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

[chrismohr]

My opinion is that you should give him whatever you collect. Make it a tip, or whatever. If he refuses, give it to the JREF, or some other respectable NPO. Maybe a nice 9/11 childrens charity.

I like it Tri!

 

[Oystein]

It has everything to do with Harrits chip. This is what would have happened before the nanothermite exploded.
I guess you could tecnicly say that the red gray chips did not explode...

Thanks for finally retracting your initial and false claim that Harrit's chips exploded.

.. explode yet you mean right?! They are still ACTIVE! They explode when you heat them to 430C....as they explain on pg.22 of the paper....they are "active thermitic material". active means they can still explode in case your confused.

No. "Active" means they are not fully oxidized and inert, and can be ignited. They burn under air. It's the organic matrix, you see, that Harrit e.al. noticed and realized would contribute to the exotherm reaction. No talk of explosions. Anywhere.

 

[Oystein]

My opinion is that you should give him whatever you collect. Make it a tip, or whatever. If he refuses, give it to the JREF, or some other respectable NPO. Maybe a nice 9/11 childrens charity.

I can agree to all these options.

 

[ozeco41]

I can agree to all these options.

Me too.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: OK, thanks for good news for (almost) everyone I also agree with triforcharity.

Superlogicalthinker: If you insist, stay here. Just try to post something which is based on some facts.

You e.g. wrote: "You cannot have an explosion without the explosion having an ignition. Period."

Although it's not really relevant here, some correction: explosions without ignition are actually happening many million times a day in your neighbourhood, since it is a principle of any diesel engine (perhaps even in your own car). This is why diesel engines don't need spark plugs. Also, many explosives can be exploded without ignition, e.g. nitroglycerin. This why Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Etc. Try to read webs like Howstuffworks or some children books on these technical topics.

You also e.g. wrote: "They (red chips, I.K.) explode when you heat them to 430C....as they explain on pg.22 of the paper."

I understand that you are not able/willing to read this thread, it's not always an easy reading. But you should definitely read and understand at least your Book of Revelation aka Bentham paper. On the p. 22, there is nothing written on any spontaneous explosion. On that page, just (already discussed) flame tests on chips using extreme overheating by oxyacetylene torch are described and there is only this notion: "However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling 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." No explosion is mentioned even here and DSC exotherms on Fig. 19 are quite broad, indicating a release of heat in the broad temperature ranges cca 50-100 degrees C (which corresponds to ca 5 to 10 minutes, considering a heating rate 10 degrees per minute). Consequently, no explosions occured in DSC machine. I would again expect such a behavior, e.g., for some primer paint chips

 

[beachnut]

LOL....the Ventrura video. Nice one buddy.

And your other video was a good look a a conventional explosion. really loud and stuff.....too bad that has zero to do with the explosive material forund at the WTC site.

... You are right, zero explosive material at the WTC. Explosive material claims are insane. No explosives were used to destroy the WTC on 911. Fire did it.

 

[ozeco41]

...Although it's not really relevant here, some correction: explosions without ignition are actually happening many million times a day in your neighbourhood, since it is a principle of any diesel engine (perhaps even in your own car). This is why diesel engines don't need spark plugs....

You might want to reconsider those statements Ivan.

...especially since diesel engines are alternatively known as compression-ignition engines.

...and compression-ignition engines don't need spark plugs because the heat of compression serves to initiate ignition to burn the fuel air mix.

...and the resulting expansion is specifically not an "explosion".

Both sides of these recent discussions have been guilty of loose usage of the term "explosive" or "explosion".

Whatever we call the results of igniting thermXte the range of explosions which are relevant to 9/11 WTC collapse discussions are those explosions which are fast enough to cut steel. Normally referred to as "high explosives".

 

[Ivan Kminek]

OK, Ozeco, as concerns correct technical terms, I perhaps mismatched very rapid expansions of burning gases in Diesel engines with explosions, but they do not require sparks for ignition, which was my point. Anyway, it is not really important here

 

[leftysergeant]

http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/sol-gel.html

Left transmission electron
Micro graph of a sol gel incorporating Fe203/Al (thermite) nanocomposites illustrate the extremely fine mixing of ultra fine aluminum and iron oxide.

And then add some carbon.....BOOM!!!!

Dude, that crap in no way resembles the Jones chips. We see here globules of aluminum. Jones shows us silicon plates on which he says the aluminum s concentrated. (This is, of course a delusion growing from Jones' abyssmal ignorance of much of anything outside his narrow comeptency. The silicon structures are actually kaolinite, and identifiable as such by any person with an IQ over 75% and no debilitating mental defect, once they have been shown a kaolinite crystal.)

FAIL.

 

[twinstead]

superlogicalthinker perhaps you should stick to threads that aren't filled with people who actually know what they are talking about. I've learned quite a bit from these folks

 

[A W Smith]

Chris: OK, thanks for good news for (almost) everyone I also agree with triforcharity.

Superlogicalthinker: If you insist, stay here. Just try to post something which is based on some facts.

You e.g. wrote: "You cannot have an explosion without the explosion having an ignition. Period."

Although it's not really relevant here, some correction: explosions without ignition are actually happening many million times a day in your neighbourhood, since it is a principle of any diesel engine (perhaps even in your own car). This is why diesel engines don't need spark plugs. Also, many explosives can be exploded without ignition, e.g. nitroglycerin. This why Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Etc. Try to read webs like Howstuffworks or some children books on these technical topics.

You also e.g. wrote: "They (red chips, I.K.) explode when you heat them to 430C....as they explain on pg.22 of the paper."

I understand that you are not able/willing to read this thread, it's not always an easy reading. But you should definitely read and understand at least your Book of Revelation aka Bentham paper. On the p. 22, there is nothing written on any spontaneous explosion. On that page, just (already discussed) flame tests on chips using extreme overheating by oxyacetylene torch are described and there is only this notion: "However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling 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." No explosion is mentioned even here and DSC exotherms on Fig. 19 are quite broad, indicating a release of heat in the broad temperature ranges cca 50-100 degrees C (which corresponds to ca 5 to 10 minutes, considering a heating rate 10 degrees per minute). Consequently, no explosions occured in DSC machine. I would again expect such a behavior, e.g., for some primer paint chips

You can ignite nitromethane for instance more easily with a hammer than you can with a match.

http://www.wediditforlove.com/techtalk4.html

[SIZE=-1]A match will not light nitromethane. Dropped into a pool of nitro spillage floor, the match will sizzle and extinguish just as if it had fallen in a pool of tap water. But take a hammer and hit the pool - it will explode. The small amount of fuel caught between the hammer face and the concrete floor will become unstable and cause a spontaneous fire which occurs quickly enough to be labeled an explosion. The tiny bit of lit fuel is hot enough to set off the rest. And bigger the pool, the bigger the explosion. Enough nitro and the result will be a good-sized crater in the cement floor.[/SIZE]

 

[superlogicalthinker]

You can ignite nitromethane for instance more easily with a hammer than you can with a match.

http://www.wediditforlove.com/techtalk4.html

"take a hammer and hit the pool - it will explode. The small amount of fuel caught between the hammer face and the concrete floor will become unstable and cause a spontaneous fire "

Does nobody else see the spark here?

Someone please post a video of an explosion that occuered with no ignition or spark to set it off please. I want to see that.

 

[The Big Dog]

"take a hammer and hit the pool - it will explode. The small amount of fuel caught between the hammer face and the concrete floor will become unstable and cause a spontaneous fire "

Does nobody else see the spark here?

Someone please post a video of an explosion that occuered with no ignition or spark to set it off please. I want to see that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF_Wrm-Ns0I

 

[pgimeno]

"This opinion rests on faulty logic. A (chemical) explosion requires/implies ignition, but ignition does not imply an explosion."

You cannot have an explosion without the explosion having an ignition. Period.

Let's see if this helps.

Note that both sentences highlighted in yellow are saying the same thing.

Now try to read the red sentence and understand it. It means that there can exist both ignition *with* an explosion, AND ignition *without* an explosion.

The ATM text states that they observe ignition.

They don't observe an explosion. Therefore they don't prove that it is explosive. The data in the paper suggest it is not.

 

[Oystein]

Very obviously, superlogicalthinker has not yet read this thread and has not familiarized himself with what we have learned so far. That's the only possible explanation for his bringing up Zinc. He would know that our theory is currently this: The chips that don't contain Zinc (a-d) are a primer paint that doesn't contain zinc (LaClede standard primer).

it seems that superlogicalthinker is not here to learn. But without him learning a little first to come to our level, he can't contribute positively to this debate.

I suggest we ignore him till he shows progess. How about you all ask yourselves before you reply to slt: Will your reply bring us a step further to identifying the chemical composition and origin of the red-gray chips? If not, don't post.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Very obviously, superlogicalthinker has not yet read this thread and has not familiarized himself with what we have learned so far. That's the only possible explanation for his bringing up Zinc. He would know that our theory is currently this: The chips that don't contain Zinc (a-d)

it seems that superlogicalthinker is not here to learn. But without him learning a little first to come to our level, he can't contribute positively to this debate.

I suggest we ignore him till he shows progess. How about you all ask yourselves before you reply to slt: Will your reply bring us a step further to identifying the chemical composition and origin of the red-gray chips? If not, don't post.

are a primer paint that doesn't contain zinc (LaClede standard primer).

and where is your proof that this LaClede paint was used in the WCT?

 

[Oystein]

Since we are on a new page, maybe this is a good time to ask for help:


What makes the red-gray chips attractive to magnets?

Remember that the red-gray chips were pulled from the dust by a permanent magnet? Since I doubt that any of the constituents of LaClede standard primer are attracted by magnet (hematite isn't afaik, kaolin sure isn't), it stands to reason that the gray layers are responsible for the magnetic attraction. However, I presume that they don't contain any elemental, ferromagnetic iron but are oxidized through. Do you have any references that proof that oxidized steel surfaces would be expected to contain magnetic stuff? Fe3O4 maybe?

 

[leftysergeant]

Since we are on a new page, maybe this is a good time to ask for help:


What makes the red-gray chips attractive to magnets?

Remember that the red-gray chips were pulled from the dust by a permanent magnet? Since I doubt that any of the constituents of LaClede standard primer are attracted by magnet (hematite isn't afaik, kaolin sure isn't), it stands to reason that the gray layers are responsible for the magnetic attraction.

Most oxides of iron are magnetic. I keep picking up all manner of pebbles when policing up my steel cartridges at the rifle range with a magnet. Magnetic hematite jewelry is thought to have some ort of healing power in shamanistic practice.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Since we are on a new page, maybe this is a good time to ask for help:


What makes the red-gray chips attractive to magnets?

Remember that the red-gray chips were pulled from the dust by a permanent magnet? Since I doubt that any of the constituents of LaClede standard primer are attracted by magnet (hematite isn't afaik, kaolin sure isn't), it stands to reason that the gray layers are responsible for the magnetic attraction. However, I presume that they don't contain any elemental, ferromagnetic iron but are oxidized through. Do you have any references that proof that oxidized steel surfaces would be expected to contain magnetic stuff? Fe3O4 maybe?

Thats a legitimate question. What? Your not gonna answer that one bud. Where do you have the proof that Leclade paint was used in the WTC?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Since we are on a new page, maybe this is a good time to ask for help:


What makes the red-gray chips attractive to magnets?

Remember that the red-gray chips were pulled from the dust by a permanent magnet? Since I doubt that any of the constituents of LaClede standard primer are attracted by magnet (hematite isn't afaik, kaolin sure isn't), it stands to reason that the gray layers are responsible for the magnetic attraction. However, I presume that they don't contain any elemental, ferromagnetic iron but are oxidized through. Do you have any references that proof that oxidized steel surfaces would be expected to contain magnetic stuff? Fe3O4 maybe?

Since when is paint magnetic. This is getting funny.