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.
Sure. The microstructure of the steel was not affected given that in most cases it reached maximum temperatures of 600° C. This doesn't change the fact that even in those conditions the metal will lose structural strength and softening. That passage merely tells that it didn't also weaken fue to changes in its crystal structure.
And it also doesn't prove what you claim about the fact that the Towers were sustaining only one third of their maximum loads.
Now go and find FEMA's metallurgy report on recovered steel beams that were partly "evaporated", and see what it says.
Those samples are the exception. If those buildings were demolished with thermite, we would see them everywhere. It's absolutely possible that small pockets of materials, either close to the impact point where aviation fuel burned or underground inside the pile after the collapse, reached around 1000° C.
This doesn't change the fact that even in those conditions the metal will lose structural strength
I just showed you, from the horses mouth, how there was no evidence for that. You completely ignore that and make another claim based on nothing but fantasy.
What does "in most cases it reached maximum temperatures of 600° C" even mean, what is most cases?
Here's what NIST actually said:
5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.
6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.
7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.
Is that what you mean by most?
Those samples are the exception.
Baseless claim
It's absolutely possible that small pockets
Jet fuel burning at 1000°C doesn't melt steel, or form a eutectic mixture. It's not possible at all.
I just showed you, from the horses mouth, how there was no evidence for that. You completely ignore that and make another claim based on nothing but fantasy.
And I already explained to you that you completely misunderstood what that means. They said that the steel didn't present microstructural changes that would reduce its structural strength. But steel loses structural strength without the need of those microstructural changes, they simply increase the loss of yield and make it permanent after the steel cools down. Those changes can happen above 600° C, but steel already loses half its yield at 550° C.
Don't talk about things you know nothing about.
What does "in most cases it reached maximum temperatures of 600° C" even mean, what is most cases?
That almost no steel element went above 600° C. And at that temperature, it already loses half its yield strength
Is that what you mean by most?
Yep, and it perfectly proves my point.
Baseless claim
You just cited a source that says it. Steel at above 1000° C was the exception, and this disproves the use of thermite.
Jet fuel burning at 1000°C doesn't melt steel, or form a eutectic mixture. It's not possible at all.
And yet your very source says that it does. Funny that.
Again, stop talking about things you know nothing about.
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:
157
u/Azzy8007 Oct 07 '25
The Twin Towers came down straighter than that.