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

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by pteridine

 

Don't be silly, you've discussed the evidence for years now.


You really do know there is

no doubt

they were taken down in a controlled demolition....

Don't be silly, you've discussed the evidence for years now.
You really do know there is no doubt that controlled demolition had absolutely nothing to do with any WTC collapse.

reply to post by mileslong54

It's like throwing a can of coke half full of gas at a chain link fence.

Ummm , yea , riiiigggghhhhtttt . That has to be the most hilarious analogy I've ever read concerning 9/11 .

Guess what, the fence will be still standing everytime and not free falling to the ground.

Now , take that same can and propel it at that same fence at around 500 miles per hour and see what happens . Hint : the can will penetrate the fence .

Just like the towers should of been when a plane hit them.

It's apparent to me that you have not studied the construction of the towers . (and it's "should have" , not "should of")

It's called Architecture and that building was built to with stand many times the impact of a plane.

This is news to me , please provide a source that will substantiate this .

The wings would sheer off at the time of hitting the support structure,

The "support structure" at the points of impact , consisted of steel that was about 1/4" thick . This "support structure" was not going to shear off any wings of a projectile travelling at 500 mph .

leaving a hollow cylinder in the middle of your work place.

Yea , I like watching Tom and Jerry too , with my grandson . Aren't those guys hilarious ?

Don't get me started on fire,

Go ahead , we've heard it thousands of times , once more isn't gonna kill us .

it can't possibly cause a demolition style free fall like that,

And yet , with the added damage caused by the impact(s) , it did . TWICE .

most of the gas was burnt up in explosion on impact

And the rest of it saturated the inside of the building , hmmm .

and an office fire can get hot enough to burn through steal and niether can jet fuel.

No steal was "burnt through" .

Sorry, it bothers me to see the lack of common sense on this one that so many people have.

Me too , and yet you posted the above .

Originally posted by pteridine
Don't be silly, you've discussed the evidence for years now.
You really do know there is no doubt that controlled demolition had absolutely nothing to do with any WTC collapse.

So you agree the there is evidence for controlled demolition.

But you think I don't think it has anything to do with the collapse?

Come on...I know just as well as you do the controlled demolition and collapse are the same thing....

reply to post by pteridine


i said block the trolls, not everyone who disagrees with you. There is a difference.

Im Still trying to figure out how building 7 collapsed in a downward motion(into the path of MOST resistance) at free fall speed(facing no resistance). It certainly wasnt a small office fire.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by pteridine

 

i said block the trolls, not everyone who disagrees with you. There is a difference.

Im Still trying to figure out how building 7 collapsed in a downward motion(into the path of MOST resistance) at free fall speed(facing no resistance). It certainly wasnt a small office fire.

Keep trying. It was a large, uncontrolled fire and damage from the Towers' collapse. The building was unstable for hours before it fell. The "path of MOST resistance" is another red herring sent to you by those who spout the "violates the laws of physics" mantra.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Good, then you and pteridine need to stop asking the same kinds of questions that the Easter bunny cannot answer. You and pteridine make false claims that Jones science is flawed and the questions you all asked, most have never been tested by the scientific community and you both know it. See this is the silly games you both are playing.

No, actually, this is a silly game *you* are playing as you're notorious for replacing the facts with whatever you yourself want to believe. I'm not certain what pteridine objects to on a scientific basis, but I myself do not object to Jones' claim that he found aluminum and rust particles in a debris field of a collapsed building that contained aluminum and rust. It's when you and your ilk decide on your own to milk this as an indication of controlled demolitions that I object to. I am disgusted by Jones' dishonesty because unless he's monumentally stupid...and we both know he isn't...he has to know he's feeding the conspiracy mongor's war machine that fraudulently suckers people into believing these idiotic, "controlled demolitions" stories. There isn't a microbe of proof that backs the claim up so he needs to resort to absurd innuendo dropping exactly like this.

The only reason you'd be defending this report with the same zeal that you would in defending your mother's virtue is if you passionately want to believe he found the reason why the towers collapsed. For one thing, I notice you're conveniently forgetting your own high level of standards that documents chains of custody that you so draconianly enforce with everyone else. *Where* did Jones obtain his samples, again?

No, that is your false assertion.

All right, here's your served upon a silver platter chance to show I'm full of it. *I* say the only reason you care about this report is becuase you're using it to drop innuendo to support your beloved conspiracy claims that the towers were brought down with thermite. If this is my "false assertion" then please, for everyone to see, tell me that you do NOT believe the towers were brought down with thermite. It's the only reason why you would even care about Jones/Harrit's report.

This should be good.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by pteridine

 

i said block the trolls, not everyone who disagrees with you. There is a difference.

Im Still trying to figure out how building 7 collapsed in a downward motion(into the path of MOST resistance) at free fall speed(facing no resistance). It certainly wasnt a small office fire.

Fire that burned for hours, damage the building by falling debris and a bad structural steelwoork layout to have an open plan foyer at the ground floor!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Two stars for that comment?

Bad woork?

Open foyer, dummy architets. Caused the patriot act by bad engineering. Should have gotten a better education, huh?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No, actually, this is a silly game *you* are playing as you're notorious for replacing the facts with whatever you yourself want to believe.

No, this is *your* game and you have been demonstrated it in every post. The fact is you believe in the OS lies, so who is replacing the facts, ignoring scientific evidence, and hand waving everything else, the proof is, you are.
You are also lying by saying "I am notorious for replacing the facts." I dont need to tell lies inorder to present the truth and that is the facts. Many OS defenders "lie" inorder to defend the proven lies of the OS, now tell me that is a lie? go ahead, I double dog dare you!

It's when you and your ilk decide on your own to milk this as an indication of controlled demolitions that I object to.

See this is where you are making up more nonsense now. No one on ATS or elsewhere that I am aware of, has ever made the claims the Jones “only found” aluminum and rust particles and that’s what blew up the WTC. This is the proof I was talking about how you make up garbage to fit your distorted belief system. Jones found more than aluminum and rust in the dust particles in the WTC, and if you deny this, then you are lying to yourself.

I am disgusted by Jones' dishonesty because unless he's monumentally stupid...and we both know he isn't...he has to know he's feeding the conspiracy mongor's war machine that fraudulently suckers people into believing these idiotic, "controlled demolitions" stories.

Face it Dave, the only thing you should be disgusted with is the OS is a proven lie. Why do you continue to support it? Is it entertaining to you?

The only reason you'd be defending this report with the same zeal that you would in defending your mother's virtue is if you passionately want to believe he found the reason why the towers collapsed.

This thread is not about why I defend the truth, Stay on topic Dave.

*Where* did Jones obtain his samples, again?

Had you bother to read Jones Journal you would have known. This is more proof that either you didn’t read the science or you just don’t understand it.

All right, here's your served upon a silver platter chance to show I'm full of it. *I* say the only reason you care about this report is becuase you're using it to drop innuendo to support your beloved conspiracy claims that the towers were brought down with thermite.

That is not true.

If this is my "false assertion" then please, for everyone to see, tell me that you do NOT believe the towers were brought down with thermite. It's the only reason why you would even care about Jones/Harrit's report.

The only reason I care about Jones report because no science supports the OS. Experts examining the WTC videos and technical papers written supports demolition, nothing else scientifically does.
Secondly I *do not* believe “just thermite” brought down the WTC. Supper na-nothermite was just one of the finding that Jones discovered in the WTC dust sample and Jones said more testing needs to be done.
My “opinion” is other explosives were used yet; we don’t have any evidence of it yet.

The fact is no science supports NIST, media and the government versions to what brought down the WTC.

According to experts the videos taken from the mainstream media of the WTC exploding on 911, do not support the OS of the WTC demise, completely *impossible,* from jet fuel and common office fires in one hour, scientifically impossible.

Originally posted by impressme
My “opinion” is other explosives were used yet; we don’t have any evidence of it yet.

So since thermite is not an explosive, it would be correct to say that you have no evidence of explosives at the WTC.

Interesting.

reply to post by pteridine


I guess the size of a fire is subjective!

also, the path of most resistance is not a "red herring" as you put it. Not quite sure why you would even believe that?

So I retort your own lame reply "try harder". You have some very serious issues with the topic of physics if you have trouble understanding why this is an issue. Very basic principles.

reply to post by VonDoomen


The issue is basic principles misquoted by many.

reply to post by pteridine

The issue is basic principles misquoted by many.

Let me ask you a question, you never really gave your opinion to what you believe brought down the WTC. I believe the only thing you ever said was “gravity?” I am interested to know what science you are basing your conclusions on and what you believe created extreme heat that weaken the steel in an hour after planes impact the WTC.

Originally posted by impressme
See this is where you are making up more nonsense now. No one on ATS or elsewhere that I am aware of, has ever made the claims the Jones “only found” aluminum and rust particles and that’s what blew up the WTC. This is the proof I was talking about how you make up garbage to fit your distorted belief system. Jones found more than aluminum and rust in the dust particles in the WTC, and if you deny this, then you are lying to yourself.

Of course he found more than aluminum and rust in the remains. The issue is that it's the aluminum and rust that has the thermitic properties. I guarantee it's not the Ytterbium (or whatever isotope the "nukes in the basement" people say was found there) that Jones cares about.

Face it Dave, the only thing you should be disgusted with is the OS is a proven lie. Why do you continue to support it? Is it entertaining to you?

On a personal level, yes, I have to admit there's a bit of Schadenfreude involved with watching how the conspiracy mongors backtrack in desperation when they're shown to have been posting fabrications...particularly how you constantly humiliate yoursellf by saying I believe everything the gov't says when everyone already knows my true position...but that's not the main reason. I'm here to show why those damned fool conspiracy web sites like Prison Planet and Loose Change are full of it and are deliberately instigating abject paranoia to foster false public unrest. I will show you as many examples of this as you'd like.

Had you bother to read Jones Journal you would have known. This is more proof that either you didn’t read the science or you just don’t understand it.

All right, presume for argument's sake that I'm a blithering idiot who cannot read beyond a third grade level. Please, enlighten my poorly educated mind and explain to me the precise chain of custody of this sample Jones analyzed, and how the chain of custody satisfies your stringent criteria of legitimacy.

The only reason I care about Jones report because no science supports the OS. Experts examining the WTC videos and technical papers written supports demolition, nothing else scientifically does.

This is as much of a weasel answer as a weasel answer gets. There are a lot of scenarios that are being drawn and quartered by researchers I.E. Lasers from outer space, nukes in the basement, shape shifting alien lizards, and so on. You aren't defending any of those crackpot claims being submitted becuase "no science supports the OS", but you ARE defending THIS crackpot claim because "no science supports the OS". I don't need to remind you that Judy Wood published an even more exhaustive report supporting the lasers" scenario, and unlike Jones, she actually IS a materials engineer, and her examination supports no controlled demolitions conclusion.

You clearly have an agenda, whether you wish to admit the fact or not.

Secondly I *do not* believe “just thermite” brought down the WTC. Supper na-nothermite was just one of the finding that Jones discovered in the WTC dust sample and Jones said more testing needs to be done.
My “opinion” is other explosives were used yet; we don’t have any evidence of it yet.

(Sigh) it's like talking to a wall. Jones *never* said what he found was actually thermite. He said it was "thermitic" which in his vocabulary means it had the same properties as thermite. This is misleading since dirt taken from a junk yard would be "thermitic" too becuase it will likewise contain aluminum and rust particles (it mught contain Ytterbium too, I don't know). You're all but admitting you want his report to be true when you're seeing, "thermite" in this report all on your own.

