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 29th August 2011, 03:43 PM   #321
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
From the film

Quote:
There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think.
Professor Chris Pistorius

Sums it up really. It's irrelevant.
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 30th August 2011, 12:17 AM   #322
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
...
The program can be seen online on BBC's iPlayer, for folks in the UK anyway. It's available for the next 7 days at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006x8d6 (and I'm sure it'll be on YouTube in the next few hours for everyone else).
Grrr "not available in your area" (Germany)
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 30th August 2011, 12:30 AM   #323
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
So would you expect iron oxide and paint pigment particles in 1960's paint to have an average particle size as small as 0.1 um ? Was nanotechnology already so well developed back then ?

If not then the paint argument may have run into a problem.
Why are you still talking about nanotechnologies as only potential sources of submicron particles?

E.g.: in Tnemec primer specification, there are components called "iron oxide fume". According to this link http://www.nederman.com/Welding_fume...ing_fumes.aspx, this kind of iron oxides, formed during welding, consists of particles in the range 1 nm (!) to 1000 nm.

Well, we cannot be sure (so far) which iron oxide was used in Laclede primer. (Btw, what about to ask Alton Steel Company, which is a successor of Laclede Steel company?). Looking at the micrographs in Harrit's paper, the irone oxide particles had a quite uniform sizes around 100 nm. Perhaps it is a sign that some kind of synthetic iron oxide (of course red in color) was used (e.g. "Mars Red", produced for many decades). I would like to find some info about particle size distribution of synthetic iron oxides... any hints, links?
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 30th August 2011, 12:41 AM   #324
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
This is extremely important info that you're getting into, Ivan. Well, that is, it's important with regard to the question of nanothermitics.

If it turns out to be conclusively some kind of paint remnants, I wonder what that means for the whole 'controlled demolition' fad? Will it make much of an impact on this belief? I'm very curious about that.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 30th August 2011, 12:48 AM   #325
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Grrr "not available in your area" (Germany)
Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiRSmxlyNQY instead.

The Carnegie Mellon guys are 4 minutes in to this clip, though I'd watch it from the start as Harrit is on first.
MikeW 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 30th August 2011, 12:54 AM   #326
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
From the film

Professor Chris Pistorius

Sums it up really. It's irrelevant.
Let me see then. An 8 man team of Ph.d scientists spend two years proving that the dust at the WTC contains still reactive chips of explosive nanothermite and have their paper peer reviewed to boot. A huge storm of protest arises from the government side of the story going on until today and with no sign of dying down. In that time no scientist on the government side of the story raises a credible technical challenge to the science of the paper.....and you tthink it's credible for Professor Pistorius to say:-

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''
__________________
*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; 30th August 2011 at 12:57 AM.
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 30th August 2011, 12:59 AM   #327
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
This is extremely important info that you're getting into, Ivan. Well, that is, it's important with regard to the question of nanothermitics.

If it turns out to be conclusively some kind of paint remnants, I wonder what that means for the whole 'controlled demolition' fad? Will it make much of an impact on this belief? I'm very curious about that.
Don't think so.
Firstly, the entire TM is so very apt at handwaving, they'll undoubtedly just ignore our evidence.
Secondly, CD theories had a life of their own before the first truther said "thermite". Too many of them have heard explosions where there are none.
Thirdly, even if they acknowledge no explosions and no n-t found as red-grey chips, they can still claim thermite and just say it hasn't been found "because NIST didn't look for it". They will still point to "pools of molten steel" and that orange-yellow flow from the south tower.
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 30th August 2011, 01:06 AM   #328
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiRSmxlyNQY instead.

The Carnegie Mellon guys are 4 minutes in to this clip, though I'd watch it from the start as Harrit is on first.
Thanks a lot! I did get some search results on youtube, but could not know if I found the right docu (found some BBC "9/11 conspiracy files" uploaded a year ago. Same, or different?)


Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Let me see then. An 8 man team of Ph.d scientists spend two years proving that the dust at the WTC contains still reactive chips of explosive nanothermite and have their paper peer reviewed to boot. ...'
Bill, please be mindful of the OP and STFU:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The topic here is very limited: If the red-gray chips analysed by Harrit, Jones e.al. are paint, but not the twin tower steel primer Tnemec, what paint are they?
We are NOT debating the merits of the 8 man team and the conclusions of their Bentham paper. Instead, we are debating here under the explicit assumption that they are WRONG.
This thread is about paint. It's nice to see a Carnegie-Mellon professor of the relevant qualifications (material science and steel making) supporting our assumption. No need at all to go to the 8 man team though.
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 30th August 2011, 01:14 AM   #329
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Thanks a lot! I did get some search results on youtube, but could not know if I found the right docu (found some BBC "9/11 conspiracy files" uploaded a year ago. Same, or different?)
The "Conspiracy Files" was just the name of a series they did which covered various supposed conspiracies. The old 9/11 one was part of that earlier series; this is a new programme (although, unsurprisingly I guess as they're covering many of the same things, they've repeated some of their earlier arguments in a very similar way).
MikeW 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 30th August 2011, 04:51 AM   #330
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Thanks a lot! I did get some search results on youtube, but could not know if I found the right docu (found some BBC "9/11 conspiracy files" uploaded a year ago. Same, or different?)



Bill, please be mindful of the OP and STFU:

We are NOT debating the merits of the 8 man team and the conclusions of their Bentham paper. Instead, we are debating here under the explicit assumption that they are WRONG.
This thread is about paint. It's nice to see a Carnegie-Mellon professor of the relevant qualifications (material science and steel making) supporting our assumption. No need at all to go to the 8 man team though.
This is an adversarial forum Oystein. So if you want to have a thread where people only talk about paint and Harrit being wrong you would do better to set up email exchanges between yourself and other like-minded posters

You may not undertsand for some reason that we in the Truth Movement while we believe that there may well be some paint chips present,believe that the red-grey chips tested by Harrit et al are in fact examples of unreacted nanothermite. And in the spirit of this public forum we will make our views known and will not be restricted to calling the red-grey chips 'paint' .Is that clear ?
__________________
*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; 30th August 2011 at 05:05 AM.
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 30th August 2011, 05:04 AM   #331
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Another little note on iron oxide particles in chips (a) to (d)...

It is a pity that my colleague, who had been working in a big Czech company producing paints for many years, is still on holiday. I have already several questions for him.

Meanwhile... It is written in this very basic info http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Paint.html:

Making the paste

1 Pigment manufacturers send bags of fine grain pigments to paint plants. There, the pigment is premixed with resin (a wetting agent that assists in moistening the pigment), one or more solvents, and additives to form a paste.

Dispersing the pigment

2 The paste mixture for most industrial and some consumer paints is now routed into a sand mill, a large cylinder that agitates tiny particles of sand or silica to grind the pigment particles, making them smaller and dispersing them throughout the mixture. The mixture is then filtered to remove the sand particles.


Shortly, pigments particles are milled together and their original size can be substantially reduced in this step. So perhaps even iron oxide particles in (paint) chips (a) to (d) were originally bigger than 100 nm and were crushed to some individual crystals or so in this operation.

It would be great if somebody (Oystein?) can summarize somehow what we know, what we suppose, what are our proofs or hints etc. Although prof. Pistorius thinks that all this effort is more or less a loss of time, it is at least a kind of fun (and a kind of learning and self-educating as well)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 30th August 2011 at 05:10 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 30th August 2011, 05:17 AM   #332
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
It would be great if somebody (Oystein?) can summarize somehow what we know, what we suppose, what are our proofs or hints etc. Although prof. Pistorius thinks that all this effort is more or less a loss of time, it is at least a kind of fun (and a kind of learning and self-educating as well)
I plan to do just that. Not here, but as a blog post. Got more freedom there to edit around.
Just don't expect me to be very fast

Pistorius is probably right: Serious scientists have better things to do - things that are more interesting to them. But it is a fun excercise for hobbyists like myself, and who knows, maybe we can get something published somewhere?

Last edited by Oystein; 30th August 2011 at 05:18 AM.
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 30th August 2011, 05:20 AM   #333
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Another little note on iron oxide particles in chips (a) to (d)...

