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

[chrismohr]

Can you give me the exact time stamp for the video where a destructive explosion is shown?
Cole is only melting stuff.
Ryan tries to convince his followers that his nanothermite resulted in explosive production of gas. Well, so does my Mozzarella and Chestnut.

Oystein, I don't want to go through all of the old posts in my Richard Gage debate thread, but somewhere in there Chris Sarns linked us to a legitimate study that showed that nanothermites had potential to be made into explosives. If you really want to plow through a couple thousand posts you may be able to find it again. After reading that article I was convinced that it's at lest possible that nanos could be made into low-to-medium explosives.

 

[Oystein]

... The paint thing was ruled out years ago . Frank Greening said so himself. ...

Greening said what exactly when on what paint thing? Got a citation?

 

[Scott Sommers]

This is a response to one of the Chris Mohr videos on Youtube that's been circulating around on Facebook.

9/11 COMPARISONS
Part 3 Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik

Look at Chris Mohr's example at the 2:00 minute mark and a few of his comments.

"had a fast, all at once, almost symmetrical collapse, pretty much into it's own footprint."

"Watch the blackened rectangle where the fire is the worst ... It collapses as a separate unit from the staircase to it's right which resisted the fire"

2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html

Now, here is the full video of this building's partial collapse.

Bouwkunde TUDelft collapses after fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4aKQXJtBdE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKjIcb0ozzc&

Does this look like the collapse of Building 7 to you?

Does this sound like "it had a fast, all at once, almost symmetrical collapse, pretty much into it's own footprint."?

You decide......
Comparisons to 9/11
by: XXXXX

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, I don't want to go through all of the old posts in my Richard Gage debate thread, but somewhere in there Chris Sarns linked us to a legitimate study that showed that nanothermites had potential to be made into explosives. If you really want to plow through a couple thousand posts you may be able to find it again. After reading that article I was convinced that it's at lest possible that nanos could be made into low-to-medium explosives.

Maybe. But Kevin's experiment does not support this in any way.
I found a nice debunking for the nanothermite -> high explosive theory from Jim Fetzer's D) blog, by T. Mark Hightower (with Jim Fetzer):
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must.html
(For those who don't know Fetzer: He's a no-planer from the whacky Judy Wood camp)

And that's about as deep as I want to go into this topic.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

The paint thing was ruled out years ago .

You are simply and apparently wrong. Try to read this thread starting post No 104.

Frank Greening said so himself. Where you been?

As I remember, Frank Greening was not only able to fully debunk nanot...te theory in relevant The911Forum thread and finally gave up, since e.g. he had not got so much info on red paints used in WTC we have now. Basically, his objections against nanot...te were smart, well-based and mostly valid even now.

 

[Oystein]

The pictures do not say anything of the sort. The paint thing was ruled out years ago . Frank Greening said so himself. Where you been?

Thanks to Ivan for linking to Dr. Greenings posts on the issue in The 9/11 Forum.

@ superlogicalthinker: Where were you when Frank Greening wrote this:

Looking at the Figure 14 spectrum, which has Ca, Cr and Zn in addition to C, O, Al, Si, and Fe, I would suggest that the Figure 14 spectrum is from material containing primer paint chips, but this is clearly quite different to the material that gave the Figure 6 and 7 spectra.

Certainly Jones et al. should have pointed this out and should have considered Tnemec primer as a source of at least some of their red chips.

So far from Frank Greening ruling out "the paint thing" years ago we have him on record saying that some of the chips certainly were paint chips. superlogicalthinker, please acknowledge that you were wrong.


In the same thread, Greening of course also says this:

Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips.

So it's back to the drawing board for those JREF debunkers.....

He is there talking about the chips, referred to by me and most others as "chips a-d", whose XEDS spectra are shown in Fig 6 and 7 of Harrit e.al., as he clarifies a little later:

I have seen the XEDS spectrum in Figure 14 of Jones et al's new paper and it does show a small zinc peak. However, there are also the two sets of XEDS spectra in Figures 6 and 7 which are allegedly taken from the gray (Figure 6) and the red (Figure 7) layers of the chips and these show absolutely no zinc.

Greening describes exactly the starting point of out thread here. If you would revisit the opening post, please:

...
The topic here is very limited: If the red-gray chips analysed by Harrit, Jones e.al. are paint, but not the twin tower steel primer Tnemec, what paint are they?


So here is how this debate starts:

I also mentioned your article on "nanothermite" and "chip (e)" (based on Sunstealer's findings) in my own article on nanothermite) Although it is rather off-topic here, I would like to ask you here again: Mostly thanks to Sunstealer, it is quite clear now that the chip (e) was a particle of WTC primer paint. But what about chips (a) to (d), are there some new ideas about their origin? Are there some hints that layered (perhaps even originally red?) materials consisted mostly of iron, aluminium, silicon, oxygen and carbon were used in a great amounts in WTC? (But we should perhaps move this OT to other, more on-topic forum)

Not that I know of.
It still seems that the red layer is some kind of paint ... I am not aware of anyone looking more deeply into it than Sunsteeler did more than 2 years ago. ...
...
NIST talks about the original WTC primer, called Tnemec. I wonder if they missed a second primer? ...

Frank said "So it's back to the drawing board for those JREF debunkers", because chips a-d are not Tnemec (but the MEK soaked chip if Fig 14 is).


