ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Laclede primer , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , paint chips , tnemec , wtc

Reply
Old 12th August 2011, 01:02 AM   #121
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
A very nontechnical piece to add here: in an email to me, Kevin Ryan said he has in his personal possession both the paint and the thermitic dust. He said they are totally different. I quoted him in my Gage rebuttal videos:

part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1...eature=related

Wish we could look at both samples, don't you?
It seems that the perimeter columns at least were painted with Tnemec, core columns probably too (NIST wasn't totally sure about that!), but the floor truss joists were painted with LaClede paint, a different formulation.
Now, the perimeter columns (and spandrels) are the emblematic WTC steel - their shape had been visible for 30 years on the facades, and the core columns have the impressive size and girth, so you'd expect 99% of all the steel members preserved to this day, that Ryan could get samples from, to be tnemec-painted. No doubt Ryan has a sample of tnemec, and we already know the chips aren't tnemec.

We would have to find steel from floor joists and test their paint. That would be terrific. However, these elements are feeble and unimpressive in comparison, and hardly anyone would care to preserve these.
Oystein 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
Old 12th August 2011, 01:08 AM   #122
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Hey can somebody comment on fig. 29 in the 'Active Thermitic' paper as to the DSC traces of the chip and the Tillotson sample? p25 of the paper

Why do Harrit/Jones claim this makes the chip look like nanothermite, and why is that claim wrong?

thx
As Chris Mohr points out in his part 11a/b, the graphs are not similar:

They plot power per gram of energy release versus ignition temperature: The ignition point of one of the Harrit sample is about 100K lower than that of the Tillotson nano-thermite, and it reacts with twice the power.

In addition, the one chip they picked for selection with Tillotson was, despite being so different, the one with the least difference; the other chips, as can be seen in Figure 19 of the paper, ignited at even lower temps with even more power.

This is very much like drawing an elefant and claiming it looks just like a drawing of a camel. No, it doesn't.



Please not that the higher power of the chips does not make the paint weapon's grade! It is probably just a function of them reacting with ambient air, and of course of the fact that the chips contain more energy per mass unit that thermite (on account of the reactant being organic binder; most organic materials beat thermite easily in terms of energy content).
Oystein 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
Old 12th August 2011, 01:17 AM   #123
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
That Harrit whitepaper adds very little to the "original" paper at Bentham, except for detailing what tnemec is. Of course we already know that chips a-d are not tnemec, so he is on the wrong boat for most of the time.

On page 6, he false claims that "Magnesium was never observed". His own Fi.6, an XEDS of chip e (MEK lalala...) has an unlabelled peak at about 1.25keV, which is quite likely the K-alpha level of Mg. The same peak is found in the XEDS that Jones had done on actual tnemec from a WTC column; I showed that in my blog (fig. C).

Now I disagree with you that Cr and Sr have readily visible peaks in Harrit's Fig. 5: He puts the labels where he would expect to see peaks, but they aren't really discernibly there, except for one possible Cr peak. However he magnified only one of the 4 XEDS charts for chips a-d. Going back to the Bentham paper, Figure 7 has tiny tiny blips at 5.4keV for chips b and d, which corresponds with k-alpha of Chromium. a and c are practically flat there. Unfortunately, those spectra end at 10keV, so we don't know if any Strontium peaked beyond 14keV.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced that Harrit's data points to LaClede standard paint - the Cr-signal is woefully weak, and the Sr non-existent for all I can tell.

Maybe Sunstealer can shed a bit more light here.
As usually, your skepticism is quite useful even for me, Oystein When I started to collect some support for my hypothesis that chips (a) to (d) were particles of the Laclede primer paint, I overlooked that the expected positions of chromium and strontium peaks in Harrit's whitepaper, Fig. 5, were not marked by the XEDS device, but by Harrit himself. This was my mistake. Therefore, I am taking back my claim that peaks of these two metals are visible in Fig. 5, except of the peak of chromium at 5.4 keV.

On the other hand, I still feel that I am (we are) on the right trail, since main expected elements (Al, Fe, Si, O and C) of the Laclede paint are clearly visible in the XEDS spectra of the chips (a) to (d) and this paint was applied in quite high amounts in WTC towers.

For the Laclede paint, we can expect about ten times less of chromium than of the main metals (Fe, Si, Al). Since I am not able to find quickly some easily available info about relative intensities of XEDS peaks of various metals, Sunstealer's help is necessary here.

Up to now, I have these clues and remarks in this regard.

1) It is written in the preface of ASTM E1508 - 98(2008) norm (Standard Guide for Quantitative Analysis by Energy-Dispersive Spectroscopy, http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1508.htm) that (X)EDS is a suitable technique for routine quantitative analysis of elements that are1) heavier than or equal to sodium in atomic weight, 2) present in tenths of a percent or greater by weight, and 3) occupying a few cubic micrometres, or more, of the specimen. Therefore, we can not expect that XEDS of Harrit's chips (smaller than few cubic micrometers) can give us good and reliable results about the content of chromium and strontium, present in less than ca 5 % level. Does anybody possess this norm? (It costs 40 bucks)

