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

[Mr. Skinny]

I wonder what you think I'm "curious but cautious" about? It can't be any thought that these chips could be "therm*te". That whole idea is retarded. Awhile back I did my own "peer-review" of the Harret/Jones paper. I had my ex (a chemist*) read it and give me her opinion.
Her words were:

I don't know why you bother with these quacks. Their data does not support their conclusions, no wonder they had to pay to have this published. They found paint.

* works with methacrylate/epoxy based adhesives and coatings

Looks pretty similar to the comments I got from an analytical chemist co-worker of mine. He's been doing analytical chemistry for over 25 years.

His words were:

This is what you get when people misuse the little knowledge that they have. I hate to tell them this but, it’s paint.
I don’t mind if you forward my comments, but you’re right, you cannot convince anyone who has decided to ignore any contradictory evidence. Adding to my comments:
The authors compare to “paint”. What kind of paint? They are ignoring the literally thousands of types and formulations of paints and primers - not just in the pigments or fillers but the organic basis (epoxy, urethane, alkyd, etc) of the paints (which makes their MEK comparison meaningless). They explain away the high C and O as contaminants rather than consider the most likely explanation – paint. Additionally, they did not analyze the samples by the two most likely methods to confirm or refute the possibility that the chips are paint, FTIR and Mass Spec. Given an hour in my lab with a few of these chips and my FTIR, I could tell with a high degree of certainty whether these chips are paint or not.

 

[Marokkaan]

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

The elusive proof of LaClede primer paint.

MM

Thats a bummer, so in fact, they have nothing, they only speculate, without results.... They are at the same point just when they started this thread. With nothing...

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

Lol a genius post!!!! Thanks btw for the summary

 

[Miragememories]

"MM: Your posts are again unreadable for me. Either you are again simply trolling, trying to "dilute" our contributions here, or you are basically unable to organize any longer text."

Okay Ivan, I will try and simplify my text further in the hope that it will makes my message easier for you to understand.

I've noticed that you have also been posting in the Democratic Underground forum;
http://betterment.democraticundergr...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=320073&mesg_id=323359

You made a few errors of your own over there which does not help those trying to following you.

First of all, The Laclede primer paint is described in NCSTAR 1-6B (Appendix B, p. 155), and not in NCSTAR 16-B as you so stated.

You also cite the Taichi Murakami paper; Reduction Mechanism of Iron Oxide–Carbon Composite with Polyethylene at Lower Temperature as a describing "a partial reduction of iron oxide when heated together with polyethylene at temperatures well below 600 degrees C (873 K)."

You follow that with;

"In conclusion:
Almost nothing is in favor of thermites. And almost everything is in favor of Laclede paint (and it has been clear from the very beginning that “primer paint hypothesis” is much more plausible, as for red chips found in the dust).
Regards, Ivan"

As has been reported, the formation of elemental iron as spheres is the signature reaction of thermitic material. It is impossible to concieve, that Laclede primer paint can generate iron rich spheres upon combustion, in particular not as it is an oxidative protectant.

Your reference to the 2011 paper by Murakami is not relevant, since it describes a completely different experimental situation (reductive, graphite added), than the Laclede paint (oxidative, chromate).

To have any validity, you must be able to demonstrate, that the Laclede paint can produce elemental iron in iron-rich spheres with the same signature-EDS as iron-rich spheres from thermite reactions.

Moving on to another of your posts;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7498718&postcount=244

"Finally some (partial) info on the thermal degradation of epoxide resins (both under air and under inert gas)

Let me repeat (mostly for the accidental visitors):
Harrit et al. observed exothermic peaks on DSC curves of red-gray chips about 420 oC
Laclede primer paint contained epoxide binder cured/crosslinked/hardened by some polyamine. Our question therefore is: could this binder show the similar exotherms at these temperatures (between ca 380 and 450 oC?). . . .After some hour spent with our experts on DSC and TGA and after some literature search I can write here now:

The rapid thermal degradation of polymers as recorded by TGA (both purely thermal and oxidative) proceeds very frequently just in the range between 400 and 450 oC. The usual onset is slightly below 400 oC. "

The link is there for yourself, or anyone who wants to wade through your whole post.

You said that you prepared Laclede primer paint according to the composition. Under experimentation, you found that your mixture degrades at 380 – 400 degr. centigrade. The problem here is, that all relevant building components of the WTC towers underwent fire resistance tests following ASTM E-119 when they were certified prior to the construction of the WTC towers.

