The sad case of Niels Harrit

RedIbis said:
It's not?
Click to expand...

To refine the point: it's not economically possible. If it could be done it would be way too expensive to warrant, given the small probability of such an event.

Here's another way of viewing it, Red - prior to 9/11, how many of the world's tallest skyscrapers had been deliberately hit by jets traveling in excess of 400mph?

I don't think there was a precedent. That's one of the things that makes 9/11 unique and iconic as a terror attack.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is nothing in those pages about eutectic melting. You are making false claims. I have to say I am not surprised by what I have seen you post here.
Click to expand...

Those are the pieces from WTC1 and WTC7 that were studied by FEMA.

TS said:
Both pieces were found in the piles. What is the issue there? What is of interest is the comment that the eutectic melting could have occurred prior to collapse. While you claim that the NIST discusses these two pieces in their report you do not provide a link or reference. I haven't seen it mentioned in the NIST reports on either the towers or WTC 7.
Click to expand...

TS said:
NIST does not mention these pieces in their report. I want to know why they did not do the further research recommended by FEMA.
Click to expand...

TS said:
I have read the FEMA report. In Appendix C they urged fruther investigation due to finding eutectic melting that they felt could have occurred prior to collapse. The NIST did not further that investigation. One reason would have been that they were not given the steel.
Click to expand...

Care to retract the false claims above? I have given you a link to where these pieces are discussed by NIST.

I'll give you the benefit here and hope you have the PDF page numbers and the document page numbers mixed up.
 
funk de fino said:
Those are the pieces from WTC1 and WTC7 that were studied by FEMA.







Care to retract the false claims above? I have given you a link to where these pieces are discussed by NIST.

I'll give you the benefit here and hope you have the PDF page numbers and the document page numbers mixed up.
Click to expand...

Do you want partial credit Mr. Funk? Okay, you get partial credit for the fact that the NIST does mention these two pieces, that the Worcester Polytechnical people talked about in FEMA Appendix C, in the WTC report. However, since they do not mention the alarming issue of eutectic melting it is somewhat insignificant.

You have to admit the eutectic melting is the real issue here, so mentioning the pieces without discussing the eutectic melting seems disingenuous.

Why wouldn't they have mentioned the eutectic melting?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
...
Why wouldn't they have mentioned the eutectic melting?
Click to expand...
How many pieces of steel had this? What does it mean? Gee whiz, I have the same stuff in my fire place. You are making a failed attempt to tie this obscure piece to some grand conspiracy theory just like you love your failed JFK CT delusions. 911 delusions of you and your club run by Jones. No wonder he got fired.

Harrit makes up lies about 911 and you join him in an anti-intellectual pursuit to manufacture your own reality.

Funny as heck when you talk of tailored nano-thermite to make it quiet. Who tailored it to be invisible. You guys are funny as you make up more nonsense as you progress to the delusional out years of your moronic movement.
 
Funk.

(not trying to be a smart alec...)

but I can think of one. Shanghai World Financial Towers... you know Leslie Robertsons newest design. But I think he may have learned a thing or two from what happened to his other designs. maybe...

Of course they have come well AFTER 9/11... so yet again, another truther fail.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Do you want partial credit Mr. Funk? Okay, you get partial credit for the fact that the NIST does mention these two pieces, that the Worcester Polytechnical people talked about in FEMA Appendix C, in the WTC report. However, since they do not mention the alarming issue of eutectic melting it is somewhat insignificant.

You have to admit the eutectic melting is the real issue here, so mentioning the pieces without discussing the eutectic melting seems disingenuous.

Why wouldn't they have mentioned the eutectic melting?
Click to expand...

So you were wrong,wrong and wrong again. Now you try to shift the goalposts to another timezone. Typical 911 nutbar stuff and the reason I have called your posts clueless in the past. You dont see what you dont want to eh Tony?

Take your blinkers off mate.

