• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

alexi_drago said:
Yes, but if a paint designed for environmental protection was found to have slightly better performance in a fire than other similarly designed paints then it would be a preferred choice whether it was understood or not.

So I'm still wondering if the residue from this burning paint, possibly with the products of a thermitic reaction, could offer some (even only slight) increase in heat/fire protection opposed to paint that just burnt away or didn't react until a higher temperature.
Click to expand...

My (uneducated) guess here is that flakes of cured LaClede paint alone would ignite below 430°C (Ivan did experiments on some run-off-the-mill epoxy mixed with some Fe2O3 pigments and others (?) and found it ignites at, iirc, 380°C), but that the oxidized steel adhering to the red chips inhibits this earlier ignition in the DSC setup. 430°C is not a particularly outlandish temperature for organic solids to ignite.
 
Oystein: During last november, I also sent an e-mail to the Electrocoating Association. That time, I did not mention any conspiracy theory and I asked just one question: "Is it possible that in late sixties, nanosized iron oxides were used in epoxy paints for electrocoating?". No answer whatsoever again. Perhaps I am simply not good in writing letters, especially in English... Wait... NIST has not answered, PPG Industries has not answered, Electrocoating Association has not answered... perhaps they all are hiding something horrible, a kind of megaconspiracy:cool:


But sorry for this bad joke and seriously again: I'm not sure if I understand your points, alexi_drago.
Whereas layer for corrosion protection of steel can be very thin (few tens of microns, i.e. as thin as the crosssection of human hair or thinner), any heat protection/insulation layer must be inevitably much, much thicker to be efficient enough.
As concerns burning of "our" paint layer, I would guess: If the polymer binder is completely "burned out" and the layer preserves its original thickness, it should be a slightly better thermal insulator, since polymer is replaced with air (which has substantially lower thermal conductivity than any polymer - about 100times lower). Btw, if the layer was nanothermite and also preserves its thickness after burning (just hypothetically), binder is again burned out and replaced with air, iron oxide is transformed to iron and aluminum to aluminium oxide. I am now too lazy to go through some tables, just compare thermal conductivities of these stuffs. Anyway, such layers cannot be intended as a thermal protection for steel. And they cannot be intended for the destruction of steel as well:o)
 
Last edited:
I've discovered that it takes a lot of nagging to get what you want from scientists, even when you have $ to offer. I had to contact over two dozen scientists and labs to get my thermite test organized competently. It may take some harassing to get anything out of NIST etc. in the way of Laclede paint samples from the WTC beams at the hangar. But hey, I'll be telling Jim Millette to go ahead with the study, and there's no harm in asking if he has any known samples of paint chips from the WTC disaster, esp. Laclede primer.

Speaking of which, I got several checks on Monday, which brought us to within around $180 of our goal. Several people have said they mailed other checks which have yet to arrive. So today I will just go ahead and call Dr. Millette. I can't stand the waiting and I'm sure the $ will come through our newly slowed-down post office soon!
 
The Dust Study is Started

Hi all,

I just called Dr. James Millette and the WTC dust study is now starting. He was very happy to get the green light, and told me he has already started the work anyway. He was busy in the lab but I did ask him a few quick questions and then wrote out the rest in an email.

Here's some of my requests:
1) We are all hoping for a protocol of what you will do as you move forward (which tests will you do).
2) Will you look for nanothermitic evidence as well as thermitics (sol gels etc)?
3) Can you give us a rough idea as to how long this study may take?
4) Do you happen to have a sample of Laclede paint primer from the floor trusses of WTC I and II? Some chemists and others who have contributed to this study believe we are looking at Laclede primer (someone else mentioned tmenec primer??) and they want to test this primer against the results found in the Bentham paper. IVAN AND OYSTEIN: he said maybe yes and will look into this.
5) Do you know which paints were used on the WTC (there must be hundreds)? HE SAID HE MAY KNOW OF A STUDY AND IF SO WILL FORWARD IT.
6) In your preliminary look-see of the red-gray chips, did you pull them out using a magnet? If the chips are magnetically responsive, do you think that is from the iron in the gray layer?
7) I got a strongly favorable recommendation about you and the quality of your work from a fire safety expert and 9/11 first responder [TRI]. He is wondering if there will be an open forum at some point (I'm not sure what this is). I also wonder about your presentations before the forensic scientists and the peer review. I ask because I have family in Atlanta and I would enjoy combining a family trip with a visit to some kind of forum or presentation you may do re this study. If so, what is the protocol for questions from me in such a forum, especially if I am asking questions from the 9/11 Truth activists?

I did NOT ask for evidence of chain of custody yet, but I did mention that we want to be sure that is in the final report. I also re-emphasized the importance of testing the right chips, since Kevin Ryan says there are paint chips and there are thermitic chips and I know the difference but I'm not telling you which is which. I fear he will then claim we tested the wrong chips once the results are out.