It makes no sense to suggest that the Laclede primer paint would be designed for use on fireproofed structural steel that was meant to be exposed to temperatures of the ASTM E-119 standard test.

And when discussing this here;
http://betterment.democraticundergr...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=320073&mesg_id=323359

You go on to say;

"It does not matter if anticorrosive primer is flammable in the case of fire (when applied in thickness typical for paints). It is not intended as fireproofing and its burning cannot damage anything."

Oh really?

You believe that the performance of well-tested sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) would not be affected if the base on which it was applied suddenly burst into flames at temperatures far below what the SFRM was designed to withstand? You provide no evidence for this and simply makes the claim that “it does not matter.”

Four WTC floor assembly models, painted with a similar primer, were tested via ASTM E-119 as part of the NIST WTC investigation (NCSTAR 1-6B).

The primer paint used for these tests, type B50NV11, was recommended by Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the SFRM used in these tests and in the original construction of the WTC towers. Because the Laclede paint was not available, B5N0V11 was determined to be an acceptable substitute. See how the primer was sprayed onto the bridging trusses on page 31.

On one test assembly (No. 4), no SFRM was applied to bridging trusses so the paint was exposed directly to the flames. See Fig 5-69 and Fig 5-70 for photos of bridging trusses after the tests. Notice the lack of charred remains on the bridging trusses where the paint was applied, and the red color still visible, indicating that the primer paint did not burn. In section 5.5.4, note that the trusses reached a temperature of 704 C (!)

That is, B50NV11 does not burn at 704 degr C. Since it was accepted as a substitute for Laclede primer in the post-9/11 tests, it seems very unlikely, that Laclede primer should degrade at 380 degr C - as you claim - and that the original Laclede primer should have been accepted after having undergone the same tests prior to the construction of the WTC Towers.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

^^
Delusions of grandeure. What kind of paint it was is unimportant. What IS important, is that it sure as hell wasn't painted on thermite.

 

[leftysergeant]

As has been reported, the formation of elemental iron as spheres is the signature reaction of thermitic material.

It is also a product of welding. THere aare also such materials in flyash added to concrete to lighten it.

It is impossible to concieve, that Laclede primer paint can generate iron rich spheres upon combustion, in particular not as it is an oxidative protectant.

Cow cookies. The epoxy is a reducing agent when it reaches a certain temerature. Iron in refined by reduction. The oxidizing strontium chromate would just make the epoxy burn hotter.

To have any validity, you must be able to demonstrate, that the Laclede paint can produce elemental iron in iron-rich spheres with the same signature-EDS as iron-rich spheres from thermite reactions.

Provide it yourself. I have seen no proof that thermite produces the same kind of spheres.

You believe that the performance of well-tested sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) would not be affected if the base on which it was applied suddenly burst into flames at temperatures far below what the SFRM was designed to withstand? You provide no evidence for this and simply makes the claim that “it does not matter.”

It doesn't matter a bit. The purpose of the foam is to keep the steel from reaching even the temp it would take to ignite the paint. What part of "fire resistant" don't you get?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted... (double post)

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Okay Ivan, I will try and simplify my text further in the hope that it will makes my message easier for you to understand.

I've noticed that you have also been posting in the Democratic Underground forum;
http://betterment.democraticundergr...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=320073&mesg_id=323359

You made a few errors of your own over there which does not help those trying to following you.

First of all, The Laclede primer paint is described in NCSTAR 1-6B (Appendix B, p. 155), and not in NCSTAR 16-B as you so stated.

You also cite the Taichi Murakami paper; Reduction Mechanism of Iron Oxide–Carbon Composite with Polyethylene at Lower Temperature as a describing "a partial reduction of iron oxide when heated together with polyethylene at temperatures well below 600 degrees C (873 K)."

You follow that with;


As has been reported, the formation of elemental iron as spheres is the signature reaction of thermitic material. It is impossible to concieve, that Laclede primer paint can generate iron rich spheres upon combustion, in particular not as it is an oxidative protectant.

Your reference to the 2011 paper by Murakami is not relevant, since it describes a completely different experimental situation (reductive, graphite added), than the Laclede paint (oxidative, chromate).

OK, MM, I prefer such kind of your posts. You are right, citation of Muramaki paper was not of high relevance here and I should find better examples in the literature.

To have any validity, you must be able to demonstrate, that the Laclede paint can produce elemental iron in iron-rich spheres with the same signature-EDS as iron-rich spheres from thermite reactions.

