The momentum ends up in pulverization of the lower stories. (Force of compression.)

Real collapses break concrete into large chunks. Explosives pulverize it instead, and spread the dust over a large area.

The limit load is the limit load, maybe slightly different in each case, but not far apart. It is a limit load because it cannot sustain anything higher, and it does not allow any "resistance" time in defiance of that. If a column is constrained from buckling, it will shear. (Why do you suppose we know about shear, if everything is supposed to buckle? Why do thermite demolitions fail in shear instead of buckling?)

The columns were designed to hold way more than the weight above them, and there was no challenge on their strength for most floors of the building, invalidating the spontaneous collapse scenario and the limit load theory.
Plus, bucking and shearing both take away lots of momentum, invalidating the spontaneous collapse scenario and is not consistent with the observed near freefall.

"Unreacted nanothermitic material" is granular aluminum and iron oxide, which can be among the residues of the fire environment. I think you need to brush up on your chemistry. (But---leaping ahead---it is pretty clear you don't even know what that phrase means.)

The unreacted thermite were a uniform mix of these two things, at the nanoscale, and in the form of flakes, none of which can occur in a scenario other than sabotage.

You are side-splitting hilarious. "Aluminum doesn't burn"? Tell that to the guys who make thermite. It is the aluminum burning that makes the heat. It burns the oxygen out of the iron oxide, leaving behind aluminum oxide and iron.

It is the fuel constituent in all modern composite solid rocket motors (think Shuttle boosters). The only things that can burn are "elements." All combustion is about "elements" combining by means of exothermic chemical reactions. Carbon burns to form carbon dioxide. Hydrogen burns to form water. Lithium burns to form lithium oxide. In the Twin Towers, the flame temperature was well above the melting point of aluminum (600 C), and molten aluminum, like water, will evaporate even if not boiling. I think you have hung yourself on utter ignorance about the combustion chemistry of this case. Elements do not burn, they react. You were referring to the large amounts of aluminium in the structure. No matter how much you heat a block of aluminium, it will remain aluminium. The presence of such elements during a fire do not provide heat to the fire but absorb heat from the things that do combust around them.

Thermite requires a uniform mix of aluminium powder and iron oxide to work. You can't get thermitic reactions from burning a building that contains rusty iron and aluminium frames.

Even iron will burn. Ever played with "sparklers"? The golden ones are burning powdered iron.

Massive iron beams are an entirely different story: they don't sparkle.

The momentum ends up in pulverization of the lower stories. (Force of compression.)

Real collapses break concrete into large chunks. Explosives pulverize it instead, and spread the dust over a large area.

The limit load is the limit load, maybe slightly different in each case, but not far apart. It is a limit load because it cannot sustain anything higher, and it does not allow any "resistance" time in defiance of that. If a column is constrained from buckling, it will shear. (Why do you suppose we know about shear, if everything is supposed to buckle? Why do thermite demolitions fail in shear instead of buckling?)

The columns were designed to hold way more than the weight above them, and there was no challenge on their strength for most floors of the building, invalidating the spontaneous collapse scenario and the limit load theory.
Plus, bucking and shearing both take away lots of momentum, invalidating the spontaneous collapse scenario and is not consistent with the freefall observed.

"Unreacted nanothermitic material" is granular aluminum and iron oxide, which can be among the residues of the fire environment. I think you need to brush up on your chemistry. (But---leaping ahead---it is pretty clear you don't even know what that phrase means.)

The unreacted thermite were a uniform mix of these two things, at the nanoscale, and in the form of flakes, none of which can occur in a scenario other than sabotage.

You are side-splitting hilarious. "Aluminum doesn't burn"? Tell that to the guys who make thermite. It is the aluminum burning that makes the heat. It burns the oxygen out of the iron oxide, leaving behind aluminum oxide and iron.

It is the fuel constituent in all modern composite solid rocket motors (think Shuttle boosters). The only things that can burn are "elements." All combustion is about "elements" combining by means of exothermic chemical reactions. Carbon burns to form carbon dioxide. Hydrogen burns to form water. Lithium burns to form lithium oxide. In the Twin Towers, the flame temperature was well above the melting point of aluminum (600 C), and molten aluminum, like water, will evaporate even if not boiling. I think you have hung yourself on utter ignorance about the combustion chemistry of this case. Elements do not burn, they react. You were referring to the large amounts of aluminium in the structure. No matter how much you heat a block of aluminium, it will remain aluminium. The presence of such elements during a fire do not provide heat to the fire but absorb heat from the things that do combust around them.

Thermite requires a uniform mix of aluminium powder and iron oxide to work. You can't get thermitic reactions from burning a building that contains rusty iron and aluminium frames.

Even iron will burn. Ever played with "sparklers"? The golden ones are burning powdered iron.

Massive iron beams are an entirely different story: they don't sparkle.