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

[Dave Rogers]

But, since we are not Institute of Studying of Idiotic Conspiracy Claims, we cannot perform any extensive research without some special reasons.

Well spoken, Ivan. This, I think, beautifully summarises the position of the rational scientist on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

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.

Welcome to the forum, Liberty, and thanks for gracing my thread with your first post - an endorsement even

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Paint.

as to ignited with extreme energy, there are no controls done to see if it really was "extreme" and damningly they energy output is much too high for it to have been thermite (thermite burms fast and hot, but paint burns for much longer and gives out more total energy.

They set heated them in an oxygen rich environment. Almost anything will ignite under those conditions.

now if they had ignited in an inert atmosphere then the test might have been interesting.........

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Rather than badger them to do something they are already trying their best to achieve, maybe DGM you could add a little substance to your bolded claims?

1) Show me your factual proof that Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones have not already had their work peer-reviewed.

Show us your factual proof that it was. Even the editor of Bentham resigned over the paper so its a safe assumption it was not kocher.

And don't bother me with all that vanity-journal hand waving bs. Unless you can prove the Bentham paper is officially illegitimate, then all your opinionated arguments are meaningless.

Wrong. A paper has to prove its validity. Especially when published in a proven vanity journal.

2) Show me factual proof they are unwilling to have their work peer-reviewed elsewhere?

Its been peer reviewed elsewhere.....jref for example, and found to be itterly incompetent. I see no sign of them offering samples of their dust for retesting...........

3) Show me factual proof, that independent researchers are unable to obtain access to samples of WTC dust.

Show proof that they were..........Chris Mohr being trying for weeks now and still no dust.

Do you believe the hundreds of thousands of tons of original WTC dust is hidden away under lock 'n key by Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones?

No.

The real problem is with the people who could be doing the same research but refuse to do so.

How can they do so without dust samples??????

The NIST, FEMA, the FBI, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), RJ Lee Company, McGee et al, Lioy et al, MIT, Popular Mechanics, etc. etc.,

Prove that any of those bodies have dust samples.

I am sure, all have the necessary resources and access to samples which they could test. If the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham paper is seriously flawed, then it would be so easy to demonstrate this with Officially sanctioned independent testing.

You are sure???? who cares what you are sure of???? Prove that they do or shut up.

They simply do not want to discover that the Bentham paper is correct in its findings.

Why would they waste taxpayers money on testing the incompetent rantings of lunatics? Jones et als methodology is so wrong that there is no reason to assume their paper is of any value at all.

So I have to say DGM, the people whose activities I find to be suspicious, are those with the mandate but the apparent unwillingness to make any attempt to confirm or deny the findings in the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham paper!

Mandate??? how are they mandated to check gargbage papers in garbage journals????? Prove that they are or shut up.

You have lied enough on this forum. stop adding more lies.

 

[excaza]

The real problem is with the people who could be doing the same research but refuse to do so.

The NIST, FEMA, the FBI, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), RJ Lee Company, McGee et al, Lioy et al, MIT, Popular Mechanics, etc. etc.,

I am sure, all have the necessary resources and access to samples which they could test. If the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham paper is seriously flawed, then it would be so easy to demonstrate this with Officially sanctioned independent testing.

And if they were to waste their time and money to come to the already obvious conclusion that the methodology is flawed, what possible reason would you have for accepting this 'officially sanctioned independent testing' by the very people you believe are responsible for blowing up the WTC in the first place?

 

[chrismohr]

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.

OK, no 9/11 Truth party picking out red gray chips. I'll ask the lab, IF we get the red gray chips, how much would they need to do their analysis?

 

[Oystein]

OK, no 9/11 Truth party picking out red gray chips. I'll ask the lab, IF we get the red gray chips, how much would they need to do their analysis?

Ask them!

 

[Liberty]

how much would they need to do their analysis?

It will probably cost you around 400-600$ for the al analysis, and there is a high probability that the labs you have asked cant do the right analysis, i see that one scientist told you they could do XRD analysis, this will not work.

FTIR analysis as Sunstealer suggests is probably not the best choice if you want to learn as much as possible about this very small samples, the most important data we need is the al data.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

wouldn't a very simple test to see if they were even thermitic be simply trying to ignite them in a inert atmosphere? If they don't immediately react and leave iron then what exactly they are doesn't really matter, we would know that the one thing they were NOT, was thermite.

Its less important to prove they were this or that paint or whatever, than it is to simply show they are not thermite.

 

[Liberty]

wouldn't a very simple test to see if they were even thermitic be simply trying to ignite them in a inert atmosphere?

You would haft to describe the material and get a quote from a Nano-thermite expert, since i dont believe anybody in this thread has any good knowledge of Nano-thermite. Not sure that a inert atmosphere test would debunk or prove anything.

What kind of al it is, would tell much, i would like to see multiple analysis on the samples, this material is not something you look at and go "oh, it is this paint or this building material, or this"... Since it is a nanomaterial with a sol-gel matrix you must do alot of analysis. The paint in question, dont even contain any nanoparticles, and microparticles dont turn nano over time, nanoparticles are very rare in paints used in skyscrapers, if ever used, its always micron-sized particles since nano is way to expensive. Any nano particles of aluminum and iron oxide that form will immediately turn into micron sized particles of liquid iron and aluminum oxide. Any energy input big enough to create the nano particles would set them off.

This is why i am interested in the material, since no one has proved exactly what it is.

 

[Oystein]

You would haft to describe the material and get a quote from a Nano-thermite expert, since i dont believe anybody in this thread has any good knowledge of Nano-thermite. Not sure that a inert atmosphere test would debunk or prove anything.

What kind of al it is, would tell much, i would like to see multiple analysis on the samples, this material is not something you look at and go "oh, it is this paint or this building material, or this"... Since it is a nanomaterial with a sol-gel matrix you must do alot of analysis. The paint in question, dont even contain any nanoparticles, and microparticles dont turn nano over time... Any nano particles of aluminum and iron oxide that form will immediately turn into micron sized particles of liquid iron and aluminum oxide. Any energy input big enough to create the nano particles would set them off.

Say what?? Where do you pull that from?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You would haft to describe the material and get a quote from a Nano-thermite expert, since i dont believe anybody in this thread has any good knowledge of Nano-thermite. Not sure that a inert atmosphere test would debunk or prove anything.

how so? Thermite will ignite sans oxygen whilst most other substances will not. one could make up a control sample of thermite if you so wanted just to show that the apparatus would ignite it. If the sample won't igniote and regular thermite will then its a pretty good indication that whatever it is its not thermite.

What kind of al it is, would tell much, i would like to see multiple analysis on the samples, this material is not something you look at and go "oh, it is this paint or this building material, or this"... Since it is a nanomaterial with a sol-gel matrix you must do alot of analysis.

why? it either ignites or it doesn't.....its thermite or its not.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You would haft to describe the material and get a quote from a Nano-thermite expert, since i dont believe anybody in this thread has any good knowledge of Nano-thermite. Not sure that a inert atmosphere test would debunk or prove anything.

Testing two samples, one in an inert atmosphere and the other in air, could conclusively prove that the sample didn't exhibit a thermite reaction. If an exotherm were observed in air but not in an inert atmosphere, that would demonstrate unambiguously that the reaction used atmospheric oxygen rather than its own oxidation source. However, an exotherm in both experiments wouldn't be conclusive proof of a thermite reaction; as others in the thread have pointed out, there are other self-oxidising reactions, particularly in epoxies.

Dave

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Liberty: "FTIR analysis as Sunstealer suggests is probably not the best choice if you want to learn as much as possible about this very small samples, the most important data we need is the al data."

No. Very small samples (several microns) can be measured by FTIR, e.g. using FTIR microscopy, see e.g. http://www.kendro.com/eThermo/CMA/PDFs/Various/File_53317.pdf . http://www.labnics.com/pdf/FTIR_Spectrophotometer.pdf . This analysis would be of crucial importance in our case.

Liberty: "The paint in question, dont even contain any nanoparticles."

How do you know this? (Btw, this was my main question to PPG Industries in my e-mail, but no answer...) I have found several very old patents (e.g. from 1947) describing cheap production of nanosized iron oxide. Nanosized iron oxides formed by precipitation methods were prepared even in the 18th century. Aluminosilicates are frequently found as "nanosized" in the natural minerals. In short: we are still not sure that nanosized pigments were really used in Laclede paint. But, you cannot be sure that such pigments were not used in this paint.

