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

[ref]

C'mon Ref: "In the wise words of the great Gravy aka Mark Roberts. Get a hobby, go out more, get out of this 911 crap for a while. It worked for him, and he was the best! Greets to Gravy if he still reads this subforum." I still climb mountains, cross country ski, compose music, meditate, volunteer at a prison program, attend dozens of operas and concerts every year, travel (40 countries so far), write concert previews for the Aspen Business Journal, host charity wine tastings for cancer research/food banks/soup kitchens, etc. I get out plenty. And now this English Major has jumped into the science world, learned boatloads about stuff I never dreamed I would learn before, successfully debated Richard Gage with twice as many people in the audience changing their minds towards the "Natural Collapse" side, and now organizing a peer-reviewed scientific study. Who'da thunk it? I agree tho that debating 9/11 CD people has finite interest. I don't know when I will feel like I have done everything I can do; maybe shepherding this dust study will do it for me. Then I'll join Gravy and Ryan Mackey and others on the sidelines.

Hi Chris. As I already explained, I didn't mean the hobby thing quite literally. It was just to show, that these people don't deserve the attention they get from you guys, your hobbies do. I actually admire your range of hobbies!

I may have gotten off the wrong foot the other day, but I still have criticism. I posted much of my criticism into Oystein's reply. If you have anything to comment on those, feel free to pick those up from there.

 

[Oystein]

Let me be a little more of a spoil sport. By the way, it's much more interesting discussing with you guys, than truthers. You guys give proper responses and the discussion actually moves forward! Here goes.

Agreed.

It doesn't, sorry to say that. I started following the TM in 2006, researching the history and origins of the TM claims. There hasn't been a nail in a coffin for any theory, not one. The closest thing to a nail in a coffin has been the abandoning of "Larry Silverstein said pull it". That doesn't pop up often anymore. So why would this be the first true nail in a coffin of a truther conspiracy theory? Sadly it will not be. David Ray Griffin still denies the phone calls, despite being so completely wrong it hurts. Griffin still has a following, and to this day some people doubt the phone calls.

You yourself admit, that the top TM figures will not suddenly admit that they were in error all this time. That's exactly correct, they won't. That alone explains, why this will not be a nail in a coffin for anything. These same guys will continue pushing this theory, and these same guys will still have a following.

You are making the basic error here, in assuming that being a truther is based on rationality and science. TM leaders have been shown to have poor judgement for years. Their judgement on all other evidence has been shown equally dubious for years. Has that been of any help, has the TM suddenly become rational and disappeared because of poor judgement on evidence? No. Their beliefs are not based on rationality and critical thinking. Yours are, that's why you are not a truther. Understanding this difference is key to all this debate.

None have lived up to your challenge, and the vision of the rest of your paragraph will not happen for the reasons I stated above.

Sadly, it will not create much ripples nor doubt. No other work before this one has done it on any theory, and there has been plenty of work already.

I am not saying at all that you are wrong, and I am afraid that you are probably mostly right.

I disagree though on the ripples. Occasionally, some truthers do change their minds on some issues. I am fairly confident that more than zero people of the Gage-crowed will denounce Harrit e.al. when we are done with this. If not, oh well.

Why is this particular topic your sport, why do you have such an interest in these chips? That is what interests me. The guys who introduced you to these chips have never had credibility to begin with, so why go to such lengths to dig more into their crazy theories? I don't see you guys putting such effort on Judy Wood or space beams, so why this? Is it because this particular paper is quoted more, and has more following? That still doesn't mean it makes any more sense. But that sure gives the paper more the attention they (Jones, Gage, Ryan) live by. Their only interest is to keep the topic alive. And that they have achieved very well.

I should clear one thing up. I didn't mean the hobby thing quite literally, as some of you have taken it. I know you guys have hobbies. It was just to show, that these people don't deserve the attention they get from you guys, your hobbies do. And photography can be damn expensive, but it sure is fun!

Thanks for being polite! I don't mean to diss you guys in any ways, just sharing my personal opinions.

Well, but I take that hobby thing quite literally

My particular interest in the chips started thusly:
Initially, when I was first made aware of their paper, it superficially had the type of credentials that would make me allow for prima facie legitimacy. I read it, and upon first reading found faults. That was fun! Me finding faults in a science paper in a science that had never been my strength. So I read it a second time, more thoroughly, and was already convinced they get it all wrong. Did quick research on thermite and figured they have way too much energy density. Identified half a dozend open strings (why so little on the gray layer? What about the organic matrix? Why no explanation of the many differences from chip to chip?), but couldn't come to better conclusions.

Then I read Sunstealer's JREF posts from april 2009, just days after the paper was published, where he figured out that we are looking at paint with hematite and kaolinte, and it all made sense. Case closed.

Except, the chips still came up again and again, and we didn't know precisely what they were. One chip, the MEK soaked one, seemed to be Tnemec, which at the time we believed was the Twin Towers steel primer. But what were the other chips? Primer from WTC7?

So I started this thread. Initially, it was one of many topics in this subforum that I followed. My other interests were collapse mechanism, aviation topics and geometric analysis of images.

But then, this thread started taking off with Ivan's finding of LaClede paint formulation. And suddenly, I saw a chance to make myself, us, a name in the world of 9/11 CTs with this finding. Yep, pure, misguided vanity, if you will, but hey, I am having fun with it.

 

[Oystein]

It's a good hobby yes, I agree. I do that too. But as I explained in my post to Oystein, the frauds live by your hobby of keeping the insane theory alive. There comes a point, when a certain theory has been beaten to death. To me this one already has. Keeping it further alive only benefits the frauds.
...

I don't think they need us to keep the theory alive. It strives well on its own far away from all debunkers. If anything keeps it alive, it's half-assed debunking. We are trying to do better. Kevin Ryan, for one, now surely knows to stay away from us.

 

[ref]

Many thanks for the insight on your history, interesting stuff.

But then, this thread started taking off with Ivan's finding of LaClede paint formulation. And suddenly, I saw a chance to make myself, us, a name in the world of 9/11 CTs with this finding. Yep, pure, misguided vanity, if you will, but hey, I am having fun with it.

Great for you to admit the vanity thing, not many people admit that

 

[ref]

Kevin Ryan, for one, now surely knows to stay away from us.

Kevin's been staying away from us for a long time. In 2007 we tried to get him debate Mark Roberts. He declined not once but twice, despite being offered control of the time, the place, the moderators, and the debate topics.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Thanks Chris, you've always been friendly and one of the few here that appears to be conducting research without rancor.

This is a skeptics forum not one for research. Twoofer should be the ones doing the research..........so far all we have is a joke of of a vanity paper. Why is that? And no the A&E911 stuff does not count as research either....they are just publishing their own vanity journal.
These are mostly scientific questions and there are plenty of places genuine research can be published.

As for rancor, what else can you expect when you make laughable claims and insist they are valid research? You can't even get the basic facts right!

 

[chrismohr]

Here's a letter I just got from someone who watched my YouTube rebuttals of Gage: "thank-you for all the tremendous work you've carried out investigating the 911 wtc collapses. I have to admit that I was previously convinced by Richard Gage's arguments. Having watched your videos I am now much more aware of the alternative arguments."

It happens. Hey, just sayin'. It's not the whole answer to why bother, but it did feel good.

 

[cjnewson88]

so whats the update on the fund raising for the dust testing?

 

[moorea34]

Aaargh...

Bad reference

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted)

 

[moorea34]

I would still recommend this paper, p. 209 to 231, as an introduction to thermal degradation of epoxies both under air and under inert, measured mostly by TGA; it follows from the Fig. 8 in the paper that substantial mass loss of epoxy sample (as measured by TGA) should be accompanied with exotherm in DSC, even under inert atmosphere

Ok, so even a DSC under inert atmosphere will not prove anything for the chips ?

 

[Oystein]

Ok, so even a DSC under inert atmosphere will not prove anything for the chips ?

Correct. We have said all the time that DSC test is an incompetent test when you want to figure out the chemical composition of a mixed bag stuff. Especially incompetent under air when you already know you are dealing with mostly organic matrix, but still inkompetent because some reactions can occur even without ambiet O, because you don't know a priori what stuff you are dealing with. As it turns out, anaerobic degradation of epoxy polimers is exotherm.

I don't even think we will be doing any DSC testing on the new chips now, which would have the purpose of determining whether our new chips have the same properties as chips a-d in the Bentham paper. Two reasons, at least:

• Farrer's chips differed wildly in their energy density, from 1.5 to 7.5 kJ/g - a factor of 5
• I have reasonable doubts that the 4 chips whose DSC data went into the paper are identical with chips a-d. I'll explain that in the next post.

