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

[superlogicalthinker]

Yes, it does. Just about any paint I have ever seen hit with a welding torch does, if it is in small enough chips.

Black pepper explodes when it hits a hot stove burner.

JREF truley inspires me. To think, one can learn that paint is explosive over here.

C'mon Lefty, your reachin with your righty to much there big guy!!

 

[twinstead]

JREF truley inspires me. To think, one can learn that paint is explosive over here.

C'mon Lefty, your reachin with your righty to much there big guy!!

Is thermite explosive?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Since thermite, nano or otherwise DOESN'T EXPLODE in the first place, your point would be?

Really???? Nanothermite doesn't explode? Show me a reference for that please. I believe it was Chris Sarns that posted a link that said it did. At least that's what Mohr said in a previous post.

Nanothermite might not explode.....but the type of red/gray chip with explosive elements referred to as nanothermite is a very different thing because of the organic properties found by Harrit and Jones(Carbon)

This is what lots of people keep forgetting. "9/11 nanothermite" and "nanothermite" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!

Did Ventura put an organic property in his "superthermite"?? NO!!

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Is thermite explosive?

Are you serious ? if you are actually asking no its not.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is what lots of people keep forgetting. "9/11 nanothermite" and "nanothermite" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!

Did Ventura put an organic property in his "superthermite"?? NO!!

lulz!

 

[carlitos]

This is what lots of people keep forgetting. "9/11 nanothermite" and "nanothermite" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!

lulz!

lulz indeed. That is awesome. You couldn't invent a better illustration that the nanutherm*te nonsense is nothing more than an appeal to magic than what was posted above.

 

[Oystein]

JREF truley inspires me. To think, one can learn that paint is explosive over here.

C'mon Lefty, your reachin with your righty to much there big guy!!

I asked you before: Can you give us a source and quote for you claim that Harrit's chip explodes? Thanks.
I asked because nowhere in the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" by Harrit e.al. (2009) is the word "explode" or "explosive" used to describe the conflagration of the red-gray chips. Instead, this is described as "burn quickly" with a "bright flash", but that no burn rate has been established (page 29). I therefore refute your claim that the chips "explode". Please clear this up before you go around calling us things that are not so nice!

 

[Robrob]

Yes, it does. Just about any paint I have ever seen hit with a welding torch does, if it is in small enough chips.

Black pepper explodes when it hits a hot stove burner.

JREF truley inspires me. To think, one can learn that paint is explosive over here.

C'mon Lefty, your reachin with your righty to much there big guy!!

He said "small enough chips." That and the black pepper comment were references to dust explosions. That you know nothing about the subject you are pontificating over isn't our fault.

Really???? Nanothermite doesn't explode? Show me a reference for that please. I believe it was Chris Sarns that posted a link that said it did. At least that's what Mohr said in a previous post.

Thermite burns hot and fast, it does not "explode." In demolitions it serves as an igniter for the explosive charge. Feel free to provide a reference showing it does explode.

Nanothermite might not explode.....but the type of red/gray chip with explosive elements referred to as nanothermite is a very different thing because of the organic properties found by Harrit and Jones(Carbon)

Yes, it was magic pixie dust.

Otherwise, no - it was ordinary paint chips contaminated by the very expected rusted rebar (iron oxide) and aluminum wiring (oxidized aluminum) found in all skyscrapers.

This is what lots of people keep forgetting. "9/11 nanothermite" and "nanothermite" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!

Did Ventura put an organic property in his "superthermite"?? NO!!

Complete "woo." I say you are parroting "science-like" phrases you do not understand but have copied from other truther sites. Feel free to tell us what you think "9/11 nanothermite" and "nanothermite" are in the first place. Then tell us what you think you mean by an "organic property."

 

[leftysergeant]

Really???? Nanothermite doesn't explode? Show me a reference for that please. I believe it was Chris Sarns that posted a link that said it did. At least that's what Mohr said in a previous post.

Sarns is not much of an authority on anything that I can think of. Certainly less so than several people on this forum.

Nanothermite might not explode.....but the type of red/gray chip with explosive elements referred to as nanothermite is a very different thing because of the organic properties found by Harrit and Jones(Carbon)

Just about any mixture of an organic resin with an oxidizing agent and or air will deflagrate quite energeticly when heated to a suficient temperature, especially if it is in small chunks. Ground black pepper is quite energetic when it deflagrates.

Did Ventura put an organic property in his "superthermite"?? NO!!

Maybe you failed to notice that Ventura is not exactly the brightest twoofer on the internet. He may very well be suffering the early stages of dementia, though it would be hard to tell. He never did seem to have all his headbolts torqued right.

So far, I have not seen anyone other than Ivan replicate anything remotely similar to the chips that Jones and Harrit examined, and that was in an attempt to simulate La Clede primer.

 

[Oystein]

Folks, please! AGAIN: Focus! What is the topic of this thread? Is it "thermite" in any way, shape or form? NO!

In fact, the OP states quite specifically:

So please do not repeat any of the discussions we had before about
- why the red-grey chips are or aren't thermitic
...
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?

...

Please do not debate what this or that sort of thermite is or isn't - any discussion of thermite of any kind is explicitly off-topic here! Please do not respond to off-topic posts!



The topic is the properties and identity of the chips, under the assumption that they are not thermite.
superlogicalthinker made a claim about the chips: That they "explode". The veracity of this fact has not been established. I asked slt to please provide evidence (a quote) for this claim. Please make sure that we are dealing with facts and not with false claims by holding back with your comments until slt has backed up his bare-assed assertion with evidence, or admitted that his claim is unsupported and false!


Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: I'd like to be polite, therefore I'm not going to comment superlogicalthinker's expressions like "organic property"

Anyway, as regards explosions, it seems that superlogicalthinker tries to blankly refer to the page 22 of Bentham paper, where tests with oxyacetylene torch were described. Let me remind: highly blurred Fig. 22 in the paper served as some link to equally blurred video, which can be seen here.
At the time ca 4 to 5 sec we can see some spark allegedly coming from the heated chip (not specified or characterized in any way), which is again shown at time ca 17 sec at decelerate frame rate (not specified). This single, scarcely visible spark seems to be a crucial proof of controlled demolition of WTC by nanot----te, since it is considered to be an "explosion" by remaining "nanotruthers".
As has been discussed elsewhere and mentioned even in this thread: the temperature of oxyacetylene torch exceeds 3000 degrees Celsius, therefore no wonder that heated chip (containing polymer binder) was extremely overheated in this way. Rapidly formed combustible gases from the degradation of polymer binder of course ignited and some spark was formed (perhaps accompanied with the ejection of some burned material). This is exactly what I would suppose to happen with, e.g., chip of red primer paint

 

[Oystein]

Ivan, thanks for doing superlogical's legwork, but you may have robbed him of an opportunity to learn a bit.

The point is that not even Harrit e.al. describe the reaction in this experiment as an "explosion". They explicitlyy write that the burn rate needs to be determined before the reaction can be classified in terms of reaction kinetics.

It is extremely obvious that whatever happens in this video is powered by the application of external heat. Even if the chip did not react chemically at all, it could break up "violently", giving off sparks, because of the production of gas through evaporation, or because of tensions within the chip caused by heat.


@ superlogicalthinker: Do you understand that your assertion "Harrit's chips explode" is not suppoerted by data, nor even by Harrit e.al. themselves?

 

[NoahFence]

deleted.

unreal.

 

[chrismohr]

Hopefully this is relevant to the upcoming series of experiments Jim Millette will be doing on the WTC dust samples. Forgive me Oystein if it is not. Millette has stated that his initial tests on the red-gray chips are consistent with paint, but that further tests may show differently (and he will be looking to see if there is thermitic material).

Millette has also been accused of "deception" by chemist and 9/11 experimenter Kevin Ryan, because he didn't mention iron microspheres in the dust he studied and reported on. This morning I took a little time to fact-check Kevin's accusation because several of us on both sides of this debate have put money on the table to have him study these red-gray chips. An accusation of deception on the part of the lead experimenter is a serious one, and since I plan to give Dr. Millette the go-ahead this week I wanted to take one more look at that accusation to be sure we're not wasting our money.

Here is the Jim Millette study Kevin Ryan accuses of being deceptive:

57_Lioy-characterization east of wtc.pdf

To save you all time, I scanned through it. He wrote, "The SEM dispersive X-Ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials." So iron was definitely found in dust-size particles (this was a study of dust) and duly reported in the study.

The study looks much more closely at concentrations of environmental contaminants, and they found and measured amounts of mercury, arsenic, low-level radioactive materials, lead, glass fibers, dioxins, silica, asbestos, radionuclides, pesticides, diphenyl ethers, partially burned jet fuel, cellulose, and a large number of complex organic chemicals. The purpose of the study? "The results... can be used to understand... the exposures... and the evaluations of any acute or long term health effects." This was a study to help understand the possible health hazards of exposure to WTC dust.

