The FBI has been scrambling to maintain credibility after years of scandals.
Now their own explosives expert is calling out their shoddy work.
And FBI’s top explosives expert just dropped one bombshell about January 6 pipe bombs that could blow up their narrative.
Legendary FBI whistleblower destroys bureau’s pipe bomb claims
When Fred Whitehurst speaks about explosives, people listen.
This decorated FBI veteran made history as the first agent to successfully blow the whistle on corruption inside the bureau’s crime laboratory during the 1990s.
His courage forced sweeping reforms after he uncovered agents manipulating evidence to help prosecutors win cases.
Now Whitehurst is back – and he’s taking a blowtorch to the FBI’s January 6 pipe bomb investigation.
"Frankly, this report is a mess," Whitehurst said during an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast.¹
The bureau’s own laboratory analysis found that devices planted outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters contained the basic ingredients for black powder explosives.
Both bombs featured 60 minute kitchen timers and were labeled as having "destructive potential."
But Whitehurst looked at the same evidence and reached a conclusion that should terrify FBI leadership.
These devices were never going to explode.
"The materials – potassium nitrate, sulfur and charcoal – if they’re not in the right proportions, and I mean the right proportions, and I don’t see where anybody has told me that they are in the right proportion, they’re not going to blow up," Whitehurst explained.²
The veteran explosives expert delivered an even more devastating assessment.
"You might as well have had a crock of flour in that pipe," he said.
FBI’s own photos prove devices were fake
Whitehurst didn’t stop with questioning the explosive mixture.
He tore apart the FBI’s claims about how these devices were supposedly designed to detonate.
The bureau said both bombs used steel wool as part of their ignition system.
But Whitehurst says the FBI’s own photographs reveal a fatal flaw that proves these devices could never have worked.
"The reason you use steel wool, at least one or two little strands of it, is because the circuit going through the larger wires doesn’t really heat them," Whitehurst explained.³
"But what I’m seeing in the pictures is this wad of steel wool. There’s enough steel wool there . . . all it’s going to do at the most is warm that steel wool."
"So the device that they put there, the pictures they show me, that’s not going to be a fuse," he concluded.
The timeline problems get even worse.
A witness who discovered the RNC device told the FBI it still showed 20 minutes remaining on the timer when she found it on January 6.
That completely destroys the FBI’s public story that these bombs were planted the night before around 8:00 PM.
House Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk has had enough of the FBI’s lies.
"I’m not buying the story anymore that they were there on the fifth," Loudermilk said.⁴
The Georgia congressman also questioned whether these devices contained enough actual explosives to hurt anyone.
"The other thing is, were there enough . . . was there enough explosives in the devices to actually cause a massive explosion? That’s one of the things we’re looking at in these reports, which kind of leads us to believe maybe there wasn’t, but there definitely were explosives," Loudermilk said.
The smoking gun that exposes the real agenda
Here’s what this evidence actually shows.
The FBI had devices that looked scary to untrained eyes but were engineered never to actually detonate.
Loudermilk asked the question that cuts right to the heart of this scandal.
"Now follow me on this, this series of logic here. When would you build a bomb that’s not designed to go off, but every element of it is to make you think it will, or make a bomb sniffing dog think that it is a live bomb?" Loudermilk asked.⁵
"That’s a training exercise."
These weren’t real terrorist devices – they were law enforcement training props designed to fool bomb detection equipment and casual observers.
Whitehurst suspects the FBI’s crime lab is pulling the same tricks he exposed three decades ago.
"I’m left with […] a suspicion […] Did somebody really want this to go off, or did they want the FBI Laboratory explosives devices and hazardous devices examiner to say we have two disrupted destructive devices, and nobody’s going to question it," he said.⁶
"I’m left with the impression that I got years ago, 35 years ago, somebody is trying to manipulate the trier of fact rather than educate the trier of fact," Whitehurst added.
Look, here’s what’s really happening with this investigation.
The same FBI that spent years trying to frame President Trump with the Russia hoax appears to have planted fake explosives on January 6 to maximize the political damage.
They needed scary looking devices that would trigger massive security responses and justify treating patriotic Americans like domestic terrorists.
But they couldn’t risk actual explosives that might hurt innocent people or cause unpredictable damage.
So they built what amounts to Hollywood props – devices that looked dangerous but were engineered never to work.
For conservatives who’ve watched the FBI target anyone who questions the 2020 election, this revelation shouldn’t come as a shock.
The bureau has been lying to Congress and the American people about January 6 from day one.
Now their own top explosives expert is confirming what many suspected all along – these "pipe bombs" were a theatrical production designed to sell a false narrative.
The American people deserve to know why the FBI had fake bombs sitting outside party headquarters during one of the most politically charged days in recent history.
Director Patel needs to investigate who authorized this deception and hold them accountable.
The FBI’s credibility won’t survive many more revelations like this one.
¹ Steven Richards, "Ex-FBI explosives expert, famed whistleblower says bureau’s J6 pipe bombs lab analysis ‘a mess’," Just the News, October 3, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid.
