Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by zimishey

 

Niels may have no doubts about controlled demolition of WTC 1 and 2. Many others that understand demolitions have doubts and Niels finding red paint in the dust is not proof of anything other than that Niels wants a little attention.
The Bentham paper is full of errors and poor analytical protocols and its conclusions are not justified.

OK, here's a confession I wish to share with you. I am not a chemist, and do not even have an O level (UK) in chemistry. But I am not the one severely criticizing him. This doesn't mean to say I 'believe' him---I am the authentic sceptic--I do not know, and am investigating.
I can say that I bothereed to watch that video from beginning to end, and --hmmm well i SENSE many of you here haven't by what you say, though I could be wrong, so forgive me.

But I have confessed about my lack of chemist credentials, and thus would feel somewhat intimidated when face to face with someone who had over 40 years experience as a Chemist to naively contradict.

But you and those here, will you let me know YOUR experience in chemistry please. What is your expertise? This is a fair question considering your antagonism against his evidence. It is so I can get a handle of the proceedings. Thankyou

Here we go again, a new day, a new thread, same exact results.

Zimishey posts some information and the ideas of someone who has recognized expertise and specific experience with the evidence and science surrounding 9/11, seemingly in hopes to inform and possibly spark some conversation. Then comes the cavalry. Hooper gets in first with a one sentence statement (which directly opposes the rules of the forum) which leads to the same old super duper complete lack of critical or logical thought he always brings. Dave or G.O.D. as he likes to fancy himself, quickly starts the name-calling. The General gets to the show late and offers his opinion on what is science and what is not, so that the others know which direction to take. The words shovel, drivel, and damn fool conspiracy site quickly get tossed in the mix along with plenty of other assumptions and character attacks until the whole damn thing just falls apart into an unwinnable quagmire of argument. Peter guy typically comes in and claims some expertise and poses a question or makes some statements that few on this board have the ability to answer or completely understand. Although, if you pay close attention online credintials quickly become questionable when certain members pop in. If Jesus himself appeared to the world and said it was a CD these same guys would quickly point out how he can't be credible since he doesn't even have a real dad and ran off and died when his followers needed him most. Beyond that, Jesus has no expertise in demolition or physics or whatever, you get my point. Hooper, explain how the gov't and thier scientists could eliminate the possibility of the use of explosives without EVER CHECKING FOR ANY EXPLOSIVES! Talk about the scientific method.

Why don't you guys ever attack the credibility of scientists, BEFORE they chime in on 9/11? Seemingly Jones, Chandler, Harrit and the thousands of other pilots, engineeers, architects, doctors, military personel, and normal laymen and women were all upstanding citizens respected in their fields until they made that fatal mistake. If just once you were able to truly discredit someone AND THEN they said something related to 9/11, I'd be there to give you some credit.

Originally posted by hooper

They had questions, Pondered those questions. Investigated what could be the answer to those questions. Came to a conclusion.
Now they are attempting to put the pieces together.

Well, in a nutshell here's the scientific method:
1) Make an observation of phenomena without any known explanation and confirm the observation.
2) Construct a hypothesis to explain what was observed.
3) Construct a test to confirm or deny the hypothesis.
4) Conduct the test
5) Observe the reuslts.
6) Repeat the test and observe again.
7) Construct a conclusion based on the observed test results.

Well thanks for agreeing with me.
This is exactly how crimes are solved.

Unless the perp freely admits to his wrong doing.
But that's not happening in this case, now is it?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Your childish attempt at character assassination side,

I know what you meant and you do a swell enough job of it on your own. You dont need my help.

you haven't provided a single thing that disproves anything I said- the towers were a gigantic source of aluminum and iron oxide which is the most obvious explanation for the material that was found. Harrit admits he doesn't know boo on how the materials got there or how they relate to the collapse, meaning that he's making it up entirely on his own that they even were responsible for the collapse to begin with. Likewise, you're making it up entirely on your own that he ever actually will know boo about how the materials supposedly relate to the collapse. These are not assumptions; they are the inconvenient facts of your situation that you don't want to acknowledge.

Per usual you either didnt read the OP or ignored it.
Let me quote what you are ignoring.
From the third line of the OP.

Dr Niels Harrit claims nano-thermite has been found in the dust collected by the three twosers that came done on 9/11.

Just how much make believe do you conspiracy people intend to shovel out willy nilly before you stop chasing these conspiracy daydreams of yours?

Right..this coming from someone who cant read what he tries to refute.
Endless babble. You should write a book on that....your KING.

I remember a TV Show by national geographic, they attempted to melt steel with thermite. They couldnt.
It kinda proved a point that was not intended to... if thermite cant burn through steel as the showed... how can fuel from an airliner ?

reply to post by budaruskie


BRAVO.
and STANDING OVATION.

-although Im sure this is considered an off-topic post and will get deleted.

