Why thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite or any other conventional explosives could not have caused any of the WTC "collapses"

1) Thermite or conventional explosives such as TNT or C4 would have to have been placed on every single column in equal intervals (1 meter apart for example) all along each column in order to cut every column into pieces. There were 59 perimeter columns on each side of the twin towers and 47 core columns per tower.

2) Dmitri Khalezov estimated the amount of explosives needed to destroy the steel in one tower would be 79,240 charges of conventional explosives. Also needed would be 79,240 detonators, a wiring system, and the ability to secretly place all these. Total kilograms of TNT or equivalent required would be 160 tons, and this is only for the steel, not including concrete, for one tower. -- Dmitri Khalezov, 9/11thology, page 299-300.

3) Thermite causes intense light. Welding with thermite requires protective eyewear so as not to cause UV damage to the eyes. If thermite had been used the towers would have lit up from top to bottom with extreme light during demolition.

4) The towers were vaporized, turned to dust. Thermite might be able to melt steel, but it cannot turn steel into dust.

5) Nobody, not Steven Jones nor Richard Gage is able to explain how this supposed nano-thermite works or what it would do to massive amounts of steel or concrete. Is it an incendiary, an explosive? How long can it keep burning? Since thermite is used in welding it should naturally be present in WTC dust.

6) Steel framed skyscrapers cannot be demolished by traditional demolition (implosion) because because the entire building is a bearing structure. The steel columns were 2.5 inches thick - as thick as tank armor. Both the core and perimeter columns all acted together all shared the gravity load. There is no way to cut some columns in certain spots to cause an implosion.

7) The amount of rubble left after the "collapses" is far less it should be. No conventional demolition can turn steel into micro sized dust.

8) Can thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite, etc. continue to burn for 11 months?

9) Thermite may be able to melt a bit of steel to allow welding but can it turn 2.5 inch thick steel columns into liquid and bend it into horseshoe shapes?

10) Can thermite cause 1400 cars to spontaneously combust and vaporize into dust, some up to half mile away?

11) Does thermite have some property that makes it able to burn metal but not paper, trees, flags, etc.?

12) Thermite cannot cause firefighter's oxygen tanks to explode.

13) Thermite cannot create tritium.

Steven Jones, thermite, and the ridicule of Pons and Fleischmann's discovery of cold fusion

Criticism of the nanothermite article and problems with the Bentham Open Chemical Physics "Journal"

Wikipedia (May 2014) on Bentham Science Publishers:
"Bentham Science Publishers is a publishing company of scientific, technical, and medical literature based at Sharjah (United Arab Emirates) ...

Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review; however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen had been accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this ... In 2007, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite". Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, They have printed the article without my authorization ... I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them ...

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."

Wikipedia page (May 2014) on Steven Jones
"On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 peoplwe ... Jones claims that he has identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and tiny iron spheres) were also found in the dust ... On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review ... Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty; shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts on whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

"In the 1980s, scientists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (P&F) conducted cold fusion experiments that would have revolutionized the world.

These experiments, which showed promise of nuclear fusion at room temperature, could have effectively removed industrialized societies' dependency to oil in favor of free or inexpensive clean energy ... After being tipped off by an informant at the Department of Energy, Steven Jones set out to destroy P&F's credibility. Jones knew P&Fs work had not yet been perfected, and took advantage of this. He performed his own cold fusion experiments using muon-catalyzed fusion (which differed from P&F electrochemically-induced process) and discounted the excess heat (free energy) that P&F had discovered. Jones then announced his decision to report his findings to the media, despite it not being published in a peer reviewed journal. (Normally, a scientist's findings would first be peer reviewed and published before announcing to the general media.) P&F were urged to go public first, but were unable to openly detail their work because their patent had not yet been approved. This left the media unsatisfied and P&F in a very uncomfortable position. Jones' had effectively discredited cold fusion to the media and at the same time prevented P&F from getting their patent."
From Check the Evidence (Andrew Johnson):

More from Andrew Johnson at Check the Evidence about Steven Jones and cold fusion

Videos about Steven Jones, thermite, and cold fusion at ChecktheEvidence.com
Last updated June 2014