Liberty: "Not sure that a inert atmosphere test would debunk or prove anything."
Dave Rogers: "Testing two samples, one in an inert atmosphere and the other in air, could conclusively prove that the sample didn't exhibit a thermite reaction."

Here, I agree with you, Liberty. Polymer binder (more specifically epoxy binder) would degrade with distinct thermal effect both under air and under inert atmosphere at ca 400 degrees C (or slightly below). I proved this even experimentally. But, nanothermites would ignite/burn at substantially higher temperatures (above 500 degrees C) and they could be distinguished by this way (temperature range of burning).

 

[The Almond]

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 think there are a variety of techniques available to find elemental Al without needing to go to a synchrotron. But more importantly, any technique which is bulk, that is, which passes electromagnetic radiation through a sample, will likely find oxidized Al. Surface oxidation of Al is rapid, and given the time and exposure to the atmosphere, we should expect to see a layer of oxidized aluminum in any of the dust samples.

My suggestion would be to mill the sample with a focused ion beam method. The advantage is that you can expose the potentially elemental Al in a vacuum, and confirm the nature of the elemental Al with electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). I frequently use EBSD to distinguish oxides like magnetite and hematite, since energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis is usually not sensitive enough to find this out.

FTIR is another good suggestion, but you need to touch the specimen, which is something I usually don't like to do. Raman spectroscopy would be another choice, but it, too, is a bulk method.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks everyone. I'm storing these ideas, but at least for now I am asking the labs: can you find a way to definitively find thermXte in dust? As TFK advised, don't tell them how to do their work. However, if this approach does not work, I have all these ideas you've just collectively offered. Problem is, to take one of these approaches requires the strong guidance of a Sunstealer or other expert. The open-ended approach I am using now is producing some answers, which I am following up on.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

OK, Chris, I wonder what these labs will suggest...

Just for the record:
History of paint electrocoating technology (oriented mostly to the painting of car bodies) is summarized in this article:

It seems that chemists Allan Gilchrist, George E.F. Brewer and Clayton May were the most important pioneers in this field and some interesting and relevant info may be found in some of their patents from sixties, but I am currently too lazy to read them...

 

[chrismohr]

0.1 grams of red gray chips?

Hi gang,

Here's a recent email from a lab that suggested X-Ray diffraction. If it is possible to segregate out the red-gray chips, then he says:


About 1 gram would be good for Quantitative Analysis. A tenth of a gram would be sufficient for a pattern but <1 milligram weighing accuracy for the spike would be required for 1% detection limits.
This is about what we get but leaves no room for error.


Hew would grind up the chips and do the X-Ray diffraction for $165. Does this seem realistic, and how hard would it be to segregate the red-gray chips for him?

I also got this suggestion from TFK: "I thought that going right into the museum that had columns saved, and taking scraping right off of the columns would bring one closer to the source of any such material."

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I also got this suggestion from TFK: "I thought that going right into the museum that had columns saved, and taking scraping right off of the columns would bring one closer to the source of any such material."

Its also likely to land you in jail for vandalism and theft and perhaps even a night in the local mental hospital for "evaluation".

 

[Oystein]

Hi gang,

Here's a recent email from a lab that suggested X-Ray diffraction. If it is possible to segregate out the red-gray chips, then he says:


About 1 gram would be good for Quantitative Analysis. A tenth of a gram would be sufficient for a pattern but <1 milligram weighing accuracy for the spike would be required for 1% detection limits.
This is about what we get but leaves no room for error.


Hew would grind up the chips and do the X-Ray diffraction for $165. Does this seem realistic, and how hard would it be to segregate the red-gray chips for him?

Kevin Ryan should be best qualified to answer the last question.
I can't judge if that lab is about right with these amounts. I'd recommend trying to exceed these amounts. They apparently need at least about 1mg of each chemical compound that's to be identified. I am currently a bit busy and don't want to run some numbers on the stuff I want to see, will do that later.

I also got this suggestion from TFK: "I thought that going right into the museum that had columns saved, and taking scraping right off of the columns would bring one closer to the source of any such material."

No!
tfk apparently has not read this thread!
We know already that the "interesting" chips are not paint fromn the columns. We strongly believe they are paint from the floor joists. It will be much more difficult to find preserved and unheated specimen of these joists (L-shaped beams and round bars) in any of the public exhibits; these simply are not the impressive, recognizable huge chunks that the columns are.