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

[Oystein]

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

Harrit?? Where and when? Not in the letter!

Can you please cite something that shows me Harrit has tested a Tnemec sample? His letter talks only theoretically about Tnemec, he discusses its properties from specification and safety data sheet, not from any actual tests. I told you this before. I fully expect you to cite Harrit to support the above claim, or to retract the claim. If you do neither I know you are dishonest, and that will end this exchange (which is unnecessary and tedious anyway; apologies to Ivan and all others that I am engaging you still despite knowing your character)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Invisible hydrocarbon gases that strangely stayed with the chip instead of rising like most hot gases do?

The ignition clearly originated within the chip and was quite incandescent.

If this is paint, you should be able to easily reproduce these results leftysergeant. I look forward to seeing your test results.

[qimg]http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4021/wtccipignitioncomp2ar1.jpg[/qimg]


MM

If this is thermite you should easily be able reproduce these results. The test of a scientific theory is reproducible results. If they are not reproducible the theory fails........so MM when is Jones a going to make samples of the dust available? and when will he test real nanothermite to show that this is really what happens when you ignite it. Otherwise all we have is his assuming thats thermite......when its much more likely to be paint.

We'll wait for your answer............chirp................chirp..............

 

[Miragememories]

"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. You only hear it - which reveals your bias."

Obviously?

Their objective was to use the most commonly occurring steel primer paint, Tnemec primer paint.

"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."

"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?

I am saying that the NIST considered the LaClede primer paint to be inconsequential to their test purposes and likely they never suspected, unlike you apparently, that it was volatile at 430 C.

Since the NIST were aware of the different formulations between the two paint types, I would have to believe that they would have reacted had they noticed anything unusual.

Or do you think a primer paint that ignites in the middle of their heat testing range would not be deemed unusual?

MM

 

[grandmastershek]

Why are you guys even arguing this?

MM,

Is there any study in any peer reviewed journal (we'll suspend the actual meaning for now and include Bentham for the sake of argument) that shows Harrit et al specifically noted doing comparison tests on primer paint from the WTC? Yes or no.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

And some of them are notorious for their stupid ideas, like the dork who thinks he found proof that Jesus visited Yucatan while recuperating from His crucifixion.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"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.

I'm not seeing your significant Cr and Sr signals.

"Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer."

Any other indications I saw in the paper indicated Cr and Sr were at background noise levels.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Obviously?

Their objective was to use the most commonly occurring steel primer paint, Tnemec primer paint.

That's what you really think, huh? Ok, I see now that you have trouble following scientific work.

Cuz you're very wrong. Look up the word "objective", and then contemplate on the question if "to use the most commonly occurring steel primer paint, Tnemec primer paint" could be a reasonable objective.




Of course their objective was totally different. It was "find out how hot structural steel members got on the fire floors".

"To use the most commonly occurring steel primer paint, Tnemec primer paint" was part of their method.


Please let me know when you have realized you totally blundered on the word "objective".

Once you have found the wrongness of your words and corrected them, I have another minor counter claim: It is not clear that Tnemec was "the most commonly occurring steel primer paint" in the WTC towers. If you had read this thread more carefully, you'd know that Ivan and I already computed rough estimates for the total area of steel painted with Tnemec, and with LaClede primer, and found that the perimeter assemblies and the floor joists have roughly the same total area. I don't know for sure what primer was painted on the core columns )which had less area), so it's a distinct possibility that more LaClede paint was used than Tnemec.

I am saying that the NIST considered the LaClede primer paint to be inconsequential to their test purposes

So what? Their test purposes have nothing to do with our test purposes.

MM, to sharpen your thought process, can you please answer the following questions:

A) What was the test purpose of NIST when they determined the composition, and the thermal behaviour, of Tnemec on perimeter columns?
B) What is Harrit's e.al., your and my test purpose?

If both answers are the same, then you say something valid.

and likely they never suspected, unlike you apparently, that it was volatile at 430 C.

So what?

Since the NIST were aware of the different formulations between the two paint types, I would have to believe that they would have reacted had they noticed anything unusual.

There was nothing unusual.

Or do you think a primer paint that ignites in the middle of their heat testing range would not be deemed unusual?

MM

No, I don't think so.
Why do you think so? How do primer paints in general behave when heated? And how do you know? I think the answer will be "I (MM) don't know".

 

[Oystein]

I'm not seeing your significant Cr and Sr signals.

If you had followed this thread carefully, you'd have seen them.

Any other indications I saw in the paper indicated Cr and Sr were at background noise levels.

MM

If you had followed this thread carefully, you'd know they were marked in the graph by Harrit (or his software) (not me!) because they are significantly above background noise level.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Curious.....why would you think that what paint was used in a temp test would be of any interest?

