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

[chrismohr]

Ivan, Oystein, Sunstealern and others,

I'm thinking of two tests now. FTIR will give is strong evidence of paint, more info than we have now, and it is not too expensive. However, this alone will not prove the absence of therm*te. For that we need a test for elemental aluminum. No elemental aluminum, no unignited therm*te, am I right? Can X-Ray diffraction or some other inexpensive test determine this? If so, these are two inexpensive tests. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in essence, one would be looking for evidence of paint, another for evidence of therm*te. Would XRD or whatever also help determine if sulfur is somehow bonded together with the aluminum in such a way as to show evidence of thermate?

Once I wrap my mind around the tests and what they can do (and what is affordable), we an decide on a couple that can give us the strongest possible initial evidence of what we do and do not have. My gut tells me it's not enough to just do a paint test, because that is looking for evidence that it is NOT therm*te-- a likely hypothesis--- but I would also like to approach this experiment from the angle of saying, if I wanted to try to PROVE or ast least actively look for therm*te, what test(s) would I do?

And by the way getting dust samples is not the problem. I have at least three leads I can follow immediately. Before I ask, however, I want to have a strategy and goal in place.

 

[chrismohr]

Here is some very interesting advice I just got from a private correspondence:


I would do the following: Ask all the questions of experts in the field of "forensic testing for thermite".

Call your local fire department. Ask them who is the lead fire investigator of fires in which arson is suspected.

Call that guy. Ask him what labs he uses to test for thermite residue. (The FBI might be able to help, too. They are pretty friendly & helpful, I've found.)

Call those labs. Call enough investigators so that they give you more than one lab.

THIS STEP IS KEY. Whenever you are trying to figure out something that is outside your personal field of expertise, ask several experts the same question. If they come back with the same answer, you have confidence. If they come back with different answers, keep asking more of them until a consensus emerges.

Now, even tho you are still an amateur in the field, you've acquired the advice of experts.

This takes me back to the more openended approach TFK has advocated all along: ask the experts what THEY think should be done, and don't tell them how to do their job. This is a variation on that approach, where you ask the cops and the fire dept and the FBI how they go about doing such a forensic investigation for arson/therm*te and just do what they do. Comments on this and my previous post?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Liberty: You should simply read the Bentham paper again and more carefully.

To be fair to liberty the Jones et al paper is an atrociously bad piece of work.

 

[Liberty]

we have very good proof that there is no (elemental) Al in there.

Please read the Bentham paper and take diligent note that Harrit and co. are speculating all over the place! If you don't like speculation, then don't buy their conclusions, ok?

The al in the MEK chip significantly exceeds the oxygen present with approximately a 3:1 ratio, and there is no kaolin in this chip, which is a strong indicator that elemental al is present, but im not in a position to know how likely this is, and we need further testing. I also think i have made it pretty clear that i dont buy that this material MUST be thermite, i dont know this.

 

[tfk]

Lib,

You may want to examine this sentence for logical consistency.

Highlight added:

The al in the MEK chip significantly exceeds the oxygen present with approximately a 3:1 ratio, and there is no kaolin in this chip, which is a strong indicator that elemental al is present, but im not in a position to know how likely this is, and we need further testing. I also think i have made it pretty clear that i dont buy that this material MUST be thermite, i dont know this.

The green part invalidates the assertion made in the blue part.

Which renders the red part "baseless".

In the future, after you write something, you may want to read it for logical consistence before you post it.

Or at least separate the inconsistent parts by more than just a comma.

JMO


tom

 

[Oystein]

The al in the MEK chip significantly exceeds the oxygen present with approximately a 3:1 ratio, and there is no kaolin in this chip, which is a strong indicator that elemental al is present, but im not in a position to know how likely this is, and we need further testing. I also think i have made it pretty clear that i dont buy that this material MUST be thermite, i dont know this.

You are not paying attention, and that's why you are again wasting my precious time.

