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

[Ivan Kminek]

we are talking about them doing it back in 1967.......how is it so high tech now?


electroplating works, yes. but what would the end result look like with those certain pigments and epoxy?


the funny thing is, i doubt it was used that much back then. maybe it was some experimental thing considering the laclede standard steel joist paint formula was dated sept 1, 1967.

from wiki-
The first patent for a cathodic EPD product was issued in 1965 and assigned to BASF AG. PPG Industries, Inc. was the first to introduce commercially cathodic EPD in 1970. The first cathodic EPD use in the automotive industry was in 1975.

the nist mention the pittsburgh plate glass company (PPG).
nist-
The shop paint was to be in accordance with Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG) Company Standard RF-2184
initial tank charging material with PPG red power primer RF-2184 replenishing material or Laclede
Standard Red Chromate Steel Primer, Specification LREP 10001.


was laclede doing experimental stuff perhaps?

Senenmut, I already mentioned that the electrocoating was a brand new technology in Golden Sixties. I read now on the web of PPG Industries (former Pittsburgh Plate Glass): "1963: Filled first electrocoat tank with anodic electrocoat for automobile bodies." And "1971: Filled the world's first cathodic electrocoat tank".
Therefore, I was very probably wrong in my initial guess that paint for WTC floor trusses was applied by cathodic process, it had to be the anodic process which was used. Anyway, this painting technology (electrocoating) was available in the middle of sixties and it is clear enough from NIST report NCSTAR 1-6b that WTC floor trusses were painted in this way. Why to have any doubts here? It is just silly. Or do you think that Laclede paint document in NIST report is some kind of fake?

The choice of pigments which can be used in the paint for electrocoating is very wide and it is written in the already cited patent http://www.patents.com/us-5324756.html : "Pigments that are used include titanium dioxide, carbon black, iron oxide, clay and the like." Therefore, iron oxide and aluminosilicates (e.g. clays) are of course pigments usable for electrocoating.

Fig. 9 (and Fig. 8) shows a picture which is compatible with the paint: small particles of iron oxide and larger particles of some aluminosilicate, probably kaolinite, "embedded in an unstructured matrix which gives a dark BSE intensity" (words of Harrit team describing polymer binder).

(I still think that the best way how to know more about electrocoating in sixties is to write an inquiry to PPG Industries, namely to electrocoating division, see http://www.ppg.com/coatings/electrocoat/pages/default.aspx. I already wrote such inquiry but I made one stupid mistake: I explicitly mentioned 911 thermite conspiracy theory in my e-mail; therefore, no answer followed...)

 

[Oystein]

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?

Chris, although this is slightly off-topic here, I will answer verbosely:

As I understand the Bentham paper, here is the method by which to obtain red-gray chips:

a. wave a magnet about the dust and collect what sticks
b. sort out manually any particles that appear to have a reddish and a grayish side

In step a, many kinds of particles will stick. Jones was originally for iron-rich microspheres, and found paint chips as a by-product.
Step b will still give you several kinds of materials, some or most of which may be serveral kinds of paints on several kinds of surfaces. Some chips you find may be LaClede paint on floor joist steel, some may be Tnemec on perimeter steel, and some may be something entirely different, maybe bright red paint on fire extinguisher steel, or not even paint at all.

I believe the most likely reason for why our primer paint chips adhere to a magnet is the gray layer, which is the oxidized surface of steel. It will probably contain no elemental iron - all of the iron at such small layerthickness would have been exposed to normal atmosphere long enough for total oxidation. But some iron oxides are magnetic, and the gray layer contains a lot (factor 7 and more) iron oxide than the red layer.


What would the test do? To recap, only an unknown fraction of what you get from the method described above will be the "right" kind of red-gray chips, and only a small portion of the "right" kind of red-gray chips consists of chemical compounds that are a candidate for thermite (iron oxide and whatever alkuminium is bound with or not). So you'd have to check if the test you want to would be capable of identifying thermite even if it only made up a few percent of the sorted sample. I am only speaking from gut-feeling here, but I fear the results of that test would come out so vaguely as to render them worthless. They will not convince anybody on either side of the issue to revisdit their stance.

 

[Oystein]

@ Glenn, DGM,

please, this thread is not about the thermitic theory of the Bentham paper. Please do not debate points like the validity of the supposed peer-review. Also, re-doing what they did with the WTC dust is nice, but I don't think it furthers the topic of this thread, unless the re-test of dust would be carried out with the specific objective of finding out which kind of paint we are looking at. Such test would not replicate what Harrit etc. did, but instead use competent and definitive methods of analysis.

For example, if you could propose a test that would identify cured epoxy as such with certainty; or even give us hints about the type of epoxy; that sort of debate would be welcome here.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[ozeco41]

...I am only speaking from gut-feeling here, but I fear the results of that test would come out so vaguely as to render them worthless. They will not convince anybody on either side of the issue to revisit their stance.

Which is not really a problem.

Whilst we are exploring testing of the dust it is easy to fall for the trap of thinking that there are two "sides" to the discussion and that they are of similar merit.

That is true in a very limited sense. That is in the scientific sense of testing for thermXte or residues as an issue of scientific interest totally independent of the 9/11 context.

However, putting the issue back into the 9/11 context then the only interest in the presence of thermXte is as an element of proof of CD related activities.

There has not been any case made for CD related activities so the two "sides" are not equal if the matter is placed in the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Nothing wrong with people pursuing the purely technical interest.

However the evil side of me is tempted to recall only a couple of months back that there was a multiplicity of arguments that technical discussions with no conspiracy element don't belong in this sub forum. But I won't raise that aspect.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris, although this is slightly off-topic here, I will answer verbosely:

As I understand the Bentham paper, here is the method by which to obtain red-gray chips:

a. wave a magnet about the dust and collect what sticks
b. sort out manually any particles that appear to have a reddish and a grayish side

In step a, many kinds of particles will stick. Jones was originally for iron-rich microspheres, and found paint chips as a by-product.
Step b will still give you several kinds of materials, some or most of which may be serveral kinds of paints on several kinds of surfaces. Some chips you find may be LaClede paint on floor joist steel, some may be Tnemec on perimeter steel, and some may be something entirely different, maybe bright red paint on fire extinguisher steel, or not even paint at all.

I believe the most likely reason for why our primer paint chips adhere to a magnet is the gray layer, which is the oxidized surface of steel. It will probably contain no elemental iron - all of the iron at such small layerthickness would have been exposed to normal atmosphere long enough for total oxidation. But some iron oxides are magnetic, and the gray layer contains a lot (factor 7 and more) iron oxide than the red layer.


What would the test do? To recap, only an unknown fraction of what you get from the method described above will be the "right" kind of red-gray chips, and only a small portion of the "right" kind of red-gray chips consists of chemical compounds that are a candidate for thermite (iron oxide and whatever alkuminium is bound with or not). So you'd have to check if the test you want to would be capable of identifying thermite even if it only made up a few percent of the sorted sample. I am only speaking from gut-feeling here, but I fear the results of that test would come out so vaguely as to render them worthless. They will not convince anybody on either side of the issue to revisdit their stance.

You are right, Oystein. I'd like only to add here that also purely red ("red-red" chips) were attracted by the magnet, according to Henryco.

Concerning a new analysis of the dust, I still see only this convincing (but elaborate) way how to experimentally prove that chips (a) to (d) were particles of Laclede paint:
1) Some red or red-gray chips are separated from the dust.
2) Chips with the same/very similar XEDS signatures as chips (a) to (d) are chosen for further study.
3) Those chips are investigated by SEM microscopy. Their appearance at high magnification should be the same/very similar as this in Fig. 8 and 9 in Bentham paper.
4) FTIR spectroscopy (suitable even for very small samples) should prove epoxy resin as a binder in those chips. In fact, this could be proof good enough, even without DSC or TGA measuements. I think

Citation from the article Identification of polymers by IR spectroscopy:
Bisphenol epoxy resin
Since both bisphenol epoxy and polycarbonate are based on Bisphenol A, there are a number of similarities in their infrared spectra. There is no carbonyl band in the bisphenol epoxy spectrum, but the aromatic ring-breathing mode at 1,510 [cm.sup.-1] is very strong. Here the 1,610 [cm.sup.-1] ring-breathing mode is also relatively strong. The C-O stretch is strong and appears as two bands, a broad band with a maximum near 1,247 [cm.sup.-1] and a narrower and slightly weaker band with a maximum near 1,182 [cm.sup.-1]. Significant intensity is also seen in the out-of-plane aromatic C-H wag at 830 [cm.sup.-1]."
It follows from this that if the FTIR spectrum of the chip does not contain carbonyl band and all other typical bands are present, it should be some Bisphenol-A based epoxy.

Chrismohr: can you write some basic details about analyses you plan to do/arrange?

