First, for molten iron to be produced, aluminum would have to interact with iron oxide, not just with "any oxide that happens to be near it," as Fruehan suggests. Regardless, his entire premise is not just unlikely, but impossible. First, Fruehan's theory would require that random chaotic events—the impact of the planes, the ensuing fires, and the collapses—were able to create not just thermite, but a highly advanced, weaponized version of it, in order to account for the high-tech nano-thermite composite material that was discovered in WTC dust samples. It would be quite interesting if any defender of the official 9/11 story were able to show that a chaotic event like the WTC disaster could create highly engineered, multilayered, nanothermite-composite materials. Secondly, any accidental thermite reactions would not have happened at a large scale and at all relevant points.  Mechanical engineer Gordon Ross notes:   

 

Thermite's capabilities

PM once again quotes Alan Pense, this time saying that he doesn't "know of anyone else who thinks thermite reactions on steel columns could have done that." (pg. 58) However, it is evident that both Pense and PM have not adequately researched the past usage of thermite. This may be understandable for Professor Pense, but it is not for PM. Its October 1935 issue reported that the Skyride Towers (two 628-foot-tall steel structures) were demolished, and one of them was demolished using thermite placed on the bottom steel legs.

As documented by Popular Mechanics in 1935, thermite was used to destroy the steel framework of the Skyride Tower

In addition, the steel-framed roof of the German Reichstag, which survived arson in 1933 and Allied bombardment during World War II, was felled by thermite charges in 1954.[vii]

These two incidents demonstrate not only that even ordinary commercial thermite can be used to demolish steel structures, but that advances in thermite over subsequent years would obviously permit greater efficiency in demolishing structures. Civil engineer Jon Cole, a supporter of AE911Truth, has also clearly demonstrated that thermite can be used to cut though steel beams.[viii]

In the face of strong evidence of thermite being used to demolish the Towers, PM simply parrots NIST's claim that it is unlikely that large amounts of thermite could have been covertly placed within the buildings. This makes no sense, especially since thermite was discovered in the debris. It is a fallacy that could be called an argument of infeasibility, relying on unsubstantiated assumptions about the resources available to any possible group that planned and executed the attack.  

The Nanothermite Paper

Up to this point, PM has only addressed ordinary thermite. PM next addresses the nanothermite discovered in the dust. These results were published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal in an article titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." PM provides no scientific rebuttal to the paper whatsoever, but attempts what many ‘debunkers' have attempted in the past when pressed for any scientific criticisms of the Active Thermitic Materials (ATM) paper: smear and discredit it.

PM argues for two reasons why Bentham Open's published research should be discredited: that a hoax paper was submitted to the same journal and was accepted, and that the editor-in-chief of the Journal resigned after the nanothermite paper was published. However, both assertions proved to be red herrings.

First, the hoax paper, submitted to Bentham Open by PhD students, was in fact never published by Bentham. The editors explained that the paper was accepted in order to find the true identity of the author.[ix] As PM itself notes, even the PhD student who submitted the hoax paper said that "we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied." (pg. 59) As noted by Eric Larson:

[T] he problem has only been documented at a SINGLE journal among the hundreds published by Bentham -- as Scholarly Kitchen notes, another Bentham journal rejected the hoax paper for publication. They say this incident only proves the peer-reviewed process is applied inconsistently.[x] [emphasis added]

Second, regarding Marie-Paule Pileni, the editor-in-chief who resigned from her post after the nanothermite paper was published, PM writes:

She immediately resigned her position at the chemical physics publication. "They have printed the article without my permission," she explained to the news site, according to a translation. "I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period." (pg. 59-60)

Note that Ms. Pileni's objection to the paper—much like PM's treatment -- lacks any scientific arguments at all. In addition, her entire objection is problematic for several reasons:

• "They have printed the article without my permission."

However, as Erik Larson points out:

[H] ow can the "editor-in-chief" be unaware? Was she simply trading her name for a title and a paycheck, and paying no attention to what was being published at her journal?[xi]

Moreover, what most people in a position of authority would do if their subordinates went around them, would be to fire the subordinates, or protest to the publisher -- not resign, themselves.

• "I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics."

In an interview with Gregg Roberts, a 9/11researcher and one of the authors of the nanothermite paper, had this to say regarding Pileni's statements:

This last criticism is perhaps the only valid criticism Pileni makes. The paper in no way advances the frontiers of the science of chemical physics, so in that sense, she is correct. However, the paper does describe an application of the principles of chemical physics to identifying the composition of a specific set of samples.

Obviously, as the authors of the paper, we had our reasons for submitting their article to this particular journal: (1) No one would have to pay to read the article since it is an open access journal. (2) The editors were willing to run a 25-page article, which is extremely long for a scientific paper. (3) The editors and the reviewers at their disposal could be expected to have the expertise necessary to evaluate whether the principles of chemical physics and the instruments used in the study were used appropriately to make the inferences that were reported. (4) Anyone familiar with efforts to publish evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11 is also familiar with "political viewpoints" that prevent publication. A record of the rejections of papers or articles is not published or discussed in the publications responsible for the rejections.

• "[B] ecause the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad." [xii]

This point is not mentioned in PM's book -- and likely for good reason. Although Ms. Pileni claims the topic of the paper was outside her field of expertise, a review of her past work shows she in fact has an extensive background in these very fields. As summarized by Dr. Niels Harrit:

After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise. But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).

Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her "major advanced research" points out that, already by 2003, she was "the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology" (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).

Since the late 1980s, moreover, she has served as a consultant for the French Army and other military institutions. From 1990 to 1994, for example, she served as a consultant for the Sociètè Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs (National Society for Powders and Explosives).

She could, therefore, have easily read our paper, and she surely did. But by denying that she had read it, she avoided the question that would have inevitably been put to her: "What do you think of it?" [xiii]

Ms. Pileni's story simply doesn't add up. She very well could have (and likely did) read the paper, but chose not to provide any meaningful criticism of its content. Her tactics are essentially the same as PM's, which chooses to engage in merely smearing the ATM paper rather trying to deal with the scientific evidence presented in it.

 

It seems PM has failed to live up to the promises made about its new book.