Miragememories said:
"You appear to be ignoring the importance that location plays regarding the concentration of thermitic material found in the WTC dust.
Red chips spread by the dust clouds would be expected to be more evenly mixed and of lower concentration than those found at Ground Zero."
Oystein said:
"I am not ignoring anything, I am only going by the evidence that we actually have. You are speculating. Yes, it isn't entirely unplausible that concentration of this red-gray material would vary with location, but how and how much you can't know, at least as long as you haven't studied that."
We have solid evidence of nano-thermite. A substance that should not exist anywhere in the WTC debris yet has been found in
every sample of WTC dust.
It is quite reasonable to conclude it would be found in greater concentrations in the focused collapse zone, and less so in the well dispersed peripheral dust cloud zone.
Miragememories said:
"Neils Harrit was primarily concerned with the finding of active thermitic material within the WTC dust samples. None of those samples came from inside of the Ground Zero debris pile."
Oystein said:
"I don't blame him. Again, this is the only evidence we have, anything else is speculation."
The only evidence?
You think such an alarming finding is of minor concern?
Of course we can speculate about what was the cause of death for over 3,000 people when we find such strong evidence of the murder weapon.
Miragememories said:
"Given that the highest concentrations of thermitic material would be in the immediate proximity of the core columns, and given the rapid implosion of the 3 WTC towers, larger concentrations of unspent pulverized thermitic material would be expected to lie in the debris zone that matched the fallen core columns."
Oystein said:
"You are speculating and assuming the conclusion. Don't do that. It's a logical fallacy. You have precisely NO evidence at all that any thermite was ever near the core columns, and you have yet to present even a theory that would have such an arrangement.
Truthers in 2001-2011: making up stories as they go."
Of course I am speculating. When the evidence reaches a compelling level, speculation is reasonable behavior.
There should have been
absolutely zero evidence of nano-thermite or any form of thermite at WTC Ground Zero!
Since there is abundant evidence that it was, and given its known uses, combined with the knowledge that the 3 WTC towers underwent rapid collapses, speculation that nano-thermite was a contributing factor is not unreasonable.
It therefore follows that thermite would have been concentrated where it would be most effective; in the core.
Miragememories said:
"We are talking about nano-thermite or super thermite. There is very little publicly available documentation regarding the variability of its ignition temperatures in conjunction with all its possible formulations."
Oystein said:
"True, but that does not mean that you can make up any numbers and properties that you wish you stuff to have. There are two scientifically valid ways: Do experiments, or derive value from theory. No one has done the latter, most ominously neither you nor Harrit e.al., so we need to stick with the former and take values from those experiments that we have. Harrit himself quoted Tillotson, so that's what I go by: >500°C. If you want to argue 430°C, you cannot assert that just so, but must provide references or theoretical calculations."
See my response to Dave.
Oystein said:
"A brief look at Harrit's "Active Thermitic Material...", fig, 29, reveals that actual nanothermite ignites at higher temps (Tillotson e.al.). 430°C is a typical temp for organics to burn, not thermite
The thermite component of that red-grey material however releases so little heat that it could add only less than 167K to its environment - to little to sustain the thermite reaction."
Miragememories said:
"Again, you are drawing false conclusions based on the assumption that the Tillotson information gives an exact accounting of the nature of nano-thermite."
Oystein said:
"You are free to substitute my assumption with assumptions of your own, but I'd fully expect you to provide numbers, and reasoning or references. You know my numbers, and my reference. At least try to match me!"
Why would I try and match your unsupported numerical assumptions?
Unless you have your own peer-reviewed paper that can discount the conclusions already found by Dr. Harrit and his colleagues, I see your suggestion as a wasted exercise.
Your assumption is nothing more than denial.
Miragememories said:
"Organics will not burn without a steady source of oxygen. Dump loose wood on a fire and it will blaze nicely. Dump the equivalent amount of wood in the form of sawdust and you will most likely smother the fire."
Oystein said:
"Would you attempt to put out a fire by dumping saw dust on it? Do you think you would succeed?"
Would I use that method to extinguish a fire?...no.
Can dumping sawdust on a fire smother it?...most definitely.
Miragememories said:
"The debris pile was deep and saturated with highly compacted dust."
Oystein said:
"Are you telling me underground fires are not possible?
Anyway, I think you overestimate the compaction rate."
No. Under the right conditions, underground fires are quite possible.
Given that the WTC Twin Towers were the tallest concrete and steel buildings on the planet at the time of their high speed collapse, I don't think its an exaggeration to claim the debris pile was highly compacted.
Miragememories said:
"You have failed to provide a realistic alternative explanation for the observed behavior and the longevity of the WTC Ground Zero hotspots."
Oystein said:
"Not my job. I am not making any claims about this."
So you do not believe their were hotspots at WTC Ground Zero?
And if you do accept their existence, you have no problem discussing them in this thread without venturing any opinion as to how and why they existed?
Amazing.
Miragememories said:
"Without a steady source of sufficient oxygen, the combustibles would quickly burn themselves out."
Oystein said:
"To the contrary, with an unsteady source of insufficient oxygen, the combustibles would very slowly burn themselves out!
I think this is worthy of a Stundy nomination."
Apparently reading is unimportant to you.
Miragememories said:
"Without a steady source of sufficient oxygen, the combustibles would quickly burn themselves out. Oxygen would not be an issue for the thermitic material, only a minimum 430 C ambient temperature."
Oystein said:
Sigh. Need I point out that the red chip thermitic reaction provides its own oxygen but does require a minimum 430 C ambient temperature for ignition?
Miragememories said:
"Naturally whenever the firefighters broke through to one of these pockets, the fresh injection of atmospheric oxygen would cause an immediate flare-up of all the super-heated combustibles, cause metals to glow red, and when the heat was sufficient, reveal molten metal."
Oystein said:
Miragememories said:
"Are you too lazy, or too arrogant to validate that meaningless summation?"
Oystein said:
"It was a reply to a nonsense claim that itself came with zero validation."
I am sorry. I was under the impression that you had been following this thread?
Maybe this will help;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802/
Serving on 'sacred ground'
National Guard
by Guy Lounsbury, December 2001
"We arrived here two weeks after the terrorist attack.
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still
molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. Massive steel girders were sandwiched in with crushed concrete. Someone told us that they weighed 1,000 pounds a foot. The collapse left them all blackened and twisted. They are among the few recognizable items in the rubble. You find scant evidence of the hundreds of offices that were once part of the twin towers. Most the furniture and equipment was pounded into dust."
I can locate other quotes regarding flare-ups when pockets were exposed if necessary.
Miragememories said:
"Another unsupported opinion noted."
Oystein said:
"None of your opinions was supported to my satisfaction. Why should I bother?"
Fortunately such satisfaction as yours means little to me. Good luck with the primer paint theory.
MM
)
