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

[Oystein]

Very excellent, Chris.

So I guess we can let this thread sleep for about 3 weeks until Jim comes around with preliminary findings.
Unless anyone has something new until then (I hope I will).

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It still baffles me that given his expertise, he appeared to show so little curiosity about this previous discovery.

does it not occur to you that his expertise would be the reason why he shows little interest?

 

[NoahFence]

The issues at stake is far more important than personal feelings and that is the basis of my responses.

So then, you'll accept his findings?

Somehow I doubt that.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Very excellent, Chris.

So I guess we can let this thread sleep for about 3 weeks until Jim comes around with preliminary findings.
Unless anyone has something new until then (I hope I will).

Thanks again for interesting news, Chris)

Meanwhile, Oystein... I think that we should still consider writing at least some blog contribution or so what we have found in this thread so far etc. It's a matter of some kind of priority (of course considering that Jim Millette will confirm our hypotheses), although we can't write any real scientific article. But, on the other hand, if Jim Millette is going to mention somehow this JREF thread in his paper (as an "origin of the second real red chips study"), we can live even without such a blog article

NoahFence, DGM and others: I think that we should basically appreciate that MM contributes financially to this research. There is no room for irony in this regard and at least the last MM's contribution seems to be honest and frank

 

[grandmastershek]

Your post is re-assuring Chris.

...

It is good news to hear that he acknowledges the existence of iron microspheres. It still baffles me that given his expertise, he appeared to show so little curiosity about this previous discovery.

...

Regards.

MM

Probably for the same reason most biologists are in no way swayed by the ramblings of creationists in regards to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[RedIbis]

I have asked him everything people have asked me to ask, unless I forgot something.


Chris

Where did you get the material?

Did that not come up? I'm not trying to be tedious, but I'm curious where this material came from. Is it the same as the EPA report? Has it been sitting in a lab, his lab, some lab?

I apologize if this has already been established, but I do think it's legitimate to ask right off the bat, where he got the material he's studying.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks everyone,
Especially thanks to MM and the other three "real truthers" who contributed to this study happening. To do this required you to make an independent decision in favor of this followup dust study over the strong objections of Kevin Ryan.
I'll be going over the $ again today. Looks like I'm about $100 short after all, but at least two people have already volunteered to fill any gap so thanks to all.

 

[chrismohr]

Where did you get the material?

Did that not come up? I'm not trying to be tedious, but I'm curious where this material came from. Is it the same as the EPA report? Has it been sitting in a lab, his lab, some lab?

I apologize if this has already been established, but I do think it's legitimate to ask right off the bat, where he got the material he's studying.

Red,
Yes we've been through this, but here's a more thorough answer from my phone conversation of yesterday. Dr. Millette has access to dust from the EPA study he participated in, an NIH (National Institute of Health) study he also participated in, and dust from various court cases that have arisen where he was hired to analyze the WTC dust for lawsuits arising from the health issues that have come up. In addition, he knows other lab scientists who have WTC dust samples they used in their experiments. He is accessing all of them to find red-gray chips that are a match for the chips a-d in the Bentham paper of Harrit et al. The chain of custody is carefully documented for each, and the chain of custody for each sample he uses will be explained in detail in his report.

 

[Oystein]

...He is accessing all of them to find red-gray chips that are a match for the chips a-d in the Bentham paper of Harrit et al. The chain of custody is carefully documented for each, and the chain of custody for each sample he uses will be explained in detail in his report.

Hey Chris,

I am sure Jim will do what I am about to suggest without needing anyone to tell him, but I in order for readers to interprete the data from different tests done on individual chips, it is totally necessary to first identify and name individual chip specimens, indicate which dust sampe they are taken from, and, when presenting data, indicate which data point, graph, image etc. is taken of which named specimen.

