Because I've seen no independent confirmation of these tests and/or conclusions. And it does not fit the larger picture of collapse that started on floors that were at a temperature much hotter than the ignition temperature of the chips.
Be careful not to squeeze one theory "energetic nanocomposites" (ENC), into another, the "Heat-Induced Collapse Theory" (HICT). If the ENC is right, the collapses were not the result solely or even primarily of heat-warped steel, they were the result of some other processes, likely involving melting, cutting or blasting steel. For the purpose of this argument, we have to both agree that this question has not been adequately answered. Right? If this issue were settled, we wouldn't be disagreeing in the first place. As it stands, you take issue with accelerants/incendiaries/explosives (besides jet fuel/office products) and I take issue with the ability of the official theory to account for all the damage that was done. So until we both agree about that primary issue, you can't assume premises that I outright reject and vice versa.
Two things about temperatures "much hotter than the ignition temperature of the chips":
1. Hotter temps do not mitigate against the existence, purpose nor effects these chips may or may not have had.
and
2. The NIST reports are clear that temps could not have gotten much hotter than about 1000-1100C for more than 15-20 min in any one location before the "official" fuel sources burned out. This is not to be confused (as it so often is) with temps that pieces of steel could have reached in those circumstances. Whatever the gas temps, it is
thermodynamically impossible for the steel to have gotten any hotter
from those gases.
As for independent confirmation, I do not begrudge anyone wishing to independently confirm some data, but what exactly are you contesting? Is it the methods, the data itself or the interpretation of the data? It's a fair request, but it should not be used as a stalling technique. I think the data speaks for itself, because, although I am not an expert in SEM or XEDS graphing, I'm familiar enough to make sense of the data. But to be honest, (and what are we really doing if we aren't being honest?), I have to take their word for it about calibration and instrument settings.
Outside of that, though, their data reveal this substance to be unlike a wide variety of paint, primer and industrial coatings. The data confirm the existence of relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and also elemental Al in the substrate. The chips ignite at about 430C and produce iron microspheres. There is no match for a paint/primer/industrial coating. All of this is consistent with this material being a highly engineered ENC.
Mick West said:
Plus paint explains the very large quantity of the red/grey chips. Leftover nano-themite does not.
I don't see a clear argument here. Why do leftover pieces of it in the dust mitigate at all against it being an ENC? Why couldn't that substance break off and not ignite properly? Why are you expecting a 100% burn rate from an exotic substance we cannot even agree on the nature of? Whatever the properties of this substance, finding it in the dust is not an argument
against it being some unignited explosive residue.
Mick West said:
You have to look at ALL the facts. And see what explanation best explains the MOST of them without leaving inexplicable facts.
Agreed. So what caused this?:
Mick West said:
Misidentified paint chips wins out over leftover nano-thermite paint chips by a significant distance.
Really? How does the MPC theory deal with vaporized lead? How does it explain the WPI steel pictured above? How does it deal with the fact that the chips were not found to be a match for any of the most commonly used paints and primers in the WTC Towers? Or the fact that the chips produce iron microspheres when burned? Show me a paint that does that. Don't you want confirmation of that basic, testable bit of data?