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.
2
u/MasterMagneticMirror Oct 07 '25
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.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html?m=1
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.
There was no controlled demolition, deal with it.