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

Miragememories, everyone can see that you are still running away from more than 10 questions, summarized in post 735. It is easily discernable as a state of cowardice. Everyone can see that you are not able to defend your position. Everyone can see that your offer of money was a lie, because you refuse to answer how much of your own real money you are willing to bet.

Everyone can see that you deserve to be ignored.
 
Oystein said:
Miragememories, everyone can see that you are still running away from more than 10 questions, summarized in post 735. It is easily discernable as a state of cowardice. Everyone can see that you are not able to defend your position. Everyone can see that your offer of money was a lie, because you refuse to answer how much of your own real money you are willing to bet.

Everyone can see that you deserve to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Running away from bs questions.

You can believe whatever delusions you want Oystein.

Your dreams of glory through a major primer paint breakthrough, are just not going to happen.

I know you hope Ivan will save your bacon but he can't pull a rabbit out of every hat.

Whether or not I answer your stupid questions, it will not change the fact that you have failed, and failed badly.

Time to move on to some other ego trip don't you think?

MM
 
Miragememories, you offered earlier to bet you own money.

We need to know now how much. You must provide an amount in real currency, or be found out to be a liar.

Once we know how much money you are willing to bet on the issue that you offered a bet about, I will contact you, remove you from ignore, so we can work out payment details.

Is that alright by you?
 
Oystein said:
Miragememories, you offered earlier to bet you own money.

We need to know now how much. You must provide an amount in real currency, or be found out to be a liar.

Once we know how much money you are willing to bet on the issue that you offered a bet about, I will contact you, remove you from ignore, so we can work out payment details.

Is that alright by you?
Click to expand...

Link please?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Link please?

MM
Click to expand...

Full quote even, with your offered bet highlighted:
Miragememories said:
Well I think Ivan did imply that.



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.


??

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
Click to expand...

Context was of course the origin of the control paint that Jones, Harrit, Farrer used to compare with the MEL-soaked sample in their Bentham paper. You seem to claim that this control paint came from the WTC, I claim BYU. Alternatively, you win if Jones had information at the time that the BYU football stadium was painted with Tnemec.
 
Oystein said:
Full quote even, with your offered bet highlighted:


Context was of course the origin of the control paint that Jones, Harrit, Farrer used to compare with the MEL-soaked sample in their Bentham paper. You seem to claim that this control paint came from the WTC, I claim BYU. Alternatively, you win if Jones had information at the time that the BYU football stadium was painted with Tnemec.
Click to expand...

Gee I thought it was MEK soaked?

My bet was unspecific, and merely an expression.

Of course being German maybe you can't appreciate the meaning of such a nuance.

When you can back up your claim, then we can worry about who bet what.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Gee I thought it was MEK soaked?

My bet was unspecific, and merely an expression.

Of course being German maybe you can't appreciate the meaning of such a nuance.

When you can back up your claim, then we can worry about who bet what.

MM
Click to expand...

Among gentlemen of honour, the nuances of "I'm betting my money" concern questions such as "do you mean 100 US$ or 100 Euros?" ;)

So let it be known for every reader that you did not mean what you wrote, that you are too afraid to let your words follow deeds and actually bet your own money.

I expect you to retract your claim now that they used a paint control from WTC steel, and admit that you don't know, and are afraid to bet your own money on Farrer. Anything else would be dishonorable.
 
Oystein said:
Among gentlemen of honour, the nuances of "I'm betting my money" concern questions such as "do you mean 100 US$ or 100 Euros?" ;)

So let it be known for every reader that you did not mean what you wrote, that you are too afraid to let your words follow deeds and actually bet your own money.

I expect you to retract your claim now that they used a paint control from WTC steel, and admit that you don't know, and are afraid to bet your own money on Farrer. Anything else would be dishonorable.
Click to expand...

You expect nothing of the sort.

If I had said I bet my life, no doubt you would expect me to commit suicide.

Learn the language Oystein and quit playing with the colors.

Too funny.

MM
 
Oystein said:
Miragememories, everyone can see that you are still running away from more than 10 questions, summarized in post 735. It is easily discernable as a state of cowardice. Everyone can see that you are not able to defend your position. Everyone can see that your offer of money was a lie, because you refuse to answer how much of your own real money you are willing to bet.

Everyone can see that you deserve to be ignored.
Click to expand...