 

[Oystein]

...
Concerning a new analysis of the dust, I still see only this convincing (but elaborate) way how to experimentally prove that chips (a) to (d) were particles of Laclede paint:
1) Some red or red-gray chips are separated from the dust.
2) Chips with the same/very similar XEDS signatures as chips (a) to (d) are chosen for further study.
3) Those chips are investigated by SEM microscopy. Their appearance at high magnification should be the same/very similar as this in Fig. 8 and 9 in Bentham paper.
4) FTIR spectroscopy (suitable even for very small samples) should prove epoxy resin as a binder in those chips. In fact, this could be proof good enough, even without DSC or TGA measuements. I think
...

Yup.

In addition, analysis should focus on Al. If it can be shown that all the aluminium is bound as aluminiumsilicates, not elemental, not Al2O3, then we know Al is inert, and an aluminuthermic reaction cannot take place, and the Al has also not simply oxidized over time.
If a final DSC analysis then gives us somewhere between 1.5 and 7.5 kJ/g at roughly 440°C, then Harrit has lost completely.

BUT that is only half the experiment to prove it's LaClede paint ^^

 

[Oystein]

...
Nothing wrong with people pursuing the purely technical interest.

However the evil side of me is tempted to recall only a couple of months back that there was a multiplicity of arguments that technical discussions with no conspiracy element don't belong in this sub forum. But I won't raise that aspect.

This thread, its topic, does not debate a conspiracy theory. It's about identfying the brand of some paint specimen - an entirely mundane endeavour.

However this purely technical analysis, far from even thinking about explosives and CD, seeks to discredit once and for all the scientific competence of pretty much all of the 9/11 TM. You see, the Harrit paper is currently the one and only work of the entire TM that has assumed a vestige of scientific rigour and formal competence, and many many in the TM are holding up high as the scientific proof for ... well, something sinister.

If it can be shown once and for and beyond a reasonable dounbt that all these engineers, architects, physicists, chemists in the TM, and the Miragememories of this world fell for a simple case of bad bad science, that should go a long way to discrediting all of them. It should then be interesting to see how they all react: Will they reconsider? Hand-wave?

I think MM is already leading the way out: He has declared already that he will not believe any results by scientists that he does not personally approve of. Has he given us any criteria by which we could predict which scientists he would approve of? Of course not. We know already what the criterion will be: If he doesn't like the result, he will not like the scientist.

 

[Sunstealer]

For example, if you could propose a test that would identify cured epoxy as such with certainty; or even give us hints about the type of epoxy; that sort of debate would be welcome here.

FTIR analysis will do it. Infact it will also identify kaolin, Fe2O3 etc as well as I've seen papers with IR traces with those materials. It's very quick, it's very cheap and easy to do.

@ChrisMohr - On the point of testing - there is no point in getting hold of WTC dust and running a magnet over it to separate out material you wish to analyse. As Oystein has said you'll pick up all sorts of stuff. Lets say you use that method and 20 red things are separated. How do you decide which of those 20 match the chips in the Harrit paper? Well you perform a materials characterisation exercise on all of them and that will cost lots.

It will show that their method and reasoning is flawed: All red things separated by magnet are thermite.

Remember who you are trying to convince. These people are ignorant and extremely paranoid. They will not trust anyone. They'll ask for silly things like video of the actual experiments and people from an independent test lab. Even if a lab agrees to that sort of nonsense it will increase costs. If the tests show it's not thermite they'll cry foul. The lab is a government shill, the technicians had their families threatened, the samples were switched/tampered with etc, etc.

In order to get any meaningful result then the only way is to be sent actual red/gray chips that have already been separated by Harrit et al and are claimed to be thermite.

You will also need a photograph of each chip preferably by optical microscopy because it's cheap rather than SEM, properly labelled, and signed by one of the authors. You can then ask the lab to photograph each chip to confirm identification and this will need to be signed off by the lab too. This shows that the chips the lab is analysing are the chips provided.

FTIR analysis will give you conclusive data as to the material, specifically the organic material in the chip. The lab will produce a full report. Iirc FTIR is a non-destructive test so you can then send the chips back to Jones/Harrit.

Good luck. You'll need it because I suspect that you won't get chips unless a multitude of silly caveats are adhered to.

 

[Sunstealer]

Yup.

In addition, analysis should focus on Al. If it can be shown that all the aluminium is bound as aluminiumsilicates, not elemental, not Al2O3, then we know Al is inert, and an aluminuthermic reaction cannot take place, and the Al has also not simply oxidized over time.
If a final DSC analysis then gives us somewhere between 1.5 and 7.5 kJ/g at roughly 440°C, then Harrit has lost completely.

