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

[Miragememories]

"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."

Well I think Ivan did imply that.

"What they did is equally stupid: They compared with one (1) paint sample from BYU football stadium..."

Makes nice copy. The old BYU football stadium paint mockery, but as I've shown, all you have is an email extract produced by an anonymous source that flies in the face of an on-the-record scientist who claim he tested genuine WTC paint. And also ignores the possibility that the Dr. Jones knew that the BYU stadium used the identical paint formulation.

I don't know about the credibility of your anonymous source, (well I do know he is an Official Story supporter), but I'm betting my money on the guy with the professional credentials and the cajones to put his real name out front-and-center.

"...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."

??

A very real possibility of what exactly?

That the WTC floor trusses were coated with a primer paint that immediately ignited during an office fire?

Time to stop the desperate speculation Oystein and provide some scientific test proof to support your "amazing" claims!

MM

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

THere was not enough testable LaClede primer available from identifiable locations to determine from its examination how much heat was applied during the primary fires, as opposed to those in the pile.

Perimeter and core columns were progresively lighter toward the top of the building, as they all had less load to bear.The floors all had to bear the same load. There would be no way to determine which of those badly-mangled pieces of metal in the pile came from which floor.

Further, we can be sure, based on the simplest principles of fire science that, whatever the temperature to which a given column was exposed, the floor trusses were exposed to a greater heat, because that is where the hot, burining gases acculmulate.

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.

NIST was not looking for an explanation for the chips that the little boys with their chemistry sets decided was thermite. Nobody with a bleeding clue about paint or thermite thought that that was what they were.

We are merely accounting for chucklenuts Jones' having found two different types of paint, both of which should have been there, and pointing out that none of the thermite believers has a freaking clue how to do forensic investigations. It is cllear that none of the clowns has shown that they are even up to the standards of the professions that they currently practice.

(And that goes for little Dickie Gage and his cardboard models of how he "thought" the towers would react when the top part fell into the bottom as well.)

 

[leftysergeant]

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

There is no evidence of absence of anything that should be in LaClede primer. There is evidence of vast quantities of crap that should not be in any useable thermite, like KAOLIN.

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

The behavior of the chips when ignited in no way resembles that of thermite, nor is there any evidence that thermite damaged even one piece of steel in the towers.

You could as easily build a case that the terrorists loaded the planes with unicorn manure so that the fires would burn longer.

 

[Miragememories]

Think much?

People like yourself, leftysergeant, that rely on calling legitimate scientists; "little boys with their chemistry sets", who malign a respected physicist by referring to him as "chucklenuts Jones", who suggest people with far more professionalism than themselves as having "no freaking clue", and who disparage scientists with the label "clowns", all the while obsessing on KAOLIN, deserve the complete lack of respect that they get!

MM

 

[leftysergeant]

Think much?

People like yourself, leftysergeant, that rely on calling legitimate scientists; "little boys with their chemistry sets", who malign a respected physicist by referring to him as "chucklenuts Jones", who suggest people with far more professionalism than themselves as having "no freaking clue", and who disparage scientists with the label "clowns", all the while obsessing on KAOLIN, deserve the complete lack of respect that they get!

Chucklenuts has to demonstrate that there is supposed to be kaolin in a useable thermite demolitions device before any hose dragger can take him seriously.

As far as I am concerned, he disproved his competency as a scientist when he wrote "Behold My Hands."

Total piece of crap and good reason to rank him far below any of his critics for research skills.

Harrit failed to do the one test that would prove that his chips were thermite, in that he did not prove that they burned in an inert atmosphere. Any hose dragger is entitled to dismiss the putz on that basis.

He also fails to show us any evidence that, whether or not his stuff is thermite, that any of it was used to damage structural elements in the WTC.

When he mentioned the use of conventional explosives, he just threw his credibility out the window.

Little Dickie is just laughable. Any moron can tell you that there is a huge difference between a cardboard box and a damaged skyscraper.

 

[Oystein]

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?

No no nooo

Harrit/Jones used BYU paint to soak in MEK and compare with chip "e" in the Bentham paper. No Tnemec sample involved. This comparison of course proves nothing.

Later, Jones presented analysis of Tnemec; he didn't realize it, but his Tnemec analysis data is very similar to the chip "e" analysis data. This shows that chip "e" is quite likely Tnemec, even though Jones has not nor ever would admit it.