It is a pity that my colleague, who had been working in a big Czech company producing paints for many years, is still on holiday. I have already several questions for him.

Meanwhile... It is written in this very basic info http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Paint.html:

Making the paste

1 Pigment manufacturers send bags of fine grain pigments to paint plants. There, the pigment is premixed with resin (a wetting agent that assists in moistening the pigment), one or more solvents, and additives to form a paste.

Dispersing the pigment

2 The paste mixture for most industrial and some consumer paints is now routed into a sand mill, a large cylinder that agitates tiny particles of sand or silica to grind the pigment particles, making them smaller and dispersing them throughout the mixture. The mixture is then filtered to remove the sand particles.


Shortly, pigments particles are milled together and their original size can be substantially reduced in this step. So perhaps even iron oxide particles in (paint) chips (a) to (d) were originally bigger than 100 nm and were crushed to some individual crystals or so in this operation.

It would be great if somebody (Oystein?) can summarize somehow what we know, what we suppose, what are our proofs or hints etc. Although prof. Pistorius thinks that all this effort is more or less a loss of time, it is at least a kind of fun (and a kind of learning and self-educating as well)
In the 1960's or early 70's I doubt that nanotechnology was well developed enough to produce industrial quantities of particles of iron oxide with a consistent size of 0.1 um.

We know that the particles of FeO2 in the red-grey chips do have an average size of 0.1 um.

This seems to be a good reason to exclude the paint chips as an alternative candidate for the red-grey nanothermite chips.
__________________
*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; 30th August 2011 at 05:34 AM.
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 30th August 2011, 05:20 AM   #334
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
This is extremely important info that you're getting into, Ivan. Well, that is, it's important with regard to the question of nanothermitics.

If it turns out to be conclusively some kind of paint remnants, I wonder what that means for the whole 'controlled demolition' fad? Will it make much of an impact on this belief? I'm very curious about that.

I'd guess that it will make no difference at all to the twoofers. Its been clear from the start that it wasn't thermite but that didn't stop them.....they can't even grasp that Bentham was not a reputable journal .
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 30th August 2011, 05:23 AM   #335
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Let me see then. An 8 man team of Ph.d scientists spend two years proving that the dust at the WTC contains still reactive chips of explosive nanothermite and have their paper peer reviewed to boot. A huge storm of protest arises from the government side of the story going on until today and with no sign of dying down. In that time no scientist on the government side of the story raises a credible technical challenge to the science of the paper.....and you tthink it's credible for Professor Pistorius to say:-

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''

hello! earth to Bill! If you are going to troll, do it convincingly.
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 30th August 2011, 05:23 AM   #336
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
...And in the spirit of this public forum we will make our views known and will not be restricted to calling the red-grey chips 'paint' .Is that clear ?
I take that to mean that you reserve the right to derail this thread. Well...

Rule 11 of your Membership agreement: You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads...
I defined the topic of this particular thread very clearly in the OP: "The topic here is very limited: If the red-gray chips analysed by Harrit, Jones e.al. are paint, but not the twin tower steel primer Tnemec, what paint are they?"
Is that clear, Bill Smith?
If you try to derail this thread after this clear statement, I will report you.
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 30th August 2011, 05:26 AM   #337
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
and will not be restricted to calling the red-grey chips 'paint' .Is that clear ?

My house is needing a good thermite but the thermite on my car is still nice and shiny
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 30th August 2011, 05:27 AM   #338
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I take that to mean that you reserve the right to derail this thread. Well...

Rule 11 of your Membership agreement: You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads...
I defined the topic of this particular thread very clearly in the OP: "The topic here is very limited: If the red-gray chips analysed by Harrit, Jones e.al. are paint, but not the twin tower steel primer Tnemec, what paint are they?"
Is that clear, Bill Smith?
If you try to derail this thread after this clear statement, I will report you.
You had better consult the moderators then.
__________________
*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 30th August 2011, 05:29 AM   #339
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In the 1960's or early 70's I doubt that nanothechnology was well developed enough to produce industrial quantities of particles of iron oxide with a consistent size of 0.1 um.
Your personal incredulity is not accepted evidence.
You have been taught several times now that this "nanothechnology" has been around for millenia.