BUT that is only half the experiment to prove it's LaClede paint ^^

Al bound to Si is a misnomer. The Harrit et al paper clearly shows that in samples a)-d) that Al and Si are bound.

Remember the chip that they claim shows Al not bound to Si is the MEK chip and this is a different material, namely Tnemec red primer paint which consists of

It's a different material with different silicates and aluminates so there is no reason to suspect that Si will be bound with Al in that material and any EDS maps will show this. Again another failure in the paper.

And in any case FTIR will show this. I'll see if I can find the article/paper with the IR spectra for aluminosilicates specifically Kaolin.

 

[leftysergeant]

I doubt that the clowns are going to give up any of their specimens of dust, but there seem to be two other possible ways to obtain samples even this long after the event. There are government agencies that collected samples for analysis, and something in the nature of a FOIA request might get us access to some of those samples. Maybe one of those private firms that collected dust samples for liability suits might still have some on hand. It would be worth asking.

Or someone could go rummaging about NYC looking for places that nobody bothered to hose down after the clean-up got under way. Maybe someone from FDNY might be able to gain access to such places. I am sure a few of them would like to help bring down the Jones crew.

The gypsum and concrete dust may have long since been deswtroyed by the rain and the naturally acid fumes of the city. but dust from the event should still be identifiable by the presence of asbestos, rock wool, iron microspheres and red paint chips.

 

[Oystein]

Al bound to Si is a misnomer. The Harrit et al paper clearly shows that in samples a)-d) that Al and Si are bound.

...

I haven't looked at this figure consciously in quite some time, possibly not since I opened this thread.

I wonder if MM too can see that the spatial distribution of Al and Si are practically identical, and would try a little discussion about what that implies, given that Al and Si also appear in practically identical molar amounts in the XEDS spectra.

 

[Sunstealer]

I haven't looked at this figure consciously in quite some time, possibly not since I opened this thread.

I wonder if MM too can see that the spatial distribution of Al and Si are practically identical, and would try a little discussion about what that implies, given that Al and Si also appear in practically identical molar amounts in the XEDS spectra.

I think he has me on ignore. He, nor any other truther has responded to post #866

 

[Oystein]

I think he has me on ignore. He, nor any other truther has responded to post #866

I think he doesn't have me technically on ignore; he is very capable of manually ignoring the many many uncomfortable questions that, if he were ever to answer them honstely, would immediately expose him as the fraud that he is. See for example the >10 unanswered questions I assembled in post 735 and reminded him of in post 742 and post 763 and again in post 782.

In 783 he finally gave me the big Hand Wave: "Running away from bs questions.".
So that's what trutherism boils down to: They define first which experts they'll trust (those that confirm their delusions) and which questions are ******** (those that they hate to answer). Confirmation bias at its extreme, nearly a conscious effort.

You see, MM does not have me on ignore - in fact, he responds much more often to me that becomes this thread; he consciously and manually ignores evidence and good questions. That's why he doesn't reply to you. Your evidence is too good. In fact, I am going to propose that the strength of evidence and arguments about 9/11 is correlated to number of truthers who ignore it.
ETA: That's why it is probably safe and inconsequential to "wonder if MM too can see that the spatial distribution of Al and Si are practically identical, and would try a little discussion" - MM will avoid that challenge and not respond.

 

[chrismohr]

You are right, Oystein. I'd like only to add here that also purely red ("red-red" chips) were attracted by the magnet, according to Henryco.

Concerning a new analysis of the dust, I still see only this convincing (but elaborate) way how to experimentally prove that chips (a) to (d) were particles of Laclede paint:
1) Some red or red-gray chips are separated from the dust.
2) Chips with the same/very similar XEDS signatures as chips (a) to (d) are chosen for further study.
3) Those chips are investigated by SEM microscopy. Their appearance at high magnification should be the same/very similar as this in Fig. 8 and 9 in Bentham paper.
4) FTIR spectroscopy (suitable even for very small samples) should prove epoxy resin as a binder in those chips. In fact, this could be proof good enough, even without DSC or TGA measuements. I think

Citation from the article Identification of polymers by IR spectroscopy:
Bisphenol epoxy resin
Since both bisphenol epoxy and polycarbonate are based on Bisphenol A, there are a number of similarities in their infrared spectra. There is no carbonyl band in the bisphenol epoxy spectrum, but the aromatic ring-breathing mode at 1,510 [cm.sup.-1] is very strong. Here the 1,610 [cm.sup.-1] ring-breathing mode is also relatively strong. The C-O stretch is strong and appears as two bands, a broad band with a maximum near 1,247 [cm.sup.-1] and a narrower and slightly weaker band with a maximum near 1,182 [cm.sup.-1]. Significant intensity is also seen in the out-of-plane aromatic C-H wag at 830 [cm.sup.-1]."
It follows from this that if the FTIR spectrum of the chip does not contain carbonyl band and all other typical bands are present, it should be some Bisphenol-A based epoxy.

Chrismohr: can you write some basic details about analyses you plan to do/arrange?

Hi Ivan and all,

Being a journalist puts me at a disadvantage here. TFK's suggestion seems to be best: give the lab some dust, tell them what I am looking for, and let them do their job. Don't tell them how to do their job. In that spirit, here is a boilerplate letter I have sent off to nine labs so far:


To whom it may concern,

I need to have a dust sample analyzed in order to show conclusively the presence or absence of thermite, thermate or nanothermite.

I require a definitive test. Note that there is a high probability for the presence of both iron & aluminum in the sample from sources other than thermite.

I expect (but do not know for certain) that, IF thermite is present, there may well be both pre-reaction compounds (iron oxide & aluminum) and post-reaction compounds(iron & aluminum oxide) within the sample, due to incomplete combustion.

How big a dust sample would you need for this test? The dust may need to be further pulverized from its current state for testing.

If you have the facilities in house to perform this test, could you please reply. If you have any questions about my sample, feel free to contact me by email (preferred) or phone.

In your reply, please list:
1. the test that you would perform
2. whether or not you have accreditation to perform this particular test
3. the cost per sample, including any sample preparation costs
4. the time that it would take to perform those tests after receipt of samples.

If you do not possess the proper equipment for this analysis, could you recommend an analytical lab that may be able to perform this test.

Best Regards,
Chris Mohr

My most hopeful response has come from Washington Mills, who can do an X-Ray diffraction test with the dust, but since the "unignited thermite" is only 0.1% of the dust, he says that's too small a proportion. But for under $200 they can grind up what I send them and run the X-Ray diffraction. I'm thinking that with a magnet or letting the finer generic dust fall through a screen of some kind, maybe I can get a higher percentage of the red-grey chips for analysis? With a higher percentage of those chips to test he can do it.

I am spearheading this because more 9/11 truth activists trust me than most "debunkers." I am at a severe disadvantage, not being a chemist or forensic analyst or anything that qualifies me to lead this effort. I'm just in a good position politically to do so, and I too may fail to get past all the barriers that may arise in my goal of being an impartial person etc.

 

[Oystein]

Hi Ivan and all,

Being a journalist puts me at a disadvantage here. TFK's suggestion seems to be best: give the lab some dust, tell them what I am looking for, and let them do their job. ...

That's good advice, but at the very least you need to tell them WHERE to look for it: Not in any fibers, not in any yellow-blue chips, not in any red-gray chips that are not magnetic, not in any mites, ... in short: They ought not look at the entire dust. Two errors could happen if they do:

• They find some aluminium and some iron oxide (they are virtually guaranteed to find both in any sample of building collapse dust) somewhere in the dust and return "thermite ingredients found", maybe they find both even in close proximity. Yet there is not really any thermite there, and we'll be fighting the quote-mines for the next two years
• They find no thermitem but return that they could not detect any if concentration is below 0.01% (which we already know is the concentration of Fe2O3 pigments from red-gray chips in that dust)

In either case you will have neither proven nor disproven that there is thermite, but given Truthers fodder to misrepresent, and all on your (and possibly my) expenses.

The question you ask of these labs really should be a lot more specific:

"Can you find in this dust bi-layered, red-gray chips, where the red portion contains thermite?"​

Because that is the specific claim made by Harrit and Co. that you want to have examined. Not if there is thermite anywhere in the dust.

 

[chrismohr]

Here's a crazy idea: get ten 9/11 truth volunteers (my friends and acquaintances) with tweezers and surgical gloves to pull out the red-gray chips manually at a WTC dust party. We package it up and ship the chips out minus the rest of the stuff.

This crazy idea is possible only if the chips are macroscopic. It has the "political" advantage of being done in full view of the Colorado 9/11 truth community. Is this one possible way of doing this? Or have I really lost my mind?

