• 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.

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

thedopefishlives said:
He presumably considered the one which he happened to have on hand and could definitely compare against. At the time of his preliminary report, neither he nor (that I am aware of) anyone here had any knowledge of the LaClede primer as a potential candidate. His preliminary findings revealed it to be a possibility, and now he's going back to try to find a sample to compare against.
Click to expand...

You can be right that Jim may possess some samples of Tnemec primer, which could be important for him. Btw, he has compared the analyzed samples with many other primers just using their declared composition, but also in this case, samples of real paints should be available (although contemporary ones, therefore not fully relevant).

Otherwise, your "timeline" is incorrect. We have "suspected" the Laclede primer starting last July, whereas the study of Jim Millette was "arranged" during November or December.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Ivan,
I may be wrong, but: he does seem interested in LaClede. He just doesn't feel he can offer a positive ID unless he can find a known sample to compare it against.
Click to expand...
I hope you and him keep this detail in mind, as it might be fairly easy to forget.

LaClede is not the name of a paint. It's the name of a steel manufacturer (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alton_Steel) and they made several primers with different formulations. According to NCSTAR 1-6B:

The formulation for the primer was designated as Formula LREP 10001 and was found in Laclede files (see Appendix B).​

That would be a more proper name of the paint. Also from the cited Wikipedia page:

The Port Authority chose to use many different, smaller steel suppliers such as Laclede, bidding on smaller portions of steel, rather than buying larger amounts from a single source such as Bethlehem Steel or U.S. Steel as a cost-saving measure.
​

Unless I'm missing something, that means that it would be fairly likely that there is no primer paint in many of the samples that was manufactured by LaClede Steel company.
 
pgimeno said:
I hope you and him keep this detail in mind, as it might be fairly easy to forget.

LaClede is not the name of a paint. It's the name of a steel manufacturer (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alton_Steel) and they made several primers with different formulations. According to NCSTAR 1-6B:

The formulation for the primer was designated as Formula LREP 10001 and was found in Laclede files (see Appendix B).​

That would be a more proper name of the paint. Also from the cited Wikipedia page:

The Port Authority chose to use many different, smaller steel suppliers such as Laclede, bidding on smaller portions of steel, rather than buying larger amounts from a single source such as Bethlehem Steel or U.S. Steel as a cost-saving measure.
​

Unless I'm missing something, that means that it would be fairly likely that there is no primer paint in many of the samples that was manufactured by LaClede Steel company.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, we call this primer "Laclede" just because of some tradition here:cool: I think (because of some clues in the history of electropainting) that this epoxy paint should be a product of the former Pittsburgh Plate and Glass Company (mentioned in the "file" of this paint in NCSTAR 1-6B). Specification/few available details as for this paint were anyway mentioned in our "white paper" Oystein sent to Jim through Chris.

Last autumn, I found some webs with the paint specifications, but I was not able to find what Formula LREP 10001 means. This is one of the reasons why I wrote an e-mail to PPG industries (ancestor of the older company), but since I stupidly mentioned 911 conspiracy theories, no answer followed.
 
Last edited:
At the McCrone conference in july, there will be a couple of presentations with some "paint" topic:

http://www.mcri.org/home/section/101-759-774/abstract-titles-and-speakers

  • July 9: As Much Fun as Watching Paint Dry: A Microscopical Perspective of Airbrushed Paint Droplets (Martin Kocanda, Electrical Engineering, Northern Illinois University)
  • July 10: The Forensic Analysis of Paint Evidence Using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy Part I: Development of Libraries and Application Methods (Christopher S. Palenik, Jennifer Herb and Ethan Groves of Microtrace LLC and Patrick Buzzini, Forensic & Investigative Science Program)
  • The Forensic Analysis of Paint Evidence Using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy Part II: Case Examples (Patrick Buzzini, Christopher S. Palenik, Genevieve Massonnet, Universite de Lausanne)
  • July 11: Benefits of Using Cross-Sectioning in Forensic Analysis of Automotive Paints (Same Microtrace LLC folks)

Even if these focus on automotive paints (quite a different field!) perhaps they have some smart ideas on how to ID paints?

In particular, on how to search for and think about the elusive strontium chromate. Where did it go, how would one find it if present in trace amounts only?

Comparing with actual LaClede primer from WTC floor trusses would be great, but still, finding evidence for strontium chromate, as predicted, would be very strong, too.
 
Slightly off the subject but what does it matter anyway. Even if every girder in the WTC was coated with a paper thin layer of pure thermite/thermate/nano-thermite/magic pixie dust - it still wouldn't have cut steel, blown up, etc... the WTC.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Holy Necrotic Thread Revival, Batman!

But, not all bad - it did serve to remind me to post my article from the July/August 2012 Skeptical Inquirer:

"New Info Challenges 9/11 Thermite Claims".

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks Dave - a concisely written professional paper.
clap.gif
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Holy Necrotic Thread Revival, Batman!

