Did rubble from the WTC really cause those eutectic formations ,as we were led to believe?
Conventional fires, fuelled by office materials, will not melt steel and certainly not burn holes through steel beams. You need incendiaries or a blast furnace/blow torch environment with a high level of oxygen to generate sufficient heat to cause such damage.
A follow up experiment was done that showed how Thermite can cause the same effects as seen on the steel recovered from the 911 Crime Scene:
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
And Thermite/Thermate cannot be created 'naturally' by the building contents (rusted steel) and aircraft aluminium. Creating a Thermitic mixture requires careful preparation and the correct ratio of elements, and even then the material is difficult to ignite. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that many tons, or even pounds/kilograms of such a mixture could have been created in the building debris, yet Melted Steel was a feature of the rubble pile:
15 Ground Zero Part 1 Melted Steel Beams and Molten Iron - ESO - Experts Speak Out
In any forensic investigation such evidence of Melted Steel would be seen as proof of arson. In fact analysis of melted iron spheres taken from the debris proved that Thermite was the cause of the melting:
Evidence of Thermite - Dr. Steven Jones
In summary, it is very likely that the incendiaries used on the World Trade Centre buildings were either part of an effort to 'simulate' fire damage to the buildings (ie creating slow natural deformations at the aircraft impact points) and/or were used as a back up to the high explosives that rapidly brought down the structures (where the core columns in the basement areas could have been undermined). Regardless of how the Thermite was used, the evidence that it WAS used is irrefutable.
Related Info:
Some disinformation sites have pushed the idea that hot fire temperatures (in enclosed places) can catastrophically weaken steel (but certainly not cause Swiss cheese holes!) with fire temperatures of 600 degrees Celsius (1112 F) that causes a 60% loss in strength (yet the towers were built to carry five times their load, and the undamaged sections of the building were still near full strength). These sites do not tell the reader that the size and duration of any fire is important because steel beams require a significant amount of energy to heat up and deform (steel conducts heat very well so that localised fire temperatures do not lead to catastrophic heating).
Small intense fires will not cause deformations, and even large ones take time to heat a structure (this is why fire testing of steel structures are run over a number of hours rather than minutes). The fire temperature is not the same as the heat needed to weaken a steel beam or connection. This point is well explained in the following video:
According to NIST they could not find evidence of hot sustained fires in the WTC Towers. There was no sustained greater-than-600-degree-Celsius fire. There was no chimney effect, or enclosed space heating that might have raised the temperatures within a confined area (the aircraft gouged huge open holes in the sides of the buildings). Certainly the rubble pile could not be said to be an ideal fire environment - it was not a cauldron, or sea of coals, and there was no black smoke from a supposed intense conventional fire that would have burnt wood and plastic used in office furnishings - all we see is white smoke that is indicative of either steam or a thermitic reaction.
The problem the official story has is two fold - no evidence of hot conventional fires in the Towers or rubble pile, and damning evidence of an unconventional incendiary attack upon the steel structure.
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, September 12th, 2019.]