 

[Miragememories]

"People like yourself, leftysergeant, that rely on calling legitimate scientists; "little boys with their chemistry sets", who malign a respected physicist by referring to him as "chucklenuts Jones", who suggest people with far more professionalism than themselves as having "no freaking clue", and who disparage scientists with the label "clowns", all the while obsessing on KAOLIN, deserve the complete lack of respect that they get!"

"Chucklenuts has to demonstrate that there is supposed to be kaolin in a useable thermite demolitions device before any hose dragger can take him seriously.

As far as I am concerned, he disproved his competency as a scientist when he wrote "Behold My Hands."

Total piece of crap and good reason to rank him far below any of his critics for research skills."

Ah yes kaolin, a substance found just about everywhere.

I'm an atheist, and while I'm willing to agree that most religious-based writings are crap, I'm not such a fool as as to hold a belief that all religious scientists are incompetent.

Something tells me that even if Dr. Harrit had tested the red chips in an inert gas or a vacuum, that you still would find reason to disagree with a thermite finding.

Ah right. You covered that scenario by demanding he prove conclusively that thermite was used against the WTC structural elements. Elements that have largely been turned into refrigerators now.

And damn, because we have no audio recordings that conclusively show the use of conventional explosives...

And heaven forbid anyone, especially Richard Gage, ever show you a cardboard illustration, when only a full scale built-to-the-same-specifications-and-appropriately-aged model of WTC will suffice for you.

Sweet dreams lefty.

MM

 

[Oystein]

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

I have a direct quote from Jones answering a direct question, so your defence is the anonymous might by making things up. Now it's not like metamars (a truther) isn't somewhat known around here.

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

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.

Ok. If it's not kept a secret, where is his paint comparison test? It's not in the Bentham paper, it's nowhere. O wait! It's in Jones's November 2009 lecture - 7 months after Bentham!
So where does Farrer state when this test on the WTC primer was done? O right: Nowhere.

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

No. Why should I?
Harrit, Jones and Farrer ought to have published a decent paper. They did not. It's all a mess.

You cannot show me that they used WTC primer as a comparison in the Bentham paper. That information is simply not out there. It's not in the paper, and Farrer does not say it in that interview. You only hear it - which reveals your bias.

 

[Oystein]

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.

They had an entirely different objective, obviously. You still haven't shown the relevance of that Harrit quote. It's irrelevant.

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

Such obvious nonsense!
They were trying to assess the temperatures reached near the columns during the office fires. They determined that paint on the columns couldhelp them do that.
What has this got to do with our objective, which is to identify certain a certain red paint? Are you saying the LaClede primer was not there?

 

[Oystein]

Amazing? No.

Misrepresentation by you? Yes.

From Dr. Harrit's letter;

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

The letter is wrong in its description of what they did for the Bentham paper.
The Cr and Sr signals came from one of the chips a-d. These chips were NOT treated with organic solvent. You'd know that if you had carefully read the Bentham paper.

MM, you seriously need to do a mental reset and read all the papers, and this thread, again. You are confused.

 

[Oystein]

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

There is no counter evidence, simply because no-one has yet responded to our theory. It is built upon Harrit's data, so Harrit's data is the evidence, not the counter evidence.

Harrit e.al. declare as contaminants everything they cannot explain.
The funny thing is, their data is better than they think, and it has easy explanation.
This talk of "contaminations" is simple, time-tested hand-waving.

 

[Oystein]

Makes nice copy. The old BYU football stadium paint mockery, but as I've shown, all you have is an email extract produced by an anonymous source that flies in the face of an on-the-record scientist who claim he tested genuine WTC paint.

The "BYU football stadium paint mockery" (Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy) has the great advantage over Farrer's vague babble talk that it provides a very specific question to the very specific question we are discussing here.
Q: Which paint control did you treat with MEK to compare with chip "e" in the Bentham paper?
A: BYU football stadium

You claim, but have NO proof, that this test, the very specifik MEK solvent test, was done with WTC Tnemec.

But Farrer does not tell us which test was done when, and is very vague on the results. It is your biased interpretation that this excerpt from the interview answers the question. You just don't know it.

And also ignores the possibility that the Dr. Jones knew that the BYU stadium used the identical paint formulation.

You are clutching at straws, man.

I don't know about the credibility of your anonymous source, (well I do know he is an Official Story supporter), but I'm betting my money on the guy with the professional credentials and the cajones to put his real name out front-and-center.

Metamars supports the commonly accepted story??

OK, MM: How much money are you betting? I want your commitment here and now. Name a US $ amount.

??A very real possibility of what exactly?

That the WTC floor trusses were coated with a primer paint that immediately ignited during an office fire?

a) Says who?
b) Do you doubt that epoxy-based primer is flammable?
c) What's your point?