Harrit e.al. think that chips a-d are thermitic - these are the chips whose DSC profiles they think resembles that of nano-thermite. But chips a-d contain no elemental Al. Please, Liberty, acknowledge verbosely that you are now informed that chips a-d contain Al-silicate, not free Al! This is elemental, you must understand this!


The MEK chip is a wholly different material. Please, Liberty, acknowledge verbosely that you are now informed that the MEK chips is not the same material as chips a-d, it is different, as the photomicrograph and the XEDS profile most clearly tell us!
Harrit e.al. did not DSC test on it, so we don't how the thermic behaviour of that chips is.
Please take diligent note how the XEDS spectrum in Fig. 14 is entirely different from the XEDS spectra in fig. 7, and that Harrit merely and wildly speculates that this vast difference is entirely due to surface contamination. Please take diligent note that Harrit e.al. have made absolutely no effort at all to show us that this chip is the same as a-d, in fact they only show data that tells us it ís different.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

The al in the MEK chip significantly exceeds the oxygen present with approximately a 3:1 ratio, and there is no kaolin in this chip, which is a strong indicator that elemental al is present, but im not in a position to know how likely this is, and we need further testing. I also think i have made it pretty clear that i dont buy that this material MUST be thermite, i dont know this.

Liberty, I consider the claim of Bentham team that in Al-rich region of MEK swollen chip some elemental aluminum is present as inconclusive. Anyway, the overal amount of Al in this chip is ridiculously low for any thermite.

Please try to accept the apparent fact that MEK chip was another material than chips (a) to (d) and let us consider this chip to be a particle of Tnemec paint.

According to specification, as for Al and Si stuffs, this paint contained 1) "diatomaceous silica", 2) "crystalline silica", 3) "talc", 4) "calcium silicates and aluminates" and 5) "amorphous silica".

These components have formulas (variable in some cases) :
1) (Mostly silica) SiO₂
2) SiO₂
3) H₂Mg₃(SiO₃)₄
4) Ca₂Si0₄, xCaO·Al₂O₃
5) SiO₂

Although the exact compostion of Tnemec paint is unknown (was proprietary), diatomaceous silica and talc seem to prevail. Anyway, silicon stuffs clearly prevailed in the Tnemec paint: there was much less of aluminum than silicon.
Therefore, no wonder that Si peak in Fig. 14 (Bentham paper) is significantly bigger than Al peak. And, no wonder that O peak is so high since this element was present in at least two-fold molar excess in all Si and Al compounds, and, morever, it was present also in iron oxide, zinc chromate ("zinc yellow") and polymer (alkyd/linseed) binder. Note that Fe, Zn, Cr and Mg peaks are also present in the XEDS spectrum (Mg peak is present, but not marked by Bentham team).

Simply, XEDS spectrum of MEK chip is qualitatively consistent with Tnemec paint. And aluminum content is apparently so low that it cannot be any functioning thermite, even if all Al is present in elemental form.

 

[Liberty]

Lib,

You may want to examine this sentence for logical consistency.

Highlight added:




The green part invalidates the assertion made in the blue part.

Which renders the red part "baseless".

In the future, after you write something, you may want to read it for logical consistence before you post it.

Or at least separate the inconsistent parts by more than just a comma.

JMO


tom

tfk,

When you have more oxygen then al like that, it often means that it is elemental al. But what i am saying, is that i dont know if this can be viewed as proof in every case. Also, the MEK chip, and i am pretty sure my memory is correct about this, does contain nanosized particles, this again supports that the zink etc in the chip is contamination, the Tenmec paint that was used in the towers, is not formulated with nano particles. Even though this is obvious, i asked the manufacture and got it confirmed. And i think you guys even admitted that we have no data that 100% confirms that magnesium is present. Just because some random paint uses similar compositions, you cant use that as evidence, when you havent compared the paint with the chip in real experiments. Also, the primer paint that they tested with MEK did not swell like the MEK chip did.

