Dr. Niels Harrit speaks about 911, interview with Lilou Mace, 29th June 2012. MUST SEE!!

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Lilou Macé interviews Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen Denmark, Friday 29th of June 2012.

A scientist tells about his research of 911 and a reporter who let him talk. Very nice video: educate yourself!



youtu.be...


Source: Lilou Mace




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahamarlin
Lilou Macé interviews Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen Denmark, Friday 29th of June 2012.

A scientist tells about his research of 911 and a reporter who let him talk. Very nice video: educate yourself!



youtu.be...


Source: Lilou Mace
This thread should draw the ire of quite a few OSers in short order. Reading sites across the net, Harrit is derided in the fashion typical of OSers here. I'd expect the same. 3,2,1.................



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I just started this and I am impressed by his saying this event is so important to Western civilization.

THE BIG LIE!!! The NAZIS are little kids compared to this.

This is grade school Newtonian Physics. I wonder how many 7th and 8th graders understand why airliners could not do that but have to deal with adults who believe the nonsense. All of our scientists have to deal with this and engineers also.

Skyscrapers are not rocket science. Talking about skyscraper to any depth without talking about the distribution of steel and the distribution of concrete.

He says a TV journalist would not understand elemental physics. That is the travesty. Grade school kids should understand this trivia.

So what does it say about mass psychology that most people believe the nonsense.

psik



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Skyscrapers are not rocket science.


The comment of the month right here. well hell, then if that is the case, why cant anyone just go out and build a skyscraper? If it is just gradeschool physics, I'm surprised why people even bother going to grad school and PhDs in engineering to build skyscrapers.



He says a TV journalist would not understand elemental physics. That is the travesty. Grade school kids should understand this trivia.

psik


Yep, they sure could. And that is why we have people believing that when someone says "equal and opposite reaction" and Newton's Third Law", it means the same thing happens to both objects in a collision, no matter what the size, shape, or mass, and has nothing to do with the force.
edit on 7/4/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Skyscrapers are not rocket science.


The comment of the month right here. well hell, then if that is the case, why cant anyone just go out and build a skyscraper? If it is just gradeschool physics, I'm surprised why people even bother going to grad school and PhDs in engineering to build skyscrapers.


If double-entry accounting is 700 years old why isn't it mandatory in our high schools?

How could I work for IBM for years and yet never hear the term von Neumann machine even though IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952?

We live in a world where people hide information from each other all of the time and make information difficult to find and pretend things are more difficult to understand than they actually are. There are plenty of egotistical morons with knowledge trying to pretend they are intelligent.

There are still lots of details to DESIGNING a skyscraper. Though I bet computers have made it a lot easier than it was in 1929.

The supposed collapse of a skyscraper has to be easier to understand than designing one. Making the structure withstand the wind had to affect the steel distribution but that does not change the conservation of momentum equation for analysing the collapse. The building had to withstand 100 mph winds. It must be designed to cope with worst case but rare conditions. But there was no 100 mph wind on 9/11.

The south tower only deflected 15 inches due to the plane impact. But the top was supposed to sway 3 feet in a 150 mph wind. So now we have the ego problem of all of the EXPERTS! How can they admit being wrong for 10 years? That is why 9/11 becomes a bigger issue every year. The Laws of Physics will never change. This will NEVER go away. The experts can just try to brainwash everybody into believing that the simple is difficult to understand.

Face facts. Even with lots more computers around than there were 20 years ago you still don't hear the EXPERTS telling everybody that they are von Neumann machines.

www.youtube.com...

Controlling the distribution of knowledge is a BUSINESS. Some people call it EDUCATION. And some knowledge is higher class than others. My pledge father was an architect. It required 5 years instead of 4 years like electrical engineering. But how much has electronics changed in the last 30 years versus architecture? Richard Gage used to have some crap on his website about taking and architect or engineer out to lunch like "normal" people are supposed to be in awe of them.

Now if we get people to understand the physics of 9/11 they will realize how STUPID this 10 year issue has been.

psik



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


This is a nice long rant psikey. The problem is that you're neither qualified nor experienced to actually design skyscrapers. We've extensively shown you don't understand the physics you invoke yourself, and no model you've ever produced reproduces anything in the towers.

Your entire argument has failed from start to finish, you still haven't figured out why your experiment where you completely disregard gravity has failed.

