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

[Miragememories]

"A minor technical detail, MM, but why do you (apparently) edit out the post number you are replying to when you quote posts? This removes the link-arrow thing, making it difficult to navigate a series of your posts."

Sorry Glenn. I tend to not de-acquire that information when editing long responses involving many quotes. I'll try and retain this information for future posts as I can appreciate your point regarding navigational difficulty.

"And would you not agree that Bentham fig. (23) of a combusted chip looks remarkably red?

The difference, quite possibly, is that the charred chip in your post #850 was on a smooth surface with restricted airflow to the underside."

I do not disagree with an observation that many of the post-ignition images from the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham paper reveal areas of reddish hue.

But the paper does not hide from this revelation as Ivan Kminek might lead readers to believe;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7693689&postcount=677

"Btw, red-gray chips in Bentham paper behaved thermally very similarly to my Laclede paint imitation heated up to 700 degrees C under air: their polymeric binder was almost completely degraded/evaporated and reddish matter was a result, since iron oxide remained unchanged (stayed red) - which is course a clear sign that no thermitic reaction took place..."

Considering the image you selected as an example, the Bentham paper's Fig. (23), it certainly shows areas of a reddish hue.

But the Bentham paper does not claim that all the iron oxide was consumed during the DSC testing.

" The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction."

Yet, Ivan Kminek persists in making strong statements in support of a Laclede primer paint theory that leaks like a sieve.

-his theorized red chip composition (Laclede primer paint) is a material that is unobtainable, and in effect banned because it is so toxic.

-his crude homebrew based on the published list of Laclede primer paint ingredients has failed to replicate the results shown in the Bentham paper

"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."

-he relies on an academically verbose argument, flooding the thread with Googled scientific papers, and in one case admitting to knowingly using an irrelevant reference (Taichi Murakami paper) to argue his theory

-all his work is basically hypothetical and occasionally assisted by Almond's simulated evidence

-he argues with anonymous email evidence about the use of BYU stadium paint comparisons, but, unlike the unobtainable Leclede primer paint, the BYU stadium paint is obtainable for comparison to the known Tnemec primer, yet Ivan has never attempted to find out if it fails as a match. Of course a match would immediately shutdown that line of argument.

-he made the ridiculous 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 his words, "it does not matter"

- he is totally unable to assert that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics described by the Bentham Paper results, and he is unable to support his claims with an empirical demonstration using a sample of his proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.

So how does Ivan Kminek behave when facing an irreconcilable argument?

"I think there is no reason to prepare some closer imitation of Laclede paint at the moment. Almond's new simulation of XEDS of the Laclede primer paint and its comparison with XEDS of the red chips (a) to (d) can serve as a good proof that we are dealing with this paint (or some very, very similar paint). The probability that this is not true is similar to the probability that I will be killed with some meteorite today."

And his attitude towards any further criticism of his fantasy?

"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.

Of course Metamars remains useful because he is the anonymous source for the BYU stadium paint email.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Quote:
THE RED CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT.

What are they?

 

[DGM]

how would the iron oxide, aluminum silicate and the strontium chromate be deposited via the electrodeposition technique onto the steel? what about the epoxy amine.....how would that build up? would it look like fig 9 in the thermitic paper? thats why i asked ivan for some articles or research papers that deal with those types of pigments and the electrodepositon of those pigments.

well the technique does create a uniform film but can you find any articles that go into using those particular pigments and the epoxy amine? i cant....but maybe im just looking in the wrong place?

All of these components are already mixed at the time of application. The process is very much like electrostatic spray painting. It really has nothing to do with the composition of the material being applied (although I believe a metallic component is helpful). Think of it this way, you make the thing you're painting like a magnet so the paint is sucked on better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spray_painting#Electrostatic_spray_painting

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Now Ivan, if I understand you correctly, you believe that by further subjecting this residue to high extended heat, we will end up with red residue representing the iron oxide remains of your Laclede paint?

Sorry but I think you fail.

THE RED CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT.

MM

And how many primer paints have you tested and photographed the results to be able to make that absolute statement?
When will you make the results of these thousands of tests available?

 

[beachnut]

...

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7293/redchiptoblack1.png

...
MM

How many times will you prove the chips Jones found look like vermiculite with paint burning? The puffy thermite photo proves no thermite. Make up some other name. A big lie, made up by old men who want to act like nuts. 10 years of failure for Jones, albeit he made up thermite with no proof 4 years after 911, and use to show the cuts made after 911 as his proof, until he found other old failed nuts to make up an idiotic paper in a vanity journal, which you defend with nothing more than faith. You repeat the photo, proving you have no clue what themite is. SPAM the photo some more.

Why can't Jones publish his super work in a real journal? Why did Jones have to pay to have his paper published? Why do you fall for fraud?

Expanding thermite?

 

[Sunstealer]

I really don't know why anyone is bothering to argue with the truthers anymore.

We know from the Harrit et al paper that the material in chips a-d) is paint.

We know those samples a-d) are NOT Tnemec red primer paint.

Another primer paint is identified from NIST reports namely this one.

The paint components match what is observed in the SEM microscopy analysis.

Oystein, based on the composition of Laclade joist primer paint, has worked out the weight percent of each element:

Alright, here it is, for the red layer (LaClede paint as specified, with some hopefully reasonable assumptions about the epoxy):
C: 48,67%
O: 21,12%
Fe: 10,96%
H: 6,80%
N: 6,68%
Si: 2,54%
Al: 2,44%
Sr: 0,49%
Cr: 0,29%

Haven't looked at the chemistry of oxidized steel surfaces yet so I don't have the numbers for the gray layers (basically Fe + 1% Mn, + O).

The Almond has then performed a Monte Carlo simulation using Oystein's figures and produced a EDX spectrum of what we would expect to see if Laclade primer paint was analysed by EDX.

This is the comparison between samples a-d) and the simulated Laclade paint.

They match very well.

So why do they match?

Truthers - if the material in samples a-d) is not Laclade joist primer paint then why does the EDX spectrum for that material match so well with Laclade joist primer paint MC simulation?

Coincidence?

Give it up - Harrit et al found paint not thermite. If you think otherwise then answer the above question and show how you come to that answer.

 

[Senenmut]

All of these components are already mixed at the time of application. The process is very much like electrostatic spray painting. It really has nothing to do with the composition of the material being applied (although I believe a metallic component is helpful). Think of it this way, you make the thing you're painting like a magnet so the paint is sucked on better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spray_painting#Electrostatic_spray_painting

dosent sound like they sprayed. sounds more like they dipped.
this might have been brought up already...
from nist:
The protective paint was to be applied by
the electro-phoresces process involving a direct current through a deionized water paint bath, which was
to provide an average dry film of 1 mil thickness.

 

[911kongen]

Can someone break this down? What are the Red-Grey Chips? They said they ignited with extreme energy, why did they ignite?

 

[Senenmut]

of coarse that brings up the question if it was sprayed or dipped, how come fig 31 in the thermitic paper has multiple red and gray layers...and a light gray layer?

 

[DGM]

dosent sound like they sprayed. sounds more like they dipped.
this might have been brought up already...
from nist:
The protective paint was to be applied by
the electro-phoresces process involving a direct current through a deionized water paint bath, which was
to provide an average dry film of 1 mil thickness.

of coarse that brings up the question if it was sprayed or dipped, how come fig 31 in the thermitic paper has multiple red and gray layers...and a light gray layer?

I was lazy in directing to the the exact method of application (same idea). Multiple layers would mean multiple dips to achieve the correct thickness. Simple really.

 

[Sunstealer]

of coarse that brings up the question if it was sprayed or dipped, how come fig 31 in the thermitic paper has multiple red and gray layers...and a light gray layer?

Fig 31 is one of the more hilarious aspects of the paper. I'm surprised it was even included in the paper bearing in mind how obvious what it is and what it isn't.

We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers.

Page 28 para 3.

I love the way that they claim that only a laboratory could manufacture such high tech nano-materials yet these materials are different in composition from one sample to the next. Not good at quality control are they this lab? Why would Pb (Lead) be in thermite?

It's also outside of the scope of this thread because there is no additional data for that chip.

 

[Senenmut]

Fig 31 is one of the more hilarious aspects of the paper. I'm surprised it was even included in the paper bearing in mind how obvious what it is and what it isn't.

Page 28 para 3.

I love the way that they claim that only a laboratory could manufacture such high tech nano-materials yet these materials are different in composition from one sample to the next. Not good at quality control are they this lab? Why would Pb (Lead) be in thermite?

It's also outside of the scope of this thread because there is no additional data for that chip.

could be external contaminants....your right, there just isnt any additional info. who knows if they broke this chip open or not to expose a fresh surface?

 

[leftysergeant]

Can someone break this down? What are the Red-Grey Chips? They said they ignited with extreme energy, why did they ignite?

The chips are paint. Nearly all paint is flammable, unless a flame retardent is added. It rarely makes sense to do so since, at the temperatures at which paint will combust is well above that at which a human body will be cooked medium rare within twenty minutes.

THe iron oxide and strontium chromate in the particular paint we are discussing would provide plenty of oxidizing agent to help the paint burn once the right temperature had been reached.

 

[leftysergeant]

A few preliminary observations.

It is important to note the time scale applied for those TGA curve.
http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/epoxides/#TGA-air2.jpg
This represents the application of heat from 40C to 800C at a rate of 10C per minute.