The sulfur in the sample needs futher tesing also, the melted steel from the towers with sulfer in it, has not been explained, this video raises some important questions, with real experiments, which we all know NIST was not a friend of in their investigation: youtube.com/watch?v=eU4roPbe7jo

Can X-Ray diffraction or some other inexpensive test determine this? If so, these are two inexpensive tests. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in essence, one would be looking for evidence of paint, another for evidence of therm*te. Would XRD or whatever also help determine if sulfur is somehow bonded together with the aluminum in such a way as to show evidence of thermate?

And by the way getting dust samples is not the problem. I have at least three leads I can follow immediately. Before I ask, however, I want to have a strategy and goal in place.

I hope you mean Steven jones dust samples, more dust samples would be great, but we need the red chips.

Regarding XRD, witch has already been used on the samples without any conclusive results, read The Almond post: forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7747658&postcount=960

"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."

 

[Oystein]

...
Also, the MEK chip, and i am pretty sure my memory is correct about this, does contain nanosized particles,

WRONG!
I told you already to please read the *********** Bentham paper and not waste our time!
Your memory is WRONG about it!
Please consult the Bentham paper.
Please tell us what you find with regard to nanosized particles in the MEK chip.
Answer: No such thing is shown in the paper.

Why did you not read the paper as you were advised to?

I urgently ask you to read the paper, and read this thread, before writing any more replies that waste any more of our time!

this again supports that the zink etc in the chip is contamination,

What? Nanosize particles in chips means zinc is contamination? What screwed up FALSE logic is that??? Even if the premise were true, which we don't know, this conclusion does not follow. NON SEQUITUR.

the Tenmec paint that was used in the towers, is not formulated with nano particles.

How on earth do you know this? Got a source??
Even though this is of no consequence if it were true, since no one has shown nanosized particles in the MEK chip.

Even though this is obvious, i asked the manufacture and got it confirmed.

Who did you ask?
I call lie here.
Even though this is of no consequence if it were true, since no one has shown nanosized particles in the MEK chip.

And i think you guys even admitted that we have no data that 100% confirms that magnesium is present.

Incorrect. We did not "admit" any such thing.
We simply pointed out that there is a peak at 1.25keV in Fig 14 (please open the Bentham paper and take a close look at Fig 14!) that isn't labelled but is in agreement with the k-alpha level of magnesium. So yes, we DO have data that confirms there is magnesium. 100%? No. We never have 100%, that would be a Call to Perfection Logical Fallacy. But we are a lot more sure about this than Harrit e.al. can be about any of their moronic conclusions.

Just because some random paint uses similar compositions,

Poisining the Well Logical Fallacy.
Tnemec isn't some "random" paint, it's the paint that we know with 100% certainty was painted on WTC columns (but not floor joists)

you cant use that as evidence, when you havent compared the paint with the chip in real experiments.

FALSE
Read this thread and learn that we DO compare Tnemec with the MEK chip in the real experiment carried out by Harrit, Farrer, Jones, and find that it matches wonderfully.
Read this thread an learn that we DO compare LaClede Standard primer with chips a-d in the real experiments carried out by Harrit, Farrer, Jones and find that it matches wonderfully.,

Please read this thread before replying any further and make more of a fool of yourself. You obviously have not read it so far, or utterly failed to grasp it. Don't waste our time with your uninformed, FALSE utterings!

Also, the primer paint that they tested with MEK did not swell like the MEK chip did.

Yes. If you had read this thread, you'd know already that the paint that they compared the MEK chip with wasn't Tnemec, but some random paint, the origin and identity of which they do not tell us.
If you had ever read the Bentham paper critically and with an open mind, you should not have failed to notice that the failure to even tell us WHICH paint they compared the chip with viz soaking in MEK is one of the biggest and most obious blunders of the paper that should not have gone past peer review.
But apparently you have neither read this thread, nor ever the Bentham paper with care and critically.

Please read both - carefully, before replying again in this thread! You are not helping, you are onky wasting our time!

The sulfur in the sample needs futher tesing also,

No it doesn't. There is sulfur only in chip c, not a, b and d. There are more contaminants in chip c. Funny that you don't suspect surface contamination there!

the melted steel from the towers with sulfer in it, has not been explained,

FALSE
It has been explained over and over again. In this forum, by the metallurgists of WPI, ... Most importantly: THAT STEEL DID NOT MELT!
But that's off-topic here. Please inform yourself elsewhere on that topicm, and refrain from wasting our time with it here.

this video raises some important questions, with real experiments, which we all know NIST was not a friend of in their investigation: youtube.com/watch?v=eU4roPbe7jo

Not another YT

 

[Ivan Kminek]

tfk,

When you have more oxygen then al like that, it often means that it is elemental al. But what i am saying, is that i dont know if this can be viewed as proof in every case. Also, the MEK chip, and i am pretty sure my memory is correct about this, does contain nanosized particles, this again supports that the zink etc in the chip is contamination, the Tenmec paint that was used in the towers, is not formulated with nano particles. Even though this is obvious, i asked the manufacture and got it confirmed. And i think you guys even admitted that we have no data that 100% confirms that magnesium is present. Just because some random paint uses similar compositions, you cant use that as evidence, when you havent compared the paint with the chip in real experiments. Also, the primer paint that they tested with MEK did not swell like the MEK chip did.

The sulfur in the sample needs futher tesing also, the melted steel from the towers with sulfer in it, has not been explained, this video raises some important questions, with real experiments, which we all know NIST was not a friend of in their investigation: youtube.com/watch?v=eU4roPbe7jo



I hope you mean Steven jones dust samples, more dust samples would be great, but we need the red chips.

Regarding XRD, witch has already been used on the samples without any conclusive results, read The Almond post: forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7747658&postcount=960

"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."

Liberty, although I would prefer to react to Chrismohr's questions, I am forced again to react to your post. Just for your first paragraph...
- Sorry, but your first sentence is pure nonsense.
- There is no micrograph of MEK chip in Bentham paper, which could reveal that some nanosized pigments are present. So, your memory again betrayed you. Moreover, how the presence of any nanoparticles in the chip could support zinc as contaminant? Pure nonsense again.
- What do you mean by sentence: "Just because some random paint uses similar compositions, you cant use that as evidence, when you havent compared the paint with the chip in real experiments."?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted...

 

[Miragememories]

Liberty, although I would prefer to react to Chrismohr's questions, I am forced again to react to your post. Just for your first paragraph...
- Sorry, but your first sentence is pure nonsense.
- There is no micrograph of MEK chip in Bentham paper, which could reveal that some nanosized pigments are present. So, your memory again betrayed you. Moreover, how the presence of any nanoparticles in the chip could support zinc as contaminant? Pure nonsense again.
- What do you mean by sentence: "Just because some random paint uses similar compositions, you cant use that as evidence, when you havent compared the paint with the chip in real experiments."?

I would think it is quite obvious what that sentence means.

You guys have not done any valid experimentation of your own and are trying to judge a cooked meal based on a grocery list.

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

To MM: I think that Oystein wrote above exactly why Liberty is wrong.

Ivan, Oystein, Sunstealern and others,

I'm thinking of two tests now. FTIR will give is strong evidence of paint, more info than we have now, and it is not too expensive. However, this alone will not prove the absence of therm*te. For that we need a test for elemental aluminum. No elemental aluminum, no unignited therm*te, am I right? Can X-Ray diffraction or some other inexpensive test determine this? If so, these are two inexpensive tests. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in essence, one would be looking for evidence of paint, another for evidence of therm*te. Would XRD or whatever also help determine if sulfur is somehow bonded together with the aluminum in such a way as to show evidence of thermate?

Once I wrap my mind around the tests and what they can do (and what is affordable), we an decide on a couple that can give us the strongest possible initial evidence of what we do and do not have. My gut tells me it's not enough to just do a paint test, because that is looking for evidence that it is NOT therm*te-- a likely hypothesis--- but I would also like to approach this experiment from the angle of saying, if I wanted to try to PROVE or ast least actively look for therm*te, what test(s) would I do?

And by the way getting dust samples is not the problem. I have at least three leads I can follow immediately. Before I ask, however, I want to have a strategy and goal in place.

Hi, Chris, good news that getting dust samples is not great problem

I think that Almond already explained that it would not be easy/cheap to conclusively prove/falsify elemental aluminum (and, consequently, any possibility of ther....e) in the red chips from the dust. Therefore, all such attempts could be easily just a waste of time (and money). Remember that we (in this thread) are interested only on origin of chips (a) to (d) and MEK chip, and, therefore we basically do not care if there were some traces of burned or unburned the....tes elsewhere in the dust; this is simply not our bussines here.

Although I have suggested some elaborate ways how to do some conclusive research in this matter, I think that it may be better to limit first real experiments just to FTIR microscopy. It could tell us what can be the binder and what are the pigments/inorganics in selected chips. In correlation with undisputable composition of two particular WTC steel primer paints, this could serve as a quite good experimental proof (or disproof) of a paint theory.
(By the way, we have a declared compositions of these two WTC provingly used paints clearly in the record, whereas truther staff knows basically only the composition of one kind of superthermite made by Tillotson et al. - published and patented, therefore hardly used for evil and supersecret CD of WTC. Our lead is apparent.)

Concerning ther...te theory, relevant proofs are on Bentham team, this is not my bussiness Even without that, this matter is pretty time-consuming...

 

[Dave Rogers]

The al in the MEK chip significantly exceeds the oxygen present with approximately a 3:1 ratio, and there is no kaolin in this chip, which is a strong indicator that elemental al is present, but im not in a position to know how likely this is, and we need further testing.

How much oxygen do you expect to find in aluminium silicate?

Dave

 

[Oystein]

How much oxygen do you expect to find in aluminium silicate?

Dave

Urghh!
Dave!
The chip which Liberty alludes to, with the alleged Al:O ratio of 3:1, is from the MEK chip, which is Tnemec, which contains no Al-silicates.

 

[chrismohr]

To MM: I think that Oystein wrote above exactly why Liberty is wrong.



Hi, Chris, good news that getting dust samples is not great problem

I think that Almond already explained that it would not be easy/cheap to conclusively prove/falsify elemental aluminum (and, consequently, any possibility of ther....e) in the red chips from the dust. Therefore, all such attempts could be easily just a waste of time (and money). Remember that we (in this thread) are interested only on origin of chips (a) to (d) and MEK chip, and, therefore we basically do not care if there were some traces of burned or unburned the....tes elsewhere in the dust; this is simply not our bussines here.

Although I have suggested some elaborate ways how to do some conclusive research in this matter, I think that it may be better to limit first real experiments just to FTIR microscopy. It could tell us what can be the binder and what are the pigments/inorganics in selected chips. In correlation with undisputable composition of two particular WTC steel primer paints, this could serve as a quite good experimental proof (or disproof) of a paint theory.
(By the way, we have a declared compositions of these two WTC provingly used paints clearly in the record, whereas truther staff knows basically only the composition of one kind of superthermite made by Tillotson et al. - published and patented, therefore hardly used for evil and supersecret CD of WTC. Our lead is apparent.)

Concerning ther...te theory, relevant proofs are on Bentham team, this is not my bussiness Even without that, this matter is pretty time-consuming...

Hi Ivan et al,

I'm still determined to look for evidence of therm*te, not evidence of paint, as my first line of inquiry here. Even if the FTIR analysis proves paint, it could still be argued that we didn't look for therm*te. My plan now is to follow TFK's advice and call some fire experts to ask them which labs they use to test for therm*te. I'll ask about testing for thermite, thermate, nanothermite (which I guess is usually nested in some kind of sol-gel).

This may turn out to be difficult or expensive, so I will set out to DISPROVE therm*te if that is easier. If elemental aluminum is hard to detect, maybe there is some other unmistakable sign of unignited therm*te I can look for first. If it's NOT there, it's NOT therm*te. Proving therm*te MAY be harder than disproving it. Any other thoughts on a specific thing to look for? Oystein felt pretty strongly that elemental aluminum would be a hugely important thing to look for.

I will try to get the red gray chips and analyze just them (preferably from Jones et al) instead of all the dust, to give this test more focus.

Failing this line of reasoning, I will try to test the red gray chips with FTIR analysis and see if indeed we are looking at paint chips here. That seems simple and affordable, but I believe the results will be less compelling than searching for therm*te and disproving it (or showing evidence in favor of it).

Kevin Ryan once told me he has both the red gray chips and the paint chips. I can tell you they are not the same, he told me. I'll be real interested to know just how different they are.

The Jones/Harritt/Ryan dust or chips may have no legal strength, but if we use their dust and report on the results from their own samples, that would be strong chain of custody from THEIR point of view, whatever the results.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Urghh!
Dave!
The chip which Liberty alludes to, with the alleged Al:O ratio of 3:1, is from the MEK chip, which is Tnemec, which contains no Al-silicates.

Sorry, I lose track of which primer is which.

Dave

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Edited for rule 11.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

Chrismohr: Since I am polymer/organic chemist, I have no advice how to conclusively recognize thermites or their residues among the chips. For me, any red chip containing more than ca 70 % of organic binder, a lot of inactive components like silicon compounds and low XEDS peaks of aluminum simply cannot be any intentionally prepared and functioning thermite. (Well, in some supersecret nanothe...te unknown to the public, some pyrotechnically active polymer unknown to me might be used, but this can be again revealed using FTIR microscopy) You wrote me that Kevin Ryan wants to repeat his "protocol" with next separated red chips from the dust which he could "donate". Why? We already know from Bentham paper how the kind of chips (a) to (d) look, what are their XEDS signatures and how they behave during DSC measurements under air. Only DSC measurements under inert can bring some comparatively new info, especially in tandem with TGA. (It can, e.g., show curves typical for degradation of epoxy resin or other polymers... or some other curves.) I think we really need some new characterization of these chips, namely some data (FTIR) on their binder, which prevails in the chips.

 

[Oystein]

Edited for rule 11.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

...Chrismohr: ... You wrote me that Kevin Ryan wants to repeat his "protocol" with next separated red chips from the dust which he could "donate". Why? We already know from Bentham paper how the kind of chips (a) to (d) look, what are their XEDS signatures and how they behave during DSC measurements under air. Only DSC measurements under inert can bring some comparatively new info. I think we really need some new characterization of these chips, namely some data on their binder, which prevails in the chips.

I disagree here.
a) Chris has a different objective than we have, so Chris is not very interested in the nature of the binder. He only wants to look for thermite, i.e. Fe_xO_y and Al. That's his prerogative.
b) DSC measurements under inert gas would be nice, and surely refute a main claim in the Bentham paper, but still be of little value for determining what's in the chips. So that's a waste of time and money
c) Characterization, namely showing the chemical bindings, of the "nanosized" particles that look like kaolinite, walk like kaolinite and quack like kaolinite should be done. So that everyone knows that the Al is indeed bound as Al-silicate, and not free.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I disagree here.
a) Chris has a different objective than we have, so Chris is not very interested in the nature of the binder. He only wants to look for thermite, i.e. Fe_xO_y and Al. That's his prerogative.
b) DSC measurements under inert gas would be nice, and surely refute a main claim in the Bentham paper, but still be of little value for determining what's in the chips. So that's a waste of time and money
c) Characterization, namely showing the chemical bindings, of the "nanosized" particles that look like kaolinite, walk like kaolinite and quack like kaolinite should be done. So that everyone knows that the Al is indeed bound as Al-silicate, and not free.

Here, I would like to remind that FTIR microscopy should be able to recognize common pigments/inorganics like kaolinite in the sample. At least according to the web of already mentioned company specialized on the analysis of paints: http://www.camaonline.net/index_files/services.htm .
Also, Sunstealer mentioned this capability of FTIR. (But, I have to learn more about this simple way of identification of pigments/ther...mite components, since it belongs to the realm of inorganic chemistry)