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

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

True, but on the other hand, the hangar at JFK still has many pieces available*. I have no clue what it takes to get at them, but they're there.


*That's nothing more than an isolated fact in that long post. Yes, I talked to that fireman myself, and got it directly from him. He said there was still a lot of debris stored there.

 

[chrismohr]

Well my preference is obviously to get some of the red gray chips Jones and Harritt etc studied. That would answer the "chain of custody" issued for the 9/11 Truth side, and we would be analyzing exactly what they claimed was therm*te.

 

[Oystein]

Well my preference is obviously to get some of the red gray chips Jones and Harritt etc studied. That would answer the "chain of custody" issued for the 9/11 Truth side, and we would be analyzing exactly what they claimed was therm*te.

I totally agree
It would be ideal for us here in this thread who are promoting the LaClede paint theory to study Harrit chips and samples from floor joists alongside each other

 

[chrismohr]

Sunstealer said, "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."

Sheeplesnshills wrote, "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 ignite and regular thermite will then its a pretty good indication that whatever it is its not thermite." If we go the hot argon atmosphere route, does this eliminate therm*te as a possibility if it doesn't ignite? Is there a need to remove the organic materials from the samples first (maybe not, they wouldn't ignite either). Wondering if this is indeed a good way to very simply eliminate therm*te from consideration (we still won't have a positive ID, we can just say, nope, not therm*te if it doesn't ignite).

Liberty and others have advised against X Ray Diffraction: "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."

I kind of landed on XRD because an independent lab suggested that would work when I simply asked, how would you look for therm*te?. I am now officially confused. As I said, I still like Tom's suggestion, which is to ask for a definitive test for therm*te without telling them how to do their job. But I don't want to put together a bad test either. I also do kind of like sheeplesnshills argon atmosphere suggestion as an eliminator of the therm*te issue.

Not sure where to turn now. Help anyone?

 

[Miragememories]

Sunstealer said, "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."

Sheeplesnshills wrote, "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 ignite and regular thermite will then its a pretty good indication that whatever it is its not thermite." If we go the hot argon atmosphere route, does this eliminate therm*te as a possibility if it doesn't ignite? Is there a need to remove the organic materials from the samples first (maybe not, they wouldn't ignite either). Wondering if this is indeed a good way to very simply eliminate therm*te from consideration (we still won't have a positive ID, we can just say, nope, not therm*te if it doesn't ignite).

Liberty and others have advised against X Ray Diffraction: "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."

I kind of landed on XRD because an independent lab suggested that would work when I simply asked, how would you look for therm*te?. I am now officially confused. As I said, I still like Tom's suggestion, which is to ask for a definitive test for therm*te without telling them how to do their job. But I don't want to put together a bad test either. I also do kind of like sheeplesnshills argon atmosphere suggestion as an eliminator of the therm*te issue.

Not sure where to turn now. Help anyone?

Keep in mind Oystein and company will be resistant to any conclusion of thermitic material.

MM

 

[chrismohr]

Keep in mind Oystein and company will be resistant to any conclusion of thermitic material.

MM

Good point MM. I've often asked 9/11 Truth people, what would it take to convince you that natural collapse explains the destruction of the three WTC Buildings? If not my 235 reasons in my YouTube videos, then what?

I don't expect to find thermite in the dust, but Oystein et al, what kinds of tests would convince YOU that thermite was in the dust, if the tests came up Positive? Here's a problem I'm running into: the experts among us are not agreeing at all on how to move forward. Let's say I go ahead with X-Ray diffraction and the lab comes back and says OMG it's thermite! Would many of you say, no that was the wrong test? Can we agree among ourselves on a course of action here so we are prepared to at least initially accept the results?

A positive result may not mean CD right away for all of us. We may suspect tainted samples, for example. I think it incredibly unlikely, but IF the test is positive, I hope that would at least get our attention and make us take the possibility more seriously than we do now.

 

[Oystein]

Sunstealer said, "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."

Sheeplesnshills wrote, "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 ignite and regular thermite will then its a pretty good indication that whatever it is its not thermite." If we go the hot argon atmosphere route, does this eliminate therm*te as a possibility if it doesn't ignite? Is there a need to remove the organic materials from the samples first (maybe not, they wouldn't ignite either). Wondering if this is indeed a good way to very simply eliminate therm*te from consideration (we still won't have a positive ID, we can just say, nope, not therm*te if it doesn't ignite).

Liberty and others have advised against X Ray Diffraction: "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."

I kind of landed on XRD because an independent lab suggested that would work when I simply asked, how would you look for therm*te?. I am now officially confused. As I said, I still like Tom's suggestion, which is to ask for a definitive test for therm*te without telling them how to do their job. But I don't want to put together a bad test either. I also do kind of like sheeplesnshills argon atmosphere suggestion as an eliminator of the therm*te issue.

Not sure where to turn now. Help anyone?

Again, I am too little of an expert to advise a lab on which methods to use. My advice was to focus on red-gray chips only and ideally on the red layers only.

What I do know for certain is that any destrictive heating test will definitely destroy the sample, while not giving us anything conclusive. As Ivan explained, epoxies can degrade exothermically even without oxygene. That would not give a huge energy release, but also not zero, and we'd never know just what reacted there, as we know the chips are a composition of a number of different materials. So please don't have them heat or burn anything, unless that is what they recommend.

No matter what method they use, they must be able to identify elemental Al, as opposed to Al bound in oxides or silicates. Of course, the surface of any Al-particle will be oxidized, so whatever method they use must be able to "look" below the oxidized surface of any Al particle and spot elemental Al below it. If they use such a method, and don't find elemental Al, then there is no unreacted "Active thermitic material", by definition.
It would be better if they used a methid that can tell you what all the Al is bound with - my prediction: They will find that all the Al is bound with Si and O, forming aluminium silicate.


So yes, don't tell them which method to use, but ask them very specifically if their method can distinguish between pure Al, Al oxide and Al silicates.

 

[Oystein]

Good point MM. I've often asked 9/11 Truth people, what would it take to convince you that natural collapse explains the destruction of the three WTC Buildings? If not my 235 reasons in my YouTube videos, then what?

I don't expect to find thermite in the dust, but Oystein et al, what kinds of tests would convince YOU that thermite was in the dust, if the tests came up Positive? Here's a problem I'm running into: the experts among us are not agreeing at all on how to move forward. Let's say I go ahead with X-Ray diffraction and the lab comes back and says OMG it's thermite! Would many of you say, no that was the wrong test? Can we agree among ourselves on a course of action here so we are prepared to at least initially accept the results?

A positive result may not mean CD right away for all of us. We may suspect tainted samples, for example. I think it incredibly unlikely, but IF the test is positive, I hope that would at least get our attention and make us take the possibility more seriously than we do now.

Ok, Chris, here is my deal:

All I need is a test that tells me what any Aluminium in the sample is bound to. I will accept any method that the lab which you choose will employ, as long as the result indicates that they tested for chemical bonds.
If the lab says they did in fact find thermite, then I will accept that finding under two conditions:
1. The lab analysis indicates the sample contains elemental Al, in contrast to Al oxide or Al silicate
2. The results indicate that the red layer is at least 5% stochiastic thermite by mass - this is equivalent to it being 1.25% by mass elemental, unbound Al

The latter condition might be a bit hard to satisfy if they just don't estimate relative amounts; in that case I'd be contented if the lab's assessment indicates that there is a significant amount of thermite in the mix.



I now offer to pay Miragememories US$ 200 if he agrees to the following conditions:

• Chris' lab finds significant amount of thermite, according to their standards and methods
• The report indicates clearly that they looked for the chemical bonds of aluminium, and found a significant portion of the Al to be chemically unbound
• Miragememories agrees to exchange PayPal details beforehand, and that any payments will be made via PayPal
• Miragememories offers to pay me at least US$ 20 if Chris' lab finds NO thermite.

Please note that this bet places no constraints on the lab other than indicating an obvious condition for thermite, namely the presence of elemental aluminium. Please note also that I will not question the lab's methods in any way, shape or form. Please note further that I do not demand that MM's money offer meets mine - I am satisfied if he only offers 10% of my amount, but of course I expect MM to be a man of honour and confidence and at least equal my amount.

In addition, I now pledge up to US$ 200 to help Chris pay for the cost of the lab test, and will henceforth refrain from participating in the selection process of labs. I fully trust you on this, Chris.


