"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)."
Are you arguing that DSC testing of the red chip material under air totally disproves thermitic material?
If not, then you shouldn't make statements like;
"the conclusions were totally wrong".
As you know the conclusion of thermitic material was based on a number of results and not just the DSC tests.
"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."
Yet you have not had one sample of the original LaClede paint formulation on which to base your hypothesis. All your work is hypothetical.
Of course you have no issue discrediting the work of scientists who have presented results and conclusions based on the testing of genuine samples.
"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?"
While I confess that some of my posts in this thread have not always been very substantive, I would certainly not characterize my overall contribution as
"pure troll".
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe said:
"This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy."
There is no reference in the paper to a paint chip from any stadium being used for comparison purposes.
I know Oystein wants to milk his blog quote, but without showing us the complete authenticated email exchange, a few words extracted from an anonymous source carries absolutely no scientific weight.
It also does not remove the high probability that the identical Tnemec primer paint formulation was in common use throughout the United States.
Oystein said:
"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!"
Well in the Bentham paper Dr. Jones stated that in June 2007, he observed
"distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case. Further testing was then performed."
Later in the paper it was stated;
"... The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)..."
Further on in the paper, it was stated that the DSC used did not allow for visual inspection of the energetic thermitic reaction so testing was performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to the red/gray chips.
"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame.This was not the case case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.""
Now before you re-launch into a long diatribe about how the paper does not precisely confirm the exact paint formulation being tested.
We know the researchers were well aware that the NIST specified Tnemec as the primer paint used in their heat tests, and we know that Dr. Harrit acknowledged studying the formulation of the other primer paint, LaClede. A paint that in its original WTC formulation is unobtainable for test purposes due to its toxic contents.
But the researchers stated in the paper that they are willing to consider an alternate paint hypothesis, if these conditions can be met;
"To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses."
Well 20 pages into this thread, you still do not have a viable sample or the SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
But, you gave googled an incredible amount of paint-related esoterica.
MM
)
