View Single Post
Old 10th March 2011, 09:20 AM   #536
Sunstealer's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below

with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice
the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red
layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination
with wallboard material.
The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.
Sunstealer 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