John-Michael Talboo article

This is a rough draft missing a video that would be embedded of the chip ignition tests. If I sent the html you know how to put it into the html tab option, right? Or I could post it at your site if allowed access so it is formatted right and you don’t have to mess with it. This would be an exclusive article to your site… a guest blog.

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? We have posted an extensive essay that covers in detail the 2009 paper that originally reported the discovery of an energetic material in the WTC dust, and the ensuing attempts to discredit it. This is a summary and a call to action: please donate to enable chemical engineer Mark Basile to publish an independent verification of the finding of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.


The original 2009 peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al. is called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The red layer of the tiny red/gray bi-layered chips belongs to a novel class of energetic materials that 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 explain why it refuses to look for evidence of it in the dust.


We expose unscrupulous internet sites that have been spreading false rumors to discredit the authors, the paper, and even the journal. The members of one forum actually paid for a study that was supposed to refute the paper on more technical terms, but the resulting 2012 preliminary report by Dr. Millette is unpublishable and invalid, as we are about to explain. Our essay is pending its second major revision (version 1.3), 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 extensive peer-review process. The resulting published 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. 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 that led the authors to conclude that the chips cannot be paint. The red/gray chips have the required nano-thermite ingredients and they work like a thermitic material, hence the conclusion. Harrit et al. document the sample collection and the chain-of-custody of the samples, so there never was any issue with the samples, despite the rumors on certain internet forums.


– Part Two explains the importance of the molten iron spheres, and the significant difference between reduced iron spheres vs. oxidized iron spheres obtained via conventional combustion. 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. We explain the failure of many 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, and Millette´s refusal to replicate the ignition tests and 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 below).




– Part Four is dedicated to the discovery of elemental aluminum in the red layer. Dr. Millette does not clearly identify unbound aluminum in his chips, but he does not attempt to actually refute the aluminum data in Dr. Harrit´s study. Some authoritative members of the JREF 9/11 debunking forum have attempted to discredit Harrit´s aluminum data, but a close look at their methods 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 update, including part five, but a recent article includes an FTIR update that explains why Dr. Millette never bothered to attempt publishing:

…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: Ryan´s spectrum for the red layer studied in the 2009 Harrit et al. paper is the upper spectrum below. Below that is a spectrum for one layer of the multi-layer chips also reported in the 2009 paper.


– The discussion part sums up our essay and introduces Mark Basile´s study, which has already confirmed Dr. Harrit´s iron-spheres. Basile will include additional tests and an independent lab will be confirming test results. This is the definitive study we need to settle this debate, so please donate at 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.


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