Try to learn.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
We know that the particles of FeO2 in the red-grey chips do have an average size of 0.1 um.
Yes. Pigments of that size are found in nature and can be ground from larger particles in ordinary mills and mortars.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
This seems to be a good reason to exclude the paint chips as an alternative candidate for the red-grey nanothermite chips.
Only to you.


But this is again not quite the topic of this thread. I'll allow it if you can present us with evidence that ALL steel primers used in the 60s and 70s, or specifically the LaClede standard primer, had significantly larger pigments because production of smaller pigment size was impossible or prohibitively difficult or expensive then.
Do bring sources, or STFU.
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 30th August 2011, 05:29 AM   #340
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,286
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Let me see then. An 8 man team of Ph.d scientists spend two years proving that the dust at the WTC contains still reactive chips of explosive nanothermite and have their paper peer reviewed to boot.
Well, there's some fairly convincing evidence that it wasn't properly peer-reviewed.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
A huge storm of protest arises from the government side of the story going on until today and with no sign of dying down.
Evidence for "a huge storm of protest"? Evidence, in fact, that anyone has taken any notice of this "paper" whatsoever outside of this forum, a few forums like it, and the occasional highly specialised TV documentary? As storms of protest go, this isn't even a minor shower.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In that time no scientist on the government side of the story raises a credible technical challenge to the science of the paper.
Since this is the only place there's been any response whatsoever to the paper, and you're well aware that a whole raft of extremely credible technical challenges have been raised here, then that statement is clearly no more than a deliberate lie.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
....and you tthink it's credible for Professor Pistorius to say:-

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''
Given that there hasn't been any "storm of protest" except here, and that only here has anyone bothered to raise technical challenges, I'd say his credibility is rock solid. Bill, nobody cares about your lies, and very few people ever did.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 30th August 2011, 05:30 AM   #341
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
You had better consult the moderators then.
Trust me, I will, by using the report function.
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 30th August 2011, 05:36 AM   #342
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Trust me, I will, by using the report function.
No sweat .I am happy to argue my point.
__________________
*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 30th August 2011, 05:37 AM   #343
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
My house is needing a good thermite but the thermite on my car is still nice and shiny
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 30th August 2011, 05:39 AM   #344
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Why are you still talking about nanotechnologies as only potential sources of submicron particles?

E.g.: in Tnemec primer specification, there are components called "iron oxide fume". According to this link http://www.nederman.com/Welding_fume...ing_fumes.aspx, this kind of iron oxides, formed during welding, consists of particles in the range 1 nm (!) to 1000 nm.
And no welding ever too place in the WTC of any other of the hundreds of buildings in lower Manhattan......

Troofers always and wave away the obvious and go for the ridiculous.
Animal 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 30th August 2011, 08:21 AM   #345
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
And no welding ever too place in the WTC of any other of the hundreds of buildings in lower Manhattan......

Troofers always and wave away the obvious and go for the ridiculous.
The box section column assemblies of the twin towers will all have been continuously seam welded together as opposed to the rolled I beams more commonly used so there would likely be far more weld residue on them than in most high rises.
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 30th August 2011, 09:20 AM   #346
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your personal incredulity is not accepted evidence.
You have been taught several times now that this "nanothechnology" has been around for millenia.

Try to learn.


Yes. Pigments of that size are found in nature and can be ground from larger particles in ordinary mills and mortars.


Only to you.


But this is again not quite the topic of this thread. I'll allow it if you can present us with evidence that ALL steel primers used in the 60s and 70s, or specifically the LaClede standard primer, had significantly larger pigments because production of smaller pigment size was impossible or prohibitively difficult or expensive then.
Do bring sources, or STFU.
In nature you will find some nanoparticles in any sample of iron oxide. But the vast majority of particles are not nanosized. To produce industrial working quantities of nanoparticles at an average size of 0.1 um you need very specialised equipment. Even nowadays let alone back in the 1960's.

Your theory is shot if you cannot show that the iron oxide particles in the paint have an average size of 0.1 um the same as the red-grey nanothermite chips.

