Based on Harrit's paper "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT" and its sources, I conclude that every item on Oystein's list is correct. Here's why.
First:
In "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT," Harrit only mentions one primer paint: Tnemec red. Figures 3 and 4 give information about its composition. Harrit does not name or list a single property of any other paint. All of his arguments refer to the properties of Tnemec red. Either his argument is fallacious, or he is assuming Tnemec red is the only primer paint that could have been present.
This assumption is false, not just because there could have been paint from other sources, but also because we know a LaClede primer paint was also use in WTC.
Second:
Harrit's paper is about whether "the red/gray chips" are paint. We can take "the red/gray chips" to mean "the red/gray chips studied in the Bentham paper." Addressing this assumption then requires analysis of the Bentham paper, which others in this thread and related threads have already done. For now, I will simply refer back to their arguments about this assumption and its falsity.
Third:
Harrit says (page 3), "Even though the composition of the Tnemec
pigment is proprietary, the content of
this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4." (emphasis added) He explicitly states that the data sheet gives the composition of the proprietary pigment. I don't see another way to interpret this.
This assumption is false, as the data sheet (
http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf) is for Tnemec Primer Red, not pigment.
Fourth:
In Table 1, there is a column labeled "Composition in wet paint." The value given for zinc chromate is 20.3%, which is the value for zinc chromate given in Sramek 1967. Thus, Harrit treats Sramek 1967 as if the wet paint mass is 100%.
This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Zinc chromate is this 20.3% of the pigment alone, not of the wet paint.
Fifth:
On page 3 Harrit says, "After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate.
Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment)
amount to (32.3 + 7.6) ~ 40 %. If we subtract these from the composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint." (emphasis added) The value of 32.3% for thinners is taken from Sramek 1967. In order for subtracting this (along with the extra assumed pigment spirits) from 100% to give the hardened composition, we must assume Sramek 1967 treats wet paint mass as 100%.
This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Thinners are 32.3% of the vehicle alone, not of the wet paint.
Sixth: The conclusion follows from the above. Harrit overestimates how much of each pigment is present in the wet paint, and he overestimates how much of the wet paint mass evaporates away. These errors combine to produce an even greater overestimation of how much of each pigment is in the dry paint.
It is easy to verify each of these (especially the fourth and fifth, which alone justify Oystein's conclusion); it does not require specialist knowledge of chemistry.
)
)
