Originally posted by hypattia
reply to post by samkent
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1
were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1
Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips
At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The
composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer
paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron
oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary
(Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17
55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or
kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.
Excuse my ignorance, but what good are unidentified chips? What does it prove?" Please enlighten me, so I can understand the significance of this
study. Thank you.
Hi, greetings from relevant JREF forums on WTC red paints, nanothermite and Jim Millette's study
You are basically right: the first conclusions of Jim Millette are not really conclusive, since Jim has not been able to identify the paint which he
found as the prevailing material of red-gray chips. The basic composition of his chips (epoxy binder, kaolinite, iron oxide) is not in accordance with
the composition of the well-known Tnemec red primer, which was applied to WTC1/2 perimeter columns (this paint contained alkyd-linseed binder, iron
oxide, zinc chromate and a mixture of various compounds of silicon, aluminium and calcium).
However, already in last August, I luckily "discovered" the second red primer paint massively used in WTC for protection of floor steel trusses (see
the thread Origin of paint forums.randi.org...
, starting the post No 104) . I found this info in NIST NCSTAR 1-6b
report, Appendix B, p. 155. I'm not going into details here, but this red paint contained epoxy binder, aluminosilicate, iron oxide (and a little of
strontium chromate). (And as you can already see from Millette's conclusion, the composition of this paint is in a very good accordance with what was
found by Millette). From that time, we have gathered numerous clues and proofs that this paint (we called it "Laclede paint") was the source of red
chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper.
When we "ordered" new Jim Millette's independent study on red chips, we decided not to inform this forensic expert about Laclede paint, in order to
avoid any our influence on the results of this research.
Now, the results are out and we plan to discuss them thoroughly with Jim Millette. We are quite sure that he will accept the Laclede paint as a
prevailing material of his red-gray chips.
Moreover, Oystein and me have just finished a quite elaborate "white-paper" in which we explain in very detail why Bentham chips (a) to (d) were not
nanothermite and why they were Laclede paint. (Note: we have not included any other chips described in the Bentham paper into our analysis, since in
fact, almost nothing is known about their composition, including chips heated in DSC device. And this is one of the countless errors of "Bentham
team", since WTC dust provably contained at least two red primers). Except chips (a) to (d), only so called MEK chip was closely analyzed, and this
chips was lately "accused" to be very probably Tnemec primer particle (see Oystein's blog oystein-debate.blogspot.com...
) Our white paper will be
published quite soon, if you are interested.
The whole "paint issue" is quite complex. If you are really interested, visit relevant JREF threads. But I'm prepared to answer some basic questions
edit on 9-3-2012 by IvanKminek because: Just editing...
edit on 9-3-2012 by IvanKminek because: (no reason given)