The whole point of this thread is to open the drawing board here at the JREF. And we did, and we succeeded: We found a second type of primer with another, Zinc-free, formulation that was used on a significant portion of the WTC steel structure, namely the floor trusses, manufactued and primed by the LaClede Steel Company. We have shown in this thread that the data that Harrit e.al. present about chips a-d (mainly Fig. 6-10) matches nicely the expectations we have from the specification of the LaClede paint formulation, and that thus we have a new best positive explanation for Harrit's data.

Greening, years ago, was not aware of the LaClede primer specification, so he could not identify chips a-d as it. He was spot on when he wrote that they aren't Tnemec.

 

[carlitos]

Oystein, I don't want to go through all of the old posts in my Richard Gage debate thread, but somewhere in there Chris Sarns linked us to a legitimate study that showed that nanothermites had potential to be made into explosives.

While searching for the wheat amongst the bountiful chaff of MirageMemories' posts is not something I relished, he only had 9 posts in the "blueprint for truth" thread, none of them linking to such a study. I don't think so. I vaguely remember seeing a few articles that talked about adding nanothermite to a mix of other explosive elements to tailor the mixture for various reasons, but it's not an "explosive" per se.

 

[chrismohr]

While searching for the wheat amongst the bountiful chaff of MirageMemories' posts is not something I relished, he only had 9 posts in the "blueprint for truth" thread, none of them linking to such a study. I don't think so. I vaguely remember seeing a few articles that talked about adding nanothermite to a mix of other explosive elements to tailor the mixture for various reasons, but it's not an "explosive" per se.

I think it was chris7 not miragememories who had a link to that study; it was kind of hypothetical as I recall but it looked like it had some decent science behind it. AT any rate, after reading it I jumped off the "thermite can't be explosive" bandwagon because I can't assert that with certainty.

 

[chrismohr]

OK Oystein and Ivan, here's a link to my own YouTube video that talks about the explosive potential of nanothermitic material with a reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc

I got this from chris7 and it seemed to have some validity so I put it into my video. I talk about it around 2:55 in.

 

[carlitos]

PDF Link to the paper

Abstract is below.

In the field of composite energetic materials, properties such as ingredient distribution, particle size, and morphology affect both sensitivity and performance. Since the reaction kinetics of composite energetic materials are typically controlled by the mass transport rates between reactants, one would anticipate new and potentially exceptional performance from energetic nanocomposites. We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials. These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.

ETA - it's worth noting that this was still in the experimental stage in 2004.

 

[RedIbis]

Jim Millette did contract work and he and others at the lab where he works did at least 2 WTC dust studies I know of (around 2003?), one of them for the EPA (I think looking for environmental hazards). As part of these studies his lab received several dust samples with an ironclad chain of custody from EPA at least.

I'm going to stick my toe in these shark infested waters with full knowledge that what I'm about to post will bring on a spitstorm of vitriol.

Why is it assumed that a chain of custody from the EPA is ironclad? How do you know Millette has access to the samples just because he participated in the study? This is the same EPA that was convinced by the Bush White House to lie about the hazards of continuing to work at Ground Zero. Just because the agency is gov't related does not make them necessarily trustworthy. They absolutely have a motive for providing clean samples whether or not the provenance can be documented.

Forgive my skepticism, but analyzing material with a documented provenance that did not come from a gov't agency would be far more convincing.

Have at it guys. I've chummed the waters with pleny of red meat.

 

[DGM]

Have at it guys. I've chummed the waters with pleny of red meat.

How do you know the Jones/Harret chips are what they say? Why don't you start with your proof (considering this is all to refute what they claim)?

Forgive my skepticism.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm going to stick my toe in these shark infested waters with full knowledge that what I'm about to post will bring on a spitstorm of vitriol.

Why is it assumed that a chain of custody from the EPA is ironclad? How do you know Millette has access to the samples just because he participated in the study? This is the same EPA that was convinced by the Bush White House to lie about the hazards of continuing to work at Ground Zero. Just because the agency is gov't related does not make them necessarily trustworthy. They absolutely have a motive for providing clean samples whether or not the provenance can be documented.

Forgive my skepticism, but analyzing material with a documented provenance that did not come from a gov't agency would be far more convincing.

Have at it guys. I've chummed the waters with pleny of red meat.

I figured this was coming the moment I saw EPA. To some peoples's minds, you can just say They Were In On It, no proof of guilt required.

 

[RedIbis]

How do you know the Jones/Harret chips are what they say? Why don't you start with your proof (considering this is all to refute what they claim)?

Forgive my skepticism.

Jones provided the provenance. We've yet to hear how Millette got his other than taking it on faith that it's "ironclad."

 

[carlitos]

I expect Millette to provide documentation on the chain of custody as part of the paper.

 

[DGM]

Jones provided the provenance. We've yet to hear how Millette got his other than taking it on faith that it's "ironclad."

And you took it on his word. Right?

 

[RedIbis]

I expect Millette to provide documentation on the chain of custody as part of the paper.

So do I.

 

[DGM]

So do I.

So why are you questioning the origin of chips for a study that has not been presented?

 

[RedIbis]

And you took it on his word. Right?

Nope. Those who provided the samples provided sworn affadavits or videotaped testimony.

 

[RedIbis]

So why are you questioning the origin of chips for a study that has not been presented?

Because it's a basic question. Mohr is soliciting funds for a study of WTC dust. It would only be natural to ask where the samples come from.