We simply do not have any samples for such testing. You know it, we know it. The best I can do now is to prepare better (closer) Laclede paint imitation and do some testing on it. My colleagues possess necessary nanosized iron oxide for this purpose... but even experiments on such imitation cannot be really conclusive.

Moving on to another of your posts;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7498718&postcount=244



The link is there for yourself, or anyone who wants to wade through your whole post.

You said that you prepared Laclede primer paint according to the composition. Under experimentation, you found that your mixture degrades at 380 – 400 degr. centigrade. The problem here is, that all relevant building components of the WTC towers underwent fire resistance tests following ASTM E-119 when they were certified prior to the construction of the WTC towers.

It makes no sense to suggest that the Laclede primer paint would be designed for use on fireproofed structural steel that was meant to be exposed to temperatures of the ASTM E-119 standard test.

And when discussing this here;
http://betterment.democraticundergr...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=320073&mesg_id=323359

You go on to say;



Oh really?

You believe that the performance of well-tested sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) would not be affected if the base on which it was applied suddenly burst into flames at temperatures far below what the SFRM was designed to withstand? You provide no evidence for this and simply makes the claim that “it does not matter.”

Four WTC floor assembly models, painted with a similar primer, were tested via ASTM E-119 as part of the NIST WTC investigation (NCSTAR 1-6B).

The primer paint used for these tests, type B50NV11, was recommended by Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the SFRM used in these tests and in the original construction of the WTC towers. Because the Laclede paint was not available, B5N0V11 was determined to be an acceptable substitute. See how the primer was sprayed onto the bridging trusses on page 31.

On one test assembly (No. 4), no SFRM was applied to bridging trusses so the paint was exposed directly to the flames. See Fig 5-69 and Fig 5-70 for photos of bridging trusses after the tests. Notice the lack of charred remains on the bridging trusses where the paint was applied, and the red color still visible, indicating that the primer paint did not burn. In section 5.5.4, note that the trusses reached a temperature of 704 C (!)

That is, B50NV11 does not burn at 704 degr C. Since it was accepted as a substitute for Laclede primer in the post-9/11 tests, it seems very unlikely, that Laclede primer should degrade at 380 degr C - as you claim - and that the original Laclede primer should have been accepted after having undergone the same tests prior to the construction of the WTC Towers.

MM

1) Not only epoxy binder in my Laclede paint imitation, but also in the real Laclede paint is for sure (!!!) degraded/vaporized (both under air and under inert atmosphere) at this temperature range (350 - 450 degrees C), despite any US standard or norm you are able find This is simply a thermal behavior of epoxy resins (as organic compounds). (Novadays, e,g. flame retardants added to the resins can slightly increase their thermal durability/flammability, but even such resins will be inevitably degraded.)

2) Laclede paint layer (and probably also layer of paint used in NIST for testing) was ca 20 microns thick, i.e., it was thinner than human hair crossection. Catch it? Although the degradation/burning of its binder can slightly affect e.g. an adhesion of (much much thicker) attached fire protection layer, its overal contribution to the steel fire protection is negligible. (and the same must be valid also for thermites: burning of thermite layer 20 microns thick cannot affect the steel in any way).

3) Ad "Notice the lack of charred remains on the bridging trusses where the paint was applied, and the red color still visible, indicating that the primer paint did not burn. In section 5.5.4, note that the trusses reached a temperature of 704 C (!)"
Your conclusion is apparently wrong, MM. What happened to this paint? Polymer binder was simply burned out, but iron oxide (and other inorganic pigments) remained in the layer. Therefore, layer stayed red. As simple as that.
Btw, I observed the same for my heated Laclede paint imitation. It also stayed basically red after heating up to 700 degrees C, see e.g. this micrograph: http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/LI1epoxid/#LI1_16epi_04.jpg . Also "macroscopic color" did not change during heating, because of red iron oxide present. (And - once again -, also red chips in Bentham paper stayed basically red after heating. Why? One hint for you: since red iron oxide (at least its great majority) was not transformed to dark elemental iron by thermitic reaction.)

 

[Oystein]

...
Your conclusion is apparently wrong, MM. What happened to this paint? Polymer binder was simply burned out, but iron oxide (and other inorganic pigments) remained in the layer. Therefore, layer stayed red. As simple as that.
Btw, I observed the same for my heated Laclede paint imitation. It also stayed basically red after heating up to 700 degrees C, see e.g. this micrograph: http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/LI1epoxid/#LI1_16epi_04.jpg . Also "macroscopic color" did not change during heating, because of red iron oxide present. (And - once again -, also red chips in Bentham paper stayed basically red after heating. Why? One hint for you: since red iron oxide was not transformed to dark elemental iron by thermitic reaction.)

