Falsifiability is for people who aren't Truthers.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Three problems stand in the way:
1) The aircraft and fire damage was sufficient to cause collapse without needing assistance from thermite.
2) Thermite could not be used without visible evidence of that use.
3) If, despite it not being necessary, someone had intended to use it as an assistance to the damage caused by aircraft impact and accumulating fire damage. Apart from the need to keep it hidden the other constraints mean it would have to be installed and operated within the area affected by fire whilst the fires were burning. That requires fire suited suicide workers AND fireproof thermite. An absurd idea.
So forget about it actually being used as part of the actual 9/11 collapse. It would have to have remained hidden when in use and never discovered afterwards.
There is no sensible way that use of thermite could have occurred in the actual 9/11 attacks. Let me be pedantic with the "correct" scientific wording of that claim - no one has ever given a fully worked through plan of how it could be achieved. I cannot see how it could have been achieved.
And getting back to the boring repetitive stuff about burden of proof. If anyone claims that thermite was used it is their "burden" to prove it. No "truther" claimant has risen to the challenge of that "burden of proof". So the default position remains "thermite was not used".
So the only realistic setting for your question "Could thermite feasibly be used to bring the towers down?" is to restate the question as "Could thermite feasibly have been used to bring the towers down?" and put it in a hypothetical scenario before 9/11. In that setting the answer is "Yes - thermite could be used" - I'll leave you to list all the constraints that would apply. It would take large quantities. And be fully visible..................equally absurd if not more so.