As a summary, your whole post can be wrapped up as "They disagree with me the ignorant fools, it's their arrogance that stops them understanding that I am right."

The irony is thick enough to chew.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

The irony is thick enough to chew.


You mean like your elegant code coming up with pretty much that same answer as my code which you say is so crappy and that I admitted years ago was a kludge?

Where is your code by the way?

More psychological BS diverting things to ego games but I don't see any physical models from anybody that can completely collapse. Why don't you build an "elegant" model that can do it? Are you saying my ego can affect the behavoir of a physical model that anyone can duplicate anywhere for themselves?


What impressed me so much about what Harrit said was the significance of 9/11 to Western Civilization now. How do we run a technological society when so many people can't figure out such a simple lie and so many experts including "educators" must be at least refusing to talk about it?

en.wikipedia.org...

If most people conclude airliners could not do it then what does that say about all of the "white papers" and "peer reviews". Organized lying?

psik



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Lets see, you have no theory, you have no evidence, you don't have a model. Somehow, without any of that, you still just know that every expert is wrong and you are right. And you keep wondering why almost nobody takes you, or Harrit for that matter, seriously.

Did you ever consider that with absence of all the above, there is a very significant possibility that you are wrong? Or is that possibility not a part of your thinking process?

The thing that keeps amazing me is that truthers think they have this special skill that allows them to just "know" very technical matters, without evidence, models, theories and math. Common sense and intuition, thats what truthers base their position on. Without ever considering that their intuition may be of poor quality and their common sense isn't really that common.

Thank god that we no longer just have common sense and intuition to figure stuff out. Else the world would probably still be flat. We have found methods that have much higher success rates, especially with complex technical matters. Of course these methods are rarely used by truthers. And when the attempt to do so (looking at Harrit) they fail miserably.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Lets see, you have no theory, you have no evidence, you don't have a model. Somehow, without any of that, you still just know that every expert is wrong and you are right. And you keep wondering why almost nobody takes you, or Harrit for that matter, seriously.

Did you ever consider that with absence of all the above, there is a very significant possibility that you are wrong? Or is that possibility not a part of your thinking process?


Newton's 3rd Law of Motion is not a theory.

The Conservation of Momentum is not a theory.

The whole idea that the top 15% of a 1360 foot structure destroying everything below without falling off the sid first is just a bit ridiculous. And doing it in only 3 times free fall is totally ridiculous.

And I have two models. Both are affected by mass distribution.

Where is your model that can completely collapse? Where is anbody's model that can completely collapse?

psik



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Not understanding some (basic) concepts is not a theory. Why do you think that instead of you missing the required insight, almost the whole (academic) world is wrong? What makes you so special that you know better? These are the signs of lunacy.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Does anyone know if Dr. Niels Harrit has commented on the paper that refuted his Thermite dust paper?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Not understanding some (basic) concepts is not a theory. Why do you think that instead of you missing the required insight, almost the whole (academic) world is wrong? What makes you so special that you know better? These are the signs of lunacy.


Most of the academic community is saying nothing whatsoever.

Consider Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

His home was 4 blocks from ground zero. He took videos. He had to leave because of the dust. He sent out an email about it the next day.

What has he said about it since then? NOTHING!

He has neither supported nor criticised the OS.

That is the problem with Western Civilization. By saying nothing they have allowed huge numbers of people to believe whatever they prefer and liars to spread whatever BS they want. But this is 300 year old Newtonian Physics. Tyson talks about Newton a lot. Newton is a cultural icon for the science of Western Civilization, along with Galileo. They must be very proud.

Experiments can't lie. Build a physical model that can completely collapse yourself.

www.youtube.com...

What is stopping you? Wouldn't be the Laws of Physics by any chance?

psik



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Does anyone know if Dr. Niels Harrit has commented on the paper that refuted his Thermite dust paper?


That is the trouble with the whole dust thing.

How many people would know how to test the dust even if they had some and the equipment? It still comes down to deciding who to believe.

But simple experiments can be done with falling masses on self supporting structures. But the OSers won't even admit that knowing the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers is important. What sense does that make? What holds them up? How do they withstand the wind?

That is what makes this 9/11 business so DUMB!

psik



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You mean like your elegant code coming up with pretty much that same answer as my code which you say is so crappy and that I admitted years ago was a kludge?

Do you want a biscuit because you didn't screw it up too badly? Your code was unreadable, your method flawed and inaccurate, accept it.