Time to stop the desperate speculation Oystein and provide some scientific test proof to support your "amazing" claims!

MM

Again, the tests have already been done by Harrit, Jones, Farrer.
We don't doubt their analysis data. We have from the beginning (april 2009) been saying that the data is good, but the conclusions are crap, and very obviously so. Before this thread, we were sure the chips are really paint, but never knew which paint. Ivan now found the reference to LaClede, we re-examined the Harrit-data, and found it to be a very good match.

Their results of all chips are not consistent with any kind of thermite.
Their results for chips a-d are consistent with LaCLede Steel primer.
Their results for chip e are consistent with Tnemec

Not my problem if you can't understand that.

 

[Oystein]

...
Harrit failed to do the one test that would prove that his chips were thermite, in that he did not prove that they burned in an inert atmosphere.
...

Uhm this is neither the one (only) test, nor is it a good test to identify an unknown substance as thermite.

The best tests would have revealed chemical bonds. That's what Harrit, Farrer and Jones failed to do.

They deserve disrespect because they wrote a crap paper and after 2 years of being informed of the many mistakes in it have not had the smarts or the decency to improve their act.

 

[Miragememories]

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

"I have a direct quote from Jones answering a direct question, so your defence is the anonymous might by making things up. Now it's not like metamars (a truther) isn't somewhat known around here."

No. What you have is a link to your page and a quote that is an extract from an anonymous person.

You can characterize metamars anyway you wish but you are still sourcing an unknown individual.

The people I have been sourcing, use their real identities, are publicly known, and are on the public record as to their activities.

MM

 

[DGM]

.

The people I have been sourcing, use their real identities, are publicly known, and are on the public record as to their activities.

MM

So? Does this prove they're right? What it proves is, they think they're right. Or what I believe, They think they can convince you they're right.

 

[Oystein]

No. What you have is a link to your page and a quote that is an extract from an anonymous person.

You can characterize metamars anyway you wish but you are still sourcing an unknown individual.

The people I have been sourcing, use their real identities, are publicly known, and are on the public record as to their activities.

MM

More links are on my page. Follow them.

Your people may be known by real name, but they don't say what you think they say and do not give a definitive answer to the question at hand.

Oh and what is the real, publicly known identity of "JREFer Crazy Chainsaw"?
And what is the real, publicly known identity of Miragememories?

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Ok. If it's not kept a secret, where is his paint comparison test? It's not in the Bentham paper, it's nowhere. O wait! It's in Jones's November 2009 lecture - 7 months after Bentham!
So where does Farrer state when this test on the WTC primer was done? O right: Nowhere."

I told you above. Read much? How clear does Jeff Farrer have to be about his elemental composition of primer paint comparison?

Now you need a written avadavat that he did not keep his test results a secret from Dr. Jones before the Bentham paper was released?

MM

 

[DGM]

Your people may be known by real name,

Wait.............................................Have we seen birth certificates and or positive proof of this? Maybe they are impostors using these peoples names.....................................<cue that music (you know the kind)>

 

[Oystein]

I told you above. Read much? How clear does Jeff Farrer have to be about his elemental composition of primer paint comparison?

Now you need a written avadavat that he did not keep his test results a secret from Dr. Jones before the Bentham paper was released?

MM

He is not clear at all!

Can you please answer the question:

When did "they" analyse the chemical composition of the Tnemec sample from Clarkson University?
Possible answers:
- Before (or while) the Bentham paper was written
- After the Bentham paper was written
- I don't actually know

I fully expect you to back up your answer with some evidence. Acceptable evidence can be:
- Cite Farrer, Jones or Harrit mentioning a date or frame of time for that test that allows us to determine "before" or "after"
- Show me it was published before (or together with) the Bentham paper.



I think you will find that your answer will be "I don't actually know".

 

[Miragememories]

"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?"

"No. Why should I?
Harrit, Jones and Farrer ought to have published a decent paper. They did not. It's all a mess.

You cannot show me that they used WTC primer as a comparison in the Bentham paper. That information is simply not out there. It's not in the paper, and Farrer does not say it in that interview. You only hear it - which reveals your bias."

It is only a mess to you because it does not cooperate by producing findings that you dearly wish to see.

Jeff Farrer and Dr. Harrit have both attested to performing primer paint tests.

You will never be happy, because you are obsessed with your dream that LaClede primer paint was the red chip material, in spite of the absurd reality, that if true, such a primer paint was incredibly volatile.

MM