2) Harrit gives me another indirect clue how it could be with chromium XEDS signals. He estimates in his whitepaper (Table 1) that there is about 34 % of zinc chromate in dry Tnemec Red Primer. Atomic weight of chromium is 52, molar mass of zinc chromate is 181, so we can expect something about 34x52/181 ~ 10 wt% of Cr in the sample. At the same time, there is (very roughly) about 30-40 wt% of iron oxides in the Tmenec. Atomic weight of iron is 56, molar mass of iron oxide is 160, so we can expect something about 20 - 30 wt% of iron in the Tmenec. Since we know (again thanks to Sunstealer) that chip (e) was a particle of this Tnemec, we can again take a look to its XEDS spectrum. Chromium peak at 5.4 keV is just a very little in the spectrum of chip (e) comparing it to the Fe peaks, so I can estimate from this that relative intensity of chromium signal can be quite low. Therefore, we can not expect that this element can be proven/determined conclusively in the concentrations about 5 % and less (as in the case of Laclede paint).

3) Henryco in his analysis of red chips http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf has not detected any chromium at 5.4 keV.

4) Since we do not have any red chips from the WTC dust, we should perhaps follow a comparatively easier way how to prove that red chips (a) to (d) were particles of Laclede primer paint. We (I mean you guys in US) should collect some samples of the red paint from WTC1/WTC2 trusses and measure its XEDS spectra, looking if they are similar to the spectra of chips (a) to (d). In this regard, I repeat my former proposal in a slightly altered manner: If you send me some samples of this paint, we can do some research on it. First of all, we in our institute could easily arrange some DSC measurements of the Laclede paint (both under inert atmosphere and under air) to find if their thermal behavior resembles to the behavior of the Harrit's chips. We could also easily do some microscopic research on the unburned and burned paint. (Later on, we can even write some short communication on our findings and publish it, let say, in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (Bentham Press)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 12th August 2011 at 01:47 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 12th August 2011, 03:03 AM   #124
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Where can be such samples found?

It seems that even parts of WTC steel floor elements might be stored in Hangar 17 in JFK airport: http://gokill.com/2009/12/10/911-pic...ional-airport/.

Here http://www.firefighternation.com/sli...ious-memorials it is written that there are many hundreds of requests for samples/pieces of WTC steel, and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey plans to dispatch more than 1,100 artifacts to fire and police departments, schools and churches, museums and military bases in every state and seven countries beyond.

If anybody plans to use WTC steel for building of some 9/11 monuments and memorials, I would expect that he would prefer parts of columns (not parts of trusses) since they simply look better and more monumental So we (you in the US) still have some chance to get some pieces with Laclede paint

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 12th August 2011 at 03:09 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 12th August 2011, 07:13 AM   #125
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
(I meant that such samples of WTC floor joist should still be available in that Hangar 17, protected against further corrosion caused by the rain and so. Btw, I quite frequently encounter problems with a net connection to JREF site from both my computers - any advice from IT people?)
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 12th August 2011, 08:00 AM   #126
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Btw, I quite frequently encounter problems with a net connection to JREF site from both my computers - any advice from IT people?)
I get the same in the USA so I doubt the problem is at your end.
sheeplesnshills 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
Old 12th August 2011, 08:25 AM   #127
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
I get the same in the USA so I doubt the problem is at your end.
Yea, the site seems to go down for me a few times a day for a few minutes at at time. I suspect it's the CIA searching truther's posts for clues to their identities.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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
Old 12th August 2011, 08:48 AM   #128
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Hi Ivan,

I think we should not believe too much at this time that we identified chips a-d as LaClede paint. In fact, I tend to believe this is not the paint we are looking for just yet.

However, I think you made a very important finding: More than one kind of red primer was used on the original WTC steel. This makes moot any clkaim that dissimilarities with Tnemec disprove paint.



As for connection problems: I often get these around 14:30 CET / 12:30 UT for about an hour
Oystein 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
Old 12th August 2011, 03:34 PM   #129
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Is it not true to say that the chips that Jones has found are composed of nano-sized particles almost exclusively. Are the samples of paint tested by other researchers made almost exclusively of nano-sized particles ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 12th August 2011 at 03:35 PM.
bill smith 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
Old 12th August 2011, 03:37 PM   #130
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
I get the same in the USA so I doubt the problem is at your end.
Me too...especially lately.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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
Old 12th August 2011, 03:48 PM   #131
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Btw, I quite frequently encounter problems with a net connection to JREF site from both my computers - any advice from IT people?)
I first noticed the problem around the time the 'project home 2011' scammer was being slapped around. I just figured it's a half-baked denial of service attack.
Jrrarglblarg 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
Old 12th August 2011, 03:51 PM   #132
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Is it not true to say that the chips that Jones has found are composed of nano-sized particles almost exclusively.
No, that is not true. The kaolinite (aluminium silicate) crystals (the plate-like structures that often com in stacks of several plates) shown in fig. 8 of the Harrit e.al. paper are typically a bit wider than 1 micron in all four dust samples, thus slightly larger than "nano-sized".

I believe that the brighter white and smaller crytsals in those images are hematite; those are indeed nano-sized. That is not a sign of high-tech. IIRC, hematite is found in nature in particles of that size, and has as such been used since long before the industrial age.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Are the samples of paint tested by other researchers made almost exclusively of nano-sized particles ?
Since the answer to your first question was "no", this follow-up is moot.