More psychological BS diverting things to ego games but I don't see any physical models from anybody that can completely collapse. Why don't you build an "elegant" model that can do it? Are you saying my ego can affect the behavoir of a physical model that anyone can duplicate anywhere for themselves?

No your ego affected the design of your physical model. Despite endless criticisms that you have no gravity stage and can't simulate a progressive collapse, you just deny this and pretend like the criticisms don't apply.

That's arrogance.


What impressed me so much about what Harrit said was the significance of 9/11 to Western Civilization now. How do we run a technological society when so many people can't figure out such a simple lie and so many experts including "educators" must be at least refusing to talk about it?
...
If most people conclude airliners could not do it then what does that say about all of the "white papers" and "peer reviews". Organized lying?

psik

No psikey. The whole world is not organised in one large conspiracy against you. You're wrong and incapable of understanding this issue due to your complete one-mindedness on the subject. If you backed down even a fraction you might be able to appreciate the many valid criticisms. Unfortunately you've tied your opinions to your ego, and so not even a physical demonstration could show you you are wrong.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You mean like your elegant code coming up with pretty much that same answer as my code which you say is so crappy and that I admitted years ago was a kludge?

Do you want a biscuit because you didn't screw it up too badly? Your code was unreadable, your method flawed and inaccurate, accept it.


If I admitted it was a kludge long before you ever saw it. What are you saying I haven't accepted?

You explain to everyone here why your code is so great and mine is so bad and yet they still come up with similar answers.


Of course since it runs on a time base I can increase the accuracy with a smaller time base. I could do a millionth of a second if I wanted. You don't think that would be close enough?


It sounds to me like all you can resort to is psychological BS games over ego.

And you expect me to care. SORRY! It is just the results that matter to me.

psik
edit on 6-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



SORRY! It is just the results that matter to me.

Thats your problem in one sentence. All you care about is achieving a result that confirms your bias. Not the integrity of the investigation.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



SORRY! It is just the results that matter to me.

Thats your problem in one sentence. All you care about is achieving a result that confirms your bias. Not the integrity of the investigation.


It is just so interesting that NOBODY has built a physical model to confirm your bias.

Of course if it is IMPOSSIBLE then that would explain it.

psik



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
No psikey. The whole world is not organised in one large conspiracy against you.


More psychological BS.

But how is it that double-entry accounting can be 700 years old and yet our educational system can't suggest that it be mandatory in t=our high schools? Why is 4 years of English literature so important.

And not only do economists not suggest something so simple but 43 years after the Moon landing they do not discuss the planned obsolescence of automobiles. Do you suppose they never heard of it? But then the Laws of Physics work the same way for capital goods as they do for consumer goods, right? And capital goods depreciate because of wearing out. So durable consumer goods should depreciate too, right?

When was the last time you heard economists talking about how much Americans lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. At $1,500 per car per year that would be $300,000,000,000. That is a lot more than the WTC was worth isn't it. But then our economists can just ignore it and go on about Keynes and Hayek. Keynes died in 1946. How much planned obsolescence was going on then?

No, information seems to be Standard Operating Procedure in this society but the technology keeps getting more complicated while most people are supposed to be kept dumb.

9/11 is just the most Obviously Stupid BIG LIE to ever come along.

psik



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
This demonstrates what Dr. Harrit is saying about Western Civilization.

forums.randi.org...

The "Sombodies" are the people who are supposed to tell everyone what to think. But this is a simple physics problem so this means all of the unimportant people are supposed to believe themselves to be too stupid to accept the official BS of this problem.

And yet they talk about teaching STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. So how are people supposed to do that and not comprehend grade school physics. I recently had someone tell me he did well in physics in college. He then proceeded to calculate the free fall time from the top of the tower. He used feet for the height of the tower along with 9.2 meters per second squared for gravitational acceleration. Needless to say he got the wrong answer.



But these people talk as though they MUST be intelligent and everyone is supposed to believe what they say.

The stigma of stupidity of ten years of the 9/11 decade can never go away. The only choices are admitting to ten years of stupidity or keep being stupid.

psik
edit on 8-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: math err



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
about to watch the Niels Harrit interview, sounds interesting.
ps had a look at that linked forum page. i found the 'discussion' saddening, pathetic and self-aggrandising. not to mention dismissively generalistic of so-called 'truthers'. overall, a very childish atmosphere. 2 thumbs down.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join