By Ziggi Zugam and John-Michael Talboo
September 27, 2013
Did you know that a recent survey concludes that nearly half of everyone that sees the video of the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 suspects controlled demolition? Now is the perfect time to remind you of the 2009 peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al., called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This is a summary of our extensive essay that covers the paper and the attempts to discredit it. We need your help to fund the completion of an independent study that is verifying the presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust, so please donate to support chemical engineer Mark Basile.
The thermitic red layer of the reported tiny red/gray bi-layered chips found in the dust belongs to a novel class of energetic materials that government funded US laboratories have been developing since the 1990´s. Even the federal agency in charge of the supposed investigation of the collapsed towers helped to develop this type of material, which may help to explain why it refuses to look for evidence of it in the dust.
Our essay exposes unscrupulous internet sites that have been spreading false rumors to discredit Harrit et al., the paper, and even the publisher. The members of one such forum actually organized a study that was supposed to refute the paper on technical terms, but the resulting 2012 preliminary report by Dr. Millette remains unpublished because it is invalid, as we are about to explain. The essay is pending its second major revision (version 1.3) which will also include minor repairs such as the re-installment of missing pictures and graphs, but it is presently in five main parts plus the introduction and the final discussion:
- The introduction puts Dr. Harrit´s data into context and presents some of the experts behind the 2009 paper, their impressive credentials, and the unusually thorough peer-review process. Harrit´s paper is essentially flawless according to one of the referees that reviewed the paper on behalf of the journal, which explains why no-one has been able to challenge the explosive conclusion with published data. The introduction also gives you an insight into the mentality of the so-called "debunkers".
- Part One goes over the data and explains the process the authors went through to come to the conclusion that the chips are not paint. The red/gray chips have the required nano-thermite ingredients and they work like a thermitic material, hence the conclusion. We note that Harrit et al. document the sample collection and the chain-of-custody of the samples, so there never was any issue with the integrity of the samples or risk of contamination, despite the rumors on certain internet forums.
- Part Two explains the importance of the molten iron spheres in the residue and distinguishes the opposite processes that lead to reduced iron spheres on one hand and oxidized iron spheres on the other. The red layer contains iron-oxide and aluminum before ignition, but upon ignition it converts those ingredients into molten spheres of iron and aluminum-oxide via an aluminothermic reaction. Conventional combustion would leave behind iron-oxide and we document many failed attempts to belittle or avoid this key evidence. Here is an update to part two, which expands on the debunking of Dave Thomas´s pseudo-scientific attempts to discredit the iron spheres.
- Part Three introduces the miserable saga of Rev. Chris Mohr and his attempt to hire "an independent scientist" to study the red/gray chips, and the resulting 2012 preliminary report by Dr. Millette. We highlight the main problems with the report, including the fact that neither the red nor the gray layers match Harrit´s chips when closely examined, and Millette´s refusal to even address the key evidence: the iron spheres. The main theme of this part is the suspicion that Millette has not been studying the correct chips, and this has now been confirmed (see update to part five below).
- Part Four is dedicated to the discovery of elemental aluminum in the red layer of Dr. Harrit´s chips. Dr. Millette does not clearly identify unbound aluminum in his chips, but he does not attempt to actually refute the aluminum data for the chips in Dr. Harrit´s study. Some authoritative members of the JREF 9/11 debunking forum have attempted to discredit Harrit´s aluminum data, but we refute them by taking a close look at their methods. This chapter reminds us that there is a big difference between valid data published in refereed journals and anonymous chit-chat on certain forums.
- Part Five addresses the key piece of evidence in Dr. Millette´s preliminary report: the FTIR spectrum. Our essay is pending updates, including an update to part five, but a recent article offers a sneak-peak and explains that Dr. Millette has not published his report because it is invalid. From the article Millette Chip Study Debunked and Buried: RIP
...I am happy to announce that the revision will include a positively identified Harrit et al. FTIR spectrum for the red layer. Rev. Mohr and his crowd have been clinging to Millette´s FTIR spectrum because it is supposed to debunk Harrit et al., so it is appropriate to use that crown-jewel of the report to render Millette´s preliminary report null and void. Ryan´s FTIR spectrum for the red material confirms the suspicions laid out in our article, as it is quite clear that it does not match Millette´s red layer FTIR, so Dr. Millette failed to study the correct red/gray chips, and Rev. Mohr has of course been notified.
Below: Kevin Ryan´s spectrum for the red layer studied in the 2009 Harrit et al. paper is the spectrum in the upper window below, where it is compared to the spectrum of a known nano-thermite material. Below that is Millette's FTIR.
- The discussion part of our essay sums it up and introduces Mark Basile´s study, which has already replicated and confirmed most of Dr. Harrit´s work. Basile will include additional tests and "blind testing" by an independent lab that will confirm his results. This new study is going to be a real game-changer because the replication is necessary to confirm controversial research conclusions in the world of science, so please donate at www.MarkBasile.org/donate. We have added a PayPal option that goes directly to Mark Basile, as demonstrated in a screen shot of a test donation. We did this for anyone that was perhaps weary to donate to a third party collecting the funds.