I'd like for MM to focus on this in his next reply.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Looks pretty similar to the comments I got from an analytical chemist co-worker of mine. He's been doing analytical chemistry for over 25 years.

His words were:
"This is what you get when people misuse the little knowledge that they have. I hate to tell them this but, it’s paint.
I don’t mind if you forward my comments, but you’re right, you cannot convince anyone who has decided to ignore any contradictory evidence. Adding to my comments:
The authors compare to “paint”. What kind of paint? They are ignoring the literally thousands of types and formulations of paints and primers - not just in the pigments or fillers but the organic basis (epoxy, urethane, alkyd, etc) of the paints (which makes their MEK comparison meaningless). They explain away the high C and O as contaminants rather than consider the most likely explanation – paint. Additionally, they did not analyze the samples by the two most likely methods to confirm or refute the possibility that the chips are paint, FTIR and Mass Spec. Given an hour in my lab with a few of these chips and my FTIR, I could tell with a high degree of certainty whether these chips are paint or not."

Thanks This is apparently a qualified reaction and a good summary.

 

[The Almond]

It is also a product of welding. THere aare also such materials in flyash added to concrete to lighten it.

I don't mean to be a stickler for details, but this isn't entirely accurate. The iron in fly ash, which is usually part of a glass matrix, but sometimes present as one of the iron oxides, makes the ash heavier.

While I'm on the subject, someone mentioned earlier in this thread that iron oxides are removed from fly ash and sold to metals recyclers as raw material. That's only partially true. In fact, many manufacturers actually add Fe₂O₃ back into the fly ash, the overwhelming majority of which is in the form of these nano/micro spheres. The reason they add the material back in is very simple: they're cheating. Fly ash is graded based on its mineral composition. The sum of the silica, alumina and iron oxide content must be greater than 70% of the total material in order for the fly ash to be classified as the higher priced, more valuable Class F. Since the iron oxide was removed from the parent material in the first place, it can readily be added back in to create the appropriate mix.

The reason I call this cheating is that the Fe₂O₃ doesn't react at all in concrete. What you put in is what you'll get out. My initial responses to the Harrit paper were primarily from this forensic point of view, which I still think is correct. Given an urban environment, a collapsed building, enormous amounts of concrete dust and generally unknown sample provenance, the presence of iron microspheres is uninteresting. Nothing can be derived from their presence without very careful experimental controls.

Urr wait - what you describe there is linear: 10,000 = 100*100 - isn't it? You surely mean 3 times more (1+log(10,000/100))?

Oops! Yes, you have it right. -100 points for The Almond, whose grade school algebra teachers are turning in their graves right now.

I've simulated the LaClede primer paint with your composition specifications, and used detectors on various instruments I know about. I also simulated a 20 µm sphere on a carbon subsurface to show what the geometric effects are (green line). The point I'm trying to make here is that, unless you're working with a perfectly flat, homogeneous material, the nitrogen peak is probably not going to show up.



Zooming in to the region around the C, N and O peaks, I think you can see it very clearly.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Thanks a lot, Almond

MM, be so kind and compare these simulated XEDS spectra of Laclede primer paint (according to elemental composition calculated by Oystein) with XEDS spectra of chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper (Fig. 7). I think that no other comments are necessary at the moment...

 

[Miragememories]

http://betterment.democraticundergr...esg&forum=125&topic_id=320073&mesg_id=323359]

"In conclusion:

Almost nothing is in favor of thermites. And almost everything is in favor of Laclede paint (and it has been clear from the very beginning that “primer paint hypothesis” is much more plausible, as for red chips found in the dust).Regards, Ivan"

"As has been reported, the formation of elemental iron as spheres is the signature reaction of thermitic material.

It is impossible to concieve, that Laclede primer paint can generate iron rich spheres upon combustion, in particular not as it is an oxidative protectant.

.... To have any validity, you must be able to demonstrate, that the Laclede paint can produce elemental iron in iron-rich spheres with the same signature-EDS as iron-rich spheres from thermite reactions."

You continue to ignore the necessity of meeting the above basic criteria.

Why should anyone pursue your otherwise "wild goose chase" of an argument when you cannot meet a fundamental requirement of your hypothesis?