You have not revealed anything special about LaClede primer that would justify all the emphasis you want to place on it.

Nothing "special about it other than it was waht was on the trusses and likely what Jones et al tested and imagined (fantasized?) was soooper nanny thermnight.

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.

And you don't think thats important?????? One of the most likely candidates for what the material was and you don't think it was important not to have eliminated it???

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.

Seen to resembled them much more than they resemble thermite. Jeeze the morons didn't even test it in an inert gas..............

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?

The ones that can be shown to have been used in large quantities would be regarded as the very minimum..............they made their thermite claim without testing ANY of the paints used on the WTC.

 

[Sunstealer]

Curious.....why would you think that what paint was used in a temp test would be of any interest?

From page 4 of this thread - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7475372&postcount=143

4.2.7 Primer

The trusses supplied by Laclede Steel were shop primed during production using an electro-deposition process. The formulation for the primer was designated as Formula LREP-10001 and was found in Laclede files (see appendix B). The exact formulation could not be reproduced due to current environmental considerations. A stock steel primer, manufactured by Sherwin Williams and designated Type B50NV11 (recommended by Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the sprayed fire-resistive material used in these tests and in the original construction of the WTC towers was determined to be an acceptable substitute. The primer was field applied to the trusses after assembly in the ULN and ULC fire test facilities.

So they couldn't use the exact same formulation of paint because it's no longer manufactured.

It's a moot point.

 

[Robrob]

Geez, that there might be some iron rust and aluminum in the rubble of an office building - shocking!

 

[Dog Town]

Curious.....why would you think that what paint was used in a temp test would be of any interest?

Ooooh! I know!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Congratulation, MM, although you are apparently disoriented, you are quite successful in spoiling this thread. Last two pages are almost unreadable because of your messy intrusion.

There may be 3 main reasons for the mess you caused:
1) You have not read this thread from the beginning (or better from post No 104).
2) You have not been able to understand what is written here.
3) You are able to understand at least some very basics, but you are trying to be "disinfo agent".
Perhaps, all three points are valid to some extent

Although Oystein (and some others) was patient enough to try to explain you why and where you are wrong, let me repeat some basic things again.

1) Only paint from that stadium was considered for comparison in Bentham paper.

2) Later on, Jones showed us XEDS spectra (but nothing more) of Tnemec sample in the lecture held in Sydney. We thank to him very much, since XEDS of Tnemec sample is in astounding accordance with XEDS of "MEK chip" (chip (e)) in Bentham paper.

3) NIST used only Tnemec paint for analysis of its thermal behavior, since only this paint was preserved on (perimeter) construction steel from impact zones. Laclede paint on floor trusses, on the other hand, was not available.
Since Laclede paint was almost completely stripped off the steel during collapses, it must be abundant in the WTC dust.

4) This is why this paint is a very good candidate as for origin of red-gray chips (a) to (d). There should be very roughly some 10-40 tons of Laclede red chips in the dust, according to calculations made by Oystein. This is in good agreement with a concentration of those chips (0.02 to 0.1 %) estimated by Harrit and Basile. XEDS spectra of red chips (a) to (d) are in very good agreement with the declared composition of Laclede paint and with XEDS spectra simulated by Almond (post No 156). Consequently, everything is consistent with Laclede paint hypothesis.

One single example of your deep disorientation in the matter, quote:

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

1) Laclede primer paint was not "evaporated" from the WTC floor trusses, as you perhaps think (???). It was just stripped off the steel during collapses, frequently together with thin layers of adjacent oxidized steel (gray layers).

2) Otherwise, Laclede paint, containing over 70 % of epoxy binder, was of course and for sure "volatile" at high temperatures! All epoxies are massively degraded at the temperature range ca 370-430 degrees C both under air and under inert atmosphere. Look, e.g., into this paper: p. 209-231.
Also, look into my own thermogravimetric curves of heating of Laclede paint imitation under air and under nitrogen here: http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/epoxides#TGA-air.jpg and here: http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/epoxides#TGA-N22.jpg As you can see (if you are not completely blind), epoxy in that imitation is massively degraded/oxidized/"volatilized"(evaporated) in this temperature range and only inorganic pigments (iron oxide, aluminosilicate and chromate) remained in the sample. Let me now consider only heating under air, as performed in DSC device in Bentham paper: this behavior (exothermic oxidative degradation of polymer binder at high temperatures) is normal, typical and it has been described in many hundreds of scientific papers. And Harrit et his comrades should know this, before they tried to discuss the meaning of their DSC curves.

Pls, contribute here only if you have something really factual and well-supported. Otherwise, please stop to spoil this thread.

 

[Oystein]

Excellent and focussed summary, Ivan.
I apologize for feeding the troll.