Two pieces out of all those tons of steel were picked out and put to one side for further investigation. Why only two if this was what brought down the towers? Surely there would have been hundreds of pieces like this? Stop focussing on piddling little things that are irrelevant. The steel was all examined and no-one found piles of steel like this.

You missed my question earlier. If you talk about eutectics, what happens to the melting point of the of the alloy compared to the melting points of the elements themselves? Lower or raise?

And when someone posts that I have made a false claim and it is shown that in fact it was a true claim I do not normally expect a "partial credit" I expect a retraction.

ETA - Did you notice that they state that the attack happened in the pile? Not pre collapse. Tough luck Tony.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
It's not?
Click to expand...
.
No, it's not.

There is only one class of structures that has been built to be "jet impact proof": containment vessels on nuclear power plants. A ten foot thick, windowless reinforced concrete dome.

That the real purpose of that famous F4 into concrete wall video that everyone shows: to validate the concrete wall.

To be precise, there are lots of requirements of office buildings.

Several factors prohibit OFFICE buildings from being jet impact proof:

1. You have to be able to afford them.
2. People do not want to work in windowless concrete balls.
3. Jets are getting bigger.

But let's suppose that you want to do it anyway. The computational costs associated with running a whole range of impact locations, angles & airspeeds would leave one with about 2 years of model building & 5 more years worth of supercomputer run time.

This is an absurd requirement. And at the end of the day, you still cannot guarantee that the building will really survive. Because the events are so unpredictable & chaotic.

If you don't believe me, allow me to leverage the comments of Leslie Robertson. You may have heard of him...

"We should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets"
Leslie Robertson, Structural Engineer, WTC

tom
 
tfk said:
.
No, it's not.

There is only one class of structures that has been built to be "jet impact proof": containment vessels on nuclear power plants. A ten foot thick, windowless reinforced concrete dome.

That the real purpose of that famous F4 into concrete wall video that everyone shows: to validate the concrete wall.

To be precise, there are lots of requirements of office buildings.

Several factors prohibit OFFICE buildings from being jet impact proof:

1. You have to be able to afford them.
2. People do not want to work in windowless concrete balls.
3. Jets are getting bigger.

But let's suppose that you want to do it anyway. The computational costs associated with running a whole range of impact locations, angles & airspeeds would leave one with about 2 years of model building & 5 more years worth of supercomputer run time.

This is an absurd requirement. And at the end of the day, you still cannot guarantee that the building will really survive. Because the events are so unpredictable & chaotic.

If you don't believe me, allow me to leverage the comments of Leslie Robertson. You may have heard of him...

"We should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets"
Leslie Robertson, Structural Engineer, WTC

tom
Click to expand...

And you might have heard of John Skilling, head structural engineer of the WTC,

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side,"
Click to expand...

and although a bit off topic, in the same article Skilling says this,

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
Click to expand...

Then of course there's also Frank Demartini, on-site construction manager,

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
And you might have heard of John Skilling, head structural engineer of the WTC,
Click to expand...

Yet the building fell. It was not jet proof.

Red said:
and although a bit off topic, in the same article Skilling says this,
Click to expand...

Top expert? Who would that be? Most of the top experts say the CD claims are nonsense.

Red said:
Then of course there's also Frank Demartini, on-site construction manager,
Click to expand...

Who is dead. Nice work mate. Do you think he may change his views if he not been killed that day?
 
And, the designers of the Titanic claimed it was unsinkable, too. Titanic was an inside job!!!!
 
twinstead said:
And, the designers of the Titanic claimed it was unsinkable, too. Titanic was an inside job!!!!
Click to expand...

As proofed in many engineering disasters you cannot predict the true performance under precise scenarios and assumptions on predicted performance should be taken with a grain of salt.

The titanic was deemed unsinkable and that only a 300-foot gash could ever result in it sinking. And it ultimately sunk because the rivets failed along a much smaller section of the ship.

You'd normally think that a bridge would never act in a fashion like one of those fruit roll-up candies where the little kid is twisting and turning it like play dough. But it happened and collapsed:


IMO the trade centers performed exceptionally well consider they ended up with gaping holes where columns were supposed to be support its weight. Perhaps, the only reason it survived the impacts given it's tube on tube design was that the columns -- all of them were spaced VERY closely together.
 
Ummm Red.

you realize that leslie robertson has said several times it was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (I am paraphrasing here as I don't remember the exact quote)
lost in the fog, going slow, low on fuel and looking to land.

and he also stated
we never took the fuel into account, I don't know how you could.

So it is nice to take the words of dead engineers who were BRAGGING (you know.. like you (or most guys do) when talking to girls about how big your .... is, or how many women you have done. They never are as big as you say... it is called BRAGGING).

a simple question to you Red. Why is it that truthers datamine quotes, but then don't give context for them, or they then ignore other quotes which show they are wrong?
 
RedIbis said:
And you might have heard of John Skilling, head structural engineer of the WTC,

and although a bit off topic, in the same article Skilling says this,

Then of course there's also Frank Demartini, on-site construction manager,
Click to expand...
This is your weak support for the delusional ideas of Harrit? Harrit made up thermite and you talk about Skilling and a 180 mph jet aircraft impact proved by engineers today to be of minimum damage.

Yet you ignore the 7 to 11 time kinetic energy impacts of the terrorists in 11 and 175 which breached the exterior of the building due to their speed.

So you left out Robertson since he did the study on aircraft impacts and it was verified by engineers today that an aircraft below 200 mph would not do serious damage. Robertson knew this, why can't you do simple research?
http://www.nae.edu/cms/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/7344/7480.aspx
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx
http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345


Demaritni is not a structural engineer, however if planes were going 180 mph the WTC could take multiple hits. But on 911 the impacts were not kinetic energy events of 187 pounds of TNT, they were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT events. Got physics?

This is a case where understanding physics comes in handy. You should have taken the classes the nerds took, they are the engineers and doctors.

This is the best you can do to support Harrit's delusion?
 
RedIbis said:
And you might have heard of John Skilling, head structural engineer of the WTC,

and although a bit off topic, in the same article Skilling says this,

Then of course there's also Frank Demartini, on-site construction manager,
Click to expand...


.... Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)
​
 
Interesting comments

I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com
 
You'll find a lengthy and detailed discussion of Harrit et al's desperately incompetent work at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017 that runs to several hundred posts, and a link to an earlier discussion on the same subject. You'd be very welcome to participate in the more recent thread, whichg is currently on the front page of the forum.

Dave
 
Dakota1955 said:
I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com
Click to expand...

sure, but first you'll have to read Jones' Jesus Came to America article and his recent comments that the Earthquake in Haiti was man made.

Kthxbye.
 
16.5 said:
sure, but first you'll have to read Jones' Jesus Came to America article and his recent comments that the Earthquake in Haiti was man made.

Kthxbye.
Click to expand...

Did he say Man made or American made ? President Chavez said that the Americans caused the Haiti earthquake.
 
Last edited:
Dakota1955 said:
I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!!!!

A bentham person.

ready twoof?
You want an intellectual discussion of this "paper," right?

Great. Go look up what peer review is. Now go and look up the history bentham has. Then when you have done that, go back to the drawing board and try again.

maybe with a real peer reviewed journal article. <snort>

ETA: You may want to remove your email address from any post on any public message board. Unscrupulous folks might sign you up for all kinds of things using that...
 
Last edited:
Dakota1955 said:
I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com
Click to expand...

We have read the paper, and all the others. Please tell me why you would have us read such a paper, on ONE particular 9/11 topic as preparation to debate you on a general "intellectual" discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11?

I am calling troll/puppet.

TAM:)
 
Dakota1955 said:
I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com
Click to expand...

Just because it has been dull here as of late, and because I haven't had a ball of wool to play with recently, I'll bite. You go first. Bring up a topic related to the event of 9/11, and provide your point of view on the matter, along with EVIDENCE to back it up...and...go.

TAM:)
 
Dakota1955 said:
I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com
Click to expand...

You want to conduct an intellectual discussion on a what is a vanity paper? The paper has no scientific value to the events of 911 and the authors had to pay to be published because the paper can't make it in a real journal.

You lost the challenge when you mention the paper, it is the anti-intellectual claptrap of Jones who not only has insane ideas on 911 but say the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti.

In your fantasy how much thermite does it take?
Do you support Jones support of thermite in ceiling tiles by Hoffman?

Follow Dave's link http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017
 
Dakota1955 said:
I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com
Click to expand...

Question for you: it's been a while now since the Jones/Harrit paper was published (and the editor resigned in protest). Why haven't the results been verified by any mainstream nanomaterials scientists anywhere in the world?

Why have experts in nanomaterials disagreed with the paper?

Why has the paper made no impact on the scientific community anywhere in the world?
 
beachnut said:
You want to conduct an intellectual discussion on a what is a vanity paper? The paper has no scientific value to the events of 911 and the authors had to pay to be published because the paper can't make it in a real journal.

You lost the challenge when you mention the paper, it is the anti-intellectual claptrap of Jones who not only has insane ideas on 911 but say the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti.

In your fantasy how much thermite does it take?
Do you support Jones support of thermite in ceiling tiles by Hoffman?

Follow Dave's link http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017
Click to expand...

To achieve the uniformity of the pulverisation of the concrete into a tacum powder sized dust the nanothermite had to be inside the floors I believe Beachnut. I think it was impregnated into the concrete and when it was ignited at thousands of degrees it boiled the water residue in the concrete (there always is some) which blasted it into powder light enough to suspend in air. As we saw.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
To achieve the uniformity of the pulverisation of the concrete into a tacum powder sized dust the nanothermite had to be inside the floors I believe Beachnut. I think it was impregnated into the concrete and when it was ignited at thousands of degrees it boiled the water residue in the concrete (there always is some) which blasted it into powder light enough to suspend in air. As we saw.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good except the concrete was not pulverized to 'talcum powder" consistency. Repeating a lie does not make it true, no matter how many times you do it. :o
 
Heiwa said:
Aha, there you are! Pls visit The Heiwa Challenge thread! Your followers have big trouble getting their act together; M one-way crushing multiple m! They need your moral support, if you have any left?
Click to expand...

Yes,if you need a really good laugh visit that thread.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It seems that the only reason 911 is not being re-investigated is political, not because of a lack of scientific evidence showing it could not have occurred the way the present official story claims it did.
Click to expand...

There is a reason for the lack of evidence of a controlled demolition that does not seem to have occurred to you yet.
 
bill smith said:
To achieve the uniformity of the pulverisation of the concrete into a tacum powder sized dust the nanothermite had to be inside the floors I believe Beachnut. I think it was impregnated into the concrete and when it was ignited at thousands of degrees it boiled the water residue in the concrete (there always is some) which blasted it into powder light enough to suspend in air. As we saw.
Click to expand...

You should try your hand at writing science fiction.
 
beachnut said:
How many pieces of steel had this? What does it mean? Gee whiz, I have the same stuff in my fire place. You are making a failed attempt to tie this obscure piece to some grand conspiracy theory just like you love your failed JFK CT delusions. 911 delusions of you and your club run by Jones. No wonder he got fired.

Harrit makes up lies about 911 and you join him in an anti-intellectual pursuit to manufacture your own reality.

Funny as heck when you talk of tailored nano-thermite to make it quiet. Who tailored it to be invisible. You guys are funny as you make up more nonsense as you progress to the delusional out years of your moronic movement.
Click to expand...

Do psychologists have a name yet for these 9/11 delusions?
 
For what it's worth, it seems like Niels Harrit has grown frustrated with the Danish newspapers not accepting the Twoof, so he filed a complaint against two major daily newspapers with the Danish Press Council (independent, public tribunal which deals with complaints about the mass media).

The answer came back pretty swiftly: 'Complaint is baseless'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom