Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted... I've made some mismatch here, sorry...

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Another XEDS of Tnemec primer

I'm not sure if it is really new, but I've found this older lecture of Steven Jones with (perhaps) interesting info.

Jones explains that he acquired some WTC red primer samples from the memorial in Clarkson University. That memorial looks like this:

Its brief description is: "The monument is supported by a concrete foundation. Sandstone benches are positioned beneath structural beams that once were part of the World Trade Center. A small garden has been planted around the sandstone bench seating." Any comments of experts on this "sculpture"?

In this lecture (time 3:03), Jones again shows the same XEDS of WTC primer as was found by Sunstealer years ago (look at the second spectrum):

 

[Ivan Kminek]

...and here is again the older image of XEDS spectrum of red primer found by Sunstealer in another Jones' lecture (the second spectrum):

 

[Oystein]

Nice and useful find, Ivan! You are the greatest finder of things here

I don't see a date when Jones held this lecture, but it was before the upload date 01/21/2011, and after the AE911T petition reached 1,000 signatures, which was in january 2010. By january 2011 they had over 1,400, so I would intuit that this was closer to the earlier date, in the first half of 2010.


The first useful information in the video is that Professor Jones personally argues that the chips are not paint because their spectra don't resemble that sample from the Clarkson memorial. This implies an answer to what he asked me recently at 911Blogger:

I will respond first to some misconceptions (to put it mildly) in Oystein's web-site, and in his post quoted by Zica.
Oystein: “Claims that Niels Harrit proved that some red-gray chips in the WTC dust are not WTC primer are basing this claim on the FALSE assumption that Tnemec was the only primer used. In fact, I will show that the chips that Harrit proved to not be Tnemec look very much like LaClede Standard Primer.”
Wait – “basing this claim on the FALSE assumption that Tnemec was the only primer used.” What nonsense! I never made such an claim. Who made this claim anyway? I'm challenging you to back up your assertion.

The answer is: ProfJones, you logically implied such a claim in a lecture you gave in 2010, recorded in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fucU3yq5KWE

And here is why:

At 1:44 in the video:
"Perhaps it [the red-gray chips] is just paint, an in particular primer paint, which was applied to the WTC steel, which has a red-orange color, similar to the color that we see here. So, we finally found a sample of the primer paint."
"A" sample of "the" primer paint, both singular, logically implies one paint only.

Jones goes on and describes how someone scratched this sample from the steel at Clarkson University, and presents its chemical signature. He then explains, starting at 2:55, showing the image that Ivan produced above:
"What we have is the analysis of the paint on the bottom plot, and, for comparison, the ... elemental signature for the red chip material on the top plot."
(Note that this singular "the material" implies only one material which red-gray chips are made of - another false assumption on his part. He continues
"You can see that they are distinctly different. The paint shows a very strong signal of Zinc. There is no zinc in the red chip material."
(We all know why: Because he compared with only one of the several red chip matrerials. Another, represented by the MEK-soaked chip, has a clear Zinc-signal)
"There are other differences that you can see: The Calcium peak is enormous in the paint, for example."
(Yes, and it is also enormous in Fig. 14, the MEK-soaked chip!)
Jones concludes: (3:31)
"Now, when we look at the red material, this anomalous - now we can call it anomalous because it doesn't behave like paint, certainly very distinct from the primer paint actually used in the WTC."

ProfJones should now admit that he drew that conclusion based on the assumption that all the primer paint actually used in the WTC had the characteristics of that sample from the Clarkson memorial, such as Zinc and Calcium content.

ProfJones should now concede that he was unaware of the existence of at least one other primer paint actually used in the WTC that does not contain Zinc and Calcium, namely the LaClede primer paint on the floor joists. Clearly, the Clarkson memorial is made of steel from the core columns, not the floor joists, so he can't validly conclude that "the" red material is "very distinct from the primer paint actually used in the WTC" - he didn't compare with any other primer paint actually used in the WTC.

Here is a comparison of Jones's red material, from chip b, with a primer paint actually used in the WTC, the LaClede composition (according to the published composition; note that I scaled Fig 7b, bottom, such that its Si-peak has the same hight as the Si-peak in the LaClede simulation, top):

These signatures are virtually identical. ProfJones, please acknowledge!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: You wrote: " Clearly, the Clarkson memorial is made of steel from the core columns".

Are you sure? (This is why asked experts to identify this steel). If yes, it should mean that core columns were painted with Tnemec red (as well as perimeter columns). I'm confused now.

 

[Oystein]

...
Jones explains that he acquired some WTC red primer samples from the memorial in Clarkson University. That memorial looks like this:

...

The other useful information is that picture.
It shows that this memorial, and thus the source of Jones's paint sample, is WTC core columns, not perimeter columns!

This is important because we know, from NIST documentation, that the perimeter columns were specified to be painted with Tnemec 99 or 69, but no primer specification has been found for the core steel.

NIST writes in NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix D, page 434: "The Tnemic series brand of paints was in common use ... it is assumed that the paint on the core columns that was imaged in this study (a very limited sample) was also of this type and exhibited the same degradation mechanism and kinetics."

Note that this is an assumption on the part of NIST. The truth about the primer on core columns could logically be one of the following:

• All core column primer is in fact of the Tnemec 99 formulation shown on page 438 of that same Appendix D
• All of the core column primer is from the Tnemic series of primer paints, but a formulation different from number 99 (or 69, which is also mentioned in the NIST reports)
• The core column primer is from a different manufacturer
• Core columns were painted with more than one primer paints, and this assirtment may include or exclude Tnemec brands

So far I assumed that Jones's paint sample was Tnemec 99 from the perimeter columns, which were indeed, as per NIST documentation, specified to be treated with Tnemec 99.

However, I was mistaken, and it is from the core, so it could be Tnemec 99, or a different Tnemec primer, or a primer from a different manufacturer.

The spectra of this sample and of the MEK-soaked chip are pretty similar, but not as great a match as chips a-d and LaClede. I was never as sure of the identification of the MEK-chip as Tnemec 99 as I was of chips a, b and d as LaClede. An explanation may be that this MEK-chip is not Tnemec 99, but a related, similar brand, or a different brand but manufactured according to the same specification which may have been less precise on the specifics, e.g. provide for the use of Zinc Yellow, but be unspecific about amounts or the use of aluminates.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein Well, it seems that another "mystery" as for WTC1/2 red primers used is solved, at least to some extent (core columns were probably protected by Tnemec primer similar/identical to that used for perimeter columns, as "suspected" by NIST)

As you wrote, this info changes our former view that Steven Jones sample(s) for XEDS measurement(s) came from perimeter columns, which should be reflected in your blog.

I still wonder: how were these steel elements (both core steel and perimeter steel) painted by Tnemec primer(s)? In the Tnemec factory? Or in place (at least partially)? And what painting technology was used? It seems that NIST reports do not contain such data. (It's so not important anyway, I just wonder)

 

[Oystein]

Oystein Well, it seems that another "mystery" as for WTC1/2 red primers used is solved, at least to some extent (core columns were probably protected by Tnemec primer similar/identical to that used for perimeter columns, as "suspected" by NIST)

Careful: Various parts of the core steel assembly were manufactured by different steel companies, so it's still possible that some of it was painted with the same Tnemec as perimeter, others with a different Tnemec, and still others with some non-Tnemec primer. Only the Clarkson memorial sample is known to be at least similar with Tnemec 99 and the MEK chip.

As you wrote, this info changes our former view that Steven Jones sample(s) for XEDS measurement(s) came from perimeter columns, which should be reflected in your blog.

Will do.

I still wonder: how were these steel elements (both core steel and perimeter steel) painted by Tnemec primer(s)? In the Tnemec factory? Or in place (at least partially)? And what painting technology was used? It seems that NIST reports do not contain such data. (It's so not important anyway, I just wonder)

I don't know aboout the coating method, but it would be certain that all steel is already painted in the shop. It's simply easier and more effective to do it there, and the steel needs to be protected already during transport, storage, and right after installation in the WTC construction, while it is exposed to the elements.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Careful: Various parts of the core steel assembly were manufactured by different steel companies, so it's still possible that some of it was painted with the same Tnemec as perimeter, others with a different Tnemec, and still others with some non-Tnemec primer. Only the Clarkson memorial sample is known to be at least similar with Tnemec 99 and the MEK chip.


Will do.


I don't know aboout the coating method, but it would be certain that all steel is already painted in the shop. It's simply easier and more effective to do it there, and the steel needs to be protected already during transport, storage, and right after installation in the WTC construction, while it is exposed to the elements.

1) I'm aware of this Well, if there were more different primers used on core steel, we are quite lucky that Steven Jones was so "kind" and (just by accident) measured XEDS of paint sample which should be Tnemec Series 10 or similar (zinc, chromium, calcium, iron, silicon, aluminium, carbon, you know...)

2) OK

3) Tnemec Red Series 10 is now applied by various methods, based on spraying.
I'ts reasonable perhaps to suppose that its predecessor(s) was applied by spraying also on WTC steel.
My idea that steel could be painted in some Tnemec factory (btw, the name Tnemec is anagram of the word cement) is not good. As well as the idea of painting on the WTC construction site. Steel was probably painted with Tnemec in several steel factories. It seems that this kind of primer was really popular at that time.
The end of speculations

 

[Oystein]

Oystein: You wrote: " Clearly, the Clarkson memorial is made of steel from the core columns".

Are you sure? (This is why asked experts to identify this steel). If yes, it should mean that core columns were painted with Tnemec red (as well as perimeter columns). I'm confused now.

The outer dimensions of the perimeter columns are uniform from above the, iirc, 9th floor up to the roof, and I think they are much slimmer than what we see in this memorial. So I think it is pretty clear they must be from the core.

However I certainly would appreciate a second opinion.

 

[Spanx]

The outer dimensions of the perimeter columns are uniform from above the, iirc, 9th floor up to the roof, and I think they are much slimmer than what we see in this memorial. So I think it is pretty clear they must be from the core.

However I certainly would appreciate a second opinion.

On the far right support, is that a spandrel with bolts or rivets where it has been connected ?

 

[DGM]

The outer dimensions of the perimeter columns are uniform from above the, iirc, 9th floor up to the roof, and I think they are much slimmer than what we see in this memorial. So I think it is pretty clear they must be from the core.

However I certainly would appreciate a second opinion.

http://hcap.artstor.org/cgi-bin/library?a=d&d=p2198

Materials: Concrete with sandstone foundation; wooden benches; structural steel. Two of the structural steel beams * came from the fifty-fifth floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

* I'm guessing this is a mistake, they are surely core columns.

The beam across the top looks like it came from the core (or basement level) floor system (It's upside down, note the shear studs).

 

[carlitos]

I'm just curious. These guys walked up to a 9/11 memorial, and scraped some paint off of it? Isn't that criminal? Or at least disrespectful?

 

[Spanx]

I'm just curious. These guys walked up to a 9/11 memorial, and scraped some paint off of it? Isn't that criminal? Or at least disrespectful?

I think they were scraping 911 was an inside job on it.

I guess someone got into trouble for shipping all that scrap to Asia and then left the contaminated evidence in the USA and made a memorial with it.

All those years of planning to be discovered by giggling Steven Earl Jones

 

[Redwood]

The outer dimensions of the perimeter columns are uniform from above the, iirc, 9th floor up to the roof, and I think they are much slimmer than what we see in this memorial. So I think it is pretty clear they must be from the core.

However I certainly would appreciate a second opinion.

Perimeter column dimensions above the 9th floor were 14" on a side. These are much more than 14". Ergo, not perimeter columns from the upper floors. The bending and tearing of the column walls is not typical for columns outside the floors where the collapse initiated.

Interesting. Were core columns bolted together like perimeter columns, or welded, or secured by some other means?

 

[moorea34]

MEK Chip:

Here from memorial for Tnemec (I have improved the quality):

Here Laclede simulation and chips a-d:

 

[Ivan Kminek]

On the far right support, is that a spandrel with bolts or rivets where it has been connected ?

Good question, were core beams/spandlers connected with bolts or so (at least some of them)? To be honest, I'm still not sure if these are core columns. Here is probably the only available image of the Clarkson memorial with some "scale" (sitting lady).

I would say that the crosssection of these columns are something between upper perimeter columns (14x14 in) and average core columns at about half of height (36 x 12 in, according to this source). And from the above photo of the memorial, it is not even clear if these box vertical columns (definitely not beams) have a rectangle or square intersection.

Any other comment of debunkers who know the WTC construction much better?

Problem is that there were different steel elements and their connections used in the core at various heights...

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MEK Chip:
[qimg]http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/IMG/png/11SeptPeinture_5.png[/qimg]
Here from memorial for Tnemec (I have improved the quality):
[qimg]http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/IMG/png/11SeptPeinture_6.png[/qimg]

Here Laclede simulation and chips a-d:
[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/LaClede/Sim_vs_Fig_7b.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks, Moorea It's perhaps "funny" that even such strikingly similar spectra are not convincing enough for the lot of truthers (e.g. for Ziggy in Oystein's blog; or lately for Remo, who suspects that simulated spectra do not prove anything).

(btw, looking for some detailed pictures of the WTC core beams, columns and their connections /they are not many available, at least using quick googling/, I read this sentence of the guy nicked vanityfair: "Most of the NIST shots that show debris piles were faked" WTF? Unbelievable... I think that such people should be simply executed, in order to break short their misery)

Details on core beams and columns should be found in NIST reports, but I'm currently lazy to look for them.

 

[tsig]

I'm just curious. These guys walked up to a 9/11 memorial, and scraped some paint off of it? Isn't that criminal? Or at least disrespectful?

At some point there were samples sent in and that's what I thought was being discussed.

 

[Spanx]

There is a pic on there website

http://www.clarkson.edu/news/2012/news-release_2012-09-07-2.html

Not the best quality but better than nothing.