Here is how Jim Millette responded to Kevin's accusation of deception:

"Chris, I can assure you that we will proceed in an objective, scientific manner and report what we find. At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization. I do not see anything in our article that he linked (an original copy of the article published in Environmental Health Perspectives is a attached) to suggest that we were publishing misleading data. Jim Millette"

I am fully satisfied with his answer and the integrity of this study, Kevin Ryan's accusations notwithstanding. Millette's study mentions "large signals for iron." Yesterday one of Kevin's supporters told me I should have the "courage" to keep pressing Dr. Millette on the matter of not identifying them as microspheres. It is not my question. It is Kevin Ryan's false accusation of deception, which I can find no evidence of. Dr. Millette mentioned lots of dust-sized iron particles in the study but Kevin attacks him for the fact that he didn't call them microspheres. It would be madness to go further with this line of questioning. I had the courage to ask Dr. Millette once. He was gracious enough to answer me. I had the courage to tell Kevin Ryan he's making ad hominem attacks. He called me dishonest.

 

[Miragememories]

Ivan, thanks for doing superlogical's legwork, but you may have robbed him of an opportunity to learn a bit.

The point is that not even Harrit e.al. describe the reaction in this experiment as an "explosion". They explicitlyy write that the burn rate needs to be determined before the reaction can be classified in terms of reaction kinetics.

It is extremely obvious that whatever happens in this video is powered by the application of external heat. Even if the chip did not react chemically at all, it could break up "violently", giving off sparks, because of the production of gas through evaporation, or because of tensions within the chip caused by heat.


@ superlogicalthinker: Do you understand that your assertion "Harrit's chips explode" is not suppoerted by data, nor even by Harrit e.al. themselves?

At the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto, on September 10, 2011, Dr. Harrit did argue that nanothermite (superthermite) is highly customizable and can be very explosive.

He stated the introductory question; "Are there such a thing as thermitic explosives?"

As part of his presentation, Dr. Harrit cited two papers which extolled the potential of this nanotechnology.

From a symposium on defense applications of nanomaterials, San Diego, 2001
Nanoenergetics: An Emerging Technology Area of National Importance:
Dr. Andrzej Miziokek

"At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE (Dept. of Energy) and academic laboratories have active Research and Development programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives and propellant applications."

And.

A report from the MIT publication Technology in Review, January 21, 2005
Military Reloads with Nanotech
by John Gartner

"Nanotechnology is grabbing headlines for its potential in advancing the life sciences and computing research, but the Department of Defense (DoD) found another use: a new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.

With funding from the U.S. government, Sandia National Laboratories, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are researching how to manipulate the flow of energy within and between molecules, a field known as nanoenergentics, which enables building more lethal weapons such as "cave-buster bombs" that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs such as the "daisy cutter" or MOAB (mother of all bombs).

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.
"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says.
Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.
"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.
However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research..."

MM

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Oystein: I'd like to be polite, therefore I'm not going to comment superlogicalthinker's expressions like "organic property"

Anyway, as regards explosions, it seems that superlogicalthinker tries to blankly refer to the page 22 of Bentham paper, where tests with oxyacetylene torch were described. Let me remind: highly blurred Fig. 22 in the paper served as some link to equally blurred video, which can be seen here.
At the time ca 4 to 5 sec we can see some spark allegedly coming from the heated chip (not specified or characterized in any way), which is again shown at time ca 17 sec at decelerate frame rate (not specified). This single, scarcely visible spark seems to be a crucial proof of controlled demolition of WTC by nanot----te, since it is considered to be an "explosion" by remaining "nanotruthers".
As has been discussed elsewhere and mentioned even in this thread: the temperature of oxyacetylene torch exceeds 3000 degrees Celsius, therefore no wonder that heated chip (containing polymer binder) was extremely overheated in this way. Rapidly formed combustible gases from the degradation of polymer binder of course ignited and some spark was formed (perhaps accompanied with the ejection of some burned material). This is exactly what I would suppose to happen with, e.g., chip of red primer paint

Thank you Ivan for agreeing with me. I was familiar with pg. 22 of the Bentham paper (torch tests)....but that was not my reference.

BTW...you refer to the degree of 3000 C...where in the paper does it say that temperature was reached and the chip was put to resist those temperatures? Nowhere that I see. However, the paper does say this:

"that a thermitic reaction actually occurs as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 °C."

The "ignition is observed" in my opinion is telling you it explodes. You can't have an explosion without an ignition. I suppose nobody sees it that way over here though do they?

I have always leaned toward the hypothesis that the incendiaries were used in 1 and 2 as an ignition for something with explosive properties to pulverize the concrete the way it was.

Also, here is what they say happened when they put paint to the "torch test":

"Several paint samples were
also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately
reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the
case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World
Trade Center dust.

So I still agree with the notion that paint does not explode.

 

[NoahFence]

The "ignition is observed" in my opinion is telling you it explodes. You can't have an explosion without an ignition. I suppose nobody sees it that way over here though do they?

However, you can have ignition without explosions.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
Millette has also been accused of "deception" by chemist and 9/11 experimenter Kevin Ryan, because he didn't mention iron microspheres in the dust he studied and reported on.
......

As part of their base data, the R J Lee 9/11 Liberty Street dust report sampled and noted the presence of iron microspheres in samples of:

Commercial buildings in New York.
And other major cities.
Before 9/11/2001.

Proving that iron microspheres exist in buildings that have not been CD'd by thermite.
Proving that there can be other sources of iron microspheres such as the high temperatures created by the welding of steel.

 

[Oystein]

Thank you Ivan for agreeing with me. I was familiar with pg. 22 of the Bentham paper (torch tests)....but that was not my reference.

Ivan surely does not agree with you, but let him tell you that himself.
What was your reference then?

BTW...you refer to the degree of 3000 C...where in the paper does it say that temperature was reached and the chip was put to resist those temperatures? Nowhere that I see.

Ivan knows what an Oxyacetylene torch is and that "Acetylene when combined with oxygen burns at a temperature of 3200 °C to 3500 °C (5800 °F to 6300 °F), highest among commonly used gaseous fuels" (Wikipedia).

However, the paper does say this:

"that a thermitic reaction actually occurs as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 °C."

The "ignition is observed" in my opinion is telling you it explodes. You can't have an explosion without an ignition. I suppose nobody sees it that way over here though do they?

This opinion rests on faulty logic. A (chemical) explosion requires/implies ignition, but ignition does not imply an explosion. When you ignite a fire in your fireplace, you don't have an explosion.
I recommend that you pick up a good thesaurus and look up the meaning of the words ignition ("the starting of a fire") and explosion ("a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth").

I have always leaned toward the hypothesis that the incendiaries were used in 1 and 2 as an ignition for something with explosive properties to pulverize the concrete the way it was.

Opinion duly noted and dismissed.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens, from the Latin "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.")

Also, here is what they say happened when they put paint to the "torch test":

"Several paint samples were
also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately
reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the
case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World
Trade Center dust.

So I still agree with the notion that paint does not explode.

Yes, I think we can all agree that paint usually does not explode.
Neither do Harrit's chips.

You have been asked to provide evidence for your assertion that Harrit's chips explode. You failed to bring such evidence. Assertion hence dismissed. I would be thankful if you would try to not waste our time here any further with this nonsense. Thank you.

 

[Oystein]

Chris, thanks for checking Jim's track record on the matter and keeping us informed about the unfortunate derisions from Kevin's camp.

ETA: Here is the study by Lioy, Milette e.al:
Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001
(Link to PDF included in that doc)

ETA2: This paper describes the provenance of the dust samples thus:

samples of particles that initially settled in downtown NYC were taken from three undisturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (16 September 2001) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (17 September 2001)
...
The first sample was collected from protected external ledges around the entrance of a building on Cortlandt Street, which is one block east of the WTC building complex. The initial direction of the plume was from west to east (Figure 1); thus, the other two samples were collected at locations to the east of Cortlandt Street. These two samples were collected from 10–15 cm-thick deposits that were on the top of two automobiles about 0.7 km from the WTC site. The automobiles were in locations protected from rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001. One automobile was located on Cherry Street, and the other was on Market Street, one and two city blocks, respectively, west of the East River between the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. These cars appeared to have been in their respective locations since 11 September, but it is possible that each could have been moved from an adjacent thoroughfare on the east side of NYC (FDR Drive).
... The samples were collected using the protocols established for surface soil collection in our studies of the dispersal of chromium-laden hazardous waste in Jersey City, New Jersey (2), and the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (3). After collection, all samples were
stored in a 4°C room prior to sending the subfractions to individual laboratories for analysis. We maintained chain of custody throughout sample transferal and analyses.

The references are
(2) Kitsa V, Lioy PJ, Chow JC, Watson JG, Shupack S, Howell T, Sanders P. Particle size distribution of chromium— total and hexavalent chromium in inspirable and respirable soil particles from contaminated sites in New Jersey. Aerosol Sci Technol 17:213–229 (1992).
(3) Pellizzari E, Lioy PJ, Quackenboss J, Whitmore R, Clayton A, Freeman N, Waldman J, Thomas K, Rodes C, Wilcosky T. The design and implementation of phase I national human exposure assessment study in EPA Region V. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5:327–358 (1995).