9/11 Poll

[Trippy]

Trippy, I think you've fallen into the same trap as Hoz; you both think that it's so obvious that the other is wrong; I will grant that maybe it's obvious for you and Hoz (or atleast you both know enough to find ways to believe this), but from where I stand, and I don't think I'm alone here, it's definitely not. I frequently can't make heads or tails of what you guys are saying. I made that crystal clear when I responded to one of your large posts.

Tha would be your wrong assumption Scott.
My statements about Hoz have nothing to do with his disagreeing with me.

Here's two examples.
The first is something I would expect someone who has studied Highschool chemistry to know.

I stated repeatedly that Aluminium is a strong reducing agent, and that the Data Sheet for MEK, the solvent used by Harrit, explicitly states that you should not mix MEK with strong reducing agents.

Hoz comes along, and in amongst his abuse makes the comment that:

Paint solvent (such as MEK) does not reduce aluminium. MEK doesn't make aluminium out of aluminium oxide or out of alumino-silicates.

Which is the complete Opposite of what I said.
In order to behave in the way Hoz describes, the Aluminium would be acting as an Oxidant, not a reductant.
In high school, we got taught a mnemonic.
LEO goes GER
Loss of Electrons, Oxidation.
Gain of Electrons, Reduction.

The Oxidant is reduced.
The reductant is Oxidized.

So the reaction I was referring to would have the metallic aluminium being oxidized, not reduced by the MEK.

His criticism of the use of the term 'Aluminoferric thermite' is a second example.
Again, that's basic nomenclature that you get taught in Highschool.

Fe(0) is Ferro (eg: http://www.raghavsteel.com/ferro-alloys.html ).
Fe(II) Is Ferrous.
Fe(III) is Ferric.

Finally (for now) there's this beautiful post:
Post #2276 where we have him saying this:

Where is the linseed oil here? How is this at all relevant? There is NO zinc here at all. Even if there were trace elements of zinc, then that still doesn't support zinc oxide paint-theory which you are suggesting. So stop stating irrelvant information.

Inspite of having previously made this post, post #2279 which included the following table:

The point that you have to understand here is that I'm not saying that he knows nothing about chemistry because i'm trying to be mean to him because he disagrees with me, i'm stating that he knows nothing about chemistry because he keeps getting basic things wrong that get taught at highschool level, like the role of oxidants and reductants in redox reactions, inspite of having implied enough times that you actually take what he has to say seriously from a chemistry perspective.

Do you understand yet my point?

 

[Trippy]

Could you relink to such an article? I may have heard this story before (an editor resigning sounds familiar), but just wanted to double check.

Not tonight Josephine.

 

[Trippy]

Good to know. What do you think of this Trippy?

I think it's irrelevant, and not a point i've contested.

I haven't contested whether or not EDS can be used for Thermite.
I've only contested whether or not that's what Harrit found.

I think that at best this represents a strawman fallacy by implying that I've somehow questioned the efficacy of using EDS to test for thermite residue, which I haven't.

I would even go as far as calling it deliberately dishonest and misleading (not the article though, mind you, the post and the intent behind it).

I notice that not one conspiracy theorist has yet to produce an EDS spectrum for Aluminium to prove that it looks like Harrit says it does.

 

[scott3x]

Trippy, I think you've fallen into the same trap as Hoz; you both think that it's so obvious that the other is wrong; I will grant that maybe it's obvious for you and Hoz (or atleast you both know enough to find ways to believe this), but from where I stand, and I don't think I'm alone here, it's definitely not. I frequently can't make heads or tails of what you guys are saying. I made that crystal clear when I responded to one of your large posts.

That would be your wrong assumption Scott.
My statements about Hoz have nothing to do with his disagreeing with me.

Here's two examples.
The first is something I would expect someone who has studied High school chemistry to know.

Don't think I took high school chemistry. Took high school biology, but I didn't finish it (it wasn't a mandatory credit). Nevertheless, I can be a quick learner when I put my mind to something...

I stated repeatedly that Aluminium is a strong reducing agent, and that the Data Sheet for MEK, the solvent used by Harrit, explicitly states that you should not mix MEK with strong reducing agents.

Hoz comes along, and in amongst his abuse makes the comment that:

Paint solvent (such as MEK) does not reduce aluminium. MEK doesn't make aluminium out of aluminium oxide or out of alumino-silicates.

Which is the complete Opposite of what I said.
In order to behave in the way Hoz describes, the Aluminium would be acting as an Oxidant, not a reductant.

Which seems to be saying that Hoz misunderstood you, but is indeed correct.

In high school, we got taught a mnemonic.
LEO goes GER
Loss of Electrons, Oxidation.
Gain of Electrons, Reduction.

The Oxidant is reduced.
The reductant is Oxidized.

So the reaction I was referring to would have the metallic aluminium being oxidized, not reduced by the MEK.

Yeah, makes sense; but since he thought you were saying the opposite, he thought you were mistaken.

His criticism of the use of the term 'Aluminoferric thermite' is a second example. Again, that's basic nomenclature that you get taught in Highschool.

Fe(0) is Ferro (eg: http://www.raghavsteel.com/ferro-alloys.html ).
Fe(II) Is Ferrous.
Fe(III) is Ferric.

I didn't see his criticism so don't know where this is going...

 

[scott3x]

Finally (for now) there's this beautiful post:
Post #2276 where we have him saying this:

Where is the linseed oil here? How is this at all relevant? There is NO zinc here at all. Even if there were trace elements of zinc, then that still doesn't support zinc oxide paint-theory which you are suggesting. So stop stating irrelvant information.

In spite of having previously made this post, post #2279 which included the following table:

Means nothing to me...

The point that you have to understand here is that I'm not saying that he knows nothing about chemistry because i'm trying to be mean to him because he disagrees with me

I never implied that's what you meant...

i'm stating that he knows nothing about chemistry because he keeps getting basic things wrong that get taught at highschool level, like the role of oxidants and reductants in redox reactions, in spite of having implied enough times that you actually take what he has to say seriously from a chemistry perspective.

Do you understand yet my point?

I have understood for some time that you've been saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Your point concerning reductants and oxidizers is well taken. I don't think Hoz has ever stated that he's a chemist and while he may have passed a high school chemistry course, I don't think that remembering such things as oxidizers and reductants is the first thing that comes to mind if you're not a chemist. However, I, atleast, believe that I now understand your point concerning oxidizers and reductants.

 

[scott3x]

Could you relink to such an article? I may have heard this story before (an editor resigning sounds familiar), but just wanted to double check.

Not tonight Josephine.

Laugh . Alright, tell me this story of Josephine...

 

[scott3x]

Good to know. What do you think of this Trippy?

I think it's irrelevant, and not a point i've contested.

I haven't contested whether or not EDS can be used for Thermite.
I've only contested whether or not that's what Harrit found.

I think that at best this represents a strawman fallacy by implying that I've somehow questioned the efficacy of using EDS to test for thermite residue, which I haven't.

Well, Hoz never said you contested it. Rather, he brought it up as a point; -I'm- the one who wanted to know what you thought about it .

I would even go as far as calling it deliberately dishonest and misleading (not the article though, mind you, the post and the intent behind it).

I notice that not one conspiracy theorist has yet to produce an EDS spectrum for Aluminium to prove that it looks like Harrit says it does.

Perhaps because few of them are chemists. With time, however, we may be able to produce that EDS spectrum for Aluminium.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, I'm fully aware that Sofia Shafquat tried to compare the dust clouds to that of a volcano.. but I want to know why YOU are using the term "pyroclastic clouds".

Are you trying to say that if a building collapses without explosives that it wouldn't give off a large dust cloud?

I have never understood troofers trying to say that the dust cloud is evidence for explosives. Even in controlled demolitions, the large dust clouds are not a result of the explosives, but due to gravity smashing the building apart, which also happens when a building collapses like on 9/11.

.
NORMAL controlled demolitions do not hurl tons of material 600 feet as into the Winter Garden from WTC1. I am not tracking down every video and mention of pyroclastic flow for your benefit. If you can't comprehend it that is too damn bad.

The distribution of steel and concrete is more important than pyroclastic flow. It is that distribution that makes it impossible for the planes to have destroyed the buildings. Since the buildings were destroyed something else had to have done it. That huge dust cloud is part of the evidence of that something else. If you can't see the difference between the dust cloud on 9/11 and the dust from a NORMAL controlled demolitions that is also your problem.

I think you just want to play endless rhetoric games. Just like your "TOYS" business.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2281034&postcount=1209

psik

 

[Hoz_Turner]

Here's one example.

Magnesium.
Talc has the composition $$Mg_3Si_4O_{10}(OH)_2$$
This can be written as $$3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O$$
$$M_{Mg}=24.305 gmol^{-1}$$
$$M_{Si}=28.0855 gmol^{-1}$$
$$M_O=15.9994 gmol^{-1}$$
$$M_H=1.00794 gmol^{-1}$$
So, $$M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}$$=(24.305*3)+(28.0855*4)+(15.9994*12)+(1.00794*2)

$$M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}$$= 72.915+112.342+191.9928+2.01588
$$M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}$$= 379.26568

The percentage of Magnesium in Talc can be calculated by $$\frac{M_{Mg}*3}{M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}}*100$$
$$\frac{72.915}{379.26568}*100$$
Which is 19.23% by weight Magnesium in Talc.

According to Hoz Post #2279
Talc constitutes 21%-30% of the Tnemec Proprietary Pigment.
And the Tnemec Proprietary Pigment constitutes 33.7% of the Pigment.

Talc is 19.23% Magnesium by weight, and the pigment is 21%-30% Talc by weight, therefore the Pigment must be (19.23%*21%) - (19.23%*30%) Magnesium by weight, or 4.04% - 5.77% Magnesium, by weight.

The Pigment component of the Primer used on the WTC steel is 33.7% by weight (or at least that's what Harrit assumes) Tnemec Proprietary Pigment, so the Pigment component of the primer must be (4.04%*33.7%) - (5.77%*33.7%) or 1.4% - 1.9% by weight Magnesium.

And that's as far as I'm willing to take it at this point, as I have yet to come across any information as to the ratio of Pigment:Vehicle (remember, the above is for the pigment only).

Incidentally, I seem to recall in one of Hoz's posts, him saying that Harrit in his response estimates that the paint contained up to 40% volatiles, but according to this information, it's more likely to be in the range of 24%-29% volatiles, meaning Harrit over estimates his compositions in the dired paint.

Yes, i've already outlined several points in this thread that detail what I consider to be failings of basic good science in Harrits paper. Personally, If I wa sin the editors position, I probably would have resigned as well.

Which contradicts nothing that I have said.

Magnesium and Zinc is clearly much higher than the amount of aluminates, and nothing that you say can change this fact. If this was WTC primer paint, then Zinc would be showing a consistent and strong spike, and so would Magnesium given that over 50% of Talc is oxygen which is easy to distinguish on X-EDS. Aluminates would be barely registering in comparison.

As for Harrit over-estimating then you are wrong: -

Since the Tnemec pigment contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint, the content of these two ingredients and the solvent in the wet primer paint was:
Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 7 – 10 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 %
Mineral spirits: 7.6 %

After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) 40 %. If we subtract these from the w/w composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint.

That is, by dividing by 0.6 we get the following values for the decisive ingredients of the hardened paint (dismissing the trivial elements iron, silicon, carbon and oxygen):
Component Composition in wet paint Composition in dry paint
Zinc chromate (ZnCrO4) 20.3 % 34 %
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2) 7 – 10 % 12 – 17 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 % 3.3 – 5.5 %

Here is something else that you need to learn: -

NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1.

The following is Fig. (7). (from Harrit's paper) XEDS spectra obtained from the red layers from each of the four WTC dust samples, with (a) corresponding to sample 1 and so on
(b-d).

This was before MEK soaking too: -

Another cross-sectional area of the red-chip: -

Notice the consistency of the aluminium peaks and its strong signal. The Zinc is barely above the baseline noise, and thus the idea that this is WTC primer paint is absurd.

 

[Hoz_Turner]

Tha would be your wrong assumption Scott.
My statements about Hoz have nothing to do with his disagreeing with me.

Here's two examples.
The first is something I would expect someone who has studied Highschool chemistry to know.

I stated repeatedly that Aluminium is a strong reducing agent, and that the Data Sheet for MEK, the solvent used by Harrit, explicitly states that you should not mix MEK with strong reducing agents.

Hoz comes along, and in amongst his abuse makes the comment that:

Which is the complete Opposite of what I said.
In order to behave in the way Hoz describes, the Aluminium would be acting as an Oxidant, not a reductant.
In high school, we got taught a mnemonic.
LEO goes GER
Loss of Electrons, Oxidation.
Gain of Electrons, Reduction.

The Oxidant is reduced.
The reductant is Oxidized.

So the reaction I was referring to would have the metallic aluminium being oxidized, not reduced by the MEK.

His criticism of the use of the term 'Aluminoferric thermite' is a second example.
Again, that's basic nomenclature that you get taught in Highschool.

Fe(0) is Ferro (eg: http://www.raghavsteel.com/ferro-alloys.html ).
Fe(II) Is Ferrous.
Fe(III) is Ferric.

When I said it cannot reduce aluminium, I made a mistake in the first part of that sentence. However, if you bother to read on you will in the next sentence I said that MEK cannot reduce aluminium oxide. The analysis in Harrit's paper showed that aluminium exceeds oxygen respectively by 3:1, and post-MEK it was also distinctly separate from the silica.

By the way, Professor Steven Jones would agree with me since I am just paraphrasing his words.

 

[Trippy]

Means nothing to me...

First Hoz makes a post that says (or implies) "The vehicle of the Pigment is 41.5% Linseed oil" then when I say "Zinc Oxide reacts with Linseed Oil to form Zinc Soaps" he asks "Where does the Linseed Oil come from?"

 

[Hoz_Turner]

NIST heated the paint and found that it was NOT thermitic. Harrit et al heated paint and found it was NOT thermitic. They then heated the red-chips and found violent thermitic reactions at ignition temperatures appreciably lower than conventional thermite. Now, the idea that some ignorant cretin like yourself can accuse these professional chemists and physicists of not identifying a thermitic material - is just really hilarious. I am laughing at you right now given that you insist on assuming that it is a primer paint.

I quote from page 23 of the paper: -

"Our observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product
collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were
not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich
and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.
Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips
react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of
aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18]. These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical
reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), H = 853.5
kJ/mole.

Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred
to as “super-thermite” [20, 22]."

 

[Trippy]

Which contradicts nothing that I have said.

Yes it does.
Post #2404

Your calculations are irrelevant and a nonesense. It is clear that you are playing a game of deception.

As it turns out, apparently I used the same methods as Harrit, so either i've contradicted something you've said, or Harrit's calculations are also 'Irrelevant nonsensical decption'.

Magnesium and Zinc is clearly much higher than the amount of aluminates, and nothing that you say can change this fact. If this was WTC primer paint, then Zinc would be showing a consistent and strong spike, and so would Magnesium given that over 50% of Talc is oxygen which is easy to distinguish on X-EDS. Aluminates would be barely registering in comparison.

I haven't looked into this.
What I have done, however, is emailed Tnemec and asked them if the composition of the Tnemec 99 has remained constant, or if it's changed.

Saftey data sheets are a relatively new thing, I think some companies were using them prior to the UNGHS, but it was only after that that they became standardized.

As for Harrit over-estimating then you are wrong: -

Since the Tnemec pigment contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint, the content of these two ingredients and the solvent in the wet primer paint was:
Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 7 – 10 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 %
Mineral spirits: 7.6 %

After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) 40 %. If we subtract these from the w/w composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint.

That is, by dividing by 0.6 we get the following values for the decisive ingredients of the hardened paint (dismissing the trivial elements iron, silicon, carbon and oxygen):
Component Composition in wet paint Composition in dry paint
Zinc chromate (ZnCrO4) 20.3 % 34 %
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2) 7 – 10 % 12 – 17 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 % 3.3 – 5.5 %

I've bolded the part of this that's clearly wrong in light of the information I provided from Tnemec themselves.

But feel free to email them and tell them that they're wrong, and government shills if you want to.

Here is something else that you need to learn: -

NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1.

And yet they're right there in Fig 17, before soaking in MEK.

The following is Fig. (7). (from Harrit's paper) XEDS spectra obtained from the red layers from each of the four WTC dust samples, with (a) corresponding to sample 1 and so on
(b-d).

This was before MEK soaking too: -

Another cross-sectional area of the red-chip: -

Notice the consistency of the aluminium peaks and its strong signal. The Zinc is barely above the baseline noise, and thus the idea that this is WTC primer paint is absurd.

And so I repeat myself.
EDS, Thin slices, Harrit did the whole chip, peak extinction.
20kev spectrum, high energy beams supress low energy peaks, EDS, thin slices, peak extinction.

 

[Trippy]

When I said it cannot reduce aluminium, I made a mistake in the first part of that sentence. However, if you bother to read on you will in the next sentence I said that MEK cannot reduce aluminium oxide. The analysis in Harrit's paper showed that aluminium exceeds oxygen respectively by 3:1, and post-MEK it was also distinctly separate from the silica.

By the way, Professor Steven Jones would agree with me since I am just paraphrasing his words.

Backpeddling.
You've embarressed yourself, and now you're trying to cover it up.
I said "Aluminium is a strong reducing agent" not "Aluminium Oxide is a strong reducing agent".

 

[Trippy]

Speaking of hilarious.

NIST heated the paint and found that it was NOT thermitic.

Right, they heated paint that hadn't already been subjected to fire conditions to see what information the patterns of cracking and peeling in the paint could give them about the fire conditions.

They didn't reheat steel that had already been in the fire.

Harrit et al heated paint and found it was NOT thermitic.

They heated some kind of paint, yes, but was it Tnemec 99? We don't know, they don't tell us.
Did it have the Iron Oxide (gray) layer attached to it? We don't know, they don't tell us.

They then heated the red-chips and found violent thermitic reactions at ignition temperatures appreciably lower than conventional thermite.

No, they found a narrow exotherm.
Engine oil generates a narrow exotherm.
Any substance that goes through a phase transition that release energy (for example a glass to crystalline phase transition) generates a narrow exotherm.

Now, the idea that some ignorant cretin like yourself can accuse these professional chemists and physicists of not identifying a thermitic material - is just really hilarious. I am laughing at you right now given that you insist on assuming that it is a primer paint.

Says the individual that doesn't know his oxidants from his reductants, and can't even think up his own excuses.
Says the indvidual who doesn't understand even basic chemical nomenclature.
Says the individual who fails to understand even his own sources.

I quote from page 23 of the paper:

Our observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product
collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were
not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich
and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.
Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips
react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of
aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18]. These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical
reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), H = 853.5
kJ/mole.

Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred
to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].

I've hilighted what is possibly the most important word in this passage, and i've already explained that Iron spheres are generated in the ignition of any iron rich hydrocarbons, and can be formed at temperatures as low as 800°C

 

[KennyJC]

.
NORMAL controlled demolitions do not hurl tons of material 600 feet as into the Winter Garden from WTC1.

What kind of explosives can hurl tons of material 600 feet and make absolutely no sound?

In WTC 1993, a bomb which had the evuivalent of 1000 pounds of TNT did NOT turn the concrete into dust and did NOT destroy any columns, let alone throw it 600 feet.

The energy of the collapse itself was enough to force the perimeter columns outward. The higher the perimeter columns, the farther they're going to travel. There's really no need to use explosives as an explanation, particularly since there would have needed to be an extremely large explosion heard by just about every person and camera in Lower Manhattan.

I am not tracking down every video and mention of pyroclastic flow for your benefit. If you can't comprehend it that is too damn bad.

You don't have to, I know full well what a volcano looks like. I'm just laughing at you for saying it's relevant to a building collapse.

The distribution of steel and concrete is more important than pyroclastic flow.

Concrete isn't going to account for all of the dust at GZ. The dust samples were mostly insulation and gypsum drywall, not concrete.

If you can't see the difference between the dust cloud on 9/11 and the dust from a NORMAL controlled demolitions that is also your problem.

That's the thing, I see absolutely NO difference between the dust cloud on 9/11 and dust from not only normal controlled demolitions, but explosive-free collapses.

The only difference on 9/11 is that there was much more of it. Which is to be expected since they were 110 story buildings. Not only that but when WTC1 collapsed, the air pressure kicked up dust that was already settled from the collapse of WTC2.

I think you just want to play endless rhetoric games. Just like your "TOYS" business.

I'm not playing any rhetoric games here... I am actually taking issue with YOU playing rhetoric games with your meaningless "pyroclastic" bullshit.

 

[Trippy]

Laugh . Alright, tell me this story of Josephine...

It's a Biritsh Commonwealth thing I believe (one of those cultural reference things).

Not tonight Joesphine

Generally used when you don't feel like doing something immeadiately.

 

[Hoz_Turner]

As it turns out, apparently I used the same methods as Harrit, so either i've contradicted something you've said, or Harrit's calculations are also 'Irrelevant nonsensical decption'.

Way to quote something I say before you actually post your specific calculation on the magnesium composition which appear to be sound.

I haven't looked into this.
What I have done, however, is emailed Tnemec and asked them if the composition of the Tnemec 99 has remained constant, or if it's changed.

You mean if its now become thermitic? lol

Saftey data sheets are a relatively new thing, I think some companies were using them prior to the UNGHS, but it was only after that that they became standardized.

Oh really? How insightful of you.

I've bolded the part of this that's clearly wrong in light of the information I provided from Tnemec themselves.

If it has changed, then how is it relevant to the composition used in the WTC primer? Its not.

But feel free to email them and tell them that they're wrong, and government shills if you want to.

I could just make up their response, like you could be doing eh?

And yet they're right there in Fig 17, before soaking in MEK.

Figure 17 on page 19 of Harrit's paper illustrates exactly my point about the major difference in peaks of Aluminium relative to Oxygen compared to the cross-sectional peaks prior to MEK soaking.

And so I repeat myself.
EDS, Thin slices, Harrit did the whole chip, peak extinction.
20kev spectrum, high energy beams supress low energy peaks, EDS, thin slices, peak extinction.

Sounds like intentional obfuscation and confusing of issues. You really are starting to annoy me.

 

[Hoz_Turner]

Speaking of hilarious.


Right, they heated paint that hadn't already been subjected to fire conditions to see what information the patterns of cracking and peeling in the paint could give them about the fire conditions.

Stop right there.

You. Are. Hilarious.

 

[scott3x]

Finally (for now) there's this beautiful post:
Post #2276 where we have him saying this:

Where is the linseed oil here? How is this at all relevant? There is NO zinc here at all. Even if there were trace elements of zinc, then that still doesn't support zinc oxide paint-theory which you are suggesting. So stop stating irrelvant information.

In spite of having previously made this post, post #2279 which included the following table:

Means nothing to me...

First Hoz makes a post that says (or implies) "The vehicle of the Pigment is 41.5% Linseed oil" then when I say "Zinc Oxide reacts with Linseed Oil to form Zinc Soaps" he asks "Where does the Linseed Oil come from?"

Mm. Well, this is complicated stuff, so perhaps he just forgot about the linseed oil...