# oysteinbookmark

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer said, "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."

Sheeplesnshills wrote, "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 ignite and regular thermite will then its a pretty good indication that whatever it is its not thermite." If we go the hot argon atmosphere route, does this eliminate therm*te as a possibility if it doesn't ignite? Is there a need to remove the organic materials from the samples first (maybe not, they wouldn't ignite either). Wondering if this is indeed a good way to very simply eliminate therm*te from consideration (we still won't have a positive ID, we can just say, nope, not therm*te if it doesn't ignite).

Liberty and others have advised against X Ray Diffraction: "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."

I kind of landed on XRD because an independent lab suggested that would work when I simply asked, how would you look for therm*te?. I am now officially confused. As I said, I still like Tom's suggestion, which is to ask for a definitive test for therm*te without telling them how to do their job. But I don't want to put together a bad test either. I also do kind of like sheeplesnshills argon atmosphere suggestion as an eliminator of the therm*te issue.

Not sure where to turn now. Help anyone?

Chris, I think that 0.1 g of red (or red-gray chips) would be really enough for quite thorough analyses, since most of suggested methods are non-destructive ones. E.g., let me consider big chips measuring 1x1 mm (0.1x0.1 cm) with average thickness 30 microns (0.003 cm). The volume of one such chip is 0.1x0.1x0.003 = 0.00003 cm³. Considering density 2 g/cm³, such chip weighs ca 0.00006 g (0.06 mg). Therefore, 100 mg would contain more than thousand of big chips. A real problem is how to collect such an amount of chips...

Otherwise, I have to repeat my proposal from post No 905 with some comments:

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.

I think this is necessary. We are interested in origin of Bentham chips (a) to (d). There were at least two kinds of comparatively abundant red chips in the WTC dust (Tnemec and Laclede paint, not speaking to th....s) and they must be separated before analyses. XRD or any other measurements looking for elemental aluminum on the bunch of such unsorted red chips would be inconclusive. Moreover, as for th...e hypothesis, it must be inconclusive on sorted samples as well, since elemental aluminum in such very fine platelets had to be inevitably oxidized to a high extent after so many years (as has been mentioned here several times).

3) Those chips are investigated by SEM (- BSE) 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 a kind of conclusive proof, even without DSC or TGA measurements.

For FTIR microscopy, chips measuring 0.1x0.1x0.003 cm would be large enough, I think.

Alltogether: if sorted chips have the same XEDS signature and the same microscopic appearance as Bentham chips (a) to (d), and FTIR reveals epoxy as a binder, those chips should be Laclede chips. Only really devoted nanoth...te lover may think that the WTC dust contained paint chips and simultaneously (!) nanot...te chips with exactly the same composition and appearance. I think

Now, I do not agree with you, Sheeplesnshills, as for heating under inert atmosphere, and I have to add that this has become a kind of "stubborn debunking meme". I repeat, even under nitrogen or argon, epoxy binder would be highly degraded at high temperatures ca 350-450 degress C with some thermic effect.
A suggested comparison with “regular thermite” would not be fruitful, since such thermite ignites at substantially higher temperatures than nanothermites. But, even known nanothermites still ignite at temperatures above 500 degrees C, this is some clue for us.
(Btw, I spoke to a young guy in our polymer degradation department and he is basically willing to measure one or two samples in DCS machine under air up to 700 degrees C; but first, some special golden (instead of platinum? I am not sure) sample holders must be bought, which is not really a straightforward way for me.)

Sorry for this lengthy contribution which suggests that conclusive research in this matter would be quite elaborate.
On the other hand, some closer study (SEM-XEDS, FTIR) on just two or three sorted chips can be done quite quickly and could provide us with quite telling results (if we are lucky enough).

 

[Liberty]

I think there are a variety of techniques available to find elemental Al without needing to go to a synchrotron. 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 was told specifictly that a synchrotron is needed for this sample, i was also told that X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) that i was looking into, would probably not work, is EBSD more sensitive then XPS?.

I dont think the right thing to do, is to ask a lab "What available analysis techniques would you use?" there are alot of labs that would try to analyze the samples for us, even if they believed it would be hard and maybe not provide any good results, we should instead describe the material and the matrix etc, and ask what method would be best and get many opinions on it, as for aluminum, i was told by a couple of scientists that a soft x-ray synchrotron beamline with a photon energy of around 1.6 keV is the way to go.