This is something that Harrit e.al. did not (and a major reason why their crap paper should never have passed a serious peer review). Last week I spent a serious number of hours rewriting my woefully incomplete draft of the paper that Ivan alluded to a few posts up, and my main problem was deciding which data to include in my new interpretation and which to exclude. You see, I want to use only good data that I can assign with sufficient certainty to chips (a)-(d), at the same time I am aware that I might get criticized for "hand-waving" data that could also belong to these chips, even though I feel we can't be sure enough. For example, for the longest time we have assumed that the DSC data on four chips presented in Fig. 19, that resulted in energy density values of 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g, came from chips (a)-(d), simply because these are four chips, too. It only dawned at me recently that these four DSCed chips cannot be identical to the four chips (a)-(d) presented in Fig. 6 and 7, very likely also in Fig. 2, 8, 9, 10, and fairly likely Fig. 11. Reason: Chips (a)-(d) come from dust samples a-4, while two of the DSC chips came from sample 1 (MacKinlay) and none from sample 2 (Delessio). Also, after reviewing the Jeff Farrer interview, it seems that they had done the microscopy and XEDS tests on (a)-(d) in Farrer's lab at BYU, and at a later time looked for and found a DSC at another lab, outside of Farrer's area of responsibility (and expertise). There is no reason to believe that any of the four chips (a)-(d) made it to that DSC lab and Figure 19. On the other hand, we have exactly no data on the four DSC chips except the DSC traces and energy densities: No image, no XEDS trace, no description, nothing. So it would be irresponsible to lump these four chips into a discussion of chips (a)-(d).

On the other hand, I am only guessing that the four chips photographes in Fig. 2 and labelled (a)-(d) are identical to the chips BSE-imaged and labelled (a)-(d) in Fig 5, and I am only guessing that the chips XEDS'ed and labelled (a)-(d) in Figures 6 and 7 are identical to the chips (a)-(d) in Fig. 2 and/or Fig. 5. And again, there are four higher resolution BSE images of chips labelled (a)-(d) in Fig. 8, but the paper doesn't really tell us, and we have to guess, that these were taken of the identical chips presented in Fig. 2, 5, and/or 6 and 7. The only indication we have that several different data points were gathered from the same specimen involves Figures 8a, 9 and 10, which were all done on an identical chip specimen found in dust sample 1.

The authors do tell us that the four specimen in these figures are all "representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples" (page 11, referencing Fig 5), but this can't be true - they contradict that claim later in the paper. It is of course obvious that they DID find chips with different characteristics, such as the MEK chip, or the specimen (or residues) shown in Fig. 25 (with significant Ti), 31 (several gray layers with different hues, with significant Pb), 32 (gray layer is mainly C, not Fe), or those mentioned in the text that contained copper and barium, both absent from the XEDS data of chips (a)-(d) and the MEK chip.


In the end, I decide to use the data from Fig. 2 and 5-11, and discard all others. However, I will mention the DCS data (ignition point mainly) and the apparent formation of spheres in the DSC.


In order to avoid this kind of confusion, I hope that Jim will identify and label individual chips, and indicate in each table and figure of data which individual chip is shown there. I'd expect full data on a representative sample size of more than four chips on whom all relevant non-destructive tests are done that Jim is going to do.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: Sounds really great. Thank you and I'd like to send my thanks to Jim Millette as well in advance

Oystein: I hope that Jim Millette will be careful and systematic enough.
All this horrible mess in the Bentham paper follows from the idiotic presumption of Harrit et al. that all red chips are the same material It's lucky for us that we have you (from Germany), who is able to make some order even in such a total chaos
I would suggest: just mention all these discrepancies and uncertainties in one section and interpret what is possible to interpret in other section (e.g. that XEDS spectra of chips (a) to (d) are "suspiciously" close to the simulated spectra of Laclede paint calculated by Almond). But since you very probably plan something like that (and I'm too lazy to write anything), that's all at the moment from my side.
(Addendum: we should anyway hope that Laclede paint chips will prevail in samples collected by Jim Millette - according to our expectations. Otherwise, it would be perhaps quite difficult to be conclusive enough. And it seems to me that selected chips identical with chips (a) to (d) should be really subjected to some thermal analysis.)

