I have new respect for the lead author of the paper I did a partial review of here:
Ending the Nano-Thermite 9/11 Hypothesis for the World Trade Center Catastrophe UPDATE#1 - 1963 Bayer patent
It is no secret that Steven E. Jones critically harmed the reputation of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Jones was a proponent of ‘Muon Catalysed Fusion’, having published a paper in Scientific American in 1987 called “Cold Nuclear Fusion. on the subject. Hence the field erroneously received that name, requiring researchers to find neutrons, gamma …
Dr. Niels Harrit’s rebuttal is not really about what I found, but is focussed on what I chose, for brevity, to not address. Of course, my clear argument was that those aspects were all downstream of the initial miss-identification of the materials in question.
Thank you to Richard Gage for reaching out to Dr. Niels Harrit for comment and for summarising his response here:
Neils clearly watched my video, which I appreciate, since he picked up an assignment error I made regarding DSC derived optical images (Fig.20) that I attributed, in error, to the torch test. I should have stayed on just the critical claims I was analysing - that of his miss-assignment (or non-determination) of the materials in the red/grey chips and their properties which explained things they observed and some things they could not explain.
Interestingly, Richard shared a 2011 BBC interview with Dr. Harrit which is well worth a look before I respond to my peer’s defence of his paper.
The BBC interviewer notes that he had spoken to a peer appropriate to consider the means and methods of analysis in the paper upon which conclusions are based and I found that my clean roomed research was not too far off!
Micaceous Iron Oxide and Aluminium Flake are used in Anti-corrosive paints
There would be many paints used over such a large complex
I like that Neils said essentially “Why does [the detractor] not come and defend his thesis in the public domain.” Neils stood by his own demand and responded within a 14 day period, that commands my respect and I will share a few other things to address his defence soon.
O, it's pretty much the same he did with Dr Denis Rancourt in 2010 and also when Dr David Hughes interacted with him a couple of years ago.
I show it in my Dr Rancourt article and we discuss it in my talk with Dr Hughes...
Bob, I'll be updating both my thermite articles with Harrit's response and this article of yours. Looking forward to watching your rebuttal to Harrits distractive approach to evading the conversation.
Dr Denis Rancourt: 2010 Death Blows to the 9/11 Nano-Thermite Hypothesis
The 9/11 Nano-Thermite Hypothesis and over 15 years of lies
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/denis-rancourt-2010-death-blows-to
Ending the Nano-Thermite 9/11 Hypothesis for the World Trade Center Catastrophe
With basic, easy to verify research - Case closed.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/ending-the-nano-thermite-911-hypothesis
Dr David A. Hughes interview with 9/11 Revisionist
Narrative vs. evidence; Morgan Reynolds; Mark Conlon; Shanksville; the Pentagon; Curt Weldon; survivors on Stairwell B; Richard Gage; Camp 2 propaganda techniques; the 9/11 Memorial Museum.
Interview: https://911revision.substack.com/p/david-hughes-on-the-importance-of
T. Mark Hightower Nano-Thermite Challenge 2011
Background: The "T. Mark Hightower Nano-Thermite Challenge" refers to a scientific contest launched in 2011 by T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer with experience in the space program and chemical industry.
It emerged within the 9/11 truth movement, specifically targeting claims made by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). This group, founded by architect Richard Gage, has promoted the theory that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were brought down by controlled demolition involving "explosive nanothermite"—a nanoscale variant of thermite (a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum) purported to act as a high explosive capable of rapidly pulverizing steel and concrete.
Hightower, who began questioning the official 9/11 narrative in 2004, grew sceptical of the nano thermite hypothesis after reviewing scientific literature. He argued that while thermite is an incendiary (it burns hot but doesn't explode with sufficient velocity to demolish buildings), nano thermite—even when modified with gas-generating additives—lacks the detonation velocity of true high explosives like TNT (6,900 m/s) or RDX (8,750 m/s). Standard high explosives require velocities of at least 2,000–3,200 m/s to fragment concrete or 6,100 m/s to cut steel, which he contended nano thermite could not achieve without incorporating known explosives (defeating the "pure" nano thermite claim).
The Challenge Details
Hightower formalized his doubts in a May 1, 2011, paper titled "How Indeed Can Nanothermite Be Explosive?" (Later expanded as "Has Nano thermite Been Oversold to the 9/11 Truth Community?").
In it, he announced the challenge to resolve debates within the truth community:
Objective: Participants had to submit peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating that a "gas-generating nano-thermite" (GGNT) — based on iron (III) oxide (Fe₂O₃) and aluminium (Al), with non-explosive gas-generating additives — could function as a high explosive with a detonation velocity of at least 2,000 m/s.
- Prize: Up to $1,000 donated to AE911Truth if a valid entry was provided.
- Deadline: June 20, 2011.
- Submission: Entries were to be emailed to DetonationVelocity@att.net.
Rationale: Hightower aimed to bridge divides between nano thermite proponents (e.g., physicist Steven Jones and chemist Niels Harrit, authors of a 2009 paper claiming nano thermite chips in WTC dust) and sceptics (e.g., those favouring other theories like directed energy weapons). He created a Facebook group, "Architects & Engineers for Nano thermite Truth," to discuss the issue openly.
Hightower emphasized sincerity in advancing 9/11 research, noting examples of confusion in Jones' writings where thermite was conflated with explosives.
Outcome and Aftermath
The challenge expired on June 20, 2011, with no entries received. Hightower publicly announced this on June 21, 2011, via blogs and forums like Check the Evidence and 9/11 Scholars. No peer-reviewed evidence meeting the criteria has since emerged, bolstering arguments that nano thermite is an incendiary at best, not a high explosive suitable for demolition.
Critics of the nano thermite theory, including forensic scientist Dr. James Millette (who analysed WTC dust in 2012 and identified red/gray chips as paint, not thermite), cited the challenge as evidence of oversold claims.
Proponents like Gage suggested additives (e.g., organic silica) could provide explosive force, but Hightower dismissed this as unproven and circular (relying on non-explosive components to create explosiveness).
The challenge highlighted broader tensions in 9/11 research, influencing discussions on alternative explanations (e.g., conventional explosives requiring hundreds of tons per tower, or non-explosive mechanisms).
It remains unmet as of 2025, underscoring unresolved debates in the field.
A new challenge: Erect a steel beam test structure.
4 vertical, 10 foot long 6" flange x 12" deep beams at the corners with 4 horizontal beams of the same type welded or bolted at the 5' high position.
Then affix the incendiary all along the vertical and horizontal beams, ignite the thermite and have the thermite turn the structure to DUST and have the thermite not give off all the sparkling pyrotechnic visuals.