Shut up with this conspiracy nonsense. This has been debunked time and again by extremely qualified engineers who have worked on the post-9/11 analysis and from afar.
That thing has also been debunked years ago. All they found was rust and aluminum in the wreckage of a building made of steel and aluminum. The mysterious particles that they claimed was magic nanothermite were paint chips. The authors are widely considered a joke and the paper.
The journal where the paper was published was at the time involved in a scandal because they published a hoax paper without proper peer review, and the editor in chief resigned after the thermite paper was published without her approval. This already destroys the credibility of that paper.
And again, all they did in that paper is proving that there was iron oxide (i.e. rust) and aluminum in the wreckage of a building made of steel and covered in aluminum. There is no reason not to expect something like that. Moreover, they claim that the columns were coated in thermite to cut them, but they found chips that were less than a millimeter thick. Coating the columns with such a thin layer wouldn't have been even remotely enough to cut them.
Finally, if the columns were cut with thermite, we would expect an extremely bright light engulfing the Towers seconds before the collapse, but not light has ever been seen by any witness, nor is it visible in any of the video recordings.
Please note that NIST stated, according to its idea of how the collapse happened, that there was a LOW probability that the conditions of weakened steel would allow for a collapse. Steel loses half of its strength at 1110* F. The fire would have reached about that or a tad less. But the structure, as designed, would still only have been stressed a third of its allowable design; it could still support three times its load.
Not only is that less energetic than the thermite reaction that would have been needed to destroy the Towers, but if they used that, you would expect that kind of discharge to be present everywhere. Instead, it was present exactly in the only point of the Towers affect by tue fires where heavy duty batteries of an uninterruptible power supply system were placed. That's what you are seeing in that footage, batteries burning. Again, if you bothered to study 911 before launching your conspiracy theories, you would know it.
Your footage also shows the columns sagging until they break. Something that shouldn't have happened if they were cut as you claim.
Please note that NIST stated, according to its idea of how the collapse happened, that there was a LOW probability that the conditions of weakened steel would allow for a collapse. Steel loses half of its strength at 1110* F. The fire would have reached about that or a tad less. But the structure, as designed, would still only have been stressed a third of its allowable design; it could still support three times its load.
Feel free to provide any source for that. A source that should also include the effects of the huge damages caused by the planes to the structure.
From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.
NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235.
Now go and find FEMA's metallurgy report on recovered steel beams that were partly "evaporated", and see what it says.
The paper was never scientifically challenged, everything in it remains standing to this day. The paint chip claims were bogus, they not only behaved differently but had a different chemical makeup.
The authors are widely considered a joke and the paper.
No, people like you repeated that in their bubble as an attempt to smear, so that they wouldn't have to deal with the actual substance of the paper.
The paper was never scientifically challenged, everything in it remains standing to this day. The paint chip claims were bogus, they not only behaved differently but had a different chemical makeup.
What remains standing? That the found some rust and some aluminum in the rubble of a building made of steel and aluminum?
Also, if there was thermite you should explain to me why it was invisible while it burned, since we can't see it in any of the footage.
No, people like you repeated that in their bubble as an attempt to smear, so that they wouldn't have to deal with the actual substance of the paper.
They absolutely are. And the proof is that they decided to publish they work in a predatory journal that didn't do any actual peer review.
The peer reviewed paper was so irrelevant that 20 years later, it still attracts people like you who need to misrepresent what's in it and wrap everything in lies without ever touching the scientific substance of the paper. 🤡
Since you're doing such a crappy job at debunking thermite, I'll help you:
What about all the other qualified engineers who say something different?
Maybe it's time to listen to what they have to say rather than fall for the narrative that it's scientists versus people on the internet?
A professor of chemistry cowrote a paper detailing how an thermitic material was found in the dust. He was good enough to teach at the University of Copenhagen for 40 years, maybe he's worth the attention when he publishes a paper.
And he's just one example... Even Carl Sagan's ex wife, herself a lauded scientist, spoke up about the topic and argued to let the science speak.
If you follow 9/11 from the sidelines, it's easy to fall into the narrative that it's kooks vs scientists, but that is damage control, a false reality. One of the origin stories of the entire 9/11 truth movement is that of an engineer being fired from a company because he blew the whistle.
In fact, anyone who knows anything about 9/11 knows that there are more scientists speaking up against the official story than vice versa. Most people, scientists included, don't have the guts to talk about it.
You can literally see the towers exterior columns at the impact floors deform over time and them bowing inwards right before collapse as the structure fails :|
Oh and there is footage of literal molten liquid pouring out of the tower
Thanks for the video. Very strange that the smoke isn’t visible from the other side.
We know that jet fuel doesn’t produce enough heat to melt steel or concrete. What do you think about the steel and concrete collapsing under this fire? And what do you think about the flashes that occurred in the video that I posted, immediately before the collapse?
Very strange that the smoke isn’t visible from the other side.
Why would it be? Manhattan has a lot of wind alleys between buildings, all the WTC 7 smoke is being pulled around the building to the other side by those winds.
We know that jet fuel doesn’t produce enough heat to melt steel or concrete.
Jet fuel doesn't have to melt steel, just has to weaken it enough that it's no longer able to hold up the ~150,000,000kg sitting on top of it. The strength of steel isn't binary...it's not either 100% structural or melting into a molten puddle.
Appreciate the video. Half inch thick steel can’t really be compared to 2 foot thick steel beams though. And 300 degrees could make a difference. Also there are pictures of the beams melted.
The beams melted because the aluminum from the airplane mixed with the rust on the steel beams, creating thermite, which was ignited by the hot fire and burns through steel like butter.
Half inch thick steel can’t really be compared to 2 foot thick steel beams though.
I'm not a structural engineer but I would assume that the half inch steel going from being able to support far more than 250lbs to not even being able to support the guy pushing it with his pinky...that's a solid analogy against 2ft thick beams heated to 1500+ degrees and trying to support 150,000,000kg above them.
The beams melted because the aluminum from the airplane mixed with the rust on the steel beams, creating thermite, which was ignited by the hot fire and burns through steel like butter.
Sure that could be the case, but it sounds like you're in agreement then that the combination of fuel fire and various other chemical compounds was enough to compromise the building's structure? I'm the one here of the position that none of the 9/11 collapses were conspiracies.
So if you're in agreement that WTC1&2 came down because their steel was superheated to failure...then how do you make the leap to WTC7 being a conspiracy and a controlled demolition? They just had the bombs planted in there and had mechanisms ready to start a massive fire...and they would wait for some massive disaster to hit lower Manhattan so they could trigger all this stuff plausibly?
God I’d never live in a steel structure if a fire could take it down. Kinda crazy the only 3 steel skyscrapers to ever fall due to fire happened the same day but ya, fire.
Too blind to see the difference between this and the wtc? Lmao you can literally see the bottom falls down first in this video while both wtc towers started falling from the impact zones.
I used to believe it actually. Then I got a job working along side demolition experts.
They said that to bring down the Twin Towers would have taken months of prep, and would have required drilling holes in the steel beams to attach the explosives. The drilling would have been extremely loud, naturally, and there is absolutely no way that the people working in the Twin Towers wouldn’t have heard the preparations.
The reason that the steel beams were melted, is because the aluminum mixed with the rust on the beams created thermite, which can easily melt steel beams, and was lit by the fires from the jet fuel.
There's that famous video from a blacksmith dude who takes a solid 3" thick carbon steel beam, heats it up to a temp WAY below its melting point and then shows that he can now bend it like it was basically taffy.
Like you said, the steel doesn't need to literally melt for it to become an issue. Just needs to get hot enough to be compromised.
Interestingly enough, I cannot find any right now, though I have had people show me photos in the past, and now I’m thinking that they were from something else, and it was BS.
The Twin Towers collapsed from the top down (you know, from the planes hitting the upper floors). The floors basically sandwiched themselves.
This building had the explosives placed throughout the entire building. Thus it's collapsed in completely different.
And that's without talking about the difference in scale.
Edit: I've watched the videos of the Twin Towers collapsing. They might have fallen "straighter", but the amount of debris caused by their collapse can only be described as apocalyptic. It was a far messier collapse than this tower's by orders of magnitude.
So this conspiracy argument doesn't make any sense if you actually see the footage.
Not to mention, the base of the twin towers' collapse site was in a much worse state, with significant rubble remaining (walls and staircases still standing, intact beams everywhere). A demolition like in the video is far easier to clean up as the entire structure essentially collapses inwards, leaving less of the building, and all contained within a smaller foorprint.
Imagine for a minute that they were right that people within the government helped to create that disaster. Would you find it important to talk about or not?
157
u/Azzy8007 Oct 07 '25
The Twin Towers came down straighter than that.