ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 28th February 2014, 12:37 PM   #1
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Harrits february 28th online chat

To day Niels Harrit participated for two hours in an online chat. Everybody could ask questions and get an answer.

Expect for dodging a few questions, he actually made some interesting comments.

This is a resume of some of the questions and answers, many translated from Danish:

When asked about The “squibs” seen in a picture of one of the WTC towers:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
It is a clear-cut evidence of the use of explosives.

His oppinion on the new Freedom tower:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
Actually, I do not know. But the requirements for towers in the building code has not been changed, so it must be built according to the same security requirements as the old building 7 in 1987.

Later, when he was told that New York changed the code in 2004:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
Because it does not contain any new structural requirements for the actual construction.

When asked if 9/11 is main income:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
Ha. It costs money to travel around and give lectures. If you have a suggestion for how you could make money on this, I would like to find out.

Asked if his thermite find could generate enough heat to melt steel:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
There was no molten steel at Ground Zero - or at most very little.

And later:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
No, I have never claimed that the steel melted. It was cut by thermite and explosives.

When asked if the collapses were to fast to be normal:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
I assure you, everything which happened on Ground Zero was in agreement with the laws of nature.

Asked if peer-review means that the hypotheses presented is the truth:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
No. There is no truth in science. Only today's best hypothesis.

When asked again about the speed and the possibility of collapse due to airliner crash and fire:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
But the towers did not collapse due to the impact of the airliners. There is some misunderstanding here.

When asked if he found paint in the dust or only thermite:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
There are many other red particles of dust from the WTC. But they are not attracted by a magnet.

When asked if it is the gray or the red side that atracts by a magnet:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
We do not know. The gray side is an iron oxide. This is probably superparamagnetism.

When asked how much thermite and how it was placed in WTC:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
I do not know. But a lot. In terms of access to the towers, as applied to the well to be good friends with the concierge.

When asked if the chips he found would burn hot enough to melt steel:

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
It cannot be answered when you only react one chip at a time.

What do you think happened at the Pentagon?

Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
There was no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon.
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 01:23 PM   #2
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,306
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
When asked if he found paint in the dust or only thermite:
Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
There are many other red particles of dust from the WTC. But they are not attracted by a magnet.
Odd how he doesn't mention having to test them for conductivity.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 01:37 PM   #3
rogers619
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 30
Interesting so Harrit not only believes that no steel melted at ground zero but also states that all the other red material he found wasnt magnetic.

No wonder he refuses to respond to Millette's work! Thanks for the translation
rogers619 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 01:38 PM   #4
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Very non eventful,

It could almost be Tony Sz answering those questions from the AE911truth Bible

Hang on a minute, Tony says molten metal started car fires at the scene.

Last edited by Spanx; 28th February 2014 at 01:40 PM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 01:44 PM   #5
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
I don't think that there is a single Danish truther who does not claim pools of molten steel at Ground Zero.

Apparently they all forgot to consult their own guru on this.
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 01:44 PM   #6
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,306
I didn't remember Harrit being a "no-planer". I wonder what he thinks it was?

That goes huge for his credibility.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 28th February 2014 at 01:45 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 01:50 PM   #7
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
The only Danish truther who agrees that a plane hit the Pentagon, is Jeppe Severin.

On the other hand he then goes all in and claims it to be a remote controlled unknown military airplane.

He actually has some funny debates with other Danish truthers on this issue.

Harrit has always been a Pentagon no planer.
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 02:04 PM   #8
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,306
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post

Harrit has always been a Pentagon no planer.
I don't hold any distinction for anyone that claims the plane were not what they were. This requires way too much denial of evidence that is beyond reproach.

This shows a clear flaw in his research and reasoning skills.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 02:09 PM   #9
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't hold any distinction for anyone that claims the plane were not what they were. This requires way too much denial of evidence that is beyond reproach.

This shows a clear flaw in his research and reasoning skills.
Harrits research seems to be the same Youtube videos as any other truther.
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 02:33 PM   #10
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,110
Quote:
His oppinion on the new Freedom tower:


Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
Actually, I do not know. But the requirements for towers in the building code has not been changed, so it must be built according to the same security requirements as the old building 7 in 1987.
Christ on a stick! Even I knew that.

So basically he's as ill-informed and ignorant as his cult followers. Surprise...
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 02:45 PM   #11
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
There was no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon.
i.e. nuts.

Bit of a shame for those who seek to laud his scientific credentials.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 28th February 2014 at 03:19 PM. Reason: tags
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 03:06 PM   #12
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Quote:
Quote:
When asked again about the speed and the possibility of collapse due to airliner crash and fire:
Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
But the towers did not collapse due to the impact of the airliners. There is some misunderstanding here.
If the OP's reporting is correct then yes, some misunderstanding indeed. He was asked if impact AND fire caused the (initiation?) of destruction, yet addressed only impact.

He is correct in that many truthers seem to think along binary terms, did impact fail the structure, "No" ,
"Did fire fail the structure?"
"No"
therefore - explosives.

The towers succumbed to the combination of fire and impact damage.