However, I am at this time not aware that anyone analysed (or specified) the LaClede paint pigments adnd determined their size.

As for paints in general, we have long since established that nano-sized particles have been in general use for a long time and are nothing unusual. You can buy nano-sized pigments in bulk amounts at reasonable prices from ordinary businesses.
Oystein 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
Old 12th August 2011, 04:22 PM   #133
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No, that is not true. The kaolinite (aluminium silicate) crystals (the plate-like structures that often com in stacks of several plates) shown in fig. 8 of the Harrit e.al. paper are typically a bit wider than 1 micron in all four dust samples, thus slightly larger than "nano-sized".

I believe that the brighter white and smaller crytsals in those images are hematite; those are indeed nano-sized. That is not a sign of high-tech. IIRC, hematite is found in nature in particles of that size, and has as such been used since long before the industrial age.



Since the answer to your first question was "no", this follow-up is moot.

However, I am at this time not aware that anyone analysed (or specified) the LaClede paint pigments adnd determined their size.

As for paints in general, we have long since established that nano-sized particles have been in general use for a long time and are nothing unusual. You can buy nano-sized pigments in bulk amounts at reasonable prices from ordinary businesses.
So it is evident from this that the Jones samples are nano-sized or within a small fraction of it which means the particles are almost certainly man made via high-tech..

We have no reason to believe that the paticles of paint will turn out to be composed of nano-sized particles. It should be easy for you guys to check out as it seems to be a primary interest for y'all
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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
Old 12th August 2011, 09:05 PM   #134
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chromium and strontium peaks in Fig. 5

Again some correction, since I have not read carefully enough Harrit's whitepaper (in a hurry to come with some breaking news here)

When I look back at the Fig. 5, there is no reason why positions of two strontium peaks should be marked by Harrit himself in this XEDS graph, since Tnemec red paint did not contain any strontium (therefore this was not one of the elements he was looking for)

In fact, Harrit wrote in the caption of this Fig. "The same spectrum as in frame (a) with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales
expanded. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium." This could mean that both chromium and strontium in Fig. 5 (chip (a)) was probably marked by the DSC machine, not by Harrit. Although these peaks (especially strontium peaks) are not clearly visible in the noise, the device was probably able to detect them.

If this is right, at least chip (a) contained some chromium and strontium and can be particle of red Laclede primer. (Spectra of other chips (c) to (d) were not expanded and discussed in the whitepaper.)

Any additional info from Sunstealer or other expert on XEDS (e.g. its sensitivity for chromium and strontium) is really welcome

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 12th August 2011 at 09:14 PM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 12th August 2011, 10:41 PM   #135
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
So it is evident from this that the Jones samples are nano-sized or within a small fraction of it which means the particles are almost certainly man made via high-tech..

We have no reason to believe that the paticles of paint will turn out to be composed of nano-sized particles. It should be easy for you guys to check out as it seems to be a primary interest for y'all
What did you not understand about "hematite is found in nature in particles of that [nano-]size, and has as such been used since long before the industrial age"?

Kaolinite likewise is commonly mined and occurs naturally in crytal sizes as seen in Harrit's paper. They are nothing unusual. These particle sizes are NOT the resukt of high-tech production, but of natural processes with some low-tech refining, as has commonly been done all over the world by paint producers for centuries, of not tens of thousands of years (ochres used in caves by stone age people contain both hematite and kaolinite.)
Oystein 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
Old 12th August 2011, 11:33 PM   #136
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
In the already mentioned NIST document http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6BDraft.pdf, Appendix A (at the end, p. 112), I have just found a specification of the paint used for protection of WTC1/WTC2 floor trusses.

Its declared composition is:
Pigment
Iron oxide 55 % (probably wt%)
Aluminum Silicate 41 %
Strontium Chromate 4 %
Total Pigment 100 %

Vehicle
Unmodified Epoxy Amine 45 %
Deionized Water and Amine 55 %
Total Vehicle 100 %
...
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
For the Laclede paint, we can expect about ten times less of chromium than of the main metals (Fe, Si, Al). Since I am not able to find quickly some easily available info about relative intensities of XEDS peaks of various metals, Sunstealer's help is necessary here.

Up to now, I have these clues and remarks in this regard.

1) It is written in the preface of ASTM E1508 - 98(2008) norm (Standard Guide for Quantitative Analysis by Energy-Dispersive Spectroscopy, http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1508.htm) that (X)EDS is a suitable technique for routine quantitative analysis of elements that are1) heavier than or equal to sodium in atomic weight, 2) present in tenths of a percent or greater by weight, and 3) occupying a few cubic micrometres, or more, of the specimen. Therefore, we can not expect that XEDS of Harrit's chips (smaller than few cubic micrometers) can give us good and reliable results about the content of chromium and strontium, present in less than ca 5 % level. Does anybody possess this norm? (It costs 40 bucks)
...
Let's see.
According to specification, LaClede steel paint is 4% Strontium Chromate.
Strontium Chromate is SrCrO4. Molar mass of SrCrO[sub]4[sub] is 87.62 + 52 + 4x16 = 203,62
Strontium is 87.62/203,62 = 43% by weight of its chromate, or 43%x4% = 1.7% by weight of the pigments. Chromium is 52/203,62 * 4% = 1.0% of the mass of all pigments. Oxygen another 64/203,62 * 4% = 1.3%

Similarly:
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) is 30,1% oxygen and 69,9% iron, and (multiplied by 55%) provides 16.5% oxigen and 38.5% iron to all pigments

Aluminum Silicate is Al2Si2O5(OH)4
That adds 8.6% Aluminium, 8.9% Silicium and 22.9% Oxygen to the pigments.

