The Campaign to Debunk the Thermite Theory of 9/11


The anniversary of the 9/11 attacks just passed, and we noticed a fair amount of discussion in the comments attempting to discredit or debunk the controlled demolition theory. Some claimed there was no rubble (or not enough), or no explosions, or no heat, or no molten metal…however all the claims were anecdotal and fell somewhat flat (so to speak) 


The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory.

Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is not difficult to understand.

To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.

  1. Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.
  2. The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images made by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.
  3. Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles.[1] This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.
  4. Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.
  5. There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke caused by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence.[2] The second major product of the thermite reaction is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.
  6. Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.
  7. The elemental composition of the metallic microspheres from the WTC dust matches that of metallic microspheres produced by the thermite reaction.
  8. The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.
  9. Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.
  10. A peer-reviewed scientific publication has identified the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by an independent scientist. A visual comparison between nanothermite residues and particles found in the WTC dust is remarkable.

There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by the government agency NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by an independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.

Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.

That is almost certainly why we have seen no such debunking. Instead, the people working to refute the WTC thermite theory have resorted to what might be called a case study in how NOT to respond to scientific evidence.

The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:

  • Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article.
  • Alternate hypotheses that have little or no evidence to support them. For example, the mini-nuke hypothesis and the “Star Wars Beam” hypothesis.
  • Government scientists declaring that the evidence simply doesn’t exist.
  • Attempts to exaggerate the meaning of the evidence, for example by saying that thermite or nanothermite could not have caused all of the effects seen at the WTC.
  • Deceptive efforts to introduce the government contractors who created the official accounts as independent scientists.vidence for thermite at the WTC.



4 thoughts on “The Campaign to Debunk the Thermite Theory of 9/11

  1. Ph.D Niels Harrit, lector emeritus, Kopenhagen Uni./DK, was the first who talked about nanotermite findings in public. He was interviewed on site by a US tv channel about this. This interview was even broadcasted in Sweden.

    There was several things that didn’t make any sense to me:

    – Commercial jet fuel burns at ~800°C, while [construction] steel melts at ~1 400°C. (Not even military grade jet fuel suffice.) Most of the jet fuel was incinerated just after the impacts, respectively. Ergo, not hot enough and not enough jet fuel available. Some kind of catalyst or booster would be required.

    – How can a high building struck from the side collapse straight down? It can’t! It folds towards the direction it was hit, just like when cutting down a tree. The collapses conforms with a controlled demolition technique, used when there are [high] buildings close by, without damage dem. There has at least been a number of video clips available at YouTube showing how this is done.

    – The great [gray] concrete clouds at the collapses doesn’t occur naturally. Concrete breaks down into chunks in different sizes. Not unusually big ones, as seen at earthquake, demolition and air strike sites. (The building standard for skyscrapers dictates the quality required, which is above the usual …) The only known way to turn concrete into dust, is by using microwaves … At the time, [US] military grade microwave weapons has been available for a number of years (military research begun sometimes during mid 20th century.)

    – The high number of video clips available, showing the full sequence of the impacts respectively, from different angles. Seems to be way too many people filming at the very same time, to be a coincident.

    – The [famous] phone call from one of the jets. The airplane was flying at low altitude at a speed that I suspect would be too fast for the cell network to handle. Every time a phone enters a cell, a [digital] handshake is performed. In a car or a train at ground level, there are no problems, as the phone can only be connected to two, max three cell towers at the very same time. With increased altitude, the number of simultaneous connections increases and soon it will be to much for the system to handle. The recording of the phone call was basically without gliches and undisturbed, so …


    • Some people may actually object to my first point, as steel would become unstable at a temperature lower than 800°C, which is true, but as I mentioned, there was not enough energy present to make that happen. Basically, ‘laws of nature’ balances out things into a neutral state, so the required energy levels had to be artificially maintained, hence the nanotermite.

      Yes and the official explanation was ridiculous – ‘it collapsed due to being hit by debris from WCT 1 and 2’. Well, if true, WTC 7 would have collapsed way earlier during any kind of storm, but did it …? I know the building standard of concern demands a far more robust building technique, so it’s not possible.


      • I just realised that some the video clips could have been fakes. The CGI standard at the time was good enough to emulate the [poor] quality of the mobile cameras.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.