APPLAUSE

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by budaruskie
Seemingly Jones....were all upstanding citizens respected in their fields until they made that fatal mistake.

Did you mean Steven Jones of BYU? The guy who wrote this paper: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"?

I think it's safe to say that such an individual has no problem purporting absurdly ludicrous ideas and is not exactly considered completed respected.

Originally posted by R3KR
I remember a TV Show by national geographic, they attempted to melt steel with thermite. They couldnt.
It kinda proved a point that was not intended to... if thermite cant burn through steel as the showed... how can fuel from an airliner ?

There are quite a few videos at Youtube which show how thermite can cut steel, like for example:



And remember, Dr Niels Harrit is talking about Nano - thermite, not ordinary thermite

Originally posted by DIDtm
Per usual you either didnt read the OP or ignored it.
Let me quote what you are ignoring.
From the third line of the OP.

"Dr Niels Harrit claims nano-thermite has been found in the dust collected by the three twosers that came done on 9/11. "

You really are expert at evading having to admit you're wrong. Dr. Harrit says nothing about where the aluminum and iron oxide granules came from nor does the report he wrote actually claim they found thermite. All he does is report that he found aluminum and iron oxide granules (which is by definition thermitic) and the OP is misrepresenting the report to suit his conspiracy peddling. You conspiracy mongors are entirely making it up all on your own that he's even saying the materials he found were responsible for the collapse. If you are attempting to claim otherwise on any of these facts then you are lying through your teeth.

I am quoting the OP correctly. It's just that you don't want to acknowledge this because you know it means this whole, "thermitic material" security blanket you're clinging to is worthless.

Right..this coming from someone who cant read what he tries to refute.
Endless babble. You should write a book on that....your KING

More childish character assassination. Just be an adult and admit you're wrong, already. Sheesh.

reply to post by zimishey


Many things can cut steel. There is just no evidence for any of them being used during the collapse of the towers.
In many threads and posts I have explained the errors in the Jones paper. I have explained the errors in interpretation of the results. The energetics alone show that there is too much energy present for thermite and any combination of thermite and high explosive. The photos show that the super-nano-thermite self extinguished and didn't completely burn even when held in an oven above its ignition point.
Jones may have convinced himself that red paint is thermite but he hasn't proposed how it was used, what its effects were, how it was placed, where it was placed, or why 10-100 tons of it were unburned.

Jones' claims are unsupported by evidence and he is unable to offer any theory on the use and effect of the paint-on demolition material.

Originally posted by budaruskie
Zimishey posts some information and the ideas of someone who has recognized expertise and specific experience with the evidence and science surrounding 9/11, seemingly in hopes to inform and possibly spark some conversation. Then comes the cavalry. Hooper gets in first with a one sentence statement (which directly opposes the rules of the forum) which leads to the same old super duper complete lack of critical or logical thought he always brings. Dave or G.O.D. as he likes to fancy himself, quickly starts the name-calling.

Pointing out that someone is spreading lies isn't name calling. It's pointing out that someone is spreading lies. Propagating the claim that Harrit said the materials he found had something to do with the reason for why the towers collapsed is spreading lies, whether you with to acknowledge the fact or not.

If you don't appreciate that others are pointing out that you're spreading lies, then don't spread lies. It ain't a trick question.

Why don't you guys ever attack the credibility of scientists, BEFORE they chime in on 9/11? Seemingly Jones, Chandler, Harrit and the thousands of other pilots, engineeers, architects, doctors, military personel, and normal laymen and women were all upstanding citizens respected in their fields until they made that fatal mistake. If just once you were able to truly discredit someone AND THEN they said something related to 9/11, I'd be there to give you some credit.

Now that's rather an absurd question. Why didn't they arrest John Wayne Gacy BEFORE he went out and murdered all those little boys? Think of all the lives they could have saved.

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by ElBraapo
I'm not trying to be insulting, but this 911 stuff drives me a little bit crazy. You don't have to be a wizard to know what brought down the buildings.. Dude, it was a couple of huge jets, loaded to the gills with jet fuel. Sometimes, there is no conspiracy. The truth is right there, like it or not. Some crazed extremists carried out their very well thought out plot and destruction ensued. IMO.

edit on 8-3-2011 by ElBraapo because: content

Says the sheeple getting his/her information from the television and refuses to investigate all the anomalies and coincidences, conveniences and outright failure of an investigation.

Careful, your line is moving rather quick.

The IRONY of your post passes you by as YOU get all your info from conspiracy sites/believers WOW!

Originally posted by R3KR
I remember a TV Show by national geographic, they attempted to melt steel with thermite. They couldnt.
It kinda proved a point that was not intended to... if thermite cant burn through steel as the showed... how can fuel from an airliner ?

