View Single Post
Old 16th November 2010, 03:21 PM   #316
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since the term "red/gray chip" has no specific place in any technical glossary, there is no significance in the absence of such a material description in the those reports.

It, "red/gray chips" is descriptive terminology with no precise technical meaning.
Interestingly enough, paint chips are actually a part of the McCrone Particle Atlas (MPA), which would be the technical glossary for particle and dust analysis. RJ Lee has made extremely good use of the MPA over the last 25 years or so. Such material would have been reported, if it were found.

FYI:
Dual layered (one gray, one colored) chips are identified in the MPA in sections 12:001100 and 28:011100. Interestingly, MPA notes, "Throughout the sample, individually dispersed and attached to the primer layer, is rust (see iron oxide). The sample came from a newly painted steel bridge from which the paint was flaking off." It goes on further to state, "[...] the paint particles are seen to be composed of tiny (less than 1 um) [...] rounded pigment particles." McCrone Particle Atlas, volume 2 (1973), page 529.

That's it, MM, you're done. In dust, as a component of ordinary, non-thermite induced activities, paint chips (distinguished by a gray layer adhered to a colored layer) are often found. Said paint chips contain not only iron oxide (when they're applied to steel), but are also composed of micron sized particles making up the pigments. The production of so called "iron rich microspheres" is no more proof of thermite than the presence of unicorn dung.

Now then, having watched you on this forum, I can accurately predict the responses you're going to make. I've taken the liberty of showing your response, and giving my answer. This will save a tremendous amount of time.

Objection 1: "That proves nothing! The paint chips that were tested exhibited none of the properties that the mysterious red/grey chips had."

Answer 1: In truth, the extremely limited number of paint samples tested against the mystery samples does not provide enough evidence to substantiate this claim. The BYU stadium paint, which was tested for the Harrit et al paper, indeed did not exhibit the same properties as the red/gray chips. Since that sample was not taken from the WTC, the test is, at best irrelevant. The idea of taking a paint sample and using it to represent the properties of all known paints so as to EXCLUDE them from consideration as a parent material is, beyond idiotic, but perfectly in line with the mental capacities of all Truthers.

Farrer's claim that a sample of the WTC anti corrosion coating was tested and found to be quantitatively different is interesting. However, since no data are published, this claim cannot be evaluated. Further, since the sample was supposedly scraped from the parent steel, it can be shown that it did not undergo any of the processes that the chips in question went under. Those processes must have included exposure to heat and abrasion during the collapse process, in addition to intimate mixing with other ejecta. Comparison of the same materials, when the materials are prepared, transported, collected and analyzed differently is not a basis for useful conclusions about the composition or nature of the materials.

Objection 2: "Just because paint chips are found does not mean that the material in question is a paint chip!"

Answer 2: Entirely correct. However, it is a legitimate source of contamination, known to exist in ordinary dust. It is up to the researcher to eliminate confounding variables from consideration. Failure to do so makes the results meaningless.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top