Explosive Testimony: Niels Harrit – Chemist

Here, we have another scientist coming about their findings concerning 9/11, Bldg-7 and possible explosives, to include the nano-thermitic materials found in the WTC dust. All of the nay-sayers who try and discredit Jones, along with his peer-reviewed scientific study, are going to have a hard time trying the same kind of tactic against the other scientists backing Jones up and even adding their own research and findings.

I know that people will post saying he is wrong, as if they know better than a whole plethora of scientists. However, there has not been one single scientist (Ph.D) who has come out with a study suggesting that explosives couldn't have been used or disproving Jones' paper. The government and their scientist simply refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of explosives.

So, unless you can produce a peer-reviewed scientific study disproving Jones' paper (or other scientists findings of evidence suggesting explosives were used) or even a scientist who claims to have looked into the issue of whether explosives could have been used and published findings claiming that they couldn't have, you have no argument and a simple "They are wrong" doesn't cut it.

Science is on the truther side of the argument, as the truster side refuses to even consider the possibility, which isn't very scientific or intellectual at all. Again, if you think that these scientists are wrong, conduct a study, write and publish a paper producing your findings, otherwise your claim doesn't hold up to the claims of many scientists.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Oh, for Pete's sake, Niels Harrit is associated with Steven Jones , breaking news, plus Queen Anne's dead !

Neither of them is gaining traction anywhere.

reply to post by Alfie1


Of course that's all you can say because you can't really refute what either of them is saying, nor has any other scientist. Both scientists are very credible and Jones' name only started getting mud slinged on it, after he went public with his findings, though that mud slinging is only done by obscure "no-names" who aren't even in the scientific field.

Name one scientist who has actually looked into whether explosives were used and found that they weren't or name one scientist who has publicly and viably refuted Jones' paper. From what I am aware of, the only scientists who actually looked for evidence of explosives, found it.


--airspoon

What destroyed the Twin towers on 9/11?

choice A


choice B


It's close, but I think I'm going to have to go with choice B

reply to post by waypastvne


Maybe so, but you are forgetting building 7 or misleadingly left it out. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, nor was it directly under the Twin Towers (the buildings that were directly underneath didn't collapse). What brought it down? Fire... for the first time in history? Give me a break.

Two planes don't fly into two sky-scrapers and knock three of them down. Regardless, you still can't find one scientists who has studied the issue of explosives possibly being used and not finding any evidence.


--airspoon

What do the red chips look like when they burn?

Answer: fire

What have the truthers been saying about WTC7

Answer: no visible signs of fire

Can you explain this to me?

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Maybe so, but you are forgetting building 7 or misleadingly left it out. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, nor was it directly under the Twin Towers (the buildings that were directly underneath didn't collapse). What brought it down? Fire... for the first time in history? Give me a break.

Two planes don't fly into two sky-scrapers and knock three of them down. Regardless, you still can't find one scientists who has studied the issue of explosives possibly being used and not finding any evidence.


--airspoon

Actually, if you look at WTC 7 objectively, it proves that controlled demolition at the WTC site is a load of cobblers.

It was purely by chance that debris from WTC 1 hit it and initiated fires and it was purely by chance that the water supply was cut off. These things could not have been factored in, so what was the perps plan ? To just blow up WTC 7, as it stood, before the world ? And for why ?

reply to post by airspoon


Another good post & video of an actual scientist who understands the scientific method and how to seek answers to the questions of 9/11/2001.

The simple fact of building 7, is that it collapsed symmetrically (downwards in it's own footprint at very nearly freefall speed). Whether it was on fire or not, the steel support columns could not in realistic probability collapse simultaneously, both vertically and in the proper horizontal spatial sequence, for this to happen.

Ex.: You're chopping down a tree. You want it to come straight down instead of falling over sideways. What needs to be done? You have to remove and splinter successive levels of the tree and cast them aside quickly. You need cutters and exploders to get rid of the debris.

Think of the massive steel columns of the WTC as that tree. Use your real intellect instead of what propaganda agents feverishly write everytime a new expert or evidence comes forth.

edit: speaking to people in general, esp. newcomers to the subject.

Originally posted by airspoon
All of the nay-sayers who try and discredit Jones, along with his peer-reviewed scientific study

Here we have yet another truther lie - Jones's paper was NOT peer reviewed, and was published in a vanity journal as he could not get it published in a Scientific Journal.

Why do truthers persist in this lie?

