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
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.
Aha, so if the dust shows paint and not thermite (according to Bob G.), and the thin layer of paint couldn't have brought down the buildings (according to Dr. N. Harrit), then what did bring down the buildings? <wink wink emoji>
Being a structural engineer, I like Judy Wood’s theory - might explain all the dust, the “weird” transmutation evidence at ground zero, plus some of the items currently on display in the museum
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.
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.
Dr. James R. Millette, a forensic scientist and president of MVA Scientific Consultants, conducted an independent analysis of World Trade Center (WTC) dust samples in late 2011 and early 2012.
This work was commissioned by skeptic Chris Mohr to investigate claims from the 2009 paper by Niels Harrit et al., which suggested red/gray chips in the dust were "active thermitic material" (nano-thermite).
Millette's study examined chips from four dust samples collected near Ground Zero and concluded they were consistent with primer paint used on steel structures, not thermite.
Ok - looked through it. Yes, consistent with paint. Some nice data regarding Kaolin and of course, alumino-silicates are used as fillers in paints also - however, this would not account for the DSC data since alumnino silicates like Kaolin would not not produce any thermitic like effects.
Cross-linked poly (dimethyl siloxane), epoxy and polyurethane binders are all resistant to MEK
from Harrit et al, Fig 16 and Fig 17 shows silicon spike and aluminium spike independent of each, so they are not bonded ruling out Kaolin. the aluminium is elemental, not bonded.
You can often get wild variations in EDX spectrum based on point selected - that is why it is better to do area samples.
Moreover, there were likely 1000s of paints used across the complex and years and some paints may have contained both components - Al Paste and Kaolin.
the samples were collected from different sources, one sample prior to wtc7 collapse- so we have to conclude the chips came from the collapse of the 2 towers. the red chips were ubiquitous in the dust. the chips made up 0.1% of the samples. this is way too much to be explained by spurious paints in the building. if Al flakes+Kaolin based primer paint was used in the towers as an upgrade, quantitatively it would have to have been applied on most of the steel on all floors, estimates are many tons. we both know its not the zinc based Tnemec primer that it was constructed with. such a disruptive upgrade in itself would have been unlikely and well documented given most of the steel was on the perimeter, also the primer was still within its lifetime. there were however selective fireproofing upgrades in the ceiling voids on a range of floors (coinciding with the aircraft impact floor and correlating where the major failure points occurred as documented by kevin ryan). was the steel also upgraded to a modern primer on these fireproofing upgraded floors- seems to be unanswered at this point. we're still left with the calorimeter data which is the core of the study.
I make a point of not including wtc7, but many structure other than WTC1 and 2 were destroyed in whole or in part before wtc7. Moreover, regardless of the sample, they used the same recovery technique, thus favouring the MIO back paint. In the BBC interview, Neil's notes there was other paint in samples.
for sure tnemec paint chips would have been ubiquitous too given it was on all the steel. the protocol was specified on how to distinguish which some study replicators failed to do.
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
Aha, so if the dust shows paint and not thermite (according to Bob G.), and the thin layer of paint couldn't have brought down the buildings (according to Dr. N. Harrit), then what did bring down the buildings? <wink wink emoji>
Being a structural engineer, I like Judy Wood’s theory - might explain all the dust, the “weird” transmutation evidence at ground zero, plus some of the items currently on display in the museum
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.
Dr. James Millette's 2012 WTC Dust Analysis
Dr. James R. Millette, a forensic scientist and president of MVA Scientific Consultants, conducted an independent analysis of World Trade Center (WTC) dust samples in late 2011 and early 2012.
This work was commissioned by skeptic Chris Mohr to investigate claims from the 2009 paper by Niels Harrit et al., which suggested red/gray chips in the dust were "active thermitic material" (nano-thermite).
Millette's study examined chips from four dust samples collected near Ground Zero and concluded they were consistent with primer paint used on steel structures, not thermite.
Find it here: https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?threads/wtc-dust-study-feb-29-2012-by-dr-james-millette.231314/
Ok - looked through it. Yes, consistent with paint. Some nice data regarding Kaolin and of course, alumino-silicates are used as fillers in paints also - however, this would not account for the DSC data since alumnino silicates like Kaolin would not not produce any thermitic like effects.
Cross-linked poly (dimethyl siloxane), epoxy and polyurethane binders are all resistant to MEK
He did not identify the MIO.
Looking forward to your comeback on Harrit - BURY him and the thermite junkies.
In time, I have my job also to do.
from Harrit et al, Fig 16 and Fig 17 shows silicon spike and aluminium spike independent of each, so they are not bonded ruling out Kaolin. the aluminium is elemental, not bonded.
You can often get wild variations in EDX spectrum based on point selected - that is why it is better to do area samples.
Moreover, there were likely 1000s of paints used across the complex and years and some paints may have contained both components - Al Paste and Kaolin.
the samples were collected from different sources, one sample prior to wtc7 collapse- so we have to conclude the chips came from the collapse of the 2 towers. the red chips were ubiquitous in the dust. the chips made up 0.1% of the samples. this is way too much to be explained by spurious paints in the building. if Al flakes+Kaolin based primer paint was used in the towers as an upgrade, quantitatively it would have to have been applied on most of the steel on all floors, estimates are many tons. we both know its not the zinc based Tnemec primer that it was constructed with. such a disruptive upgrade in itself would have been unlikely and well documented given most of the steel was on the perimeter, also the primer was still within its lifetime. there were however selective fireproofing upgrades in the ceiling voids on a range of floors (coinciding with the aircraft impact floor and correlating where the major failure points occurred as documented by kevin ryan). was the steel also upgraded to a modern primer on these fireproofing upgraded floors- seems to be unanswered at this point. we're still left with the calorimeter data which is the core of the study.
thanks for the response, much appreciated.
I make a point of not including wtc7, but many structure other than WTC1 and 2 were destroyed in whole or in part before wtc7. Moreover, regardless of the sample, they used the same recovery technique, thus favouring the MIO back paint. In the BBC interview, Neil's notes there was other paint in samples.
for sure tnemec paint chips would have been ubiquitous too given it was on all the steel. the protocol was specified on how to distinguish which some study replicators failed to do.
Hi Bob
I suggest you watch from about 50 minutes in and don't trust Roy.
I've had interactions with him and he's not to be trusted.
Discussion: https://rumble.com/v70uetk-206.20251026-the-911-war-room.html
It’s only the science that matters to me.
But be careful who you share info with, even if they sign a non-disclosure.
I've had run ins with him...
Hey Bob - Think you'll get a right laugh from my video edit of Harris
Link: https://x.com/911Revisionist/status/1980653036243448234
Here is a Rumble link: https://rumble.com/v70lhgm-bbc-journalist-wants-to-slap-thermite-pusher-dr.-niels-harrit.html
And a YT link: https://youtu.be/onrc_jzeOGA