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

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Here, e.g., is a paper of Czech chemists investigating FTIR spectra of kaolinites. Some characteristic bands (OH-stretching) are observed in the region ca 3700-3600 cm^-1, some others (concerning only the spectral regions where the polymers like epoxies have no strong bands) are below 750 cm^-1. They belong to Si-O, Al-O, Al-O-Si or Si-O-Si bonds.

 

[Oystein]

FTIR, my last remark wasn't about methods (I did not doubt that FTIR could answer questions about the structure of anorganics as well) but objectives (Chris wants to look for thermite, you want to focus on the binder, I want to additionally focus on the pigments, or visible "nanosized" particles).

 

[leftysergeant]

If we could secure enough samples to burn a few, some of the combustion residues should be easily identifiable. Anyh thermitic reaction in a FeO/Al thermite will produce elemental Fe and AlO. The theoritcal polymer matrix should provide enough carbon that the Fe is reduced to a near-totally oxygen-free form.

All of the Al should be oxidized to form alumina. This might be recognizeable under a powerful-enough optical microscope. I would have to do a little more Googling on that.

I am not too sure what the strontium chromate would do during the reaction.

The kaolinite might remain unchanged, or might assume a more-or-less amorphous appearance as a result of the heat.

I shall leave it to Ivan to describe what sort of residues the polymer might leave.

It might be neccessary to crush the residues somewhat to perform the needed examinations.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

FTIR, my last remark wasn't about methods (I did not doubt that FTIR could answer questions about the structure of anorganics as well) but objectives (Chris wants to look for thermite, you want to focus on the binder, I want to additionally focus on the pigments, or visible "nanosized" particles).

Well, apart from x-ray diffraction and so, there are some other suitable methods for proving/determination of elemental aluminum.
Look, e.g., to this paper, dealing with spectrophotometric determination of traces of aluminum after its reaction with 2-hydroxynaphthaldehydebenzoylhydrazone. (Any present aluminum and/or silicon compound should not interfere during this determination). More of such chemical methods exist, see Table 1 in the paper and references 5-29. All such methods are of course destructive, i.e., they damage red chips.

 

[Sunstealer]

Scenario:

Chips are analysed. Elements found by weight. 99.9999% NOT elemental Al by weight. 0.0001% is elemental Al by weight.

Truthers - You found elemental Al therefore it's thermite!
Skeptics - errr (scratches head).

Just because some aluminium may be found in the samples doesn't mean that the material is thermite. We already know from Mark Basile that the samples contain no appreciable amount of aluminium.

Truthers are such morons that they think that a material with 1.68% Aluminium by weight is thermite. You can show people like MM this time after time but they simply do not understand the significance or refuse to acknowledge the issue when told.

There is simply no point in doing any experiment whatsoever, even if Jones supplies samples, because no truther is ever going to realise or acknowledge the significance of the data.

Jones and his merry band are insignificant. The only people that pay attention are truthers who are gullible enough to waste their money on him and folk like Gage.

If you really must do a test then FTIR gives you the most data for the cheapest price.

It will identify the organic binder. It will identify the pigments in the paint. You can then ask truthers and Jones and Harrit why their thermite contains paint pigments in an epoxy binder. They'll hand wave it away and you will be back to square one. It's fruitless.

And that's why I'm going to take an extended leave on JREF 9/11 topics. You can't argue with a belief system because it's not based on evidence or data or science. Truthers are "mostly harmless" just like moon hoaxers or JFK CTers. They acheive nothing and can't be argued with so best to leave them to it.

 

[Cuddles]

This thread has somehow managed to stay on topic for over 1000 posts. Let's keep it that way please.

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

 

[Ivan Kminek]

(Ehm... sorry, since I am still a beginner here, what is exactly the point of Cuddles's "warning"??)

Anyway, I agree with Sunstealer, which should be quite apparent from my previous posts.
Just FTIR microscopy itself may give us quite a good experimental proof of our paint hypothesis, which would be of course simultaneously a falsification of nan...te hypothesis.
It does not make sense to spend a lot of effort (and money) on the proof that no elemental aluminum is present, and really devoted nanot..te truthers cannot be convinced by any proof. For them, it is a matter of deep (?) belief. We cannot write a real scientific paper with just one kind of experiments, but, with mere FTIR proofs, we could write something like: "Well, you know, we think that chips (a) to (d) were particles of "Laclede paint" because of this, this and this, and we have even this experimental proof of our claims."

(Let me just repeat that nanosized platelets containing aluminum in chips (a) to (d) were ca 40 microns thick. And the usual layer of iron oxide on aluminum is about 5-10 nm thick ("4 nm layer of this oxide is formed during ca 100 picoseconds", see Wiki). Therefore, aluminum in nanot...e would be anyway almost completely oxidized at the time of Bentham research. Those additional years of aging/oxidation (from ca 2008 up to now) can only slightly increase the degree of oxidation, that is all.)

 

[The Almond]

Scenario:

Chips are analysed. Elements found by weight. 99.9999% NOT elemental Al by weight. 0.0001% is elemental Al by weight.

Truthers - You found elemental Al therefore it's thermite!
Skeptics - errr (scratches head).

Just because some aluminium may be found in the samples doesn't mean that the material is thermite. We already know from Mark Basile that the samples contain no appreciable amount of aluminium.

[...]

Spot on, Sunstealer. I think the thermite question, which Oystein has rightly ignored, is silly on many levels. The purpose in searching for elemental aluminum is to find un-reacted thermite. That means that, if the substance were used to bring down the towers, then it was an incredibly inefficient way to do it. For there to be un-reacted thermite in a (presumably) random distribution, of which an infinitesimal amount was analyzed, the vast majority of the product must not react. That would imply a massive over-dose of thermite, which, as we've already discussed numerous times, is already a huge amount.

Instrumental analysis is complicated, and the interpretation of the data is complicated. The correct answer to the question, "Is there elemental aluminum in this sample?" is, "It's below my detection limit." Of the dozens of instrumental methods that could be used to answer this question, the answer never changes. The correct answer is always, "It's below my detection limit."

Does even one atom of elemental Al in 1 x 10^23 atoms mean that thermite was used? Nope. Does 0.5 x 10^23 atoms in 1 x 10^23 atoms indicate the presence of thermite? Nope. Is there any scientific reason to address this question? Nope.

 

[Miragememories]

"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....

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."

"That's why it's probably a good idea for those of us who believe in reality to specify what results might be considered significant, and would indicate what conclusions. I've made the effort to do so...
So all the truthers need to say is that there was thermite in the samples, but it's now degraded to the point that it's ineffective, and they have a nice shiny unfalsifiable hypothesis to pray to. I'm sure I can guess who'll be one of the first to claim that."

"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."

"There is simply no point in doing any experiment whatsoever, even if Jones supplies samples, because no truther is ever going to realise or acknowledge the significance of the data.

Jones and his merry band are insignificant. The only people that pay attention are truthers who are gullible enough to waste their money on him and folk like Gage."

"Spot on, Sunstealer. I think the thermite question, which Oystein has rightly ignored, is silly on many levels. The purpose in searching for elemental aluminum is to find un-reacted thermite.... Is there any scientific reason to address this question? Nope."

As I expected Chris, even though I think your goal is a good one, the Official Story supporters here are making it quite clear that they are not interested in what you discover unless it supports their position.

Regardless, I do hope you pursue this, but be ready for an O.J. Simpson-like verdict.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I expected Chris, even though I think your goal is a good one, the Official Story supporters here are making it quite clear that they are not interested in what you discover unless it supports their position.

On the contrary; as I mentioned in the post you quoted, I've indicated in advance exactly what type of results I would consider significant and worthy of further study, and they are the results that would indicate the possibility of a genuine thermite reaction - exactly what you're trying to prove. It seems that you're so eager to see dishonesty in your opposition that you've decided to invent it wherever you can't find it. Which is ironic, really.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

...
And that's why I'm going to take an extended leave on JREF 9/11 topics. You can't argue with a belief system because it's not based on evidence or data or science. Truthers are "mostly harmless" just like moon hoaxers or JFK CTers. They acheive nothing and can't be argued with so best to leave them to it.

Goodbye, and thanks for all the input

 

[Oystein]

(Ehm... sorry, since I am still a beginner here, what is exactly the point of Cuddles's "warning"??)

(Some posts discussed the merits of the Bentham paper, such as chain of custody of the dust. I reported these as off-topic, and Cuddles thankfully removed them to Abandon All Hope, and also edited a few posts)

Anyway, I agree with Sunstealer, which should be quite apparent from my previous posts.
Just FTIR microscopy itself may give us quite a good experimental proof of our paint hypothesis, which would be of course simultaneously a falsification of nan...te hypothesis.
It does not make sense to spend a lot of effort (and money) on the proof that no elemental aluminum is present, and really devoted nanot..te truthers cannot be convinced by any proof. For them, it is a matter of deep (?) belief. We cannot write a real scientific paper with just one kind of experiments, but, with mere FTIR proofs, we could write something like: "Well, you know, we think that chips (a) to (d) were particles of "Laclede paint" because of this, this and this, and we have even this experimental proof of our claims."

I think Chris has now more than enough opinions on what he could do with the dust samples. I think he should now procede and write down exactly which question or question he wishes to have answered, and let labs decide if they can answer the question. Asking the right question is arguably more important than deciding on the right method.

(Let me just repeat that nanosized platelets containing aluminum in chips (a) to (d) were ca 40 microns thick. And the usual layer of iron oxide on aluminum is about 5-10 nm thick ("4 nm layer of this oxide is formed during ca 100 picoseconds", see Wiki). Therefore, aluminum in nanot...e would be anyway almost completely oxidized at the time of Bentham research. Those additional years of aging/oxidation (from ca 2008 up to now) can only slightly increase the degree of oxidation, that is all.)

Harrit e.al. claim "ACTIVE Thermitic Material..." (title of their paper!), and that was 7-8 years after 9/11. No reason why the Al should oxidize any further as long as they store it adequately.

 

[Liberty]

What? Nanosize particles in chips means zinc is contamination?

I will get back to you regarding the size of the particles in the MEK chip, if I get a response from the authors that i contacted.

Regarding the zink being contamination due to the nanoparticles, this is a possibility, since if the iron and al particles is not the same as in the Tenmec paint, then there is no reason to believe that the MEK chip is Tenmec paint, but the zink could be contamination from the Tenmec paint. Also, in subsequent plots AFTER cleaning in MEK, Zn and Cr are NOT present in any of the XEDS plots (16,17,18) -- suggesting that Zn and Cr compounds were indeed surface contamination.

If further testing shows elemental nano-Al, then this is strong data that supports that nanothermite could be present in the chips, free nano-Al is extremely rare. Aluminum NP’s cannot be created in uncontrolled conditions, an oxygen free environment is essential. The synthesis of aluminum nanoparticles can only occur in vacuum or an oxygen free environment. It is very difficult to conceive of aluminum nanoparticles being created outside of a manufacturing plant or lab in any quantity. I think you can show that the amount of energy you need to take, for example, an aluminum window frame, and reduce it to 40nm particles is enormous. To result in un-oxidized Al particles, you’d have to remove all the air from the building first. If Any nano particles of aluminum and iron oxide form they 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.

Also, this is some very small samples, and if these samples is nanothermite, then this is some very small chips that has not reacted in the dust, that i would guess with my amature understanding of nanothermite, that this was attached to some larger pieces of nanothermite, and that you would not expect to find large amounts of elemental al in this tiny chips. A quote from a nanothermite expert, regarding this possibility, about the small chips breaking free and forming this unreacted small chips in the dust, would be helpful. If thermite was used, then you also have the possibility that different kinds of thermite was used.

Btw, my last post was a bit off topic and can be found here: forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7759295&postcount=21

 

[beachnut]

...
If further testing shows elemental nano-Al, then this is strong data that supports that nanothermite could be present in the chips, free nano-Al is extremely rare. ...

Are you claiming thermite was used to bring down the WTC complex? If so, why did the themite fail to leave any iron behind?

Finding elemental Al would be a better indication you found an etch-a-sketch depot, if you are talking 911. Do any rational people believe Jones?

 

[ozeco41]

Are you claiming thermite was used to bring down the WTC complex? If so, why did the themite fail to leave any iron behind?

That is the only question which matters for this conspiracy sub-forum.

Sure all the analytical work is great and interesting for those who focus on that level of technical detail.

BUT as I have said several times - it doesn't matter in the least if tonnes of thermXte were found on ground zero. It wasn't used in demolition because there was no demolition. So from the perspective of "CD or Not?" the whole thermXte debate is one big derailing red herring.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

BUT as I have said several times - it doesn't matter in the least if tonnes of thermXte were found on ground zero. It wasn't used in demolition because there was no demolition. So from the perspective of "CD or Not?" the whole thermXte debate is one big derailing red herring.

With all due respect that's a silly thing to say. It like saying the earth can't be round because its flat. Thermite could be used to demolish such a structure and there is no plausible reason I can think of why it would be there other than for some nefarious use.

There is none in the dust any more than there is unicorn poo or diamond dust but pretending that finding tons of it at ground zero would mean nothing is disingenuous and unworthy of you.

 

[ozeco41]

With all due respect that's a silly thing to say. It like saying the earth can't be round because its flat. Thermite could be used to demolish such a structure and there is no plausible reason I can think of why it would be there other than for some nefarious use.

There is none in the dust any more than there is unicorn poo or diamond dust but pretending that finding tons of it at ground zero would mean nothing is disingenuous and unworthy of you.

Hogwash. And your metaphor is arse about - it should be "like saying the earth cannot be flat because its round." The earth, prima facie, is round. Anyone wanting to claim "flat" has their work in front of them. Likewise prima facie for WTC collapse is "no demolition" and anyone wanting to show demolition has to do the work. And no-one has in ten years.

The only shortcut in my claim is that I didn't hedge all the impossibilities stuff with proper scientific terminology.

10 years on and there has never been a viable pro demolition hypothesis. So pursuing whether or not there was thermXte proves nothing without the several other quantum leaps if the objective is to show CD.

If I can turn the personal attack dimension in fun let me bid my personal professional incredulity that "I cannot think of how it could be done" to match your personal incredulity "no plausible reason I can think of why".... Actually I suspect that my "cannot think of how there could be demolition" is more robust than your doubt but let's call them equal bets.

...and then I raise you "no one else has done so in ten years".

And a serious suggestion. Take care what your focus of objective is. If it is "decide whether there was thermXte" then, as I said in my many previous posts on this issue, go for it. I have no problem with the scientific research.

BUT If the focus is "decide CD or not" then coming at it from all the evidence of no CD other than via the tortuous path via "was there thermXte?" leads straight to my conclusion - It doesn't matter if there was 100 tonnes on site there is not the slightest evidence that it was used.

And, meeting you part way, YES it could indicate that someone had a nefarious intent BUT it wasn't used.

Now if we want a third objective "Did anyone have nefarious intentions" that blows the whole game wide open and I'm not interested in going there.

 

[Childlike Empress]

BUT as I have said several times - it doesn't matter in the least if tonnes of thermXte were found on ground zero. It wasn't used in demolition because there was no demolition. So from the perspective of "CD or Not?" the whole thermXte debate is one big derailing red herring.

That's a joke, right?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I will get back to you regarding the size of the particles in the MEK chip, if I get a response from the authors that i contacted.

Regarding the zink being contamination due to the nanoparticles, this is a possibility, since if the iron and al particles is not the same as in the Tenmec paint, then there is no reason to believe that the MEK chip is Tenmec paint, but the zink could be contamination from the Tenmec paint. Also, in subsequent plots AFTER cleaning in MEK, Zn and Cr are NOT present in any of the XEDS plots (16,17,18) -- suggesting that Zn and Cr compounds were indeed surface contamination.