WTC 7 is another story. It was shown in the NIST FEA that it was possible that the removal of a single column low down in the structure could cause a progression to global collapse. However, actual collapse progression, as observed, included both fire damage AND some heavy impact damage on the south side which included the loss of several storeys of the SW corner of the building.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 03:36 PM   #13
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't hold any distinction for anyone that claims the plane were not what they were. This requires way too much denial of evidence that is beyond reproach.

This shows a clear flaw in his research and reasoning skills.
But his work is published and peer-reviewed, and Dr. Millette's isn't.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 03:45 PM   #14
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,306
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
But his work is published and peer-reviewed, and Dr. Millette's isn't.
Funny thing is, he addresses that subject:

Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
Asked if peer-review means that the hypotheses presented is the truth:
Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
No. There is no truth in science. Only today's best hypothesis.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 04:18 PM   #15
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,683
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

The towers succumbed to the combination of fire and impact damage.
and their unique design and shoddy construction.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 04:19 PM   #16
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,306
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
and their unique design and shoddy construction.
I'll give you the unique design............
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 05:15 PM   #17
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,475
IOW, after all these years, Harrit and the rest of the Truthers have made zero progress towards a coherent narrative. Paging Mr. Windley!
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 07:14 PM   #18
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
It is a clear-cut evidence of the use of explosives.
What, no Pulitzer? That would be a big 60 Minutes story.


Originally Posted by Niels Harrit
There was no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon.
Insanity mixed with delusions of CTs based on woo.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 11:40 PM   #19
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,682
That last question is telling indeed. Harrit appears not to be moved by fact, only theory, as his 'no-planer' stance on the Pentagon attack shows.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 12:33 AM   #20
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I didn't remember Harrit being a "no-planer". I wonder what he thinks it was?

That goes huge for his credibility.
Well there must be a peer reviewed paper out there somewhere, how else could he come to that conclusion
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 02:42 AM   #21
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Well there must be a peer reviewed paper out there somewhere, how else could he come to that conclusion

Well under the peer reviewed section of Journal of 911 studies, you will actually find one article confirming that a large airplane impacted the Pentagon since none of the other theories add up. And you will find an article that says that the official flight path from the FDR is coherent with flight 77 hitting the building:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html

The peer reviewed flight path studie that confirms flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, was done by Harrits fellow author Frank Legge.

Harrit is on the 911 Consensus Panel and we know what they can agree on, but it must be quite interesting to find out what they don't agree on.
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 08:20 AM   #22
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF334...eature=youtube

At around the 25 min mark, Harrit talks about the pentagon. He will not except eye witness accounts unless they are in a court of law which is strange considering he has collected all of 'evidence' online.

I guess YouTube is the new court of law.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 09:14 AM   #23
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF334...eature=youtube

At around the 25 min mark, Harrit talks about the pentagon. He will not except eye witness accounts unless they are in a court of law which is strange considering he has collected all of 'evidence' online.

I guess YouTube is the new court of law.
He is directly accusing NIST of scientific fraud That's 100 times more serious than what he tried to sue a journalist for.
AsbjornAndersen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 09:17 AM   #24
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
He is directly accusing NIST of scientific fraud That's 100 times more serious than what he tried to sue a journalist for.
And what's that got to do with the Pentagon ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 09:24 AM   #25
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,306
Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
He is directly accusing NIST of scientific fraud That's 100 times more serious than what he tried to sue a journalist for.
It's only serious if it was actually taken seriously. He is not.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 12:11 PM   #26
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
I don't think that there is a single Danish truther who does not claim pools of molten steel at Ground Zero.

Apparently they all forgot to consult their own guru on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF334...eature=youtube

If you skip to the 2 hour mark. Harrit is claiming molten iron
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 01:38 PM   #27
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF334...eature=youtube

If you skip to the 2 hour mark. Harrit is claiming molten iron

That's how it goes when you come up with so many lies, it gets difficult to keep track of where you actually stand on the different issues.

By the way, you could've given a more precise mark, god damn it I had to listen to a lot of BS from him before I found it
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 04:50 PM   #28
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
And what's that got to do with the Pentagon ?
Nothing to do with the Pentagon. Just the interview in general.
AsbjornAndersen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 04:57 PM   #29
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It's only serious if it was actually taken seriously. He is not.
Good point
AsbjornAndersen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2014, 05:28 AM   #30
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
That's how it goes when you come up with so many lies, it gets difficult to keep track of where you actually stand on the different issues.

By the way, you could've given a more precise mark, god damn it I had to listen to a lot of BS from him before I found it
I have now watched the whole interview and have come to the conclusion that Harrit is a crank.

The most amazing thing is that due to Harrit recording this video, truthers claim it to be some form of victory over the BBC. It has made Harrit look pathetic.

I look forward to Harrit loosing his latest court case and hope that his own video is used against him as evidence that he is a crank.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2014, 07:11 AM   #31
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
I have now watched the whole interview and have come to the conclusion that Harrit is a crank.

The most amazing thing is that due to Harrit recording this video, truthers claim it to be some form of victory over the BBC. It has made Harrit look pathetic.

I look forward to Harrit loosing his latest court case and hope that his own video is used against him as evidence that he is a crank.

It will be quite interesting to see what the outcome of the appeal proceedings will be.

Harrit mentioned during the chat session, that no date has been set yet, and that he twice has asked the court to set a date, without any luck.
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.