Sum of elements in the pigments thus:
O: 40.7%
Fe: 38.5%
Si: 8.9%
Al: 8.6%
Sr: 1,7%
Cr: 1.0%
(H: 0.6%)

The binder would mainly add C and O, and dilute the metals.

Now, I don't know how to interprete the heights of the peaks. It is my understanding that mass or count of elements corresponds to peak height only roughly. Harrit's spectra show Si-peaks just slightly higher than Al, which matches the above mass proportions perfectly, but why does he find "more" S and Ca than Sr? S in the binder?
Oystein 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
Old 14th August 2011, 03:17 AM   #137
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Thank you for your valuable calculations, Oystein)

We should perhaps also summarize atomic numbers and (approximate) atomic weights of the elements of interest, since XEDS signals are rouhgly proportional to atomic numbers (e.g. http://www.polymat.lth.se/courses/mi...S_Kimberly.pdf)

O 8, 16
Fe 26, 56
Si 14, 28
Al 13, 27
Sr 38, 88
Cr 24, 52
C 6, 12
(H 1, 1)
(N 7, 14) (nitrogen was another chemical element quite abundantly present in the Laclede primer binder, since it was an epoxide resin containing many amino groups as crosslink sites - it must be also added to the overal composition, athough it is not detected by XEDS)


So why are strontium peaks in region over 10 KeV in Fig. 5 (whitepaper of Harrit) marked in XEDS of a chip (a), although invisible? I have no access to chemical journals from home so I depend on some googling now.

Up to now, I found this paper https://www.corrdefense.org/Academia...OWN-TUCKER.pdf , in which strontium chromate was used as some kind of coating. There is a Fig. 4 with a XEDS spectrum containing also strontium and chromium signals, in the region 0 to 20 KeV. Although this picture is of a very bad quality, I can judge from this that Sr signal at cca 1.8 KeV is much, much stronger than Sr signals at ca 14.2 and 15.8 KeV. Simultaneously, this strong signal at 1.8 KeV could be hidden in Fig. 5 of Harrit's whitepaper, since there are very strong signals of Al and Si in this region. Perhaps, Harrit's device found this comparatively strong Sr signal, but marked only those very weak Sr signals at 14.2 and 15.8 KeV. I can also judge from the Fig. 4 (link above) that chromium signal at 5.4 KeV is significantly weaker than the strontium signal at ca 1.8 KeV (both elements are present in the same molar amounts in strontium chromate). This is in accordance with the fact that strontium has a higher atomic number than chromium.

Of course, it does not answer your question, but it could provide some hints why are Sr signals in Fig. 5 (Harrit) invisible (if the chip (a) is a particle of Laclede paint).

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 14th August 2011 at 04:32 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 14th August 2011, 04:10 AM   #138
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Here is XEDS spectrum of a strontium mineral celestite (SrSO4) http://www.sfu.ca/~marshall/sem/Celes.html. Unfortunatly, it does not go over 10 KeV, but I add it here for the justification that Sr really gives a strong signal at ca 1.8 KeV.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 14th August 2011 at 04:12 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 14th August 2011, 05:53 AM   #139
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Concerning calcium: this element was detected by XEDS not only in the chip (a) (where it can be present as an accidental contaminant even in the freshly broken surface), but also in those microspheres (Harrit et al. and HenryCo as well). Calcium (as a component of contaminants) was not present only as gypsum (calcium sulfate) in the WTC dust but also as salts and oxides originating from the concrete. This could be a reason why calcium was found so frequently in the particles, whereas sulfur peaks are seen only in some figures.

Concerning sulfur in the Laclede binder: no, there should be no sulfur in this epoxide.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 14th August 2011, 05:54 AM   #140
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Concerning calcium: this element was detected by XEDS not only in the chip (a) (where it can be present as an accidental contaminant even in the freshly broken surface), but also in those microspheres (Harrit et al. and HenryCo as well). Calcium (as a component of contaminants) was not present only as gypsum (calcium sulfate) in the WTC dust but also as salts and oxides originating from the concrete. This could be a reason why calcium was found so frequently in the particles, whereas sulfur peaks are seen only in some figures.

Concerning sulfur in the Laclede binder: no, there should be no sulfur in this epoxide.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 15th August 2011, 02:20 AM   #141
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
1) Sorry for the double post, it was caused by the sudden connection failure.

2) Here is an another XEDS of Sr-containing mixture measured up to 20 KeV http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110117367.pdf, Fig. 3. Again, Sr K-level peaks (between 14 and 16 KeV) are much smaller than Sr L-level peak at 1.8 KeV.

3) Let me suppose that chip (a) was a Laclede primer particle. According to Oystein's calculation, there was about 40x more of iron than that of chromium (by wt.) in Laclede primer. Since iron and chromium have almost the same atomic number, they should have similar intensities of K-level peaks. No wonder than, that chromium K peak at 5.4 KeV (theoretically 40 times smaller than iron peak) is so little in the expanded XEDS spectrum of a chip (a) (Fig. 5, Harrit's whitepaper) in comparison with Fe K-peak at 6.3 KeV. Problem is: I can perhaps explain why the chromium peak is so little by this way, but this is not a proof that strontium chromate was present in the chip (a)

(Sorry for possible errors concerning the XEDS peaks nomenclature)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 15th August 2011 at 03:28 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 15th August 2011, 04:16 AM   #142
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Bear in mind, too, that kaolin is not always pure aluminum silicate. There may be inclusions of such other minerals as nacrite and dickite.

Sorry if that confuses things at all.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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
Old 15th August 2011, 04:45 AM   #143
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
That Harrit whitepaper adds very little to the "original" paper at Bentham, except for detailing what tnemec is. Of course we already know that chips a-d are not tnemec, so he is on the wrong boat for most of the time.

On page 6, he false claims that "Magnesium was never observed". His own Fi.6, an XEDS of chip e (MEK lalala...) has an unlabelled peak at about 1.25keV, which is quite likely the K-alpha level of Mg. The same peak is found in the XEDS that Jones had done on actual tnemec from a WTC column; I showed that in my blog (fig. C).

Now I disagree with you that Cr and Sr have readily visible peaks in Harrit's Fig. 5: He puts the labels where he would expect to see peaks, but they aren't really discernibly there, except for one possible Cr peak. However he magnified only one of the 4 XEDS charts for chips a-d. Going back to the Bentham paper, Figure 7 has tiny tiny blips at 5.4keV for chips b and d, which corresponds with k-alpha of Chromium. a and c are practically flat there. Unfortunately, those spectra end at 10keV, so we don't know if any Strontium peaked beyond 14keV.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced that Harrit's data points to LaClede standard paint - the Cr-signal is woefully weak, and the Sr non-existent for all I can tell.

Maybe Sunstealer can shed a bit more light here.
He won't do that personally, the SEM/EDX software will do it. The only reason to relabel the spectra is when you know you have a certain element present but the software is labelling it as something else due to an overlap. Cr and Sr are definitely present because both the K-alpha and K-beta peaks are being identified.

Unfortunately we don't have detailed spectra for samples a-d and the spectra in the Harrit et al paper certainly isn't that great.

Is it proven that LacClede standard joist paint was used on the WTC? NIST NCSTAR 1-6B section says:

Quote:
4.2.7 Primer

The trusses supplied by Laclede Steel were shop primed during production using an electro-deposition process. The formulation for the primer was designated as Formula LREP-10001 and was found in Laclede files (see appendix B). The exact formulation could not be reproduced due to current environmental considerations. A stock steel primer, manufactured by Sherwin Williams and designated Type B50NV11 (recommended by Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the sprayed fire-resistive material used in these tests and in the original construction of the WTC towers was determined to be an acceptable substitute. The primer was field applied to the trusses after assembly in the ULN and ULC fire test facilities.
I'm unsure what that exactly means apart from the spray on fire resistant company recommended a different paint due to environmental concerns. Did Laclede Steel produce and prime the steel trusses for the WTC?
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
Old 15th August 2011, 05:01 AM   #144
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Let's see.
According to specification, LaClede steel paint is 4% Strontium Chromate.
Strontium Chromate is SrCrO4. Molar mass of SrCrO[sub]4[sub] is 87.62 + 52 + 4x16 = 203,62
Strontium is 87.62/203,62 = 43% by weight of its chromate, or 43%x4% = 1.7% by weight of the pigments. Chromium is 52/203,62 * 4% = 1.0% of the mass of all pigments. Oxygen another 64/203,62 * 4% = 1.3%

Similarly:
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) is 30,1% oxygen and 69,9% iron, and (multiplied by 55%) provides 16.5% oxigen and 38.5% iron to all pigments

Aluminum Silicate is Al2Si2O5(OH)4
That adds 8.6% Aluminium, 8.9% Silicium and 22.9% Oxygen to the pigments.

Sum of elements in the pigments thus:
O: 40.7%
Fe: 38.5%
Si: 8.9%
Al: 8.6%
Sr: 1,7%
Cr: 1.0%
(H: 0.6%)

The binder would mainly add C and O, and dilute the metals.

Now, I don't know how to interprete the heights of the peaks. It is my understanding that mass or count of elements corresponds to peak height only roughly. Harrit's spectra show Si-peaks just slightly higher than Al, which matches the above mass proportions perfectly, but why does he find "more" S and Ca than Sr? S in the binder?
Great analysis. Your comparison between Al and Si is spot on and is exactly what I was banging on about in 2009. It's the ratio between certain peaks that gives the insight to analysis, not just how high all the individual peaks are, that give you information as to what material you are seeing.

I had a little look at the Laclede Standard Joint Paint composition

Vehicle (71.5% of total so 28.5% is pigment by weight)

Unmodified Epoxy Amine 45%
Deionized Water and Amine 55%

Sulphonamides are sulphur based amines used as plasticisers. So Sulphur could be part of the binder.