Your statement that; "We can see that the most of epoxy binder is degraded/evaporated in the temperature range ca 350 – 430 degrees C.", translates to a time period of 1 hour and 20 minutes.

You base your char conclusions on your reference papers, and a strong dependency on heating conditions.

For the purposes of this reply, I will address your reference to the Mark Basile tests which I have already used as visual evidence.

For Mark Basile's observations, you use the criteria; "If the high temperatures do not last for a long time and/or the access of oxygen to the sample is limited, the char is not completely burned/vaporized and the residue after heating is dark.".

You claim that Mark Basile's red chip test fits this criteria without attempting to justify your conclusion.

Actually, if I interpret your scenario 1 correctly, you believe that had he exposed his red chips to a very long period of high heat, that his red chip would have gone black and then back to red because the final residue would be the reddish iron oxide.

Well, DUH! Some of the resuidue here is iron oxide. The flames were all on the surface of the chip. The charring was all on the surface of the chip. Look at the edges of that "black" lump on the end. Where it is thinnest, around the edges, it is clearly RED. This means that only the OUTSIDEof the chip is black. The inside is red. Thermite does not just burn on the surface. The inside did not react, therefore, as we have repeatedly told you and all the other superstitoious twits who think that they have uncovered the most dastardly covert weapon of the 21st Century, IT"S BLEEDIN' PAINT.

Here is how Mark Basile characterizes what was observed...

And it sounds rather like what you would expect to find in a bloomery when producing wrought iron from a low-grade iron ore. Not a bit like thermite residues.

Sorry but I think you fail.

 

[Oystein]

Can someone break this down? What are the Red-Grey Chips? They said they ignited with extreme energy, why did they ignite?

Gladly.

The red-gray chips are flakes of red primer paint on gray iron oxide. The iron oxide is the surface of structural steel from probably the floor joists, flaked off probably when the towers collapsed and all the floors got ground to pieces; thousands of tons of lightweight concrete in the floor slabs got intermingled with the joists and knocked paint off which could then join the dust ejecta.

They say "highly energetic" or some such nonsense, but it isn't really so. The whole "chips burned with extreme energy, so it has to be thermite which gets extremely hot" is flawed on several levels.
The only numerical measure of how energetic the chips are is their energy density: That's how much energy is released per mass unit when they burn.
First, the idea that thermite is "highly energetic" is not correct. Thermite does NOT have a high energy density, compared to other common materials. Ideal thermite has an energy density of 3.9 kJ/g (thousands of Joules per gram), actual thermite somewhat less, and nano-thermite, for various reasons, even less; one experimental source referenced by Harrit is a paper by Tillotson e.al. who measured 1.5kJ/g for their preparation of nano-thermite. This is very little compared to pretty much all organic materials: Fuels such as jet fuel have well over 40 kJ/g, many plastics in the range from 25-40 kJ/g, paper and wood in the vicinity of 18 kJ/g. Even your own body, despite it consisting of 60% water, has an average energy density of 8-10 kJ/g - burning human bodies is more "highly energetic" than even ideal thermite!
Secondly, the four chips that Harrit e.al. describe in their paper were measured with energy densities of 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g. So at least 2 of the 4 samples are more energetic than even ideal thermite could ever be! This is clear-cut proof that the chips are not primarily fueled by their allegedly containing thermite - some other material MUST be the leading factor. Still, a max. energy density of 7.5 kJ/g is not remarkable - as I wrote above, that's less then what human tissue or paper have.
Thirdly, the XEDS spectra and the photomicrographs published by Harrit e.al. show that the red layer of the chips contain iron oxide and aluminium only as minority cosntituents. We have data by fellow truther Mark Basile, who is acknowledged in the Harrit paper and who says he repeated some of Harrit's experiments, that shows that only about 5%-10% by weight of the red layer could be thermite - the rest is silicon, carbon, excess oxigene... Further diluting the proportion of the energy thermite would add to the 1.5 - 7.5 kJ/g that were measured.
Fourthly, the gray layer is iron oxide without aluminium or anything else that coulkd react exothermically - that layer only adds dead, inert mass to the chips, which reduces even further the maximum energy output by mass unit that thermite could theoretically provide.
Fifthl,y Harrit e.al. do notice the organic matrix that really dominates the red layer, and do comment that they suspect it adds energy to the chip. What we know by now is that this organic matrix MUST provide well over 90% of the measured energy output. But as that output is only 7.5 kJ/g, a great number of very ordinary organic compounds could do that.

So what has our theory to say here? Well, we claim the red layer is 71.5% by weight epoxy. Epoxy is an organic compound that burns just as most organic compounds. Ivan has figured out that it ignites somewhere in the range 350°C to 450°C. It is sure to have an energy density that might be in the vicinity of 20 kJ/g. If you consider that maybe half the mass of the chips is inert iron oxide from the gray layer, and that 30% of the red layer is inert pigments, then 20 kJ/g for epoxy alone would dilute to at most roundabout 7 kJ/g for red paint on oxidized steel - just about what Harrit measured.

SUMMARY:
Epoxy-based paint is more energetoc than thermite. Since Harrit measured energy density exceeding the maximum that's theoretically possible for thermite, but being in good accorcance with what one could expect from epoxy-based paint on spalled steel, Harrit's theory is refuted, or theory is strengthened.

 

[Oystein]

of coarse that brings up the question if it was sprayed or dipped, how come fig 31 in the thermitic paper has multiple red and gray layers...and a light gray layer?

Harrit, Jones and friends found several different things in the dust that are layered red and gray. They found two different kinds of primer paint on spalled steel (Tnemec and LaClede). There is no telling what else they found. The particle in fig 31 looks different from samples a-d, and probably is something entirely different.

 

[Oystein]

could be external contaminants....your right, there just isnt any additional info. who knows if they broke this chip open or not to expose a fresh surface?

Right. Who knows? Since they didn't publish anything on that multi-layered chip, we can't use it for anything. Just discard the info.

 

[chrismohr]

Here's a question re a new "thermitic dust" test... Is it easy to separate out the red-gray chips from the rest of the WTC dust (for example, using a magnet)? I have found an inexpensive test that can be done if the concentration of red-gray chips is higher than a sample of the WTC dust Harritt et al have. I am wondering if we can offer an inexpensive retest of the dust if we just give the lab a sample of the red-gray chips, or at least the magnetically responsive ingredients of the WTC dust samples in Harritt/Jones/Ryan's possession?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

how would the iron oxide, aluminum silicate and the strontium chromate be deposited via the electrodeposition technique onto the steel? what about the epoxy amine.....how would that build up? would it look like fig 9 in the thermitic paper? thats why i asked ivan for some articles or research papers that deal with those types of pigments and the electrodepositon of those pigments.

well the technique does create a uniform film but can you find any articles that go into using those particular pigments and the epoxy amine? i cant....but maybe im just looking in the wrong place?

As I already wrote, the making of epoxy "concoctions" suitable for electrocoating/electrodepositions is a quite hi-tec matter. And I have to admit that not everything is clear for me now. Here are some citations from the following patent http://www.patents.com/us-5324756.html named "Pigment dispersant for cathodic electrocoating compositions":

"Resin compositions used in the bath of a typical cathodic electrodeposition process also are well known in the art. These resins typically are made from a polyepoxide which has been chain extended and then an adduct is formed to include amine groups in the resin. Amine groups typically are introduced through reaction of the resin with an amine compound. These resins are blended with a crosslinking agent and then neutralized with an acid to form a water emulsion which is usually referred to as a principal emulsion.

The principal emulsion is combined with a pigment paste, coalescent solvents, water, and other additives to form the electrocoating bath. The electrocoating bath is placed in an insulated tank containing the anode. The article to be coated is the cathode and is passed through the tank containing the electrodeposition bath.

Pigments are a necessary component in a typical electrocoating automotive primer composition. Pigment dispersants are used to disperse the pigment in the composition and keep the pigment dispersed in the composition and thus are a very important part of any electrocoating composition."

So, it seems that thank to dispersants (among others), pigment particles incorporate/attach somehow to the colloid particles of epoxy adduct with amine crosslinker and they are transferred to the corresponding electrode (painted steel) together. But I have to find more details, to be more specific... Perhaps it is good to note here that components like those dispersants, surfactants etc. are added in low amounts and cannot substantially change the elemental composition of the cured paint.

Anyway, there is really no reason to have the slightest doubt that this method works, Senenmut, and high-quality layers with evenly distributed particles of pigments/fillers are formed in this way This painting technology is widely used (among others) for the painting of car steel parts where the quality of the paint layer must be really high.
Therefore, the layer on Fig. 9 in Bentham paper could be indeed formed by electrocoating, why not?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Here's a question re a new "thermitic dust" test... Is it easy to separate out the red-gray chips from the rest of the WTC dust (for example, using a magnet)? I have found an inexpensive test that can be done if the concentration of red-gray chips is higher than a sample of the WTC dust Harritt et al have. I am wondering if we can offer an inexpensive retest of the dust if we just give the lab a sample of the red-gray chips, or at least the magnetically responsive ingredients of the WTC dust samples in Harritt/Jones/Ryan's possession?

How can we know this, Chris? Ask Henryco or other guys who have the practical experience with the separation of red-gray chips