not actually test WTC Tnemec, that chips a-d are not WTC Tnemec, because the Bentham paper test results point to a different composition of the paint than the Tnemec that was specified for the perimeter columns. If Harrit had found the specification for LaClede primer in the NIST report and done the exact same study, he surely would have concluded that chips a-d could very well be that other primer. Unfortunately, it seem that Harrit e.al. have not read enough of the NIST report to know that there was at least one other primer that they did not account for, and whose composition matches their test results to a T."

You so desperately want to hold onto your LaClede primer theory no matter how humiliating you find the counter evidence to be.

I'm sorry but noise level indications, and acknowledged readings of contaminants does not make an amazing match with LaClede super thermite-like primer.

MM

 

[DGM]

You so desperately want to hold onto your LaClede primer theory no matter how humiliating you find the counter evidence to be.

MM

What "counter evidence"? You have just confirmed they didn't consider it.