Otherwise the paint is not a candidate for the role of the red-grey chips.
__________________
*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 30th August 2011, 09:51 AM   #347
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In nature you will find some nanoparticles in any sample of iron oxide. But the vast majority of particles are not nanosized. To produce industrial working quantities of nanoparticles at an average size of 0.1 um you need very specialised equipment. Even nowadays let alone back in the 1960's.

Your theory is shot if you cannot show that the iron oxide particles in the paint have an average size of 0.1 um the same as the red-grey nanothermite chips.

Otherwise the paint is not a candidate for the role of the red-grey chips.
I've had enough of this crap. You're going onto ignore. Man has been synthetically producing iron oxide since the 19th century, Thats 1800-1900 btw. I posted a source for it but as usual you don't read anything. You're a troll. I'm done with your ignorant nonsense - you've spoilt a worthwhile thread with you delusional postings.

I suggest others do the same. Don't give him any more oxygen folks.
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 30th August 2011, 10:01 AM   #348
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,173
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In nature you will find some nanoparticles in any sample of iron oxide. But the vast majority of particles are not nanosized. To produce industrial working quantities of nanoparticles at an average size of 0.1 um you need very specialised equipment. Even nowadays let alone back in the 1960's.

So, small particle sizes are expected when manufacturers of pigments use specialized equipment, specialized for the manufacture of pigments, when they manufacture pigments.

That's good to know. Now all we have to do is show that when pigment manufacturers manufacture pigments, they use specialized pigment manufacturing equipment to do so. Rather than, say, repurposing glass bottle making equipment, or cooking the pigments up at home with Waring blenders.

Oh, look, here's some for sale. And it's even on a YouTube video, so -- ironclad proof!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


So, mystery of iron oxide particles solved! It's paint pigment, manufactured using specialized pigment manufacturing equipment.

(All irony aside, smaller and more uniform pigment particles are one of the features that make higher quality paints higher quality, and more expensive. So you crush up iron oxide in pulverizers until it stops getting any smaller, separate out the smaller particles in an air column and use them in your premium grade red epoxy primer, and make the rest into Paint, Primer, Metal, Red, Drippy for the Navy. Simple.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 30th August 2011, 10:06 AM   #349
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In nature you will find some nanoparticles in any sample of iron oxide. But the vast majority of particles are not nanosized. To produce industrial working quantities of nanoparticles at an average size of 0.1 um you need very specialised equipment. Even nowadays let alone back in the 1960's.
unsupported assertions. please prove that to be the case.


Quote:
Your theory is shot if you cannot show that the iron oxide particles in the paint have an average size of 0.1 um the same as the red-grey nanothermite chips.

Well firstly that would depend if Harrit was actually telling the truth to start with and actually tested a reasonable sample size and did not make an error in his test as they already did in other tests. Then YOU would have to show that paint of that era was not made with particles that size.

Remember its you that is asserting that its something unusual (thermite) not us. Paint will be in the dust, it has to be, so its up to you to show that your thermite is not paint not vice versa.

Quote:
Otherwise the paint is not a candidate for the role of the red-grey chips.
[/quote]


Feel free to show that.....we'll wait (its been years already so whats a few more
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 30th August 2011, 08:24 PM   #350
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
There should have been tons of Laclede paint chips in the dust, in a greater proportion than the Tnemec chips, because of the way that the floor trusses fell through a grinding column of falling debris. One and only one of Jones' chips is identified (grudgingly) as Tnemec. None are identified as Laclede.

This is not statisticly possible.
__________________
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 31st August 2011, 12:39 AM   #351
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
To Bill Smith (and all):

Harrit et al. found ca 100 nm particles of iron oxide in the chips (a) to (d).

There are two main possibilities:
1) Such particles were formed from bigger ones during milling/grinding of pigment "paste" in the paint manufacture.
2) These particles were originally present (prevail) in the pigment delivered to the paint manufacture facility.

As regards 2):
Iron oxide pigments with particles of this size (ca 100 nm and smaller) are called “transparent iron oxide pigments" since the most of particles are substantially smaller than the wavelengths of visible light (ca 400-800 nm).
The manufacture of transparent iron oxides does not require any “nanotechnology”, they are prepared, e.g., by the precipitation of iron salts in some alkaline solution.