I'll get more initial answers to these questions by next Wednesday or so when he finishes a major project.

THANK YOU everyone on both sides of the debate for contributing to this study!
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Hi all,

I just called Dr. James Millette and the WTC dust study is now starting. He was very happy to get the green light, and told me he has already started the work anyway. He was busy in the lab but I did ask him a few quick questions and then wrote out the rest in an email.

Here's some of my requests:
1) We are all hoping for a protocol of what you will do as you move forward (which tests will you do).
2) Will you look for nanothermitic evidence as well as thermitics (sol gels etc)?
3) Can you give us a rough idea as to how long this study may take?
4) Do you happen to have a sample of Laclede paint primer from the floor trusses of WTC I and II? Some chemists and others who have contributed to this study believe we are looking at Laclede primer (someone else mentioned tmenec primer??) and they want to test this primer against the results found in the Bentham paper. IVAN AND OYSTEIN: he said maybe yes and will look into this.
5) Do you know which paints were used on the WTC (there must be hundreds)? HE SAID HE MAY KNOW OF A STUDY AND IF SO WILL FORWARD IT.
6) In your preliminary look-see of the red-gray chips, did you pull them out using a magnet? If the chips are magnetically responsive, do you think that is from the iron in the gray layer?
7) I got a strongly favorable recommendation about you and the quality of your work from a fire safety expert and 9/11 first responder [TRI]. He is wondering if there will be an open forum at some point (I'm not sure what this is). I also wonder about your presentations before the forensic scientists and the peer review. I ask because I have family in Atlanta and I would enjoy combining a family trip with a visit to some kind of forum or presentation you may do re this study. If so, what is the protocol for questions from me in such a forum, especially if I am asking questions from the 9/11 Truth activists?

I did NOT ask for evidence of chain of custody yet, but I did mention that we want to be sure that is in the final report. I also re-emphasized the importance of testing the right chips, since Kevin Ryan says there are paint chips and there are thermitic chips and I know the difference but I'm not telling you which is which. I fear he will then claim we tested the wrong chips once the results are out.

I'll get more initial answers to these questions by next Wednesday or so when he finishes a major project.

THANK YOU everyone on both sides of the debate for contributing to this study!
Click to expand...

This sounds great, I am sure I speak on behalf of many that say the excitement is tough to handle.

Good work Chris, hats off to you sir.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Oystein: During last november, I also sent an e-mail to the Electrocoating Association. That time, I did not mention any conspiracy theory and I asked just one question: "Is it possible that in late sixties, nanosized iron oxides were used in epoxy paints for electrocoating?". No answer whatsoever again. Perhaps I am simply not good in writing letters, especially in English... Wait... NIST has not answered, PPG Industries has not answered, Electrocoating Association has not answered... perhaps they all are hiding something horrible, a kind of megaconspiracy:cool:


But sorry for this bad joke and seriously again: I'm not sure if I understand your points, alexi_drago.
Whereas layer for corrosion protection of steel can be very thin (few tens of microns, i.e. as thin as the crosssection of human hair or thinner), any heat protection/insulation layer must be inevitably much, much thicker to be efficient enough.
Click to expand...
How thick would the titanium aluminium layer that forms in the burn off and enhances the thermal resistance up to 800C be?

As concerns burning of "our" paint layer, I would guess: If the polymer binder is completely "burned out" and the layer preserves its original thickness, it should be a slightly better thermal insulator, since polymer is replaced with air (which has substantially lower thermal conductivity than any polymer - about 100times lower). Btw, if the layer was nanothermite and also preserves its thickness after burning (just hypothetically), binder is again burned out and replaced with air, iron oxide is transformed to iron and aluminum to aluminium oxide. I am now too lazy to go through some tables, just compare thermal conductivities of these stuffs. Anyway, such layers cannot be intended as a thermal protection for steel. And they cannot be intended for the destruction of steel as well:o)
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was just wondering if there could have been crude versions of the things that are being done with the materials we have now.
 
I'm fizzing at the bumhole with excitement Chris, can't wait for the results. Nice work, and much appreciation from all of us!
 
Human life is no longer possible at 430 C, so I do not see that it matters a great deal if the paint goes "poof!"
 
One more thing re the dust test... I'm still about $200 short. Some people who promised to send me money, it hasn't arrived yet. if you promised to send and haven't yet, can you do so right away?
 
chrismohr said:
I did NOT ask for evidence of chain of custody yet, but I did mention that we want to be sure that is in the final report. !
Click to expand...

It should have been your first question. I do wonder why you're so reluctant to specifically ask where he's getting the material. It's what your entire study is going to hinge on.
 
RedIbis said:
It should have been your first question. I do wonder why you're so reluctant to specifically ask where he's getting the material. It's what your entire study is going to hinge on.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling asking for the same thing over and over isn't going to change the answer you get, at least not right away. You're over 10 years in. A few more weeks won't kill ya. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom