911Revisitionist alerted me to Bob Greenyer (of Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project infamy) nailing the coffin of Thermite / Thermate / Nano-or-not — something I thought had been “nailed” long ago in common reasoning — Let’s call this the DEWE – Directed Energy Weaponry Explanation
DEWE – Directed Energy Weaponry Explanation
1. Roughly 220 football fields of reinforced concrete were converted into fine powder in mid-air in under nine seconds. That level of instant, airborne dustification is not compatible with thermite, thermate, nano-thermite, or any conventional incendiary/explosive narrative. Those materials cannot be deployed, metered, or sustained at the required scale, nor can they deliver uniform, simultaneous, volumetric disintegration of bulk structural concrete while it is still suspended in air.
2. What does match the observed effect is directed high-energy application: coordinated microwave beam energy and particle beam weaponry from exotic military platforms. These systems can couple energy directly into material lattice structure, strip molecular bonds, and collapse concrete into micron-scale dust without the normal explosive signatures or debris profiles expected from chemical charges. This model accounts for the speed, the completeness, the mid-air pulverization, and the near-total absence of intact floor slabs.
3. All explanations that do not primarily include Directed Energy Weapons fall short. Thermite-based theories can describe localized melting and cutting, but they cannot explain total field-scale dustification of hundreds of thousands of tons of material in free-fall conditions. Only directed-energy deployment from advanced weapons systems fully fits all physical evidence.
1. Who Bob Greenyer is
Bob Greenyer is a long-time figure in the open-science / “new energy” world. He helped launch the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) in 2012, an effort to replicate and document low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR, often called “cold fusion”) in public so that exotic energy effects couldn’t just be buried by institutions. He’s described as a volunteer researcher and co-founder-level organizer for MFMP, working under the Quantum Heat C.I.C. banner. His background is in materials, microscopy, and anomalous energy experiments like nickel-hydrogen reactors, cavitation, plasma discharges, etc. (APEC)
In recent years he’s focused on “EVOs” — Exotic Vacuum Objects — which he describes as extremely dense charge clusters / energy solitons that can rip through matter, melt holes, transmute elements, and leave weird signatures like microspheres and vortex-like scarring. He links EVOs to Hutchison-effect style material disruption, ball lightning, advanced propulsion concepts, even directed-energy style weapon effects. (APEC)
That EVO / exotic-energy framing is exactly what he’s now dragging into the 9/11 evidence fight.
2. Thermite, nano-thermite, and why it mattered for 9/11
Classic “thermite” is basically a metal fuel plus metal oxide (famously aluminum powder + iron oxide). When ignited it reacts violently, dumping heat fast enough to liquefy iron. “Nano-thermite” (also called “super-thermite” or a “metastable intermolecular composite”) is the same idea engineered at the nanoscale: ultrafine oxidizer and fuel intimately mixed so the burn rate and energy release are dramatically higher, fast enough to start looking like a tailored energetic material rather than a welding mixture. Military labs have studied nano-thermite and other nano-energetic composites as tunable high-temperature, high-rate energetic compounds. (Wikipedia)
After 9/11, a core claim inside the technical wing of the 9/11 truth movement was: “We found active thermitic material in the dust.” In 2009, a paper led by Danish chemist Niels Harrit (with Steven E. Jones and others) reported “distinctive red/gray chips” collected from World Trade Center dust and said those chips behaved like unignited nano-thermite. They argued this was direct physical evidence that engineered energetic materials — not just office fires and gravity — were involved in destroying the Towers and WTC 7. (ResearchGate)
That paper, plus years of work by figures like Jones and architect Richard Gage, fed the storyline that the Towers and Building 7 weren’t simply fire collapses. The talking points were: molten iron, iron-rich microspheres, “free-fall,” lateral ejections of steel, pulverized concrete in midair, and (crucially) the supposed presence of nano-thermite chips in the dust. Groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth leaned on nano-thermite as a sort of smoking gun to argue controlled demolition. (Wikipedia)
Mainstream investigators (NIST, Popular Mechanics, etc.) rejected all of that, saying the collapses were fully explained by impact damage plus long-duration, high-temperature fires. NIST has said they saw no need to posit explosives and therefore did not test debris for explosive residues. Critics of the thermite angle have also argued that thermite is slow, hard to direct on vertical columns, and would have required massive, obvious prep work. They also said that iron oxide + aluminum flakes can show up in ordinary building materials like primer paints — so just “finding aluminum and iron oxide together” in red/gray dust chips doesn’t automatically prove nano-thermite. (NIST)
That last point — “it might just be paint” — is exactly where Bob Greenyer jumps in and lights a match.
3. What Greenyer just did: “Ending the Nano-Thermite 9/11 Hypothesis”
On October 5, 2025, Bob Greenyer did a livestream called “Ending the Nano-Thermite 9/11 Hypothesis for the World Trade Center Catastrophe.” He framed it as the presentation that finally kills thermite / nano-thermite as the explanation for the catastrophic destruction of the WTC. He and his allies circulated the slides and promised to “bury thermite and the iron spheres once and for all.” (YouTube)
The core headline he pushed: the famous “red/gray chips” in WTC dust — the same chips Harrit and Jones published in 2009 as active nano-thermite — are not nano-thermite at all. Greenyer argues they’re ordinary anti-corrosion primer paint, the kind of epoxy-like coating you put on structural steel that can contain iron oxide pigment and aluminum flakes. He says once you understand that, the whole “nano-thermite” argument collapses, and with it a huge chunk of the traditional controlled-demolition narrative. (YouTube)
He’s blunt about it: no thermite, no nano-thermite, no thermitic chips, period.
4. How he tries to prove “it’s just paint”
Greenyer’s presentation leans on microscopy / compositional arguments: if you take the red/gray chips and you see layered red coating on gray steel, loaded with iron oxide and bits of aluminum, that can look superficially like a nano-engineered thermitic laminate to someone who wants to see a weapon — but, he says, the same signature appears in off-the-shelf anti-corrosion primers. So, according to him, Harrit/Jones mistook primer for a military-grade nano-thermite demolition compound, and then the entire 9/11 truth world ran with it for more than a decade. (Richard Gage 9/11)
He also goes after two long-standing pro-thermite data points:
- the “iron-rich microspheres” in the dust,
- and molten-looking metal flows captured on video.
He’s publicly said he wants to “bury thermite and the iron spheres once and for all,” signaling that he thinks those microspheres don’t prove thermite either. (X (formerly Twitter))
So, in his view, thermite/nano-thermite was never the kill shot. It was a decoy.
5. What he says really happened instead
Greenyer doesn’t say “there was nothing exotic.” He says the opposite: the World Trade Center event was exotic — just not thermite. He plugs in his EVO / “energy soliton” model.
In his EVO framework, you get ultra-dense charge clusters and other high-energy quasi-particles that can bore through matter, flash-melt metal, create perfect microspheres, and pulverize material (“dustify” it) without behaving like classic shaped charges or cutter charges. He connects this to decades of fringe / black-budget physics: Hutchison-effect material shredding, directed-energy concepts, alleged Navy “dustification” patents, and weaponized high-energy plasmas. In other words, he shifts 9/11 from “military nano-thermite charges on columns” to “classified energy-weapon / exotic plasma phenomena that can disintegrate steel and concrete in unconventional ways.” (APEC)
He also ties back to cold fusion history. He claims mainstream science tried to bury anomalous high-energy density effects (Fleischmann/Pons, cavitation LENR, ball-lightning-like plasmoids), and that the same physics shows up in 9/11 as an operational technology — not an accident, a technology. (APEC)
In his mind, if you accept EVOs as real, then the “mysteries” of 9/11 (instant pulverization of concrete to fine dust mid-air, molten-looking metal, bizarre damage patterns) don’t require nano-thermite at all. They require a weaponized EVO-type energy system.
6. The pushback on Greenyer (Harrit vs. Greenyer)
The thermite camp did not take this quietly.
Niels Harrit — the Danish chemist who led the 2009 “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” paper — published a direct rebuttal in October 2025 titled “Response by Niels Harrit, PhD. to Bob Greenyer’s ‘Ending the NanoThermite 9/11 Hypothesis’ Video (‘It’s Just Paint’).” Harrit’s response was posted through Richard Gage’s platform (Gage is the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which has spent years arguing controlled demolition). (Richard Gage 9/11)
Harrit concedes one narrow point: yes, there are anti-corrosion paints that contain both iron oxide and aluminum. But he argues that doesn’t prove those specific chips from the WTC dust were just commercial primer, and he says there’s no documentation that any such aluminum/iron-oxide “energetic primer” was actually applied to the WTC steel in the way Greenyer is implying. He defends the original claim that the chips were “active thermitic material” — meaning, when heated, they behaved like engineered energetic composites, not like passive paint. (Richard Gage 9/11)
So now you’ve got an open civil war:
- Greenyer: “Thermite theory is dead. It was paint. Look at EVOs and classified energy weapons.”
- Harrit (and by extension, the traditional AE911Truth wing): “No, the chips really are energetic nano-thermite, and that’s still the smoking gun.”
That’s a huge split, because the thermite/nano-thermite story was the flagship hard-physical-evidence claim for controlled demolition for almost 15+ years. (Wikipedia)
7. Why this matters
Inside the 9/11 research / “inside job” world, nano-thermite used to be the central mechanism: covert teams planted exotic incendiary/explosive charges that cut steel and kicked off a controlled demolition. Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, etc., built careers, organizations, conferences, and fundraising on that frame. (Wikipedia)
Bob Greenyer is now saying: that entire mechanism is wrong. He’s trying to retire thermite as the explanation, replace it with EVO / high-energy “dustification” tech, and tie 9/11 into a broader arc of suppressed physics — LENR, Hutchison effects, and directed-energy-style Navy tech. (X (formerly Twitter))
So “Bob Greenyer + thermite” isn’t just about whether some chips were paint or not. It’s about who controls the flagship narrative of how the Towers were taken down: was it planted nano-thermite charges (Harrit/Jones/Gage), or was it an exotic, likely classified energy weapon based on EVO-style phenomena (Greenyer)?
That fight is live, right now, and both sides are publishing, naming names, and accusing the other side of misleading the movement for decades. (Richard Gage 9/11)
