According to Harrit's white paper "Why the Red/Gray chips aren't paint" (http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documen ... Harrit.pdf
), the composition of Tnemec Red as per 1967 was as follows:
- 35.9% Iron Oxide (Fe2O3)
- 20.3% Zinc Yellow (ZnCrO4)
- 33.7% Proprietary Tnemec pigment (???)
- 10.1% Diatomaceous silica (SiO2)
These add up to 100%
However, Pigments are only a smaller fraction of the wet and the dry paint, under 50%.
The VEHICLE (organic binder) consists of several organic materials:
- 19.3% Soya alkyd resin solids, Hard resin (I am guessing: C7HxO1)
- 41.5% Raw and bodied linseed oil (roughly C18H32O2, +4 O when dried)
- 6.9% Others (I am guessing: C6HxO)
These add up to 67.7%. The remaining 32.3% are thinners, which I assume evaporate upon drying.
Harrit found a 2003 Material Data Sheet, which he erroneously believed to be describing the "Proprietary Tnemec pigment", when in fact it describes the wet paint.
This data sheet has 22.71% mineral spirits - if these are equal to the 32.3% thinners in the veicle, it follows that the vehicle is 22.71/32.3 = 70.3% of the wet paint, with the Pigments being the remaining 29.7%.
The MDS most certainly does not reflect the 1967 paint composition; it tells us there is 21-30% Talc (Mg3Si4O12H2) in the paint, for which there is no room in the 1967 recipe. Also, the MSD has some "Calcium silicates and aluminates".
Now, I played around with these ingredients and numbers, made up some "Proprietary Tnemec pigment" as a mix of Ca-aluminates, talc and iron oxide, and also threw in a dash of gypsum as surface contamination, in an effort to mimic Fig 14 of Harrit et al (the chip later soaked in MEK). Here is my own private Tnemec + Gypsum mix:
92% dried Tnemec, consisting of
... 22% Pigment, consisting of
... ... 35.9% Fe2O3
... ... 20.3% ZnCrO4
... ... 33.7% Tnemec pigment, mixed in molar proportions as... ... ... 1 mol Mg3Si4O12H2 (Talc)
... ... ... 3 mol Ca3Al2O3 (Tricalcium aluminate)
... ... ... 7 m
... ... 10.1% SiO2
... 78% organic binder, having C and O in the following mass proportion:... ... 39.5 parts C
... ... 13.3 parts O
8% CaSO4-2H2O (Gypsum)
(The blue part is my best guessing: In the case of Tnemec pigment, this resulted from iterative trying of XEDS sims, in the case of the binder, this is mostly the result of studying all sorts of paint binder substances, including linseed oil and alkyd resin; exact proportions of C:O are impossible to come by).
By multiplying these percentages with atomic weights, this results in the following elemental mass proportions of my simulated gypsum-contaminated MEK-chip:
(Note at this point that Harrit, after several steps of progressive stupidity, determined the Zn-content in the dry paint to be 12.3% instead of 2.2%, which further get diluted by adding some gypsum).
At long last, here is my simulated XEDS for this recipe:
Compare this to Harrit et al's Figure 14 (without scales and labels; I normalized the above graph such that both images have the same scale on the x-axis, and the Si-peaks are of equal height)
My C and O are lower, but these two elements are pretty sensitive to a lot of things, including parameters of the XEDS equipment, sample preparation etc, so that difference means little.
My Ca peak is also lower - and I have no good idea how to fix that: If I increase the gypsum proportion, my sulfur gets too large, if I increase Ca-aluminates, Al gets too large, if I add Ca-Silicates, Si gets too large. Conceivably, Harrit et al's beam energy was somewhat larger than the nominal 20 keV.
Anyway, this exercise merely serves to demonstrate that this allegedly "thermitic" chip can very well be seen as paint with close to 10% gypsum. This paint contains less than 1% by weight Al and thus cannot be thermitic, as purethermite is 25% by weight Al. The Fe-content, at 11.3%, is abozt 14 times the the Al-content, where the factor ought to be just 2. Even IF the Al were elemental and did react with iron oxide, it would reduce only 1/7th of that iron oxide, and release no more than 0.125 kJ/g of energy, based on the mass of the red material.