COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Thermite and the red-gray chips

The 2009 paper, the journal editor who quit, and NIST’s estimate

← Interactive guide and chronology · The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

What the paper says

Red-gray chips that ignite at 430°C.

The authors studied four dust samples collected separately, one about ten minutes after the second tower fell. They found “distinctive red/gray chips” in all of them. The red layer, they report, ignites at about 430°C, well below normal thermite, and leaves iron-rich spheres. They conclude it “is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” [1]

The authors’ listed affiliations include Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and other groups that dispute the official account. [1]

What we can’t tell you. The samples’ chain of custody rests on private collectors.

The sources

  1. Harrit et al., The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009: Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe ↗

    The paper reporting red-gray chips its authors call unreacted thermitic material.

The objections

The journal, the primer theory and the quantities.

The journal was published by Bentham Science. Its editor-in-chief, Marie-Paule Pileni, told the Danish science site Videnskab.dk she had not been told the article would appear, that the subject did not belong in her journal, and that she resigned. [1]

Critics argue the chips are primer paint from the towers’ steel, which also contains iron oxide and aluminum compounds. NIST did not examine the chips. It says thermite burns slowly compared with explosives and would need several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to weaken it substantially, and its researchers estimated at least 0.13 pounds of thermite per pound of steel would be needed, meaning very large quantities placed against the columns. [2]

What we can’t tell you. An independent analysis contradicting the paper is often cited, but we could not verify it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, so we have left it out.

The sources

  1. Videnskab.dk, 2009: editor-in-chief resigns over controversial 9/11 article ↗

    Marie-Paule Pileni says the Harrit paper was published without her knowledge and resigns. In Danish.

  2. NIST: Questions and answers about the NIST WTC towers investigation ↗

    NIST’s replies on free fall, molten metal, thermite (“many thousands of pounds”) and explosives.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

2 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 162 rated claims ↗

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.