If it is not a lie they could show who actually peer reviewed it!

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


So. I infer you are suggesting WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as is often said about WTC 1 & 2.

Why do you suppose then that the alleged cd's of WTC 1 & 2 were covered by planes being flown into them but the perps were apparently happy to just blast WTC 7 down as it stood ? ( any damage and fire from WTC 1 being incidental and unplanned ).

There is some discussion about what was used...In Appdx C of the WTC 1 and 2 report it shows the A36 steel I-beams had iron oxide and iron sulfide in the microstructure at the fractured (plasma cut I would surmise) surface that was not present in the base steel. This is thermate welding 101, been around for a long time.

Microstructural evidence exists, and sulfur is not soluble in steel below it's liquidus temperature. No peer review needed...an incendiary device left it's fingerprint in that report.

reply to post by dereks


What scientific viewpoint do you offer?

If it's not peer reviewed, it's a lie? Not a sensible argument...hegelian dialect

reply to post by Alfie1

So. I infer you are suggesting WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as is often said about WTC 1 & 2.

No need to infer and I am not suggesting, I am stating the obvious.

1) Steel framed buildings don't collapse due to fires or external damage. If one did, the odds of perfectly falling into a neat pile very rapidly would be so astronomical as to not be within reason.

2) When steel framed buildings do collapse (e.g. earthquake), it is not with symmetry (i.e. straight down instead of falling over or toppling), nor nearly free-fall speed.

3) The conditions which do allow buildings to collapse with symmetry and free-fall speed are Controlled Demolitions.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


So why did the perps feel it was necessary to arrange for planes to be flown into the Towers to cover alledged cd but were apparently happy to blow up WTC 7, as it stood, without any cover at all ? And for what reason ?

reply to post by Alfie1

So why did the perps feel it was necessary to arrange for planes to be flown into the Towers to cover alledged cd but were apparently happy to blow up WTC 7, as it stood, without any cover at all ? And for what reason ?

I'll leave you to speculate on that with others. I am just stating facts as I see them.
Why don't you debate those facts instead of leading the thread "down the garden path" with trying to get people to speculate?

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by dereks

 

What scientific viewpoint do you offer?

If it's not peer reviewed, it's a lie? Not a sensible argument...hegelian dialect

edit on 8-11-2010 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)

Nobody said it was a "lie" Lying is not the only option here. In order for it to be a lie you would need to prove they knew the truth and choose to purposely decieve. You can be wrong and still not be lying. As is the case here.

Now, calling it peer-reviewed at this point is a lie.

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by Alfie1

 

So why did the perps feel it was necessary to arrange for planes to be flown into the Towers to cover alledged cd but were apparently happy to blow up WTC 7, as it stood, without any cover at all ? And for what reason ?

I'll leave you to speculate on that with others. I am just stating facts as I see them.
Why don't you debate those facts instead of leading the thread "down the garden path" with trying to get people to speculate?

I am debating the facts. Facts are that WTC 1 & 2 had planes into them. If they were cd that was a disguise.

Turn to WTC 7 and what cover was there ? zilch. Any damage from the collapse of WTC 1 was incidental. So why was WTC 7 left uncovered ? Why shouldn't WTC 7 be regarded as collateral damage along with WTC 3,4 5,& 6 ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Please go to the dictionary and look up "speculate".

The WTC7 collapse features are well documented by many news and private videos, and eyewitness testimony, from 9/11/2001.
Debates over the facts do not need to determine who did it, why they did it, why was it different from WTC1 & WTC2.

The debates just need to ascertain that something is very wrong with the 9/11 commission report, and its conclusions, thereby leading to a new and forensically correct investigation and letting it decide who,what,when,why etc.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


You're obviously not familiar with the notion that if your "proofs" produce conclusions that are manifestly ludicrous then chances are there's something wrong with them.

I see this so often in the Truth Movement. Grand announcements of evidence that can only point in one direction, and a complete refusal to engage with the only available conclusions that can then be drawn. Because those conclusions are so self-evidenntly absurd.

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by Alfie1

 

So why did the perps feel it was necessary to arrange for planes to be flown into the Towers to cover alledged cd but were apparently happy to blow up WTC 7, as it stood, without any cover at all ? And for what reason ?

I'll leave you to speculate on that with others. I am just stating facts as I see them.
Why don't you debate those facts instead of leading the thread "down the garden path" with trying to get people to speculate?

don't let them rope you into a credibility argument!