Pat Curley has recently posted another piece of thermite denial ... on April Fools day fittingly enough. It's the usual debunker drivel about chain of custody, which I keep pointing out is irrelevant in this case due to the nature of the material that we're dealing with. It's not something that's commonly found in the world and it's not something that anyone in the truth movement can manufacture. Ridiculous conspiracy theories aside, Pat also cites the work of a French researcher to cast doubt on the fact that the red material is nanothermite.
So the French researcher with limited equipment found a few guns but can't prove they still work, so that disproves the existence of those that definitely do, does it? I'll leave this one to Victoria Ashley, from the same discussion Pat quoted:
"What [finding the nanothermite] is equivalent to is saying "here's the gun". A highly engineered thermitic nanocomposite should not ever have been in the WTC. So in effect, what you are saying is that if other independent labs cannot prove that that gun can FIRE, then the crime cannot be shown to have been committed that way.
If engineered thermitic nanocomposites were all around in our environment, that would be a different story. It would be as if guns were growing like weeds everywhere and so there was nothing unusual about happening to find one at a crime scene"
No one has refuted the simple fact that this stuff is clearly unusual, something that's obvious just by looking at the basic structure. Therefore, no one has disproven the fact that these are guns. Just because some of them don't work very well after nine years, doesn't change the fact that they are still guns. And we know some of the guns definitely do still work, we have videos of them going off!