 

[Oystein]

Here's a crazy idea: get ten 9/11 truth volunteers (my friends and acquaintances) with tweezers and surgical gloves to pull out the red-gray chips manually at a WTC dust party. We package it up and ship the chips out minus the rest of the stuff.

This crazy idea is possible only if the chips are macroscopic. It has the "political" advantage of being done in full view of the Colorado 9/11 truth community. Is this one possible way of doing this? Or have I really lost my mind?

Possibly both

 

[leftysergeant]

Is this one possible way of doing this? Or have I really lost my mind?

I once spent a year in the Medical Hold Company at an Army hospital getting a messed up arm worked on. Half the patients were with Ortho, about half with Psych.

Got kind of hard to tell which were which after they had been there a while. Maybe mental illness is contagious. I notice I do tend to go off a bit when I meet an especially obnoxious twoofer.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi Ivan and all,

Being a journalist puts me at a disadvantage here. TFK's suggestion seems to be best: give the lab some dust, tell them what I am looking for, and let them do their job. Don't tell them how to do their job. In that spirit, here is a boilerplate letter I have sent off to nine labs so far:


To whom it may concern,

I need to have a dust sample analyzed in order to show conclusively the presence or absence of thermite, thermate or nanothermite.

I require a definitive test. Note that there is a high probability for the presence of both iron & aluminum in the sample from sources other than thermite.

I expect (but do not know for certain) that, IF thermite is present, there may well be both pre-reaction compounds (iron oxide & aluminum) and post-reaction compounds(iron & aluminum oxide) within the sample, due to incomplete combustion.

How big a dust sample would you need for this test? The dust may need to be further pulverized from its current state for testing.

If you have the facilities in house to perform this test, could you please reply. If you have any questions about my sample, feel free to contact me by email (preferred) or phone.

In your reply, please list:
1. the test that you would perform
2. whether or not you have accreditation to perform this particular test
3. the cost per sample, including any sample preparation costs
4. the time that it would take to perform those tests after receipt of samples.

If you do not possess the proper equipment for this analysis, could you recommend an analytical lab that may be able to perform this test.

Best Regards,
Chris Mohr

My most hopeful response has come from Washington Mills, who can do an X-Ray diffraction test with the dust, but since the "unignited thermite" is only 0.1% of the dust, he says that's too small a proportion. But for under $200 they can grind up what I send them and run the X-Ray diffraction. I'm thinking that with a magnet or letting the finer generic dust fall through a screen of some kind, maybe I can get a higher percentage of the red-grey chips for analysis? With a higher percentage of those chips to test he can do it.

I am spearheading this because more 9/11 truth activists trust me than most "debunkers." I am at a severe disadvantage, not being a chemist or forensic analyst or anything that qualifies me to lead this effort. I'm just in a good position politically to do so, and I too may fail to get past all the barriers that may arise in my goal of being an impartial person etc.

Hi, Chris, as I have already noted several times, my academic polymer institute in Prague possesses all equipment (operated by highly qualified personell) to accomplish necessary analyses. But, since we are not Institute of Studying of Idiotic Conspiracy Claims, we cannot perform any extensive research without some special reasons.

Otherwise, I agree with Oystein: an analysis of the whole dust (even with the increased concentration of red chips) cannot provide us with any conclusive results. Only the work on separated chips can be useful.

 

[Liberty]

chrismohr,

I have actually researched this, and many labs won't be able to do the job, it is very hard to analyse small samples like this, and if you are looking for elemental al, not many analysis techniques can do the job.

Steven jones has already had the samples analysed by an independent lab with XRD, and the analysis was inconclusive, dont waste any money on XRD…

I agree with what Oystein wrote, quote:

“In addition, analysis should focus on Al. If it can be shown that all the aluminium is bound as aluminiumsilicates, not elemental, not Al2O3, then we know Al is inert, and an aluminuthermic reaction cannot take place, and the Al has also not simply oxidized over time”.

This is the most important analysis we need. And for these analysis we need a soft x-ray synchrotron beamline with a photon energy of around 1.6 keV, or the Lucia beamline at Soleil, or maybe Resonant X-ray Raman Scattering, a technique available i.e. at ID21 at ESRF.

I am happy that you are looking into this, because we need more analysis on this material, i think they should be ashamed of themselves if they dont do any further analysis, time will tell, and even if the paint theory has not convinced me yet because of lack of evidence, it is clear that we need more data on this material if we want to fully understand it.