MM - this is concrete proof that you're not just ignoring my questions because I'm a bad person. You ignore ALL questions because the COWARDICE of the truth movement knows no end.
 
Last edited:
I just did some more Googling on the components of the LaClede primer and found out why new paint of the exact formulation is no longer available. Strontium chromate is an extremely toxic substance. It may even account for some of the strange symptoms that recovery workers are suffering now.

So, my next question is "When did it get banned from use in paint?" Had they completed the manufacture of the floor trusses when its use was discontinued? Did they start building with one formulation and then switch to another like they did with the SFRM when asbestos was banned?

Among the properties of strontium chromate that may interest us here, it is a strong oxidizing agent. This may account for its performance when exposed to heat in an epoxide matrix.
 
Jones thinks he found iron oxide, which is used as an anti-corrosive additive used in paints and coating for greater than 100 years, a barrier pigment used in coatings to protect steel; Micaceous Iron Oxide

How dumb do you have to be to fall for Jones' folly of thermite?
 
leftysergeant said:
I just did some more Googling on the components of the LaClede primer and found out why new paint of the exact formulation is no longer available. Strontium chromate is an extremely toxic substance. It may even account for some of the strange symptoms that recovery workers are suffering now.

So, my next question is "When did it get banned from use in paint?" Had they completed the manufacture of the floor trusses when its use was discontinued? Did they start building with one formulation and then switch to another like they did with the SFRM when asbestos was banned?

Among the properties of strontium chromate that may interest us here, it is a strong oxidizing agent. This may account for its performance when exposed to heat in an epoxide matrix.
Click to expand...

Lefty, it is not really easy to be oriented in a lot of US regulations and standards concerning strontium chromate. This compound is not completely "banned" even now, as a component of paints etc. Its use has been just gradually limited in the last decades, e.g. to some specific ("automated", "closed") painting technologies and applications, see e.g. here.
There is no reason why to think that Laclede Steel company switched to another anticorrosive pigment in the middle of WTC floor joists paint job. I think that NIST applied another primer on the testing trusses since (among others) there was no good reason why to expose "experimenters" to direct contact with toxic and carcinogenic strontium chromate (this primer was not electrocoated). Anyway, NIST people knew well that the very thin layer of any primer cannot really influence fire resistance of painted testing trusses. But, the paint primer layer could substantially influence the behavior (e.g. adhesion) of the much thicker thermal insulation layer applied to the testing trusses.

As for oxidizing strontium chromate, you are right and I have already mentioned that strontium chromate is a strong oxidizing agent, which can influence the burning/ignition of paint layer. This is also the reason why added 4 wt% of some chromate (potassium chromate in my case) to the Laclede paint imitation.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

MM, once more just for you: we do not think that those "sincere scientists" (Bentham team) were totally wrong in their observations AND conclusions. The most of observations seems to be basically OK, just the conclusions were totally wrong (e.g., since Harrit et al used tragically wrong and amateurish assumptions, like that DSC of carbon-based material under air can prove thermite).

You are right in one respect: this thread, up to the post No 104, contains many quite wild hypotheses and ideas, as for origins of red-gray chips. I do not feel any "shame" or so in this respect. I think that such "fumbling" is just normal when trying to find some reasonable explanations. In the post No 104, I suggested Laclede primer paint as a source of chips (a) to (d) since its declared composition was in a very good agreement with the composition of the chips proven by XEDS spectra. From that time, we have mostly gathered more and more (indirect) clues that the "Laclede paint hypothesis" should be the right one.

I can recognize even some "personal typology" in this thread. E.g., although I am a scientist (polymer/organic chemist), my approach is more "playful" and somewhat less "careful" than that of Oystein, Sunstealer and Almond and those guys serve as invaluable "correctors" here. (And Leftysergeant frequently adds here some valuable remarks as a guy with a considerable practical experience in a fire protection and even some pyrotechnics - including personal experience with thermites.)

As regards your "personal typology", so far, you have acted here as a pure troll. E.g., you are still not able to sort the declared origins of mere 7 red chips (with four different sources) under discussion: 5 chips ((a) to (d) and "MEK chip") found in WTC dust, one sort of paint chip from that stadium used for (completely idiotic) comparison in Bentham paper and one chip of Tnemec primer, the XEDS of which was shown by Jones later in his Sydney lecture. Is it really so difficult for you to be oriented in this simple list of 7 samples?
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
You are right in one respect: this thread, up to the post No 104, contains many quite wild hypotheses and ideas, as for origins of red-gray chips. I do not feel any "shame" or so in this respect. I think that such "fumbling" is just normal when trying to find some reasonable explanations.
Click to expand...

