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

[Miragememories]

While following Oystein's apparent advice to re-read this thread, I came across an Oystein post that I couldn't ignore.

"The Harrit paper is no such thing. Its a farce. And for the thousandths time ,Thermite is not an explosive and even if it was there are no timers, detonators, cut columns etc that would be there, if explosives had been used and no recordings that come close to the sound levels required by explosives.

as for a long list of facts, stop lying, you have zero facts, just speculation."

"really?
I suggest you look at the facts again:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._residues.html

and the Harrit paper is but one strand of evidence in a long list of facts that conclusively confirm the use of explosives"

"Slick presentation. But wrong.

I would like to focus your attention on the way the discuss Silicon (chemical symbol: Si).

Look at this graph - it shows the elemental composition of the red layer, which Harrit e.al. allege to be "unreacted thermitic material":
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...xeds_red_s.png
Look very closely at the two peak labelled "Al" and "Si":
In all 4 samples, the Si-peak is a little higher than the Al-peak. This tells us that Silicon and Aluminium atoms appear in that material in essentially the same number. The Si-peak is slightly higher, because the atomic number of Si is just above that of Al, 14 vs. 13."

First of all, not all four samples show the Si-peak as being higher. Al and Si are quite close in amplitude in the four displays, with Al being slightly higher in sample (a).

"What is the Silicon doing in that thermitic material? Well, your article claims;"

"Nano-thermite composite explosives typically embed the metal and oxide particles within a matrix containing compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and silicon."

"But: There is no reference supporting that claim!

And indeed, if you scan the literature on "Nano-thermite composites", you will find that Silicon(oxide) only appears as an additive that lowers the energetic output and slows down the reaction. In other words: A thermitic material with SiO2 in it is not a high explosive, and is not highly energetic. It makes absolutely zero sense to use such a composition for the destruction of steel. It's nonsense. And indeed Harrit e.al. offer absolutely no conclusion about this constituent Si, which appears in the red layer in the same amount as Aluminium!"

Well your problem regarding missing sources can be remedied.

"The consistently rhombic-shaped, faceted appearance of the iron-rich grains strongly suggests that they are crystal-line. From these data, it is determined that the red/gray chips from different WTC dust samples are extremely similar in their chemical and structural makeup. It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix."

http://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/

"Sol-gel nanothermites often contain other components such as fluorinated silanes, and therefore carbon and silicon. The nanothermite found in World Trade Center (WTC) dust samples contains carbon and silicon as well. Ignition of such a nanothermite results in the production of gas which rapidly expands and does pressure-volume work."

At Livermore Laboratory

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

"...In the powder-entraining method, a high concentration of energetic powders (90 percent by weight) is loaded within a support matrix (for example, silica) that takes up a correspondingly small mass. Highly loaded energetic materials are used in a variety of applications, including initiators and detonators. Manufacturing this type of energetic material using current processing technologies is often difficult. Producing detonators with pressed powders is a slow manufacturing process, mixing two or more powders homogeneously is difficult, and precise geometric shapes are not easy to produce. Also, pressing powders is a hazardous process."

Note the reference to "...precise geometric shapes are not easy to produce...".

"Also, they do note that Al and Si are present in platelike structures. However, they claim that these plates are formed by elemental Al. Nonsense. Al does not form such platelets."

Unsourced arrogance. You have not shown any proof to support your absolute claim.

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

"Additional studies in the TEM (transmission electron microscope) found these were iron oxide phases. There were other particles present in the red layer. There were some plate-like particles and those again, were consistent throughout the red layer, throughout all of the samples that we found. Those appeared to have higher aluminum and silicon peaks in
their compositional analysis and one of the significant things that we find in the red layer is the fact that these particles that we find in the red layer are..the fact that they are consistent. The fact that they are consistent in shape, in composition, and in size, leads me to believe that these are not naturally occurring materials. The red layer is not a naturally occurring material. Sure you have iron oxide everywhere that you have iron you get an iron oxide. But you don't get them in nice little 100 nanometer rhombohedral shaped particles inside of a very small red layer. By the way, just to give you a reference on the size, these particles that are in the red layer are thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. So these are very sophisticated particles of very sophisticated materials. Not materials that we would expect to find in the demolition debris of a building. In order to get that kind of consistency with shape and size and to be that small, these really are sophisticated materials. And probably only developed in a laboratory. They maybe processed outside a laboratory but they are developed in a laboratory."

"One thing that does is a mineral called kaolinite, a form of aluminium-silicate - chemical formula is Al2Si2O5(OH)4
Can you read chemical formulas? Do you notice how the same number of Al and Si atoms is present in kaolinite? Kaolinite matches the XEDS spectra perfectly, it matches the microphotographs perfectly..."

Please show us your perfect match?

I have examined Sunstealer's posts showing XEDS spectra and they are certainly not an exact match.

Undoubtedly kaolinite does exist in the WTC dust, because it was common in gypsum board among other things. And of course the XEDS spectra for contaminated red chips will show the contamination from primer paint, gypsum board etc etc.

But the XEDS spectra for the clean red chips is nowhere definitive like Sunstealer would have us believe. The same holds true of his photo comparison. I see the particle cluster but not the particle dimensional match.

"...and it makes perfect sense in paint - in fact, in this thread we have identified a paint that was used on the WTC steel that contains Fe2O3, aluminium-silicate, and also small amounts of Chromium and Strontium that also appear as small blips in the spectra."

A paint that is unobtainium and only stands for comparison purposes based on its paper list of ingredients.

You yourself stated earlier in this thread; "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.".

"...Our theory, that the red-gray chips are in fact LaClede standard steel primer further explains perfectly well the gray layer - it is flaked-off, oxidized steel surface. Painted with red primer. Our theory happens to match the entire chemical composition and appearance of both the red and the gray layer, whereas Harrot's nano-thermite theory does not match their own data, and fails to explain both the presence of Si and the gray layer. Our theory wins."

It is not a game and your theory is far from proven.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Are we certain that the clowns measured correctly?

Of course not, but the only useful assumption here is "yes, we accept that the clowns measured correctly", allowing for reasonable margins of error of course.
Cuz their data is the only data we have, and if we assume that the data is unreliable, then no valid conclusion is possible, and it would be foolish to ask the question posed in the title of this thread.

Given that they fell mostly straight down into the foot print of the towers (and thus into the great smoldering pire pit, I do not hold out any great hope of collecting a large sample at this late date.

This, and that there would be little incentive to store messy mixed-up floor rubble somewhere for 10 years.
But still, hope dies last.

ETA: I just did a little Googling on titanium. Titanium isopropoxide is used as a catalyst in "Sharpless epoxidation." Whether that has anything to do with the epoxy in LaClede is a little beyond me right now, but maybe Ivan can add something on that point.

The scope of this thread is mainly limited to identifying the origin of chips a-d, which apparently contain no Ti. Any data on other, or unidentified, chips that do contain Ti should be left out as we'd better assume it's a different material.

 

[Oystein]

While following Oystein's apparent advice to re-read this thread, I came across an Oystein post that I couldn't ignore. ...

There's one that you shouldn't ignore: Post 735 contains up to 13 questions for you. Please answer these first, then I might consider your post.

 

[Miragememories]

No rush. I've noted your reply a few posts later...yawn.

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Thanks for re-raising some open questions. Here are more:

3) We have seen small signals for elements that we did not expect from the theoretical composition of LaClede primer:
- Na, S, K and Ca in chip c (Fig. 7 of Bentham paper)
- Na and K associated with both hematite and kaolinite particles in an unidentified sample (Fig. 11 ibid)
- S and Ca found post-DSC residue in Fe-rich sphere from some unidentified sample (Fig. 21 ibid)
- S, Ca and Ti (!?) in another post-DSC sphere from some unidentified sample (Fig. 25 ibid)
- S and Ca in chip a (Fig. 5b of Harrit's "Why the red/gray chips are not primer paint")
- Marc Basile quantified 0-0.22% Na, 0.22-0.25%S, 0.4-0.5% K, 0.87-0.96% Ca in his youtubed presentation. Not sure where that sample and the numbers came from - borrowed from Harrit, or his own samples and work.

Now, I'd be very careful with all the unidentified samples; these could be anything. Presence of Ti for example raises an alarm with me as that could well be a third kind of paint.

I am most concerned about Ca and S, which pop up in chips a and c, and especially the nearly 1% Ca in Basile's presentation.

I think the most likely source of Ca (and Na and K) is impurities in the natural pigments, especially kaolinite - if these pigments are indeed natural. However, in Basile's samples, Ca content is roughly 50% and 75% of the Al content; too much to merely be an impurity!

S could also be a component of natural minerals, or play a minor role in the epoxy, but that's comjecture that I am certainly not happy with

4) Observed thickness of red layer is smaller than specified (1mil +/- 0.2 mil = 25µm +/- 5µm). Did LaClede cut corners? Or did the layer shrink during 40 years?

All four questions could be answered quite definitively by experiment if we could find a nice, unburned piece of actual floor joist.

First of all, I am also looking forward to the Almond's new simulation of XEDS spectra of "Laclede paint", now with carbon included But, if The Almond thinks that such Monte Carlo simulation would be too approximate/unprecise or so, we have to live without it... (And, btw, we should not regard Basile's XEDS "table of elements" of red chip as something conclusive or quantitative, especially when writing some paper on this matter).

As for Ca and S: I still think that the main source of these elements (even on fresh broken surfaces) could be seen in calcium sulfate from cardboards and other calcium and sulfur compounds present in Portland cement (or fly ash, btw). Why?

As you had pointed out, Oystein, a ratio between Si and Al peaks in Fig. 7 (Bentham paper) prompts us that these elements are present in equimolar ratio in all red layers (a) to (d). This is a feature of kaolinites (formula Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄), ratio Si/Al = 1, but it is not a feature of other common groups of aluminosilicates. E.g., montmorillonites have a formula (Na,Ca)_0.33(Al,Mg)₂(Si₄O₁₀)(OH)₂·nH₂O (ratio between Si and Al is 2:1) (see Wikipedia).
Now: it is written here http://www.answers.com/topic/kaolinite: "(Kaolinites) have a theoretical chemical composition of 39.8% alumina, 46.3% silica, and 13.9% water [Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄], and they generally do not deviate from this ideal composition." Judging from this, if the aluminosilicate present in chips (a) to (d) is some kaolinite (as Sunstealer revealed from its micrographs), it should not contain any calcium. But... it is just my guess and I can be wrong

Btw, back to the MEK chip for the while. Fig. 15 (Bentham paper) shows XEDS maps for Fe, Al, Si, O and C, recorded for MEK-soaked red chip. Some Si-rich areas are observed in other places than Al-rich areas, which is regarded as one of the proofs that elemental Al is present. This is of course incorrect and wrong. As we know from Tnemec primer paint specification, this paint contained several Si and Al compounds, namely "diatomaceous silica", "crystalline silica", "talc", "calcium silicates and aluminates" and "amorphous silica". Therefore, really no wonder that Si and Al are observed in different areas at high magnification in MEK chip (Btw, this chip only swelled in MEK, which is a sign that it contained some crosslinked/cured polymeric binder, alkyd resin in this case.)


As for sulfur, I still do not think that it could be present in the epoxy binder in chips (a) to (d). I do not know any example of common epoxy resin containing any sulfur compound...

As for layer thicknesses, it is still an open question. Epoxy layer can shrink in the course of time, but not to such an extent (ca 10-30 %), I think. Some (unexpected) variation of layer thicknesses during electrodeposition of the paint in the Laclede Steel facility seems to be a better possible explanation. Remember: this technology (electrocoating of epoxy primers on construction steel) was a brand-new one at the time of WTC construction.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

...One correction, concerning sulfur in epoxies: I linked those XEDS spectra of epoxies cured with amines http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/facilities/ionprobe/EpoxyResins/Composition.html, and in some spectra (Domestic Rapid set Araldite, KonductoMet) some little sulfur peaks are present. Although I have no idea what may be a source of this sulfur, my assumption seems to be not always valid...

 

[Dave Rogers]

As for layer thicknesses, it is still an open question. Epoxy layer can shrink in the course of time, but not to such an extent (ca 10-30 %), I think. Some (unexpected) variation of layer thicknesses during electrodeposition of the paint in the Laclede Steel facility seems to be a better possible explanation. Remember: this technology (electrocoating of epoxy primers on construction steel) was a brand-new one at the time of WTC construction.

Did Harrit et al measure their thicknesses from SEM photos? It's not difficult for a careless SEM operator to generate measurement errors on that scale.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

...One correction, concerning sulfur in epoxies: I linked those XEDS spectra of epoxies cured with amines http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/facilities/ionprobe/EpoxyResins/Composition.html, and in some spectra (Domestic Rapid set Araldite, KonductoMet) some little sulfur peaks are present. Although I have no idea what may be a source of this sulfur, my assumption seems to be not always valid...

Are you familiar with epoxides cured with (catalysed by?) titanium isopropoxide?

 

[leftysergeant]

I have been thinking a bit about the mechanisms by which the chips might have been removed from the steel.During the times I worked in the shipyards, we generally removed paint from steel by scraping, abbrasion with a wire brush, or with a neumatic needle gun, basicly poinding it loose with a bundle of flat-end steel rods about two milimeters in diameter. Paint will often peel readily from a piece of metal that is bent beyond design parameters. It think that something simi9lar to the last two was the mechanism most likely to have removed the paint chips we are discussing.

Flexing the steel would, of course, tend to produce fairly large flakes of paint, certainly larger than any of the samples were are dealing with. Many of those would include a layer of oxidized steel, as this would be more brittle than either the paint or the unoxidized steel under it.

Now I must wonder whether this process might in some way attenuate the epoxy in such a way that it would not, once released from the steel structure, not rebound to its original thickness?

Breaking it loose by impact as with the needle gun, certainly produces chips of some paints, such as oil-based enamals which are noticeably thinner than they were on the steel. Would this hold true for expoxides as well?

It may be that the thickness of the chips, as measured by the Jones/Harrit/Basile group may not be all that significant, nor rule out LaClede primer.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Did Harrit et al measure their thicknesses from SEM photos? It's not difficult for a careless SEM operator to generate measurement errors on that scale.

Dave

As a layman in microscopy, I would say (if the scale provided is correct) that the red layer in Fig. 4 is in fact substantially thicker than it seems, since the crossection of this chip is not photographed as parallel to the plane of the picture (the angle seems to be quite high, up to ca 45 ^o). In the case of red layers in Fig. 5, it is not clear if crossections are parallel to the plane of picture. Anyway, only red layer in Fig. 5b seems to be only ca 10 microns thin, all others are substantially thicker, over 20 microns.
In all these micrographs, some comparatively big particles up to 3 microns are visible. Perhaps these are bigger particles of aluminosilicate, or some of them can be particles of strontium chromate present in Laclede paint (e.g.)

 

[leftysergeant]

Undoubtedly kaolinite does exist in the WTC dust, because it was common in gypsum board among other things. And of course the XEDS spectra for contaminated red chips will show the contamination from primer paint, gypsum board etc etc.

Utter crap.

I do not, however, rule out calcium sulfate as a contaminant in the paint chips after they had been struck by heavy objects in the presence of a great quantity of calcium sulphate.

It is not a game and your theory is far from proven.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Are you familiar with epoxides cured with (catalysed by?) titanium isopropoxide?

No, I am not familiar with such epoxides. But it does not mean that they do not exist

I have been thinking a bit about the mechanisms by which the chips might have been removed from the steel.During the times I worked in the shipyards, we generally removed paint from steel by scraping, abbrasion with a wire brush, or with a neumatic needle gun, basicly poinding it loose with a bundle of flat-end steel rods about two milimeters in diameter. Paint will often peel readily from a piece of metal that is bent beyond design parameters. It think that something simi9lar to the last two was the mechanism most likely to have removed the paint chips we are discussing.

Flexing the steel would, of course, tend to produce fairly large flakes of paint, certainly larger than any of the samples were are dealing with. Many of those would include a layer of oxidized steel, as this would be more brittle than either the paint or the unoxidized steel under it.

Now I must wonder whether this process might in some way attenuate the epoxy in such a way that it would not, once released from the steel structure, not rebound to its original thickness?

Breaking it loose by impact as with the needle gun, certainly produces chips of some paints, such as oil-based enamals which are noticeably thinner than they were on the steel. Would this hold true for expoxides as well?

It may be that the thickness of the chips, as measured by the Jones/Harrit/Basile group may not be all that significant, nor rule out LaClede primer.

Simply, thicknesses of stripped paint layers can vary for various reasons and thicknesses of red layers of chips are still in reasonable agreement with declared paint thickness.

 

[Marokkaan]

The topic started in july, and do you have some results or conclusions?

 

[twinstead]

The topic started in july, and do you have some results or conclusions?

Have you even read this thread?

 

[Miragememories]

The topic started in july, and do you have some results or conclusions?

None that favor what they hope, wish, and dream.

The elusive proof of LaClede primer paint.

MM

 

[leftysergeant]

None that favor what they hope, wish, and dream.

The elusive proof of LaClede primer paint.

It seems that the chips more closely resemble LaClede primer to the minds of those who know building materials and thermite than to the minds of those who have no clue.

 

[grandmastershek]

Considering Marokkaan's behavior in another thread, if we duct taped the evidence to his huevos he would pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Miragememories]

A SUMMARY OF THIS THREAD AS I SEE IT

The premise of this thread is apparently based on Oystein's dream of JREF fame by proving that a man/woman sitting in front of his/her computer can defy the odds and prove that sincere scientists examining actual samples in a laboratory with the right equipment are totally wrong in their observations and conclusions.

Okay let's get started.

Oystein opens with a reference to Ivan Kminek stating his belief that chip (e) from the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham Paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Paper is "a particle of WTC primer paint".

Motivation unexplained, Ivan is dumbfounded about the origin of chips (a) to (d), showing a total unwillingness to consider the validity of the explanation provided by the peer-reviewed paper.

Note that Dr. Harrit et al clearly stated the source and location for each of the 4 dust samples used.

Apparently Oystein, being the clever guy that he is, suspects that a special, alternative paint primer might be represented by the infamous chips (a) to (d). No wimpy unreactive Tnemec steel paint primer for him.

leftysergeant chimes in with the sensational news that damn, fire extinguishers are often painted with red primer.

Someone call Hollywood, we have an Oscar winning film in the making.

SkepticOfLies saw a video about exploding primer paint, wtf?.

tsig offers the BYU stadium primer paint, always a good backup and an opportunity to use the word cheat.

Oystein responds to the exploding paint with a clarification that it is "vigorously burning" so we are on the trail of a cold blooded liar.

Oystein clarifies one paint sample (e) (according to his unproven source) came from BYU but the other samples (a) to (d) did indeed come from the WTC on 9/11.

SkepticOfLies is confused about why paint would vigorously burn like that?

Ivan Kminek,who later acknowledges his total unfamiliarity with DSC testing, dismisses those concerns using guesswork and wishful thinking.

Sabretooth makes the important note that there was a full manure spreader of primer paint.

Excitement grows.

Not to be undone, Sunstealer reveals that the WTC antennae was painted red and white.

bill smith offers to focus minds but only if others want that?

Apparently only DGM is curious but cautious about having his mind focused without some explanation.

The problem is too challenging and gets deferred to Oystein

Meanwhile Hollywood is waiting.

At this point we have a star appearance as The Almond enters the fray with the gem of an observation; "To me, it seems like the other red-grey chips were simply another type of primer."

tsig suggests there is no chain of custody and maybe it is moon dust or something. He apparently knows his dust.

leftysergeant, apparently a renowned chef offers the observation that the described ignition resembles what happens when he pleasures himself "...by sprinkling coarse black pepper onto the burner elements of his electric stove."

leftysergeant, apparently miffed that his fire extinguisher paint got little attention, chimes in with the sensational news that we might be talking about "KAOLIN".

Well this is just getting too exciting, so I will speed up the summary.

Oystein tries a hail Mary debunking by claiming the reaction was not too weak, but too strong to be thermitic and that only primer paint could be expected to have such power. Who would have thunk it.

This is some primer paint. B2 bombers must drop it on burning targets, ..that sort of thing.

Oystein finally dispels bill smith's notions, claiming that the apparently uneducated Dr. Steven Jones is wrong, and that the never-wrong Oystein knows that that the red chips are clearly primer paint.

Well 19 pages later, Oystein is still claiming primer paint and still has zero proof.

But he sure has accumulated a lot of speculation from his dear buddy Ivan.

MM

 

[Oystein]

A SUMMARY OF THIS THREAD AS I SEE IT

The premise of this thread is apparently based on Oystein's dream of JREF fame by proving that a man/woman sitting in front of his/her computer can defy the odds and prove that sincere scientists examining actual samples in a laboratory with the right equipment are totally wrong in their observations and conclusions.
...

The premise is wrong: Harrit e.al. did not use the right equipment.

With the premise wrong, any conclusions will be invalid.





Miragememories, please answer the more than 10 questions that you ran away from and I repeated at least twice, or STFU. Your dishonesty and cowardice do not become this thread, which has been called by several posters the best current thread in this subforum.

 

[Miragememories]

... this thread, which has been called by several posters the best current thread in this subforum.

Well I like to think it is one of the most entertaining threads. 20 pages of non-proof. That does have to be some kind of record.

Hold off on that award speech.

MM