Reaction: Nanothermite Myth Busted: It Was Just Paint
Harrit’s explosive theory collapses — Millette, Greenyer, and Rancourt deliver the evidence
This past weekend, Saturday June 13th, 2026, Richard Gage gave a presentation to 9/11 Lawyer’s committe founder, Mick Harrison.
Unfortunately I could not attend, due to a family medical emergency, so I could not take the opportunity to address Richard Gage face to face. I’m currently working through his presentation, and the Q&A, to do a reaction video, where I will be taking on all his points, to show you where he is gaslighting you.
However, I do need to quickly get this article out, due to what Richard Gage posted to his webiste on June 12th, the same day I was interviewing ex-Nasa scientist, and chemical engineer, T. Mark Hightower, regarding his UNANSWERED 2011 thermite challenge to Richard Gage, and AE911.
Find my interview with T. Mark Hightower here.
Now, Richard brought in the help of Chat GPT to help him, so I in turn asked Grok to weigh in. Here is what I asked Grok to do…
Hi Grok - Please read this article by Richard Gage, and also follow the hyperlinked articles, by 9/11 Revisionist, in the article by Richard Gage.
This is the Harrit paper, and this is my Rancourt article, and this is the Millette’s analysis, and this is the Greenyer article, be sure to listen to his presentation posted on YT about the 2009 study, then also take into account the discussion with T. Mark Hightower, and be sure to read his thermite challenge paper, and lastly listen to Bob Greenyer’s presentation on his 2026 dust sample analysis, and now tell us if the article by Richard Gage has any merit, and break down why or why not, taking into account everything that you’ve been asked to investigate deeply...
Richard Gage’s article “It’s Just Paint? 2” has very limited scientific merit as a defence of the Harrit et al. (2009) nanothermite hypothesis.
It largely recycles assertions from the original paper while dismissing or downplaying substantive critiques from independent analyses, without providing new experimental replication of the key energetic claims.
Gage (via the article’s framing, often attributing responses to ChatGPT) argues that critics like Denis Rancourt, James Millette, and Bob Greenyer fail to fully replicate Harrit’s observations — especially the red / gray chips’ nanoscale features, MEK solvent behaviour, DSC exotherms around 430°C, and post-ignition iron-rich microspheres — thus leaving the “active thermitic material” claim intact.
He insists a true refutation requires matching the exact paint / product, full replication of tests, and explanation of all properties.
Harrit et al. (2009) Core Claims
The paper reported red / gray chips in WTC dust samples (collected independently shortly after 9/11) with:
Iron oxide nanoparticles (~100 nm) and aluminum in plate-like structures, intimately mixed in a carbon/silicon matrix.
Magnetic attraction.
MEK solvent separating layers, revealing elemental aluminum.
DSC ignition at ~430°C with high energy release (narrow exotherm).
Post-reaction iron-rich microspheres, interpreted as evidence of a thermitic reduction (Fe₂O₃ + Al → Fe + Al₂O₃ + heat).
These were presented as unreacted nano-thermite (energetic nanocomposite), potentially explaining the collapses via controlled demolition.
Key Counterevidence and Critiques
1. Millette (2012) forensic analysis: Millette examined red/gray chips from multiple WTC dust samples (independent of Harrit’s). His chips matched Harrit’s morphology and EDS spectra (Fe, Si, Al, etc.) but were identified as epoxy-based coatings with iron oxide pigment and kaolin (clay) extender—common in anti-corrosion or structural paints / coatings.
No elemental aluminum was detected in the form claimed (it was likely in oxidized / bound form, not free metallic Al capable of thermite). Millette did not replicate DSC ignition because his chips lacked the claimed energetic behavior; they were inert coatings.
He used rigorous forensic protocols (SEM-EDS, FTIR, TEM, ashing, solvents) aligned with standards for paint / explosives analysis.
This directly challenges the “unique thermitic signature.”
Millette’s samples came from archived WTC dust, confirming such chips were present but ordinary.
2. Bob Greenyer’s analyses (2025 presentation and related work): Greenyer (LENR researcher) demonstrates that red / gray chips match known anti-corrosion paints (e.g., polysiloxane-based formulations with iron oxide, aluminum flakes, siloxane binders, and pigments documented in patents predating the WTC).
He shows matching morphology, elemental composition, and behavior under solvents/heating. Iron-rich spheres form in many high-temperature or oxidative processes (e.g., slag, cutting, fires, or even ordinary paint degradation) and are not unique to thermite. Greenyer’s 2026 dust sample work (from Patricia Casazza) further contextualizes spheres and particles as consistent with other mechanisms (e.g., plasmoids / EVOs in his view), not requiring nano-thermite.
His presentation emphasizes historical paint formulations used on steel structures and notes Harrit’s chips lack the gas-generation or detonation velocity needed for demolition explosives.