This is actually an extension of the Socratic method of reasoning. We were faced with a substance which we thought had been incorrectly identified by one team of investigators, and were attempting to figure what else it could be and what the source of that substance was. We started by listing the physical and chemical properties that we knew the substance dispalyed and analyses how well those properties matched what the other team claimed it was. Not finding a convincing match, we moved on to asking what else it could be. It did not take a lot of thinking to conclude that the chips were paint, and nothing that anybody has presented as "evidence" contradicts that it is paint. From that point, it was mostly a matter of figuring out what surfaces originally supported that paint and matching it with the properties of the paint we knew was on those surfaces. Some times, we guessed wrong, but found out by asking the right questions that we had erred and how.

This is in contrast to Jones' and Harrit's determination to prove that it was thermite without bothering to find out what would invalidate their claims.

I can recognize even some "personal typology" in this thread. E.g., although I am a scientist (polymer/organic chemist), my approach is more "playful" and somewhat less "careful" than that of Oystein, Sunstealer and Almond and those guys serve as invaluable "correctors" here.
Click to expand...

Sometimes excessive rigidity is an obstacle to success, whether in the arts or sciences. If you take yourself too seriously, you might be less inclined to double-check your results for accuracy and sound reasoning.
 
leftysergeant said:
...Some times, we guessed wrong, but found out by asking the right questions that we had erred and how.

This is in contrast to Jones' and Harrit's determination to prove that it was thermite without bothering to find out what would invalidate their claims.
...
Click to expand...

This. Truthers seem to think that admitting and correcting errors is a sign of weakness, when in fact it is a sign of strength of both character and intellect.
 
So here a summary of the thread so far by somebody sane;

1)The chips have the chemical make up as surface preperation paint.
2) MM says it is not a particular brand of paint. Based on flawed "experiments" that fail scrutiny methodology.
3) not being a particular brand of paint added to *something* equals CONSPIRACY.
4) no indication of what the *something* is.

So out of intrest, has anybody taken anything that remotely resembles the paint and achieved an explosion or thermatic reaction capable of toppling the WTC? No? Well there you go...
 
In all fairness Oystein, references to betting money are often made at least in American English in passing with no literal implications. That being said, MM should have immediately cleared that up. But like on most instances when he get called out MM dances around in a delirium of twoof. This thread in itself is evidence of that fact.
 
grandmastershek said:
In all fairness Oystein, references to betting money are often made at least in American English in passing with no literal implications.
Click to expand...

Cheap rethoric then.
Allow me some distinctions. When somebody says "I'll bet that..." without hinting at any specific offer, that is said in passing with no literal implications.
I the German language, you often offer things that are obviously not meant to be taken literally, such as "I'll bet my arse", or "I'll eat a broom if...".

But if you say "I bet my own money..." then yes, I don't take this as an actual offer, but the person expresses certainty to a degree that I'd absolutely expect them to be ready to make the non-literal rethoric literal and at least agree to offer a token amount, say 1 US$, so that by the exchange of of actual money as a symbolic act, the bet gets settled and the issue resolved.

grandmastershek said:
That being said, MM should have immediately cleared that up. But like on most instances when he get called out MM dances around in a delirium of twoof. This thread in itself is evidence of that fact.
Click to expand...
And that's the point: He is running away instead of living up to his rethoric.

In a German forum I have debated a guy on several CTs for about a year, and he made big sweeping claims about 9/11 issues, the European Central Bank, the European Constitution that were simply fatually incorrect. I offered him bets with standard stakes of 2000 Euros in several instances if he could offer good documentary evidence for about half a dozend of the most outlandish claims. He never accepted the bet. I even offered 2000 Euros as my part of the bet without him having to bet as much, or anything at all. Just find the evidence, and I'll pay you 2000. He never accepted, never provided evidence, and eventually disappeared from the forum.

In the end, putting your money where your mouth is is a good test of sincerity.

MM is not sincere. He is a troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom