Explosive Testimony: Niels Harrit – Chemist

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

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.

The 9/11 commission report? The 9/11 commission was not tasked with doing a failure analysis on the World Trade center complex buildings or the Pentagon. That was the NIST and the ASCE respectively.

Please PROVE the forensic errors in those reports and proceed accordingly.

Great video. More cred. in the truther corner!

Not one to shy away from speculating....
The parties that wanted to bring about the destruction of the entire WTC complex achieved their goal, that much is clear. Little else is because they covered their tracks fairly well, and had the "terrorists" clearly defined beforehand in the minds of the people. Who has THIS kind of power?
My feeling is that they employed multiple strategies to insure their success, and in fact may have had an ace or two they did not have to play.
But, that is just speculation...as soon as Boy George tells me how it was done I will be sure to pass it along.

reply to post by hooper


Please address the topic of the thread. Your tactics are incredibly predictable and drag the value of these threads into the dirt when you begin arguing tangential points... which is obviously your purpose each and every time. This is, of course, a clear attempt at spiking the punch with fallicious logic and to 'move the goalposts' of the very narrow topic described in the OP, and conflate it with the entire 'fringe'.

Along with your buddies...

I hate to say it like many others have before, but you and your posse are either incredibly ignorant and in denial, or are part of something more sinister... (which you will try to easily wipe off - because we are all paranoid conspiracy nuts, right?) While I don't like to resort to calling people this... it seems to be the only explanation outside of sheer incompetence.

COINTELPRO

I hope it is COIN, because then at least you are intelligent enough. But - a word to the wise - choose your side carefully.

----

Thanks for posting top notch info as always, Airspoon. I wish the nasty smell in the room would leave... but you know how it is around here.

Here is Mr. Harrit on RT:

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by dereks

Originally posted by dereks

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!

Actually, you are the one lying, seeing how Jones' paper was peer reviewed. We have just another truster lie and dirty tactic to stifle any kind of intellectual debate. Furthermore, the only reason why people claim that the publisher is a vanity publisher, is because of some anonymous blogger claims to have been offered to have his bogus research published, though he/it has not produced one single shred of evidence to back up his claims and the so-called bogus research was not published. If you were going to prove the publisher a vanity organization by publishing a bogus study, would you not have the study published to prove your claims?

So, basically what we have here, is a huge flat out lie from you, then we have you basing at least one claim on an anonymous blogger who fails to not only provide proof for his claim, but any kind of evidence what-so-ever. Now, I guess that's not so surprising seeing how almost the entire OS requires just as much "faith" and from an extremely unreliable source.

Quit lying and instead, add something intellectual if you are at all capable. Instead of lying, contribute something worth-while and debate the arguments on their own merit. I do however realize why trusters don't debate the arguments on their own merit, because they can't. The vast majority of the OS requires you to throw out all reason and logic so you certainly couldn't expect either reason or logic to enter the debate on their behalf.

There you have it, you have been caught lying and I will cite that post to speak for your credibility whenever you try to stifle other discussions. You probably should have researched a little before jumping in, don't you think?


--airspoon

reply to post by hooper

The 9/11 commission report? The 9/11 commission was not tasked with doing a failure analysis on the World Trade center complex buildings or the Pentagon. That was the NIST and the ASCE respectively.

Please PROVE the forensic errors in those reports and proceed accordingly.

your error/fail: I am not going to sign up for an expedition to try explaining the follies of the 9/11 commission, NIST, ASCE etc. That is more speculation.

The basic facts are that buildings don't implode on themselves with many tons of upright structural steel supporting them. Very strong steel that has stood the test of time, until 9/11/2001. When either a miracle occurred, or someone got away with something (so far).

Fire or no fire, airplanes or no airplanes, steel frame high-rises do not fall vertically downward at free-fall speed except under the conditions of Controlled Demolition.

Trying to stay on-topic: the OP is writing about the materials found in the dust of the WTC. The discovery of these materials by multiple independent investigations supports controlled demolition at the WTC by some parties yet to be indicted.

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by hooper

 

Fire or no fire, airplanes or no airplanes, steel frame high-rises do not fall vertically downward at free-fall speed except under the conditions of Controlled Demolition.

You're quite right.

Of course, none of that happened to any of the WTC buildings, so it's somewhat irrelevant to the discussion.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

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.

Yea, ermm back to you. I say your beliefs in multiple unprecedented symmetric static load failures in one unprecedented day are extremely ludicrous. You're obviously not familiar with Adolph's "Big Lie concept":

The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated again and again.

I see this so often in the un-truth movement. Falling victim to the "Big Lie":
From Goebbels (wikipedia):
"For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying."
"A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth."
"Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise."

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by hooper

 

Here is Mr. Harrit on RT:

Is that the interview where he announces that "many, many tons" of conventional explosives were used to bring down the towers?

What some of you don't realize is that it does not matter whether a few scientists "prove" that some nano-thermate survived after 9/11. Even if the whole of MIT physics department or Laurence Livermore Laboratory were to confirm their claims (some chance!), it does not prove that thermate was used by conspirators to destroy the towers. All the government has to do, faced with overwhelming evidence (and the results of Jones et al are hardly that - they have not even been replicated:lol that thermate exists in the WTC dust is to get some well-bribed NY City official to admit that girders in the towers were secretly painted with thermitic material in the 1980s or 1990s so as to speed up their controlled demolition when the decision was eventually taken. NANO-THERMATE IS NO SMOKING GUN FOR AN INSIDE JOB!

You can bet, if they are hard pressed, the US government has well-prepared fall-back positions with which to dismiss any serious presentation of evidence against it in a law court. The reported explosions and its implication of the planted presence of tons of high-explosives is the one and only thing they cannot deny or explain away. That's why the thermate path taken by Dr Jones and his acolytes is simply a cul-de-sac that will get the 9/11 truth movement nowhere.

Originally posted by airspoon
Actually, you are the one lying, seeing how Jones' paper was peer reviewed.

Still telling lies I see, so who peer reviewed Jones's paper?

You do not post their names as you know it was not actually peer reviewed, but you keep claiming it was..

Why persist in that lie?

reply to post by dereks

so who peer reviewed Jones's paper?

You do not post their names as you know it was not actually peer reviewed, but you keep claiming it was..

Why persist in that lie?

Wow, it just goes to show your level of understanding about the process, which also speaks loudly for your credibility. The experts who actually review the research in the peer-review process are all anonymous. Don't worry, I believe you will learn all of that in the later years of high-school.

As far as the journal to which Jones' published, it is a credible scientific journal that is cited at some very well known universities.


--airspoon

Here's some visual evidence that supports the conclusion of thermite being used.



I have worked in metals for 25 years and this video plainly shows molten iron pouring out of the WTC tower.
I've seen plenty of it working in the foundry.
Aluminum does not turn this color when it melts.
Note this is also the point where the collapse initiates.

reply to post by waypastvne

I'm glad to see more experts adding their voice, great.

second

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings


Yea, ermm back to you. I say your beliefs in multiple unprecedented symmetric static load failures in one unprecedented day are extremely ludicrous.

I don't know if you noticed, but somebody flew planes into two of the buildings. That was quite "unprecedented".

Just saying.


You're obviously not familiar with Adolph's "Big Lie concept":

I am actually. But since it's a massive non-sequiter I think I can safely ignore it.

their tactic with Niels Harrit is to NOT peer review his work, and then they can say "see, it's not peer reviewed so it's not scientifically substantial" you really gotta hand it to the trusters of government, the titanic will sink to the bottom and they'll still be on deck asking the band to play another song.

Is the subject not the science or a man's credibility? Why argue with a viewpoint that you don't understand, when you attack the persona non grata. I don't know if I agree with Jones or this chemist, but I would like to hear about the science at hand. Just mho...

Originally posted by Alfie1


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 ?

it had all the files on the ENRON indictment, for one..

I want to Retire.
I know I could easily do it
on what these debunkers are
getting paid.
Please send my checks to:
---------------------------------