But, not all bad - it did serve to remind me to post my article from the July/August 2012 Skeptical Inquirer:

"New Info Challenges 9/11 Thermite Claims".

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks, Dave. I think it's a good recap. I see you didn't mention sintering as a possible generating source for the iron-rich spheres. Is it also a valid source process? I ask because Oystein raised the possibility.
 
Hey Dave,

I'd have a few details to not-pick, but perhaps I shouldn't.
Only thing I am really not happy with is the mention of melting point depression. This happens in earnest for particles 50 nm in diameter or smaller, but Jones & Co. have spheres many times larger than that.

LSSBB said:
Thanks, Dave. I think it's a good recap. I see you didn't mention sintering as a possible generating source for the iron-rich spheres. Is it also a valid source process? I ask because Oystein raised the possibility.
Click to expand...
LSSBB,

First, sintering was brought up by Ivan, not me.

It's a process where molecules diffuse within, or on the surface of, solid particles, causing them to coalesce, and also to assume more roundish shapes. Spheres can be formed over time, but often that process is incomplete. We identified one particular sphere in the Bentham paper where we think sintering could have formed it. Dave however is probably wise not to include processes in his article that have merely been raised as a possibility here.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Holy Necrotic Thread Revival, Batman!

But, not all bad - it did serve to remind me to post my article from the July/August 2012 Skeptical Inquirer:

"New Info Challenges 9/11 Thermite Claims".

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks, Dave:cool: Perhaps there are several/many various processes which could contribute for a creation of iron or iron rich microspheres during fires, I mentioned sintering just as one of them.
Btw, about two weeks ago I found that perhaps hundreds of papers and documents are available on the structure of ash coming from biomass incinerators, fluidized bed combustion and similar, with working temperatures ca 800-1000 degrees C. Microspheres are frequently observed in the ashes, although they are not so abundant like in coal ashes from e.g. power plants.
I still think that many microspheres could be present in the WTC concrete, containing fly ash formed at high temperatures, therefore with mostly spherical particles. One repost of my older contribution from the "microsphere thread":

"A guote from here

...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968."

I think that I have read somewhere that S. Jones (or other truther) did not find any such microspheres in the WTC concrete, but I am not sure. Anyway, only documented experiments could prove or disprove it. And apparently, if fly ash was present in WTC concrete, it could by a source of the most of microspheres (iron rich or others) in the dust.
 
Last edited:
Dang! Here's my latest update on the publishing of the full dust study from Jim Millette. I sent him a Sunstealer analysis of the red-grey chips a-d and a link to the thread relating to this and Jim wrote,

Chris, thanks for the post. These data are consistent with our analysis. In addition to the SEM-EDS result consistent with kaolinite, we also confirmed kaolinite with FTIR and TEM-Electron Diffraction. I am afraid I have had to put the research on the back burner while I attend to other projects. Hopefully I will get back to it soon. Jim

Hopefully he can get back to it soon. If I had another thousand bucks I'd offer it to him to move things along but alas business is slow in this here recession...
 
Oystein said:
Hey Dave,

I'd have a few details to not-pick, but perhaps I shouldn't.
Only thing I am really not happy with is the mention of melting point depression. This happens in earnest for particles 50 nm in diameter or smaller, but Jones & Co. have spheres many times larger than that.


LSSBB,

First, sintering was brought up by Ivan, not me.

It's a process where molecules diffuse within, or on the surface of, solid particles, causing them to coalesce, and also to assume more roundish shapes. Spheres can be formed over time, but often that process is incomplete. We identified one particular sphere in the Bentham paper where we think sintering could have formed it. Dave however is probably wise not to include processes in his article that have merely been raised as a possibility here.
Click to expand...

Did the conflict ever get resolved of melting point depression.
Some are claiming it happens at only 50 nm in diameter or smaller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression

Yet other evidence shows that fine grade steel wool and iron dust (at 430C) will melt.

A size chart provided here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_wool

See here for iron dust (at 430C)
http://msds.chemicalstore.com/viewpage.asp?page_namespace=1&page_name=Iron Powder&CatID=140
 
Kent1 said:
Did the conflict ever get resolved of melting point depression.
Some are claiming it happens at only 50 nm in diameter or smaller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression

Yet other evidence shows that fine grade steel wool and iron dust (at 430C) will melt.

A size chart provided here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_wool

See here for iron dust (at 430C)http://msds.chemicalstore.com/viewpage.asp?page_namespace=1&page_name=Iron Powder&CatID=140
Click to expand...

Urr no.

No your evidence shows fine iron dust will ignite from 430°C up. Not melt. Second link has "Melting Point 1535C (2795F)" for iron powder.
 
Oystein said:
Urr no.

No your evidence shows fine iron dust will ignite from 430°C up. Not melt. Second link has "Melting Point 1535C (2795F)" for iron powder.
Click to expand...
So nothing on the wool.

But on the dust, your right it does say ignite.
But even still what would the appearance be after it ignited. I suspect we would have the "melted metal spheres".
Like this maybe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bang/handson/steel_wool.shtml
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom