• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MEK question

leftysergeant

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
18,863
Inm looking at the Jones paper on his paint chips, it is mentioned that some of them seem impervious or only partially soluble in MEK, and this is used as proof that they are thermite.

It seems to me that nothing will dissollve every know kind of paint. Am I wrong on this? What sorts of paint vehicles or binders would resist MEK?
 
Inm looking at the Jones paper on his paint chips, it is mentioned that some of them seem impervious or only partially soluble in MEK, and this is used as proof that they are thermite.

It seems to me that nothing will dissollve every know kind of paint. Am I wrong on this? What sorts of paint vehicles or binders would resist MEK?


Well, I know from first hand experience that zinc-chromate primer is resistant to MEK.
 
I have used MEK before and it did not dissolve dried paint quickly. I would get some chips of paint and play again if it mattered. Jones made up the thermite story due to some mental problem he has. I think Jones drank the MEK and that is why he supports the Hoffman thermite chips in the ceiling tiles with radio control remote detonators. The MEK dissolved Jones' brain faster than the chips of his delusion he calls the "loaded gun".
 
Last edited:
god damn is there anything funnier than a beachnut post?
Here, at least, you are being unfair. He has this right: MEK actually is NOT good for you. Fairly bad, in fact. Not as bad as methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, which will do you serious harm, but bad. How the use of MEK, a common, but far from universal, solvent might prove the use of a thermite paint is nonsensical. Beachnut done good here.

To answer leftysergeant's question, I offer this: [quote="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanone"[/quote]MEK dissolves many substances and is used as a solvent in processes involving gums, resins, cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose coatings and in vinyl films. For this reason it finds use in the manufacture of plastics, textiles, in the production of paraffin wax, and in household products such as lacquer, varnishes, paint remover, a denaturing agent for denatured alcohol, glues, and as a cleaning agent. MEK is also used in dry erase markers as the solvent of the erasable dye.[/quote]. I don't see latex paint, for instance, on that list, but that is a total red herring. The paint is largely irrelevant, as is a suggestion that, being insoluble, the paint was unusual. Thermite is a mixture of various inorganic substances. It's vehicle, the paint, is is only important in how it supports the flame. A nonflammable paint, UNLIKE one soluble in MEK, would not work well.
 
I think that the one with zinc in it was the most resistant of Jones' chips to MEK. That would be from the columns. The other chips could come from any number of other painted steel surfaces, including some office furnishings.

How does MEK work on epoxy?
 
Here, at least, you are being unfair. He has this right: MEK actually is NOT good for you. Fairly bad, in fact. Not as bad as methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, which will do you serious harm, but bad. How the use of MEK, a common, but far from universal, solvent might prove the use of a thermite paint is nonsensical. Beachnut done good here.
I never said he was wrong I said he was funny.
 
Inm looking at the Jones paper on his paint chips, it is mentioned that some of them seem impervious or only partially soluble in MEK, and this is used as proof that they are thermite.

It seems to me that nothing will dissollve every know kind of paint. Am I wrong on this? What sorts of paint vehicles or binders would resist MEK?

Jones mentioned that he bought the MEK himself at a hardware store. You'd have to contact the manufacturer's to get more info on the chemical properties of their various paints I think.

Nobody from the 9/11 'truth' movement, nor other skeptics seems to have done much work in that area. I for one would be very interested to know what their chemists would have to say about the red chips.

Jones himself is not a chemist, nor is he a qualified forensic criminal investigator, nor did he or his team bother to hire any such people that I know of. I think Kevin Ryan has a chemistry degree, but for some reason he doesn't seem bothered that two of the chips produced >4.0 kJ/G, which makes the chips unlikely to be thermite, doesn't it?

Even though I don't have all the info I'd like regarding the chips, I don't think Jones et al. are very competent forensic investigators. They seem more like a gaggle of science geeks with an axe to grind than real investigators.

But that's just me.
 
Even though I don't have all the info I'd like regarding the chips, I don't think Jones et al. are very competent forensic investigators. They seem more like a gaggle of science geeks with an axe to grind than real investigators.

But that's just me.

I have some forensic training related to thermite and fire scenes and I don't think it is just you who feel that way about how Jonesie handles evidence.I laughed my butt off at the way he handled his little blob of slag that someone sent him from someplace when he gave his big YouTubed talk in Boston.

He put on a rubber glove, reached into the sandwich bag that contained the slag drop, held it up, then put it in his unprotected hand.

Somebody a couple sandwiches short of a picnic?
 
Last edited:
Lots and lots of things won't dissolve in MEK.

Saying that something does not dissolve in MEK is only one point of data in figuring out what that substance is.

But as he keeps his samples entirely to himself, he can fabricate any data he wishes about them.

So the minute he releases samples with a verifiable chain of custody to a reputable lab, that is when we can either verify or refute anything he claims.

Until then, he is just jerking people around and enjoying his dime-store power trip.
 
It occurs to me that he cannot be the only person in the world keeping dust samples from that day.

Has anybody seen any articles on the dust that included piuctures of the sorts of particles they found?

There had to have been tons of that stuff all over manhattan. There is no way you bang that much steel and concrete together and not create a blizzard of paint chips.
 
It occurs to me that he cannot be the only person in the world keeping dust samples from that day.

Has anybody seen any articles on the dust that included piuctures of the sorts of particles they found?

There had to have been tons of that stuff all over manhattan. There is no way you bang that much steel and concrete together and not create a blizzard of paint chips.

Yeah. Dr. Greening cited four references back in 2007.
1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)

2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)

3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.

4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).

Now, I haven't done anything more than leaf through pages of the first and third references, but those studies are available.
 
I'll say right here that I will be absolutely amazed if the dust he has actually came from the source he claims. I am absolutely certain he cannot prove chain of custody. I am absolutely certain he cannot prove no contamination. And I am absolutely certain that a competent lab would find that what he has is something different from what he says he has.
 

Back
Top Bottom