 

[chrismohr]

Oystein I snickered when you wrote that we can let this thread rest for three weeks now!
SLT and others, this thread is NOT about iron-rich microspheres. There's an old one (also created by Oystein), http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?t=187515&highlight=iron+microspheres&page=2

I wonder if we should take the microsphere battle back there? It surely isn't part of the red-gray chips argument! Or if Oystein doesn't want that thread polluted, a new one can be started up.

Anyway, as to the dust source questions, Dr. Millette will NOT be starting with "used" dust with altered Ph content or already burned or already chemically experimented upon or tampered with in any way. He has fresh samples because the original bags of WTC dust are still being stored by the labs that experimented on them, including his and also the labs of some of his associates. If he got a bag of dust from the EPA, he used only part of it. The unused dust is what he is using now.

And I'll say it one more time: I felt like an idiot asking Dr. Millette a SECOND TIME about the iron microspheres and why he saw them but didn't report them in his EPA study. He DID report large amounts of iron in the dust. The spherical shape of that iron-rich stuff had no bearing on its health risks to breathers of the dust after 9/11. It was a health hazards report, remember? Had they been 0.1"-long razor-sharp iron-rich particles I'm sure he would have mentioned that they would have been hazardous to breathe due to the fact they would have cut up one's lungs! SLT wrote, "There has been talk that the same scientists collaborated on the official WTC dust signature study and made the deliberate decision to not report iron spheres." Sorry SLT, the iron-rich spheres were no secret, from the RJ Lee Report on. I repeat: yesterday, when I asked him about this a second time, he simply said, "The EPA report was about the health hazards of the WTC dust, not the shape of the iron particles." He also acknowledged openly that he saw the spherical shape and will deal with it in his paper because it appears in the Harrit paper he is trying to replicate. I just don't see him hiding anything here. What more can you possibly want? What will it take for you to trust what he says, or at least to suspend judgment? You 9/11 Truth guys asked me to ask him about this twice, and I did, twice. I will not embarrass myself further by asking him a third time!

 

[chrismohr]

Arriving at $1000 WTC Dust test

Hi all,

Looks like we've made it, and precisely too, for our dust money. One last check is still in the mail from a "Real Truther" (not on JREF) who said about this project, "It is a pleasure and honor to help in one of the most important scientific studies in American history." Aw, gee whiz.

Anyway, by adjusting my planned contribution by $5, that takes us to exactly $1000 so we are there.

Grazie,
Chris

 

[tsig]

Hi all,

Looks like we've made it, and precisely too, for our dust money. One last check is still in the mail from a "Real Truther" (not on JREF) who said about this project, "It is a pleasure and honor to help in one of the most important scientific studies in American history." Aw, gee whiz.

Anyway, by adjusting my planned contribution by $5, that takes us to exactly $1000 so we are there.

Grazie,
Chris

Great!

Thanks for all the work getting this together, I hope Jim is ready for the unwanted attention that will be coming his way from the nutters of the internet.

 

[cjnewson88]

Great news Chris, Looking forward to the results. Can we put this thread on hold now for 3 weeks? Please?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi all,

Looks like we've made it, and precisely too, for our dust money. One last check is still in the mail from a "Real Truther" (not on JREF) who said about this project, "It is a pleasure and honor to help in one of the most important scientific studies in American history." Aw, gee whiz.

Anyway, by adjusting my planned contribution by $5, that takes us to exactly $1000 so we are there.

Grazie,
Chris

OK, Chris Let the Show Begin

 

[Oystein]

Again, I would like to urge everybody (and I am looking in the direction of sheeples and Noah for no particular reason...) to consider before hitting the "Post" button...

• What again is the topic of this thread?
• Did the poster I am responding to address that topic?
• If not, should I report it, or leave it alone?
• Has my post in any way shape or form the potential of bringing us forward viz the topic of this thread which is "The origin of the paint chips"?

I think you will find that a post about microspheres in the dust is off-topic, and that replying to such a post holds no chance of advancing the thread topic. If you concur, please refrain from posting!

Thank you.

 

[Miragememories]

Again, I would like to urge everybody (and I am looking in the direction of sheeples and Noah for no particular reason...) to consider before hitting the "Post" button...

• What again is the topic of this thread?
• Did the poster I am responding to address that topic?
• If not, should I report it, or leave it alone?
• Has my post in any way shape or form the potential of bringing us forward viz the topic of this thread which is "The origin of the paint chips"?

I think you will find that a post about microspheres in the dust is off-topic, and that replying to such a post holds no chance of advancing the thread topic. If you concur, please refrain from posting!

Thank you.

Well the paint HAS NOT BEEN FOUND as the red-gray chips.

Part of any ensuing discussion should allow for what then are the red-gray chips.

Your question as to whether or not you should report posts that refuse to endorse your pet hypothesis, seems a little late since all indications are you have been using reports to block meaningful discussion about the chips for quite some time.

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: There are two main contradictory hypotheses as for origin of red-gray chips:

1) Nanothermite hypothesis (which was the first one, since nobody before cared about these innocent red chips);
2) Paint hypothesis.

Here, we'd like to discuss only paint theory (since we consider it as highly plausible and such paints were provably applied in WTC).
For the origin of paint, it's not needed to discuss things like iron microsphere percentage in the dust and this kind of stuff, since such data have apparently no connection to primer paints applied to WTC construction steel (expcept that some portion of paints was burned during fires). Those paints were simply painted by some skilled people on some steel surfaces, no matter what concentrations of anything were in other construction places (I think)

If you prefer the first hypothesis, MM, you should perhaps establish your own thread.

 

[Miragememories]

"Again, I would like to urge everybody (and I am looking in the direction of sheeples and Noah for no particular reason...) to consider before hitting the "Post" button...

• What again is the topic of this thread?
• Did the poster I am responding to address that topic?
• If not, should I report it, or leave it alone?
• Has my post in any way shape or form the potential of bringing us forward viz the topic of this thread which is "The origin of the paint chips"?

I think you will find that a post about microspheres in the dust is off-topic, and that replying to such a post holds no chance of advancing the thread topic. If you concur, please refrain from posting! Thank you."

"Well the paint HAS NOT BEEN FOUND as the red-gray chips.

Part of any ensuing discussion should allow for what then are the red-gray chips.

Your question as to whether or not you should report posts that refuse to endorse your pet hypothesis, seems a little late since all indications are you have been using reports to block meaningful discussion about the chips for quite some time."

"MM: There are two main contradictory hypotheses as for origin of red-gray chips:

1) Nanothermite hypothesis (which was the first one, since nobody before cared about these innocent red chips);
2) Paint hypothesis.

Here, we'd like to discuss only paint theory (since we consider it as highly plausible and such paints were provably applied in WTC).
For the origin of paint, it's not needed to discuss things like iron microsphere percentage in the dust and this kind of stuff, since such data have apparently no connection to primer paints applied to WTC construction steel (expcept that some portion of paints was burned during fires). Those paints were simply painted by some skilled people on some steel surfaces, no matter what concentrations of anything were in other construction places (I think)

If you prefer the first hypothesis, MM, you should perhaps establish your own thread."

I've said this before in this thread and apparently because Oystein did not approve of the content, my post got removed.

The subject of this thread is supposedly, Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

If the subject was; Origin of the primer paint used on the WTC trusses, I might understand how discussing investigative results which disprove the red chips being primer paint might be off topic.

But this thread focuses on those red-gray chips.

"was found as", has only one possible meaning, and in the context used in the thread title, the statement a lie.

The Bentham paper and another, referred to in this thread, clearly state a finding that the red-gray chips are not paint and that their only connection with paint was in their surface contamination. The red-chips surface contamination was found with or to possibly include, all the other materials that existed in the WTC.

Discussion that argues that the red-gray chips were not found to be paint, but a significantly different material, is valid discussion and not off topic.

MM

 

[DGM]

Discussion that argues that the red-gray chips were not found to be paint, but a significantly different material, is valid discussion and not off topic.

MM

Not to be found to be what type of paint? Are all paints the same? From what you posted it appears you think so (and you ignore the data).