If further testing shows elemental nano-Al, then this is strong data that supports that nanothermite could be present in the chips, free nano-Al is extremely rare. Aluminum NP’s cannot be created in uncontrolled conditions, an oxygen free environment is essential. The synthesis of aluminum nanoparticles can only occur in vacuum or an oxygen free environment. It is very difficult to conceive of aluminum nanoparticles being created outside of a manufacturing plant or lab in any quantity. I think you can show that the amount of energy you need to take, for example, an aluminum window frame, and reduce it to 40nm particles is enormous. To result in un-oxidized Al particles, you’d have to remove all the air from the building first. If Any nano particles of aluminum and iron oxide form they 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.

Also, this is some very small samples, and if these samples is nanothermite, then this is some very small chips that has not reacted in the dust, that i would guess with my amature understanding of nanothermite, that this was attached to some larger pieces of nanothermite, and that you would not expect to find large amounts of elemental al in this tiny chips. A quote from a nanothermite expert, regarding this possibility, about the small chips breaking free and forming this unreacted small chips in the dust, would be helpful. If thermite was used, then you also have the possibility that different kinds of thermite was used.

Btw, my last post was a bit off topic and can be found here: forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7759295&postcount=21

Liberty, I think that you can serve here at least as some "etalon" what is hard to understand for thruthers, what is still unclear and what should be explained in more detail or better.

You mentioned Figs. 16, 17 and 18 (Bentham paper) in which no Zn or Cr signals are visible on XEDS, but you forgot that those spectra were taken after focussing on Si, Al, or Fe-rich areas. Considering that those areas are just particles of some Si, Al or Fe compounds present in Tnemec, no wonder that there is no Zn and Cr there. These elements would be recorded by focussing on other parts of the chip. It is also possible that zinc chromate was at least partially washed out from the chip by MEK solvent. Rather strange for me are small peaks of oxygen in both Si and Al rich areas (Fig. 16, 17) , but I do not think that it is necessarily a sign that both these elements were present there as not-bound to oxygen. This is maybe question to Almond. We anyway do not know what "focussing" exactly meant, concerning those figures.

You wrote "The synthesis of aluminum nanoparticles can only occur in vacuum or an oxygen free environment", etc. This is again not true. As you can see e.g. on this video of Kevin Ryan, who made a superthermite according to Tillotson recipe, no inert atmosphere was used, all the preparation by sol-gel technique was performed under air. And this superthermite, with real Al nanoparticles, really worked afterwards, as freshly prepared, as you can see at the end of the video. Note that in Tillotson's papers, aluminum particles are of round shapes (e.g. here), no nanosized platelets of this metal are known to us. Although spheric nanoparticles are not the best as regards the efficiency of thermites (low surface area), in the case of aluminum they are of great advantage, since the oxidation of this metal is minimal for spheres.

As for your third paragraph, this is a baseless speculation. Red chips cannot be parts of some "big piece of nano...te..", since they are thin red layers mostly attached to thin gray layers (of grey iron oxide). Consequently, your imaginary big piece of nano....te had to be composed of such multilayer system of active nano...te layers and inactive iron oxide layers. This additional iron oxide layer could serve there only as a heat sink and can only deteriorate a stochiometry (elemental ratio) and efficiency of such ther...te (even much higher ratio between Fe oxide and Al). Apparently, such arrangement of nano...te (multilayered system with perhaps thousands of layers) is nonsensical, impractical and, moreover, there is no way how to prepare it. There is much better explanation: red-gray chips are paint layers on layers of oxidized steel (going eventually back to our topic)

 

[ozeco41]

That's a joke, right?

Nope.

The serious answer lies in understanding the "systems level" of the two related but not on parity arguments. i.e. where "thermXte or not" lies n logical structure relative to "CD or not"

If you understand that --- OK -- but then you probably would not have suggested "joke" - And I don't care whether you prefer "systems" language OR "set/sub-set" language or any other valid modelling of the logic structure.

--- if you don't then it is not worth my time explaining - there is too much foundation work missing.

..and I suspect you did not comprehend my post in your haste to make the characteristic snide comment.

...but I have been wrong on occasions...