 

[Oystein]

EDIT: Deleted post, decided against the big form of presenting all images.


Short form:

The paper is unfortunately not very clear about identifying individual chips. Fig. 5, 6, 7 and 8 all show data on one chip each from samples 1-4, and these are labeled a-d, respectively, in each of these figures, however it is not fully clear if these figures represent the same four specimen. I assume they do, and label these four specimen as (a) through (d). Fig. 9 and 10 are from the same specimen as Fig 8a - chip (a).


Fig. 19, 29 and 33 contain thermodynamic (DSC) data on four chips, but these four chips are not from the four different samples; rather, two of them are from sample 1, one is from sample 3, one from sample 4, and none from sample 2.

Since this distribution differs from the distribution given for Fig. 5, 6, 7, 8, we cannot assume that any of the four specimen used for the DCS tests are the same as any of (a) through (d), but we can also not rule out the possibility that (a), (c) and/or (d) were used here. The identity of these four specimen thus remains undetermined, and we simply do not know if they represent the same or different materials.

 

[chrismohr]

This is a brief interruption of Oystein's posts to say I got no actual checks and didn't check mail yesterday. I'll report by tomorrow how we are doing but based on commitments I've received, I am guessing we will be within $100 of our goal by the end of the week. Let's see where we are by Saturday. Thanks again everyone.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ok, so even a DSC under inert atmosphere will not proove anyrthing for the chips ?

I have already discussed this matter here. Some summary:

- For sure, any epoxy resin will loose a great portion of its mass both under air and under inert between ca 350-450 degrees C (and this can be easily followed by TGA). I have also clearly observed those effects on my own TGA curves of Laclede paint imitation, see here http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/epoxides/#TGA-N2.jpg (under inert) and here http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/epoxides/#TGA-air2.jpg (under air).

- This mass loss should be accompanied with some thermic effect in this temperature region. Under air, some exotherm will be observed for sure (massive oxidation). Under inert, I can't be so sure and so far I have only this linked Fig. 8 as a direct support for this claim. Problem here is that DSC is seldom used as a method for investigation of thermal/thermal oxidative degradation of polymers, since it is suitable mostly for the study of such processes in polymers, which are not accompanied with a substantial mass loss (like e.g. phase transitions, curing of resins etc.).

Shortly: I expect that even under inert, some exotherms would be observed on the red-gray chips, but I rely here only on this one paper and some expert opinions of my colleagues in our polymer institute.
Citation from the paper, p. 219: "It can be seen that degradation reaction in inert atmosphere (of epoxy resin cured by amines, I.K.) is exothermal."

 

[moorea34]

Ok, thank you (both) for the explanations

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Ergh... you are right, it is not very clear from the Bentham paper. If we can't be sure in this respect (that four chips (a) to (d)) closely studied by SEM are the same as were lately burned in DSC machine), this could be a problem.
Truthers can always say (after any thorough analyses): you perhaps proved that chips (a) to (d) were particles of your beloved red paint, but chips burned in DSC were different and for sure they were evil nanothemite!

(I will think about this matter later, now I am going to be rather busy.)

 

[moorea34]

Oystein: Ergh... you are right, it is not very clear from the Bentham paper. If we can't be sure in this respect (that four chips (a) to (d)) closely studied by SEM are the same as were lately burned in DSC machine), this could be a problem.
Truthers can always say (after any thorough analyses): you perhaps proved that chips (a) to (d) were particles of your beloved red paint, but chips burned in DSC were different and for sure they were evil nanothemite!

(I will think about this matter later, now I am going to be rather busy.)

Yes, but if they are not able to do the difference between both chips before DSC... the reason is that chips are quite the same !

 

[leftysergeant]

Truthers can always say (after any thorough analyses): you perhaps proved that chips (a) to (d) were particles of your beloved red paint, but chips burned in DSC were different and for sure they were evil nanothemite!

So, would it be possible to break a large chip to do whatever whatever non-destructive tests on one half and the destructive (like combustion) tests on the other?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Morea, Lefty: Sorry for my last, rather pesimistic post There is still a (same) way how to be conclusive and convincing: Jim Millette can select chips with the same XEDS, SEM and other characteristics as chips (a) to (d) and measure them in DSC machine (best in tandem with TGA). If these chips show similar DSC curves as (a) to (d), they should be all identical. Lefty's proposal seems to be also good one.