As for the Calcium then that's probably found in the aluminosilicate.
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
Old 15th August 2011, 05:11 AM   #145
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Thank you, Sunstealer, for your explanation concerning invisible Sr and Cr peaks)

As regards primers: when I read these NIST report paragraphs I understood that original WTC floor trusses were painted with the Laclede primer. But since it contained environmentally unfriendly chromium and strontium, this primer was replaced with Sherwin Williams stuff in the case of floor joists assembled and tested in NIST.

To Leftysergeant: Although we know for sure that some "aluminum silicate" was present in the Laclede paint, we do not know if this was kaolinite or any other such stuff.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 15th August 2011, 05:18 AM   #146
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
So why are strontium peaks in region over 10 KeV in Fig. 5 (whitepaper of Harrit) marked in XEDS of a chip (a), although invisible? I have no access to chemical journals from home so I depend on some googling now.
Software will label them.


Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Up to now, I found this paper https://www.corrdefense.org/Academia...OWN-TUCKER.pdf , in which strontium chromate was used as some kind of coating. There is a Fig. 4 with a XEDS spectrum containing also strontium and chromium signals, in the region 0 to 20 KeV. Although this picture is of a very bad quality, I can judge from this that Sr signal at cca 1.8 KeV is much, much stronger than Sr signals at ca 14.2 and 15.8 KeV. Simultaneously, this strong signal at 1.8 KeV could be hidden in Fig. 5 of Harrit's whitepaper, since there are very strong signals of Al and Si in this region. Perhaps, Harrit's device found this comparatively strong Sr signal, but marked only those very weak Sr signals at 14.2 and 15.8 KeV. I can also judge from the Fig. 4 (link above) that chromium signal at 5.4 KeV is significantly weaker than the strontium signal at ca 1.8 KeV (both elements are present in the same molar amounts in strontium chromate). This is in accordance with the fact that strontium has a higher atomic number than chromium.

Of course, it does not answer your question, but it could provide some hints why are Sr signals in Fig. 5 (Harrit) invisible (if the chip (a) is a particle of Laclede paint).
Yes, any Sr peak @2KeV will be drowned out by other elements but we know it's there because the correlating peaks at around 14.1 and 15.8KeV are present.

I'm not convinced yet, but I think it's a possibility. We need more data which I doubt we'll find unless anyone knows where we can obtain complete EDX spectra for samples a-d.

It's a far better bet than thermite!
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
Old 15th August 2011, 05:24 AM   #147
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Sulphonamides are sulphur based amines used as plasticisers. So Sulphur could be part of the binder.
There is no mention on the sulfonamide or any other sulfur compound in the Laclede binder formulation. They could be there in some minor amounts but we have no proof.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
As for the Calcium then that's probably found in the aluminosilicate.
Thanks for this

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 15th August 2011 at 05:25 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 15th August 2011, 05:35 AM   #148
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Bear in mind, too, that kaolin is not always pure aluminum silicate. There may be inclusions of such other minerals as nacrite and dickite.

Sorry if that confuses things at all.
I agree, kaolin is unlikely to be pure. There is also evidence of other possible particles in the Harrit paper, notably in Fig 8b.
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
Old 15th August 2011, 07:30 AM   #149
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
I am mightily impressed - we are making progress! I agree we won't be able to call of the search until we get better data, especially beyond that 10keV graph limit, and, better yet, a hand on actual floor joist primer residue.

However, our theory is a much much better fit with the data than Harrit's


I have two more question that we should look into:
  1. The relative amount of vehicleigments = 71.5%:28.5% - is that wet paint or cured paint, and how will that change over 30 years of time?
  2. The paint specification for the LaClede joists calls for a coating thickness of 1mm. I suppose that's after curing. Would we expect to find flaked-off paint chips to still be about 1mm thick, and if so, is that matched by Harrit's images?
Oystein 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
Old 15th August 2011, 07:33 AM   #150
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Bear in mind, too, that kaolin is not always pure aluminum silicate. There may be inclusions of such other minerals as nacrite and dickite.

Sorry if that confuses things at all.
No confusion at all, in fact, that's excellent thinking.
As for now, we should not claim outright that a Ca-signal would come from kaolin, period. That would be conjecture. But it's certainly worth looking into: Shoul be possible to find typical analysis results for ready-to-use kaolin for industrial purposes.
Oystein 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
Old 15th August 2011, 07:45 AM   #151
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...
Yes, any Sr peak @2KeV will be drowned out by other elements but we know it's there because the correlating peaks at around 14.1 and 15.8KeV are present.
...
For the record, here are some Edge Energies (keV) of the relevant elements in that region:

Strontium (38Sr):
K 16.1049995
L1 2.21600008
L2 2.00699997
L3 1.94000006
M 0.35800001
K-alpha 14.1639996
K-beta 15.8339996
L-alpha 1.80599999
L-beta 1.87199998


Silicium (14Si):
K 1.83899999
L1 0.118000001
L2 0.0997999981
L3 0.0992000028
M 0.
K-alpha 1.74000001
K-beta 1.83200002

L-alpha 0.
L-beta 0.

I found no other common element with a peak near 1.8keV.

So any Sr might / would indeed be masked by the Si-peak. Would the expected amount of Sr increase that peak significantly?
Oystein 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
Old 15th August 2011, 09:03 AM   #152
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I am mightily impressed - we are making progress! I agree we won't be able to call of the search until we get better data, especially beyond that 10keV graph limit, and, better yet, a hand on actual floor joist primer residue.