I know that, looking for diffraction patterns in TEM, they do
not see recognizable patterns for any compound containing silicon or
aluminum. This is puzzling to them, unless (notes Dr. Farrer), the Al and Si are in GLASSY forms (not crystalline). Alternatively, the
crystal-grains containing Al and Si may be just too small to generate
a diffraction pattern. XRD analysis on these small samples, where also inconclusive and very hard to analyse.

 

[Liberty]

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.

It's a different material with different silicates and aluminates so there is no reason to suspect that Si will be bound with Al

I'll see if I can find the article/paper with the IR spectra for aluminosilicates specifically Kaolin.

The MEK chip is the same as samples a)-d), but they believed it contained contaminations of the primer paint, but there is absolutely no data that shows it actually beeing primer paint... And there is NO magnesium in the chip...

If you are soaking kaolin in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) you wouldnt expect to see any migration and separation of the components!. The separation can only occur if the aluminum and silicon is not bound chemically, and since the aluminum and silicon IS bound chemically in kaolin this will not happen. And in kaolin, the aluminum will not significantly exceed the oxygen present, with approximately a 3:1 ratio...

 

[Liberty]

Say what?? Where do you pull that from?

The al and the iron particles are nanosized as you know, regarding the matrix, my bad, i will change that to "what could be a sol-gel matrix".

The paint in question was manufactured in the 50s or 60s, so we can pretty much rule this out. You are more then welcome of course, to show me nano-paints with nano-aluminum and iron in a carbon matrix for use in skyscrapers in the 60s.... Even so late as 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminium particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.

Aluminosilicates are frequently found as "nanosized" in the natural minerals.

Yes, but this is obviously not natural occuring al particles from the World trade center, this is man made al particles, containing more al then oxygen, and as Dr. Jeff Farrer notes: "one of the significant things that we find in the red layer is the fact that these particles that we find in the red layer are..the fact that they are consistent. The fact that they are consistent in shape, in composition, and in size, leads me to believe that these are not naturally occurring materials. The red layer is not a naturally occurring material"

 

[Oystein]

I was told specifictly that a synchrotron is needed for this sample, i was also told that X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) that i was looking into, would probably not work, is EBSD more sensitive then XPS?.

I dont think the right thing to do, is to ask a lab "What available analysis techniques would you use?" there are alot of labs that would try to analyze the samples for us, even if they believed it would be hard and maybe dont provide any good results, we should instead describe the material and the matrix etc, and ask what method would be best and get many opinions on it, as for aluminum, i was told by a couple of scientists that a soft x-ray synchrotron beamline with a photon energy of around 1.6 keV is the way to go.

I know that, looking for diffraction patterns in TEM, they do
not see recognizable patterns for any compound containing silicon or
aluminum. This is puzzling to them, unless (notes Dr. Farrer), the Al and Si are in GLASSY forms (not crystalline). Alternatively, the
crystal-grains containing Al and Si may be just too small to generate
a diffraction pattern. XRD analysis on these small samples, where also inconclusive and very hard to analyse.

Liberty,
may I inquite which scientists you asked, and what your question was? Was it specifically about our problem at hand, or more of a general nature?

Also, may I ask what your scientific background is with regard to chemistry analysis and physical chemistry? Don't worry, I'll not dismis your input based on less-than-stellar credentials, I am not a scientist myself and am only going by what I remember from high school science and what I learn on the internet Just want to have a perspective.

I believe one problem with XPS may be that it only analyses surfaces up to 10nm deep. Since elemental Al always has an oxide layer at least 4nm, XPS might miss significant amounts of elemental Al, if present.

 

[Oystein]

The MEK chip is the same as samples a)-d), but they believed it contained contaminations of the primer paint,

No, it most likely isn't the same as samples a-d, at least there is absolutely no data in the paper to support that assertion. Yes, they "believe" (as in "speculate without evidence") that the vastly different XEDS spectrum is due to contamination, but it has a remarkable resemblance with Tnemec, as you can see in data presented by Steven Jones late in 2009: http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

Yes, that is not 100% proof, but why should this chip be contaminated with Tnemec to such an extent that it resembles Tnemec almost to a T? If it was the same as a-d and only contaminated with traces of Tnemec, then the Ca, Zn and (unlabelled at 1.25keV) Mg peaks shouldn't be nearly as high as they are in Fig. 14.
Harrit e.al. did not show that the MEK chip is the same material as a-d. Instead, they present data with very obvious dissimilarities. The best and most rational conclusion would be to assume that they are NOT the same, or at least to NOT assume that they are the same!

but there is absolutely no data that shows it actually beeing primer paint... And there is NO magnesium in the chip...