The ONLY people who actually claim that are people that dont believe the OS , the fuel did not melt or burn through the steel it didn't have to!

reply to post by budaruskie


Lets have a LOOK architects for the truth has taken how long about 9+ years to get 1200+ members how many structral engineers in say the USA or worldwide 1200 doesn't scratch the surface so are the other tens of thousands of structural engineers/architects ALL WRONG.

I talk to people like this on a regular basis still to meet one that thinks this was a dem job!

Originally posted by ElBraapo
I'm not trying to be insulting, but this 911 stuff drives me a little bit crazy. You don't have to be a wizard to know what brought down the buildings.. Dude, it was a couple of huge jets, loaded to the gills with jet fuel. Sometimes, there is no conspiracy. The truth is right there, like it or not. Some crazed extremists carried out their very well thought out plot and destruction ensued. IMO.

edit on 8-3-2011 by ElBraapo because: content

It's like throwing a can of coke half full of gas at a chain link fence. Guess what, the fence will be still standing everytime and not free falling to the ground. Just like the towers should of been when a plane hit them. It's called Architecture and that building was built to with stand many times the impact of a plane. The wings would sheer off at the time of hitting the support structure, leaving a hollow cylinder in the middle of your work place. Don't get me started on fire, it can't possibly cause a demolition style free fall like that, most of the gas was burnt up in explosion on impact and an office fire can get hot enough to burn through steal and niether can jet fuel. Sorry, it bothers me to see the lack of common sense on this one that so many people have.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The IRONY of your post passes you by as YOU get all your info from conspiracy sites/believers WOW!

As opposed to solely getting my information from the controlled media?
If it wasn't for conspiracy sites as you call them.....alternative media, I call them, I wouldn't even know about WTC7.
Would you?

The ONLY people who actually claim that are people that dont believe the OS , the fuel did not melt or burn through the steel it didn't have to!

It still had to burn hotter than an ordinary office fire.

Lets have a LOOK architects for the truth has taken how long about 9+ years to get 1200+ members how many structral engineers in say the USA or worldwide 1200 doesn't scratch the surface so are the other tens of thousands of structural engineers/architects ALL WRONG.

Typical misconception from someone who can't make a valid point.
Just because most of these other engineers dont say anything, does NOT mean they agree with the OS.
Should we classify you as simple minded like another resident poster?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by DIDtm
Per usual you either didnt read the OP or ignored it.
Let me quote what you are ignoring.
From the third line of the OP.

"Dr Niels Harrit claims nano-thermite has been found in the dust collected by the three twosers that came done on 9/11. "

You really are expert at evading having to admit you're wrong. Dr. Harrit says nothing about where the aluminum and iron oxide granules came from nor does the report he wrote actually claim they found thermite. All he does is report that he found aluminum and iron oxide granules (which is by definition thermitic) and the OP is misrepresenting the report to suit his conspiracy peddling. You conspiracy mongors are entirely making it up all on your own that he's even saying the materials he found were responsible for the collapse. If you are attempting to claim otherwise on any of these facts then you are lying through your teeth.

I am quoting the OP correctly. It's just that you don't want to acknowledge this because you know it means this whole, "thermitic material" security blanket you're clinging to is worthless.

Right..this coming from someone who cant read what he tries to refute.
Endless babble. You should write a book on that....your KING

More childish character assassination. Just be an adult and admit you're wrong, already. Sheesh.

I did share with you about my Chemistry knowledge experience, but you haven't answered my question regarding your experience? Any reason?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by zimishey

 

Many things can cut steel. There is just no evidence for any of them being used during the collapse of the towers.
In many threads and posts I have explained the errors in the Jones paper. I have explained the errors in interpretation of the results. The energetics alone show that there is too much energy present for thermite and any combination of thermite and high explosive. The photos show that the super-nano-thermite self extinguished and didn't completely burn even when held in an oven above its ignition point.
Jones may have convinced himself that red paint is thermite but he hasn't proposed how it was used, what its effects were, how it was placed, where it was placed, or why 10-100 tons of it were unburned.

Jones' claims are unsupported by evidence and he is unable to offer any theory on the use and effect of the paint-on demolition material.

Of all the members in this thread you seem to suggest you have studied the people I mention. What is your qualified level of experience in Chemistry, please?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Lets have a LOOK architects for the truth has taken how long about 9+ years to get 1200+ members how many structral engineers in say the USA or worldwide 1200 doesn't scratch the surface so are the other tens of thousands of structural engineers/architects ALL WRONG.

I talk to people like this on a regular basis still to meet one that thinks this was a dem job!

Well, how could I argue with that? Clearly, there is no logical fallacy in ASSUMING that all other architects and engineers in the world agree with the official story because they have not joined A/E for 9/11 truth. The proof you provided, your statement about people you talk to seems pretty ironclad and all but...

I talk to people all the time too, and none of them believe the OS, go figure. Also, 1200+ is far more than those who have signed a petition that agree with the OS, now isn't it?