Here is a US patent from the year 1947: http://www.google.cz/patents?hl=cs&l...igment&f=false Iron oxide particles smaller than 100 nm are described as a result of these procedures.

Here are some newer patents using another procedures: http://www.google.cz/patents?hl=cs&l...igment&f=false
http://www.google.cz/patents?hl=cs&l...page&q&f=false

Some more googling can reveal another examples….

(Of course these "transparent iron oxide pigments" are not really transparent in the paint - they are usually red but can have also other colors)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 31st August 2011 at 01:05 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 31st August 2011, 03:26 AM   #352
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
To Bill Smith (and all):

Harrit et al. found ca 100 nm particles of iron oxide in the chips (a) to (d).

There are two main possibilities:
1) Such particles were formed from bigger ones during milling/grinding of pigment "paste" in the paint manufacture.
2) These particles were originally present (prevail) in the pigment delivered to the paint manufacture facility.

As regards 2):
Iron oxide pigments with particles of this size (ca 100 nm and smaller) are called “transparent iron oxide pigments" since the most of particles are substantially smaller than the wavelengths of visible light (ca 400-800 nm).
The manufacture of transparent iron oxides does not require any “nanotechnology”, they are prepared, e.g., by the precipitation of iron salts in some alkaline solution.

Here is a US patent from the year 1947: http://www.google.cz/patents?hl=cs&l...igment&f=false Iron oxide particles smaller than 100 nm are described as a result of these procedures.

Here are some newer patents using another procedures: http://www.google.cz/patents?hl=cs&l...igment&f=false
http://www.google.cz/patents?hl=cs&l...page&q&f=false

Some more googling can reveal another examples….

(Of course these "transparent iron oxide pigments" are not really transparent in the paint - they are usually red but can have also other colors)
Well done Ivan. So it appears that it was possible to produce 0.1 um sized particles after all. Whether it would have ben desirable or neccessary to use such small sized particles for primer paint is an open question.

In any event the question is on the table now and I will leave it to others on the outside with the neccessary expertise to take it further and see if there is a future in this line of thinking.
__________________
*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; 31st August 2011 at 03:53 AM.
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 31st August 2011, 03:36 AM   #353
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In any event the question is on the table now and I will leave it to others on the outside with the neccessary expertise to take it further and see if there is a future in this line of thinking.
Well, that will be a first
__________________
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 31st August 2011, 04:15 AM   #354
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Thanks, Bill

One little explanation/correction, concerning terms “transparent” and “colorless”. As I understand (I am just a beginner in paints), “transparent pigments” are always colored powders “in bulk”, but they can be used in “transparent” (but not colorless) paints.
(Of course primers for steel in WTC were not transparent since they contained aluminosilicates and other components with particles substantially bigger than 100 nm).

It seems that the smaller (and more uniform) iron oxide particles are, the better for the most of the paints. Since the method of iron oxide nanoparticles manufacture patented in 1947 does not look very expensive, I do not see any reason why such or similar “transparent iron oxide” could not be used in Laclede primer paint (or any other primer applied in WTC).

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 31st August 2011 at 04:22 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 31st August 2011, 05:01 AM   #355
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Of course, it would be a little silly too reduce the iron oxide to such fines particles and then to just throw in pit-run kaolin with single crystals three or four times the size of the iron oxide. The idea behind nano-banano concoctions like this is to bring more of the two reagents into contact at the instantof ignition.I don't see that happening here.
__________________
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 31st August 2011, 08:10 AM   #356
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Thanks, Bill

One little explanation/correction, concerning terms “transparent” and “colorless”. As I understand (I am just a beginner in paints), “transparent pigments” are always colored powders “in bulk”, but they can be used in “transparent” (but not colorless) paints.
(Of course primers for steel in WTC were not transparent since they contained aluminosilicates and other components with particles substantially bigger than 100 nm).

It seems that the smaller (and more uniform) iron oxide particles are, the better for the most of the paints. Since the method of iron oxide nanoparticles manufacture patented in 1947 does not look very expensive, I do not see any reason why such or similar “transparent iron oxide” could not be used in Laclede primer paint (or any other primer applied in WTC).
Could the primer be grey ?
__________________
*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 31st August 2011, 01:15 PM   #357
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Could the primer be grey ?
No.
See Niels Harrit's WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT, Figure 2. In the right picture, you see the LaClede floor joists - they are clearly red.
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 31st August 2011, 11:56 PM   #358
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Back to the red layers (paint layers) thicknesses.

Let me repeat: according to specification, the layer of the Laclede primer on floor steel joists (applied by electrophoresis) should be 1 mil (25 μm) +/- 20 % thick. But the red layers on the photos (Harrit, HenryCo) seem to have thickness between ca 15 and 20 μm.
Could it be caused by some epoxy paint shrinkage during 30 years of aging?

I wrote here that I would not expect such a shrinkage of the epoxy resin/composite, but I could not be sure.

Generally, epoxy resins are quite stable, but even in them, some oxidative processes can gradually lead to some changes, including weight loss/decrease of layer thickness. Such processes in polymers including epoxides are usually too slow at "room temperature" so they are frequently investigated by the methods of "accelerated aging" at higher temperatures or by applying repeated cycles of low and high temperatures in „aging/weathering machines“ etc.

Up to now, I have found several papers dealing with the thermally aged epoxy resins.
In this paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...41391003000946 , authors observed the weight loss/layer thickness decrease in some per cents at temperatures above 100 oC after some hundreds of hours. This was accompanied with the increase of resin density and with the loss of desirable mechanical properties - resin became to be brittle, etc. The main reason is seen in the fact that epoxy chains are attacked by oxygen forming hydroperoxide/peroxide moieties. Degradation/splitting of the epoxy chains can follow, with some release of comparatively volatile stuff. Notably (and quite naturally) , the thinner layer is, the higher loss of thickness and weight is observed.

Here are another papers on this matter:
http://www.expresspolymlett.com/leto...-0001170&mi=cd
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pc.10628/pdf

These (or similar) papers are not proofs that Laclede paint layer could loss some 20-30 % of its thickness during 30 years at room temperature. But some shrinkage of the paint layer in the course of many years is definitely possible.
What we can say is that Laclede primer became very brittle after such a long time: this is one of the reason why it was almost completely stripped away from the steel during collapses, I think.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 1st September 2011 at 12:16 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 1st September 2011, 12:13 AM   #359
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
The difference could be age. It could also be the contractor cut corners to save a few bucks by applying a slightly lighter coat of paint than specified. It wouldn't exactly be the first time that that has happened.

Even at bulk pricing good paint isn't cheap so if you can (for the sake of argument) cut back or thin out the usage by even 2 quarts per truss and there are (pulling this number out of my butt but I'm pretty sure that it's close) 100 trusses per floor that's 50 gallons of paint. If you did that for 50 floors per tower you end up with 5,000 gallons of paint left over to sell or use on a different job (for free). Even at $10 per gallon (good quality paint can run much higher than that) that's a half million bucks worth of motive.

Given NYC's known history of shady contractors with ties to organized crime back in the 1960's and 70's I wouldn't put it past someone to do something like that.

I'm not saying that's what happened but it's one possible explanation for thinner than specified paint layers being applied. Add in aging and there you have it.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.

Last edited by Sam.I.Am; 1st September 2011 at 12:14 AM.
Sam.I.Am 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 1st September 2011, 01:07 AM   #360
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Ivan, Sam, that's all good thinking and research, but the conclusion remains conjecture.

I guess without access to actual pieces of WTC floor joists that
a) still have paint on them
b) Did not suffer significant temperatures in the smouldering debris pile
this issue of layer thickness will stay a slight problem.
I have no great troubles with that; I think what we want to show at least is that "LaClede standard primer, such as was specified for the joists, or a similar primer yet to be identified, fits the available data much much better than Harrit's conclusions". The measured layer thickness is 20-30% off for the purposes of our specific conclusion, but it is off by 1000000% for the purpose of Harrit's conclusion: 20μm are much much too little to melt or even weaken any steel, you'd need thermite layer thickness on the order of 2cm.
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 10:21 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.