3. Denis Rancourt (2010+ critiques): Rancourt (physicist) highlights methodological issues: possible artifacts in SEM/EDX (e.g., from mounting stubs/tape), alternative explanations for spectra (rust, oxyhydroxides, paint), and lack of proper controls.
He argues the data do not compel a thermite interpretation and that Harrit’s team did not adequately rule out mundane sources. No lab replication of energetic behavior on verified paint vs. claimed chips.
4. T. Mark Hightower’s Nanothermite Challenge (2011): Even granting some energetic material, Hightower (chemical engineer) shows nano-thermite (Fe₂O₃/Al) is primarily pyrotechnic / incendiary, not a high explosive capable of the rapid gas expansion / shock needed for structural demolition. It requires additives (often high explosives themselves) for detonation velocities >2000 m/s.
His challenge for peer-reviewed evidence of “gas-generating nanothermite” as a true high explosive went unanswered.
Quantities needed would be enormous and logistically implausible.
Why Gage’s Defense Falls Short
No new replication: Gage/Harrit responses demand critics replicate everything exactly but shift the burden improperly. The onus remains on proponents to show the chips are not paint and do exhibit thermitic energetics reproducibly. Millette and Greenyer characterized matching chips as paint / coatings; Harrit’s DSC results have not been independently replicated on the same material under controls excluding contaminants.
Ignores convergence of evidence: Multiple independent lines (forensic paint ID, historical formulations, non-explosive nature of nanothermite, sphere formation in non-thermitic processes) point to ordinary WTC dust components (coatings from steel, debris). Harrit’s samples were small and selectively magnetic; broader dust studies (USGS, RJ Lee, Millette) do not support widespread unreacted super-thermite.
Energetics gap: Even if chips ignite and produce spheres, the energy release, temperature, and mechanics do not scale to demolishing steel-frame skyscrapers. Official collapse explanations have their own issues, but nanothermite does not resolve them scientifically.
Broader context: Gage’s article frames critics as “debunkers” and leans on AI summaries, but avoids engaging quantitative challenges (e.g., Hightower) or full Millette report details. Greenyer and others have directly addressed Harrit’s responses with further paint matches.
In summary, the Harrit paper raised an interesting observation worth testing, but subsequent work (Millette, Greenyer, Rancourt, Hightower) strongly supports the chips as prosaic paint / coating fragments, not engineered nano-thermite.
Gage’s article does not overturn this with new data — it restates the original claims and sets an unattainable bar for disproof, while the positive evidence for thermite remains unreplicated and contradicted.
This does not “prove” the official narrative (many legitimate questions remain about the collapses), but it does mean the nanothermite hypothesis lacks credible forensic support, and has been a distraction.
Independent replication by neutral labs remains the gold standard, and it has not favoured the thermite interpretation.
Richard Gage Calls Out 9/11 Revisionist – But He Just Debunked Himself
Gage cites Dr Judy Wood’s pages to attack her — those exact pages destroy Gage's claims.
Thank you for reading, thank you for watching, listening and still caring.
If you like reading my articles and would like to buy me a coffee, please follow the link to my PayPal, as Substack does not allow for payments to my country yet.
If this is the first article of mine you’re reading, please rewind to my first article and work your way through all of them, as you’ve missed out on a lot of valuable 9/11 and “9/11 truther movement” information.
The long awaited “New Investigation”, is contained in this scary book by Dr Judy Wood.
For a 1h crash course into the destruction at the WTC watch the 9/11 Essential Guide.
For a crash course into all three sites on 9/11, watch 9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality.
Free PDF book downloads by Andrew Johnson:
9/11 – Finding the Truth and also 9/11 – Holding the Truth
Also get your hands on: ChatGPT and 9/11 - Operation Headfake: A Thought Experiment with Artificial Intelligence, co-authored by Dr Morgan Reynolds and John Herold, MA. Kindle edition & a link to standard colour printed edition.
Come join the discussion on Telegram, find me on X and check out my Rumble channel.
PBD actually asked a good question that I've wondered. A lot of people would need to be involved in wiring up and preparing the building. You wouldn't find enough people to willingly do that or to not have spoken out when they saw what happened!! Gage always claims "that's not my area of expertise" but he should have a valid and provable reply to it, he must have been asked it before. If he cares that much he would have researched for evidence to answer that question & give an answer to support what he is saying. I'm not an expert on anything but when I couldn't see how DEW might have been done I researched, found evidence, patents, and other info that would support a possible way of setting it up that is simple, has supporting docs and not difficult to believe.
NanokryptosuperdooperultramegaHyperThermidiumXtraProPlus is the only stuff powerful enough to bring down a building IMO - but did they use it? 🤣