Go ahead. I dare you to argue whether or not dirt taken from a junk yard would have rust particles in it.

According to experts the videos taken from the mainstream media of the WTC exploding on 911, do not support the OS of the WTC demise, completely *impossible,* from jet fuel and common office fires in one hour, scientifically impossible.

Which only means we're both wrong. The difference is that I have no agenda so I can accept the possibility the towers didn't fall from either the fires or controlled demolitions and instead fell from some as yet undiscovered reason. You're about to lie theough your teeth denying this, but I know full well you do have an agenda and you cannot accept that possibility.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Which only means we're both wrong. The difference is that I have no agenda so I can accept the possibility the towers didn't fall from either the fires or controlled demolitions and instead fell from some as yet undiscovered reason. You're about to lie theough your teeth denying this, but I know full well you do have an agenda and you cannot accept that possibility.

My only agenda is waking up readers by sharing the scientific evidence, and exposing all the lies in the OS, nothing more, and if you’re saying I am here to lie and misinform everyone then I can say you will be lying.

instead fell from some as yet undiscovered reason.

So we know NIST has it wrong and you reject demolition then that leave one other thing that must have made the WTC fall as fast as freefall with no resistance and that would be “your imagination” because nothing else in the world can properly and scientifically explain the destruction of three WTC but Demolition.

Fact is you dismiss all the technical papers written about demolition from A&E without given any reason, and display a genuine dislike against these experts without given any reason.
Another fact is you will not discuss your opinions to what you believe brought down the WTC but, to only say the WTC fell because of “undiscovered reason”.

Then you and I can agree the OS is hogwash, correct?
We can agree the NIST is a fraud, correct?

What is your reason of rejecting demolition? Please don’t waste your time claiming there’s no evidence, because experts in their field have examined the video footage from the media from 911 and all agree demolition was in fact evident and not of building just falling down.

Now you can respond to me and my question courteously, or you can expose your true “agenda” by personally attacking me and lumping all Truthers and that includes all these professionals from:

www.ae911truth.org...
patriotsquestion911.com...

220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,400+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
400+ Medical Professionals

firefightersfor911truth.org...
www.physics911.net...
911scholars.org...

In the same barrel as:

There are a lot of scenarios that are being drawn and quartered by researchers I.E. [color=gold]Lasers from outer space, nukes in the basement, shape shifting alien lizards, and so on.

I don't need to remind you that Judy Wood published an even more exhaustive report supporting the lasers" scenario, and unlike Jones, she actually IS a materials engineer, and her examination supports no controlled demolitions conclusion.

Are you saying that you agree with Judy Woods’s junk science because she doesn’t support control demolition?

No one of any professional credibility supports Judy Woods lasers from out space hypothesis paper. However, if I am wrong then please enlightened me to all the professionals who have put their names on record in supporting such nonsense?

Again, I'm not sure why you guys argue so intensely over the details.

It is clear everyone here knows it was a controlled demolition.

Again, "There is no doubt his building was taken down in a controlled demolition."

No doubt.

The evidence and information is already available.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by pteridine

 

You really do know there is

no doubt

they were taken down in a controlled demolition....

Don't be silly, you've discussed the evidence for years now.
You really do know there is no doubt that controlled demolition had absolutely nothing to do with any WTC collapse.

Yes we discussed evidence that shows that controlled demolition is the only explanation for what happened on september 11. Architect engineers and other PH.Ds agree, some of them graduating with summa cum laude non the less.

So its again, some conspiracy theorist on the internet, who believes in a muslim conspiracy against the west against people with an education related to the subject at hand, oh my so hard to choose

But please pteridine, if thats your real name, tell me, why should we believe your word over that of experts? Some guy on the internet in one corner and architects engineers and other experts in the other corner, well you can hardly blame anybody for believing educated people over conspiracyguy on the internet talking of conspiracies and Osama Bin Laden holed up in his high tech cave in Afghanistan.

Watch out pteridine behind you A MUSLIM CONSPIRACY they have activated their cave lasers RUN

www.youtube.com...

Seriously sometimes I feel bad for picking on the retarded who vehemently defend the OS, but then I am reminded that they defend those who not only murdered, but murdered the people they promised to protect.

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by pteridine

 

You really do know there is

no doubt

they were taken down in a controlled demolition....

Don't be silly, you've discussed the evidence for years now.
You really do know there is no doubt that controlled demolition had absolutely nothing to do with any WTC collapse.

Yes we discussed evidence that shows that controlled demolition is the only explanation for what happened on september 11. Architect engineers and other PH.Ds agree, some of them graduating with summa cum laude non the less.

So its again, some conspiracy theorist on the internet, who believes in a muslim conspiracy against the west against people with an education related to the subject at hand, oh my so hard to choose

But please pteridine, if thats your real name, tell me, why should we believe your word over that of experts? Some guy on the internet in one corner and architects engineers and other experts in the other corner, well you can hardly blame anybody for believing educated people over conspiracyguy on the internet talking of conspiracies and Osama Bin Laden holed up in his high tech cave in Afghanistan.

Watch pteridine behind you A MUSLIM CONSPIRACY RUN

Yes we discussed the fact that there is no evidence for any controlled demolition on 9/11. Dr. David Ray Griffin and other theological engineers agree that the many youtube "proof" videos haven't been edited enough yet but they are working on more lines and arrows as I write this. Gage is acquiring more cardboard boxes to stack and Jones is dumpster diving looking for red paint chips. Another "smoking-gun-absolute-proof-debunkers-debunked" thread is in the works.
I fnd it amusing that you provide the "summa cum Laude" comment as you play the "appeal to authority" card. Your clever reasoning and technical expertise has convinced me that those theological engineers must be holy, indeed.
So again, it's some conspiracy theorist on the internet, who believes in a Rube Goldberg chain-of-events conspiracy by unknown villains against people with an education related to the subject at hand, oh my so hard to choose.

Watch Cassius behind you REPTILIANS WITH THERMITE! RUN!

reply to post by pteridine


Reptillians? Are you serious? Are you crazy? It wasnt us who came up with Osama Bin Laden COBRA hideout. That wasnt some guy on the internet, like David whatshisname you 911 deniers like to cite and throw around and mention so much every chance you guys get. That was the minister of defense of the united states on Fox News.

So in your conspiracy world only David Ray Griffin exists. There are no architects and engineers in your "Muslims attacked us from their Las0rz equipped caves in Afghanistan" world who find fault with the goverment sponsored "investigation" of 9/11. That explains a lot. Then again its not uncommon for people who have adopted a dogma to shield their mind from anything that challenges said dogma. Slightly crazy, but not so crazy that I would consider you a danger to society. This explains why we are the bad boys for "hiding" behind authority.

Yes I admit it, when I am sick I go to an doctor like a beetch instead of medicating myself, you got me . I think you are just too strung up in your own conspiracy theory conspiracyguy on the internetz. You have been watching too much of this.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine

 

Reptillians? What have you been smoking? Oh if architects and engineers dont agree with you then we are the bad boys for hiding behind authority? Are you serious? Yes I admit it, when I am sick I go to an doctor like a beetch instead of medicating myself, you got me

. I think you are just too strung up in your own conspiracy theory conspiracyguy on the internetz.

What authority? Gage and Jones? Griffin and Cole? Larry, Moe, and Curly? Your predetermined conclusions of inside-job-CD clouds your judgement and prevents you from considering that the many NIST engineers who graduated Summa cum Laude may be correct in their assessments.

You have been watching too much of this.... www.youtube.com...