"Have you ever seen the light emitted by thermite in action and compared it with the videos of the disintegration of the twin towers? What are the obvious differences?"
Incendiary charges would have been internal to the structure, where the steel frame was, and not visible from without. I am absolutely convinced nothing that should have been in the towers after the jets struck them could have caused them to fall as they did without incendiary charges cutting the steel beams that were designed to withstand, specifically, a plane striking them. Building 7 didn't even have a plane strike it.
"Given the enormous heat needed to disintegrate everything (steel, concrete, glass and various contents in the towers), can you tell me how many people were hospitalized on September 11, 2001 following the destructive event of the World Trade Center in New York?"
Enormous heat isn't what disintegrated the concrete. Shock from high explosives does that. Chemical reactions incendiary formulations cause do create enormous heat, and that's what melted the steel. More than one kind of device was necessary, and highly trained demolitions teams executed the attack.
Molten steel, not disintegrated particles of steel, ran liquid out the building on camera. Concrete and 24" thick steel beams are quite different materials, and respond differently to various events.
"Is thermite able to transform the 107-storey structure into fine dust, so much so as to leave the survivors unscathed (and not burned) on a third-floor staircase and not crushed by 107 floors that a few seconds earlier were above them nor burnt to death by the very high heat theorized to generate the "mythical molten steel"?"
Molten steel wasn't hypothetical, mythical or illusory. It's visible in video of the event. You might as well ask how those people survived the building collapsing on them as the molten steel. It's obvious and undeniable that steel, molten or otherwise, was not in all places at once during the event, and in the specific places where steel was, people were not.
At least, no one that survived. God's good grace or luck alone accounts for those folks surviving that terrorist attack.
Bad mouth AE911 all you want. That's called an ad hominem attack, and is an attempt to divert from the evidence under discussion to the character of those presenting the evidence.
Doing so only detracts from any evidence you might care to present as well. Other than that the immense amounts of concrete pulverized into dust were immense, you present zero evidence, and nothing but claims that steel was pulverized into dust.
I don't even grasp any reason to make such nonsensical claims except to poison the well of facts researchers seek to present. Might as well claim aliens planted mini nukes and that the planes were holographs while death rays from space dropped the towers.
Are you going to make those claims too?
You're still pushing the bogus non-existent explosives and AE911truth disinfo?
This isn't the place for your lies and willful ignorance.