Wrong on bith counts.
See again http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
Fig 14. is a string match for Tnemec, as Steven Jones showerd in November 2009, and Fig. 14. does cotain an unlabelled peak at 1.25keV that is very likely magnesium. So yes, the MEK chip does very likely contain magnesium.

If you are soaking kaolin in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) you wouldnt expect to see any migration and separation of the components!. The separation can only occur if the aluminum and silicon is not bound chemically, and since the aluminum and silicon IS bound chemically in kaolin this will not happen. And in kaolin, the aluminum will not significantly exceed the oxygen present, with approximately a 3:1 ratio...

Since the MEK soaked chip isn't similar to a-d, and since we have no information that Tnemec or the MEK soaked chip contain kaolinite, the above thoughts are moot.

Where do you see a 3:1 ratio of Al:O ???
In fig. 7 (chips a-d), peak height ranges roughly from 1:1 to 1:2 (O peak higher on average than Al peak), in Fig. 14 (chip MEK), O-peak is many (maybe 7) times higher than Al peak!
in post 830 The Almond posted a simulation (prediction) of the XEDS spectrum of LaClede primer paint, given its formulation as specified by the designers of the WTC. In it, we see that the O-peak slightly exceeds the Al-peak. The Almond used weight percentages of the various elements as I provided them in post 754. Since O is not only found in aluminium silicate, but also in the organic binder and iron oxide, the weight proportions of Al:O are in fact about 1:9.

 

[Oystein]

The al and the iron particles are nanosized as you know,

Well, almost, so? Both kaolinite and hematite are found in that size in nature and have been used as pigments for paint for centuries, if not millenia.

regarding the matrix, my bad, i will change that to "what could be a sol-gel matrix".

Not even Harrit e.al. come to that conclusion. All they see is an organic matrix with totally unknown properties. What reason do you have to suspect we are looking at a sol-gel? Especiually in light of the fact that Sol-gel is not a material, it is a process or technique. The end result of a sol-gel process to produce nanothermite is mostly nanothermite, not an organic matrix.

The paint in question was manufactured in the 50s or 60s, so we can pretty much rule this out.

We can rule what out? Sol-gel? Well, if you like, go ahead. I am not claiming a sol-gel anyway, I am claiming epoxy. Can you rule that out?

You are more then welcome of course, to show me nano-paints with nano-aluminum and iron in a carbon matrix for use in skyscrapers in the 60s....

Why should I? There is no nano-aluminium in those chips. There clearly is kaolinite, a mineral found in nature and containing stacks of aluminiumsilicate platelets just the shape and size as shown in Farrer's photomicrographs.
Hematite pigments in that size have been around and used for centuries.

Even so late as 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminium particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.

Well good thing no one found any nano-sized aluminium particles.

Yes, but this is obviously not natural occuring al particles from the World trade center, this is man made al particles,

Well, yes, paint is a man-made thing. Glad you noticed. No Al-particles in it, though.

containing more al then oxygen,

Got evidence?

and as Dr. Jeff Farrer notes: "one of the significant things that we find in the red layer is the fact that these particles that we find in the red layer are..the fact that they are consistent. The fact that they are consistent in shape, in composition, and in size, leads me to believe that these are not naturally occurring materials. The red layer is not a naturally occurring material"

Farrer hit that nail right on the head: Yes: It wasn't nature that painted the floor joists. It was a fiendish plot conceived by the designers of the WTC and carried out by the co-conspirators at the LaClede Steel Company to coat their steel with primer. Oh that damned consistency gave their secret doings away!



Liberty, who are you?

 

[Sunstealer]

The MEK chip is the same as samples a)-d), but they believed it contained contaminations of the primer paint, but there is absolutely no data that shows it actually beeing primer paint... And there is NO magnesium in the chip...
If you are soaking kaolin in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) you wouldnt expect to see any migration and separation of the components!. The separation can only occur if the aluminum and silicon is not bound chemically, and since the aluminum and silicon IS bound chemically in kaolin this will not happen. And in kaolin, the aluminum will not significantly exceed the oxygen present, with approximately a 3:1 ratio...

I welcome your input regarding analysis techniques Liberty. There are so many nowadays that it's impossible to keep abreast of them all and the pros and cons of each technique. Welcome to the forums.

With respect the highlighted portion is incorrect. I've several posts regarding this, however, I'll briefly show Harrit et al's own data and why there is Mg in the sample and how this MEK chip relates to primer paint.

Fig 14 from the paper showing spectra of chip soaked in MEK.

My correction of Fig 14 labelling showing that there is an Mg peak - it simply wasn't labelled in the original. Nor was Potassium (K).

Data for Mg at 10 KeV http://csrri.iit.edu/cgi-bin/period-form?ener=10&name=Mg using http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html

Comparison of corrected Fig 14 verses spectrum of WTC Tnemec Red primer paint from one of Jones' talks. The talk at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120 has been deleted due to copyright violations. Unfortunately I don't keep a list of Jones' talks for obvious reasons.

Note how Mg and K have been labelled correctly at the same KeV as the original Fig 14. The match is a good one, far too good to be explained by any contamination.

Their claim that the MEK chip is potentially contaminated with WTC Tnemec Red primer paint is nonsense. You would be able to see the contaminant and analyse it if using SEM. If they believe the sample is contaminated with primer paint then they did a remarkable job of picking out the only region of the chip with Tnemec red contamination and only analysed the "contamination".

The sample is clearly Tnemec red and not related to samples a-d). This is why there is separation between Al and Si, Tnemec Red contains no aluminosilicate material. See previous post on Tnemec red data sheet.

I'll try and spend a bit more time regarding the analysis of newly obtained red chips later.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

The MEK chip is the same as samples a)-d), but they believed it contained contaminations of the primer paint, but there is absolutely no data that shows it actually beeing primer paint... And there is NO magnesium in the chip...

If you are soaking kaolin in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) you wouldnt expect to see any migration and separation of the components!. The separation can only occur if the aluminum and silicon is not bound chemically, and since the aluminum and silicon IS bound chemically in kaolin this will not happen. And in kaolin, the aluminum will not significantly exceed the oxygen present, with approximately a 3:1 ratio...

(I am going to be repetitive, but anyway...)

Liberty, have you read Oystein's article which summarizes Sunstealer's finding that "MEK chip" was very, very probably a particle of Tnemec paint?

As you can clearly see, the XEDS spectra of MEK chip and Tnemec paint are strikingly similar, this cannot be any coincidence.
The comment of Bentham team that this chip was contaminated by Tnemec paint is just silly. At least for me. How such contamination can occur?
Some Tnemec paint was atomized to extremely small minimicronanoparticles, which were, just accidentally, massively sticked to the MEK chip?
If the MEK chip was Laclede paint (applied to floor trusses), how can it be contaminated with Tnemec paint (applied to perimeter columns)?
Btw, if the MEK chip was nanothermite chip, the question is similar: Why this chip was (massively, according to XEDS) contaminated with Tnemec paint? (Only possible explanation could be that nanothermite was directly applied to Tnemec layer)).

Concerning you second paragraph, I again disagree. Let me suppose that MEK chip was a particle of Tnemec (which is highly probable). As you can read in the Tnemec primer specification, this paint contained at least 5 various silicon and/or aluminum compounds and their separation/migration during extraction/swelling of the with MEK is nothing unexpectable. This is, in fact, one of the indirect proofs that MEK chip WAS Tnemec particle. At least for me

 

[Sunstealer]

Delete

 

[Liberty]

Liberty,
may I inquite which scientists you asked, and what your question was? Was it specifically about our problem at hand, or more of a general nature?

Also, may I ask what your scientific background is with regard to chemistry analysis and physical chemistry?

My question was about elemental al, i described the matrix and the material. I asked the director at Nanoprobe Beamline, Argonne National Laboratory Center for Nanoscale Materials.

I have no background in chemistry, but this is pretty basic stuff, when i researched this study, i talked with alot of experts and got alot of opinions on things, which is helpful.

As to where i see a 3:1 ratio of Al:O, it is stated in the report on page 18. Also the al particles are 40 nm thick, nano is nano, how can you say that the chips contain no nanosized particles?... And no, nanosized particles is NOT used in paints for skyscrapers, its always micron sized particles, most paints use aluminum in the 10 micron size range, they have no thickness of 40 nm.

Oystein.....

You write, quote,
"Since the MEK soaked chip isn't similar to a-d, and since we have no information that Tnemec or the MEK soaked chip contain kaolinite, the above thoughts are moot."

Then you write, quote,
"There is no nano-aluminium in those chips. There clearly is kaolinite, a mineral found in nature and containing stacks of aluminiumsilicate platelets just the shape and size as shown in Farrer's photomicrographs."

At least you unlike your buddy, admit that, quote, "Yes, that is not 100% proof" you have no proof that the MEK sample IS the primer paint, and it is reasonable to assume that it is paint contamination. I also just told you that paints with kaolin will not behave the way the MEK chip did, so the kaolin-paint theory is pretty much debunked.

But i agree, we absolutely need more analysis!, there is much speculations because they didnt use any advanced techniques for analysing the samples.

 

[The Almond]

I was told specifictly that a synchrotron is needed for this sample, i was also told that X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) that i was looking into, would probably not work, is EBSD more sensitive then XPS?.

That's probably because they wanted to use XANES (X-ray Absorption Near Edge Spectroscopy), which would be an OK technique since you would be able to distinguish between the Al and the oxide. The problem with synchrotrons is that they're expensive, and you need to write up a research proposal that highlights why the synchrotron is necessary. Unfortunately, for this particular line of research, I doubt that the synchrotron people would go for it.

The big problem with XPS is that you need ultra high vacuum (1 x 10^-9 Torr), and samples with epoxy resins/oils do not play nicely with vacuum systems. Some XPS probes have an argon ion milling system that you could use to clean off the aluminum oxide layer, so that's an advantage to those systems.

The reason I like EBSD is that the metallic aluminum pattern is completely different from the oxidized aluminum. Further, if the material truly is kaolin, we would get another pattern from that. I would say that the advantage of EBSD is that it works with a wider class of materials. XANES, STXM, EELS, XPS, AES are all available techniques, but they are far more likely to give us answers of the type "It's probably not this."

I think we're also forgetting SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry), which is an excellent tool for this type of analysis. It also requires ultra high vacuum, but I think we could get a definitive answer out of this.

I dont think the right thing to do, is to ask a lab "What available analysis techniques would you use?" there are alot of labs that would try to analyze the samples for us, even if they believed it would be hard and maybe not provide any good results, we should instead describe the material and the matrix etc, and ask what method would be best and get many opinions on it, as for aluminum, i was told by a couple of scientists that a soft x-ray synchrotron beamline with a photon energy of around 1.6 keV is the way to go.

I agree. At our lab, we occasionally get customers who hand us a chunk of something (usually a rock) and they just say, "Characterize this." Three months later they get a 200 page report on the area fraction mineral constituencies of all the materials we found in the sample, to which they respond, "Crap man! We just wanted to know if it was granite!"

I know that, looking for diffraction patterns in TEM, they do
not see recognizable patterns for any compound containing silicon or
aluminum. This is puzzling to them, unless (notes Dr. Farrer), the Al and Si are in GLASSY forms (not crystalline).

The lack of a crystalline form of Al eliminates the elemental Al hypothesis. Al and Si will routinely form glasses, especially if oxides of borates are present.

Alternatively, the crystal-grains containing Al and Si may be just too small to generate a diffraction pattern. XRD analysis on these small samples, where also inconclusive and very hard to analyse.

XRD is a bugger to begin with. I could show you patterns from simple fly ash that would make your eyes cross. My biggest problem with XRD is that the pattern matching is completely hit or miss. The ICDD database patterns are made with very specific, controlled experimental conditions on flat, homogeneous samples. As soon as you throw in a heterogeneous material, even if powdered, the diffraction pattern changes. Varying grain sizes, the presence of amorphous materials, possible non-random orientation of the grains, etc, those are all big problems for XRD.