However, our theory is a much much better fit with the data than Harrit's


I have two more question that we should look into:
  1. The relative amount of vehicleigments = 71.5%:28.5% - is that wet paint or cured paint, and how will that change over 30 years of time?
  2. The paint specification for the LaClede joists calls for a coating thickness of 1mm. I suppose that's after curing. Would we expect to find flaked-off paint chips to still be about 1mm thick, and if so, is that matched by Harrit's images?
Cough. Actually 1 mils = 25.4m (25.4 microns). It's easily mixed up with mm or mil. I checked this as soon as I saw it on the Appendix B paint info. The red layer on the chips from the Harrit paper look to be around 15m thick. The paint spec says 1 mils 0.2 mils which would equate to a minimum of 20.32m.

1 mils = 1 thou or 1 thousandth of an inch.

I'm not sure whether it's dry or wet percentages.
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
Old 15th August 2011, 09:24 AM   #153
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Cough. Actually 1 mils = 25.4m (25.4 microns). It's easily mixed up with mm or mil. I checked this as soon as I saw it on the Appendix B paint info. The red layer on the chips from the Harrit paper look to be around 15m thick. The paint spec says 1 mils 0.2 mils which would equate to a minimum of 20.32m.

1 mils = 1 thou or 1 thousandth of an inch.

I'm not sure whether it's dry or wet percentages.
Argh! Americans and their stupid non-SI units! I never heard of mils - that's 1/1000th of an inch, okay.

Sooo the layer thickness is in the right ballpark, but not spot-on.
Oystein 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
Old 15th August 2011, 09:41 AM   #154
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
By the way:
From Harrit e.al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" page 9:
Quote:
An FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope
(SEM) was used to perform secondary-electron (SE) imaging
and backscattered electron (BSE) imaging. The SE imaging
was used to look at the surface topography and porosity
of the red/gray chips, while the BSE imaging was used to
distinguish variations in average atomic number, Z. The microscope
was also equipped with an EDAX X-ray energy
dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) system. The XEDS system
uses a silicon detector (SiLi) with resolution better than 135
eV. The spectrum resolution was set to 10 eV per channel.
Operating conditions for the acquired XEDS spectra were 20
keV beam energy
(unless otherwise specified) and 40-120
second acquisition time (livetime). XEDS maps were acquired
using the same system at a beam energy of 10 keV.
We should maybe just ask him directly to release graphs for all chips including the region 10-20keV?
Oystein 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
Old 15th August 2011, 10:00 AM   #155
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Argh! Americans and their stupid non-SI units! I never heard of mils - that's 1/1000th of an inch, okay.

Sooo the layer thickness is in the right ballpark, but not spot-on.
Hehe. I think you can blame us Brits for that one. "thou" is a very common engineering term for 1/1000in and you'll often hear "ten thou" and "twenty thou" being referenced, usually by older engineers even when the drawing is in mm!

So you'll often hear something like, "that's comma five mill (0,5mm), so what's that in old money? erm twenty thou"

1mm = 40 thou is how I remember it as a rough approximation.

I've been bought up in the metric era, but culturally we'll still use miles, yards, feet and inches and thou, and rulers all have cm and inches. You get used to it. Although mils is a new one for me aswell!

In one job I had to work in metric for the RB199 engine designed by UK/Germany/Italy and then imperial for Pegasus engine which was pre-metric sometimes on the same day.
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
Old 15th August 2011, 01:59 PM   #156
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
For the record, here are some Edge Energies (keV) of the relevant elements in that region:

Strontium (38Sr):
K 16.1049995
L1 2.21600008
L2 2.00699997
L3 1.94000006
M 0.35800001
K-alpha 14.1639996
K-beta 15.8339996
L-alpha 1.80599999
L-beta 1.87199998


Silicium (14Si):
K 1.83899999
L1 0.118000001
L2 0.0997999981
L3 0.0992000028
M 0.
K-alpha 1.74000001
K-beta 1.83200002

L-alpha 0.
L-beta 0.

I found no other common element with a peak near 1.8keV.

So any Sr might / would indeed be masked by the Si-peak. Would the expected amount of Sr increase that peak significantly?
Hey, thought I'd add a few things to the debate. The Sr/Si issue is what we refer to as a pathological overlap. The elements overlapping with Si are Rb, Sr, Ta and W. You're right that Sr is the most likely (by far) culprit here, but we have to be careful about comparing relative peak heights and trying to make compositional estimates based on that.

Working with X-rays in the region around Si is very complicated, and the correction factors for determining composition in those lighter elements (O, Na, Mg, Al and Si) are usually quite large (> 30 %). Oxygen absorbs silicon X-rays very efficiently, but the situation is made much more complicated by the presence of other metals, especially iron. As for the Sr K peaks, the ratio of the K line to the L line is about 0.014 or about 1.5% That means your L line is much stronger than your K line by a factor of about 100 to 1.

I went ahead and simulated using Monte Carlo calculations based on a bulk, homogeneous material, which would be pigment only. The most striking thing is that Sr is a total no-show. If I expand the vertical scale up a lot, I can start to see the hints of a Sr peak, but even as an experienced analyst, I would probably miss it. The only hint that Sr might be present is the extended tail on the high energy side of the Si peak.

__________________
"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
Old 15th August 2011, 02:44 PM   #157
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Hey, thought I'd add a few things to the debate. The Sr/Si issue is what we refer to as a pathological overlap. The elements overlapping with Si are Rb, Sr, Ta and W. You're right that Sr is the most likely (by far) culprit here, but we have to be careful about comparing relative peak heights and trying to make compositional estimates based on that.

Working with X-rays in the region around Si is very complicated, and the correction factors for determining composition in those lighter elements (O, Na, Mg, Al and Si) are usually quite large (> 30 %). Oxygen absorbs silicon X-rays very efficiently, but the situation is made much more complicated by the presence of other metals, especially iron. As for the Sr K peaks, the ratio of the K line to the L line is about 0.014 or about 1.5% That means your L line is much stronger than your K line by a factor of about 100 to 1.

I went ahead and simulated using Monte Carlo calculations based on a bulk, homogeneous material, which would be pigment only. The most striking thing is that Sr is a total no-show. If I expand the vertical scale up a lot, I can start to see the hints of a Sr peak, but even as an experienced analyst, I would probably miss it. The only hint that Sr might be present is the extended tail on the high energy side of the Si peak.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...988a200a42.png
Thanks for showing me how little I know...

I notice that your bulk sim, which contains no O and C, has pretty wild Cr-peaks around 600eV:
Chromium:
L1 0.681999981
L2 0.583800018
L3 0.574100018
These would compete with (among others?) the K-level of O at 537eV.
Now Harrit e.al. do show O (537eV) and C (284eV) - so where is Cr in their graphs? I seem to notice little bumps for Cr at K-alpha = 5.414keV at least for chips a, b and d, but the big ones are missing...
Oystein 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
Old 15th August 2011, 09:19 PM   #158
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Figs. 5 and 7 (Harrit's whitepaper) should be inserted here for comparison. (I still do not know how to do it).

Almond, thanks a lot for your valuable simulation and remarks, I did not know that you are an expert on XEDS. Now I think that your simulated XEDS spectrum of Laclede paint and the real XEDS spectrum of chip (a) are pleasingly similar, at least at first glance (except deliberately missing C peak in the simulation)

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I notice that your bulk sim, which contains no O and C, has pretty wild Cr-peaks around 600eV:
So this big peak at ca 0.6 KeV belongs to Cr, not O? (It is not easily readable and I do not know if oxygen was included in that simulation). If this is chromium peak, there might be again probably overlap of two peaks (O and Cr) in the real spectra. You mentioned that chromium peaks at 5.4 KeV are visible as little bumps even in the unexpanded spectra of chips (b) and (d), so it is a real pitty that we cannot look at these spectra as expanded. This could be more convincing as for Cr.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The paint specification for the LaClede joists calls for a coating thickness of 1mm.
I already mentioned in the contribution #66 here that the paint layer used in NIST tests (therefore comparable with the thickness of the original paint) was about 1 mil (0.025 mm) thick.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The relative amount of vehicleigments = 71.5:28.5% - is that wet paint or cured paint, and how will that change over 30 years of time?
I do not know if this was calculated for the cured or wet paint, but for the dry paint, I would not expect any substantial change in composition of this crosslinked epoxide even during 30 years (except perhaps some oxidation). But this is just my guess.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 15th August 2011 at 11:03 PM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 16th August 2011, 12:26 AM   #159
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
So I understand that Cr and Sr were very probably present in the chip (a) since their peaks were labeled by the XEDS device. Can we (in principle) prove that red chips were Laclede primer particles in some better/independent way?

1) We can ask HenryCo for some red chips from the dust. Since XEDS spectra are not ideal for the detection/determination of Cr and Sr in this particular mixture, we could turn to some other method for the determination of these metals, e.g. mass spectrometry or atomic absorption spectrometry.

2) We can collect Laclede paint somewhere. Its XEDS spectra should be very similar to that of red chips to support our working hypothesis, but the comparison of its microscopic pictures with those of red chips studied by Harrit et al. would be perhaps more important. I still think that a quite crucial and simple proof can be obtained by DSC measurement under air: if Laclede particles show the same/similar exotherms at the same experimental conditions as for chips in Harrit's paper... it would be great I repeat: as a polymer chemist, I am using our DSC service (with a very fine person in charge) ca once a month. It should be no problem for me to arrange such measurements. It is also no problem to ask people from the microscopic department here to look at the unburned and burned Laclede paint.

(Sorry that I am repeating some things again here)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th August 2011 at 12:34 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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
Old 16th August 2011, 01:36 AM   #160
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,120
Ivan,

some more ideas what we can do:

The gray layer has so far received no attention in this thread, and very little attention by Harrit e.al.
If we find more information on what the LaClede paint was painted on (type of steel), then maybe we can predict what we'd expect to find, and compare with the data by Harrit, however little that is.

I think we have by now collected enough observations and ideas for a first draft or summary of a "paper". Well, blog post. If I find the time and consentration...


Hey, have any of you guys noticed that our resident truthers (tmd, Marokaan, RedIbis...) and 9/11-agnostics (femr2, ...) are staying out of this thread? Sole exception is Bill Smith, who carefully avoids adressing the evidence we are collecting
Oystein 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.