At least you acknowledge that your use of the Muramaki paper was irrelevant and a poor example. One can only wonder about the integrity of everything you have written, when you resort to padding your theory by citing papers which you know are unrepresentative.

Possibly you are assuming that no one is sufficiently knowledgeable to catch you in such deception?

It is certainly not my desire to get dragged into examining the quagmire of irrelevant papers you so happily Google.

"To have any validity, you must be able to demonstrate, that the Laclede paint can produce elemental iron in iron-rich spheres with the same signature-EDS as iron-rich spheres from thermite reactions."

"We simply do not have any samples for such testing. You know it, we know it. The best I can do now is to prepare better (closer) Laclede paint imitation and do some testing on it. My colleagues possess necessary nanosized iron oxide for this purpose... but even experiments on such imitation cannot be really conclusive."

That is most unfortunate for you and Oystein, because you are both trying to convince the world that your zero experimentation on genuine Laclede primer paint, outweighs the actual experimentation performed for the Bentham paper.

And you absurdly expect us to accept as comparable, the test results of some concoction you have thrown together based on a list of ingredients you have found listed in the NIST paper.

At least you concede that; "...experiments on such imitation cannot be really conclusive."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7498718&postcount=244]

"Finally some (partial) info on the thermal degradation of epoxide resins (both under air and under inert gas)

Let me repeat (mostly for the accidental visitors):
Harrit et al. observed exothermic peaks on DSC curves of red-gray chips about 420 oC
Laclede primer paint contained epoxide binder cured/crosslinked/hardened by some polyamine. Our question therefore is: could this binder show the similar exotherms at these temperatures (between ca 380 and 450 oC?). . . .After some hour spent with our experts on DSC and TGA and after some literature search I can write here now:

The rapid thermal degradation of polymers as recorded by TGA (both purely thermal and oxidative) proceeds very frequently just in the range between 400 and 450 oC. The usual onset is slightly below 400 oC."

"You said that you prepared Laclede primer paint according to the composition. Under experimentation, you found that your mixture degrades at 380 – 400 degr. centigrade. The problem here is, that all relevant building components of the WTC towers underwent fire resistance tests following ASTM E-119 when they were certified prior to the construction of the WTC towers.

It makes no sense to suggest that the Laclede primer paint would be designed for use on fireproofed structural steel that was meant to be exposed to temperatures of the ASTM E-119 standard test."

http://betterment.democraticundergr...esg&forum=125&topic_id=320073&mesg_id=323359]

"It does not matter if anticorrosive primer is flammable in the case of fire (when applied in thickness typical for paints). It is not intended as fireproofing and its burning cannot damage anything."

"You believe that the performance of well-tested sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) would not be affected if the base on which it was applied suddenly burst into flames at temperatures far below what the SFRM was designed to withstand? You provide no evidence for this and simply makes the claim that “it does not matter.”"

"1) Not only epoxy binder in my Laclede paint imitation, but also in the real Laclede paint is for sure (!!!) degraded/vaporized (both under air and under inert atmosphere) at this temperature range (350 - 450 degrees C), despite any US standard or norm you are able find This is simply a thermal behavior of epoxy resins (as organic compounds). (Novadays, e,g. flame retardants added to the resins can slightly increase their thermal durability/flammability, but even such resins will be inevitably degraded.)"

So you are suggesting that your supposedly representative mixture of Laclede primer paint was actually used on the WTC steel trusses.

You also make the shocking, unproven claim, that even if the base on which the Laclede primer paint was applied suddenly burst into flames at temperatures far below what the SFRM was designed to withstand, that the well-tested fire-resistant material (SFRM), would not be effected, that in your words, it does not matter"

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

"Four WTC floor assembly models, painted with a similar primer, were tested via ASTM E-119 as part of the NIST WTC investigation (NCSTAR 1-6B).

The primer paint used for these tests, type B50NV11, was recommended by Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the SFRM used in these tests and in the original construction of the WTC towers. Because the Laclede paint was not available, B5N0V11 was determined to be an acceptable substitute. See how the primer was sprayed onto the bridging trusses on page 31.

On one test assembly (No. 4), no SFRM was applied to bridging trusses so the paint was exposed directly to the flames. See Fig 5-69 and Fig 5-70 for photos of bridging trusses after the tests. Notice the lack of charred remains on the bridging trusses where the paint was applied, and the red color still visible, indicating that the primer paint did not burn. In section 5.5.4, note that the trusses reached a temperature of 704 C (!)

That is, B50NV11 does not burn at 704 degr C. Since it was accepted as a substitute for Leclede primer in the post-9/11 tests, it seems very unlikely, that Laclede primer should degrade at 380 degr C - as you claim - and that the original Laclede primer should have been accepted after having undergone the same tests prior to the construction of the WTC Towers."

"3) Ad "Notice the lack of charred remains on the bridging trusses where the paint was applied, and the red color still visible, indicating that the primer paint did not burn. In section 5.5.4, note that the trusses reached a temperature of 704 C (!)"

Your conclusion is apparently wrong, MM. What happened to this paint? Polymer binder was simply burned out, but iron oxide (and other inorganic pigments) remained in the layer. Therefore, layer stayed red. As simple as that."

As I pointed out, the NIST, who I might add, probably have better capability of producing or obtaining a similar primer paint than yourself, tested four WTC floor assembly models, painted with a similar primer, were tested via ASTM E-119 as part of the NIST WTC investigation (NCSTAR 1-6B).

As simple as crap you mean.

The primer paint simply did not burn. There were no signs of any burning, there were no charred remains. Where is the charring from the burned out polymer binder?

"Btw, I observed the same for my heated Laclede paint imitation. It also stayed basically red after heating up to 700 degrees C, see e.g. this micrograph: http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/LI1e...1_16epi_04.jpg . Also "macroscopic color" did not change during heating, because of red iron oxide present. (And - once again -, also red chips in Bentham paper stayed basically red after heating. Why? One hint for you: since red iron oxide (at least its great majority) was not transformed to dark elemental iron by thermitic reaction.)"

Your micrograph reveals absolutely nothing of value to this particular discussion.

A large aftermath image of your mock Laclede primer paint on truss steel after being subjected to 704C might be of limited interest. It certainly would be more representative of the NIST test than your micrograph.

And we certainly know that the red chips change color when heated to 420 C.

MM

 

[Oystein]

MM,

could you please answer two simple questions:

1. Can cured epoxy burn - yes or no?
2. Did the LaClede paint on the floor trusses consist of >70% by weight epoxy, according to specification - yes or no?

I think two honest answers, two words, from you is everything we need as a reply to your last post.

 

[Oystein]

@ The Almond:

Thanks a lot!

Only taking a quick glance, I notice a few things:
a) Your first graph goes only up to 10keV. Good for comparison with the Bentham paper, but we also have one graph from Harrit's letter that goes beyond that and has labels for Sr near, iirc, 14keV
b) N is tiny, but recognizable.
c) You only have a Cr peak near 6keV; Harrit in his letter also has one near 5.6keV, and that's larger than the one at 6keV.

Nonetheless, these graphs are a pretty close match. Not perfect, but we knew from the beginning that we could not provide total proof without actually putting Harrit specimen next to LaClede specimen from WTC debris and did the exact same test with the exact same equipment on all of them. Our case is simply a lot better than Harrit's. And that is obvious.

 

[Miragememories]

MM,

could you please answer two simple questions:

1. Can cured epoxy burn - yes or no?
2. Did the LaClede paint on the floor trusses consist of >70% by weight epoxy, according to specification - yes or no?

I think two honest answers, two words, from you is everything we need as a reply to your last post.

Dodge much?

MM

 

[GlennB]

....
That is most unfortunate for you and Oystein, because you are both trying to convince the world that your zero experimentation on genuine Laclede primer paint, outweighs the actual experimentation performed for the Bentham paper.
...

My bolding. 'Experimentation' that omitted the one quick, simple and cheap test that would have proved the underlying hypothesis - that the chips were in fact thermitic.

Irony-rich indeed.

 

[The Platypus]

Dodge much?

MM

The pot calling the kettle...

 

[Oystein]

Dodge much?

MM

Says the man who has been dodging more than 10 questions despite havuing been called on it several times? That is rich.

Come on, two one-word answers:

1. Can cured epoxy burn - yes or no?
2. Did the LaClede paint on the floor trusses consist of >70% by weight epoxy, according to specification - yes or no?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein, I think that it is time to stop any discussion with MM. Some qualified criticism of our hypotheses would be welcome here (e.g., guys like Metamars can perhaps add something useful), but such a flamewar with the hopeless fanatic like MM is just a complete waste of time.
It is up to you, Oystein, but I am not going to react to any other post of MM. He has got enough chances to learn something and we have been very patient, I think.

 

[Oystein]

Deal, Ivan.