 

[Oystein]

MM has not responded to several questions I raised, and apparently has abandoned this thread as he is currently posting elsewhere. Here are some of my unanswered question - apologies in advance if I missed replies that addressed these:

...
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! ...

...
Ok. If it's not kept a secret, where is his [Farrer's] 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.
...

...
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?

(The above questions have been sort of addressed, but very insufficiently so; basically, MM quoted them and went on to repeat his flawed logic.)

...
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?

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.

Harrit?? Where and when? Not in the letter!

Can you please cite something that shows me Harrit has tested a Tnemec sample? His letter talks only theoretically about Tnemec, he discusses its properties from specification and safety data sheet, not from any actual tests. I told you this before. I fully expect you to cite Harrit to support the above claim, or to retract the claim. If you do neither I know you are dishonest, and that will end this exchange (which is unnecessary and tedious anyway; apologies to Ivan and all others that I am engaging you still despite knowing your character)

...
MM, to sharpen your thought process, can you please answer the following questions:

A) What was the test purpose of NIST when they determined the composition, and the thermal behaviour, of Tnemec on perimeter columns? B) What is Harrit's e.al., your and my test purpose?
If both answers are the same, then you say something valid.

...
Why do you think so? How do primer paints in general behave when heated? And how do you know? I think the answer will be "I (MM) don't know".

 

[leftysergeant]

MM has not responded to several questions I raised, and apparently has abandoned this thread as he is currently posting elsewhere. Here are some of my unanswered question - apologies in advance if I missed replies that addressed these:

The fact that he finds it hard to believe that a "volitile" paint was used is kind of amusing.

460C flash point is not really what a fire fighter would call "volitile." Ordinary paper ignites an continues to burn at 451F.

Nearly ALL paint is flamable at some point. 460 is really quite high.

Of course, it doesn't matter at all at what temperature La Clede would ignite.

It was covered so deeply in insulation that it was suppsed to take a couple hours to even sustain thermal damage. It was as fire safe as anyone with their marbles all in one bag would expect it to be.

 

[Oystein]

The fact that he finds it hard to believe that a "volitile" paint was used is kind of amusing.

460C flash point is not really what a fire fighter would call "volitile." Ordinary paper ignites an continues to burn at 451F.

Nearly ALL paint is flamable at some point. 460 is really quite high.

Of course, it doesn't matter at all at what temperature La Clede would ignite.

It was covered so deeply in insulation that it was suppsed to take a couple hours to even sustain thermal damage. It was as fire safe as anyone with their marbles all in one bag would expect it to be.

And besides, at a thickness of 25µm (1mil) and painted on (both sides of) steel at least 6mm thick, that is not much of a hazard. It would heat that steel by some degrees - after the steel already came close to 400°C. Insignificant.

Or, to put it another way: Per office floor, there are aboz 266m³ LaClede paint. At 25µm thickness, that's abou 66 liters of paint - about the mass of one human inhabitant.
The paint, according to Harrit's results, has am energy density of at most 7.5kJ/g - that's less than what humans have.
It follows that the presence of one human body adds as much fuel to a floor as all the LaClede paint.

Just putting things into their proper proportions

 

[Miragememories]

"From page 4 of this thread - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=143"

"4.2.7 Primer

The trusses supplied by Laclede Steel were shop primed during production using an electro-deposition process. The formulation for the primer was designated as Formula LREP-10001 and was found in Laclede files (see appendix B). The exact formulation could not be reproduced due to current environmental considerations. A stock steel primer, manufactured by Sherwin Williams and designated Type B50NV11 (recommended by Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the sprayed fire-resistive material used in these tests and in the original construction of the WTC towers was determined to be an acceptable substitute. The primer was field applied to the trusses after assembly in the ULN and ULC fire test facilities."

"So they couldn't use the exact same formulation of paint because it's no longer manufactured.

It's a moot point.

So much for faulting Dr. Harrit et al for not testing the LaClede primer paint formulation.

MM

 

[Oystein]

So much for faulting Dr. Harrit et al for not testing the LaClede primer paint formulation.

MM

Can you please tell us who has been "faulting Dr. Harrit et al for not testing the LaClede primer paint formulation"? Please link to a relevant post.

He did not even consider LaClede paint. Would have been nice if he had done the same thing with LaClede that he did with Tnemec in his letter.

 

[Miragememories]

"I'm not seeing your significant Cr and Sr signals."

"If you had followed this thread carefully, you'd have seen them."

"Any other indications I saw in the paper indicated Cr and Sr were at background noise levels."

"If you had followed this thread carefully, you'd know they were marked in the graph by Harrit (or his software) (not me!) because they are significantly above background noise level."

You seem to think differently here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7466108&postcount=115

"Unfortunately, I am not convinced that Harrit's data points to LaClede standard paint - the Cr-signal is woefully weak, and the Sr non-existent for all I can tell."

MM