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 6th March 2015, 12:58 PM   #361
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Given that Utzon was called as witness in the first case, I guess they'll allow the witnesses to utter their incredulity.
Yes but it will be tough to convince the court that the Law's of physics were violated on 9/11/2001.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th March 2015, 03:36 PM   #362
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,532
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes but it will be tough to convince the court that the Law's of physics were violated on 9/11/2001.
Good thing that's not what the court is there to decide then
KDLarsen is online now   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 6th March 2015, 03:41 PM   #363
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,077
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Good thing that's not what the court is there to decide then
What are they going to decide? Will they even hear an of this? I know Danish law has some odd standards when it comes to defamation claims.
__________________
"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 6th March 2015, 03:52 PM   #364
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,532
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What are they going to decide? Will they even hear an of this? I know Danish law has some odd standards when it comes to defamation claims.
Whether or not Søren K. Willemoes defamed Niels Harrit, by referring to him as a 'tosse' (crackpot) and by comparing his work to that of Holocaust deniers.

Like the grand 'BBC trial' a few months ago, where some nutter refused to pay a TV license, because he feared he would be supporting a terrorist organisation (eg. the BBC, because they were in on the conspiracy viz a viz 7WTC collapse being announced early), the truthers evidently see this as some grand opportunity to get their argument on the court records, regardless of whatever little relevancy it has to the case at hand.

The county court, in its ruling in the first installment, found that Søren K. Willemoes had offered up a general commentary, that Harrit himself was active as a truther in the public eye, and that Søren K Willemoes was well within the boundaries of freedom of speech.

None of what Harrit intends to offer up, will have a noteworthy impact on that finding.
KDLarsen is online now   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 6th March 2015, 04:01 PM   #365
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,077
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post

None of what Harrit intends to offer up, will have a noteworthy impact on that finding.
That's what I thought. The court is not going to decide on whether his beliefs are valid, only if Søren K. Willemoes comment effected what the general public feels about them and Harrit.

They will not be interested in the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares with a description on the back...................
__________________
"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 6th March 2015, 04:13 PM   #366
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That's what I thought. The court is not going to decide on whether his beliefs are valid, only if Søren K. Willemoes comment effected what the general public feels about them and Harrit.

They will not be interested in the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares with a description on the back...................
Oh no I was so hopefull we would have a YouTube video of the Judges having to sit though the whole AE 9/11 presentation, that would probably be the most amusing these dimwitted conspiracy theorists have been since the fued between Jones and Judy Woods.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th March 2015, 05:14 PM   #367
Playing Games
Thinker
 
Playing Games's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Oh no I was so hopefull we would have a YouTube video of the Judges having to sit though the whole AE 9/11 presentation, that would probably be the most amusing these dimwitted conspiracy theorists have been since the fued between Jones and Judy Woods.
...and Judy Wood is the nuttiest of all of them.
Playing Games 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 6th March 2015, 06:00 PM   #368
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Talking

Originally Posted by Playing Games View Post
...and Judy Wood is the nuttiest of all of them.
Yes but it is quite comical to hear woodies describing vaporized steel, with out realizing it would have cause an exstreamly bright flash and heat effect and most likely scorched half of New York.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th March 2015, 07:54 PM   #369
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Whether or not Søren K. Willemoes defamed Niels Harrit, by referring to him as a 'tosse' (crackpot) and by comparing his work to that of Holocaust deniers.

Like the grand 'BBC trial' a few months ago, where some nutter refused to pay a TV license, because he feared he would be supporting a terrorist organisation (eg. the BBC, because they were in on the conspiracy viz a viz 7WTC collapse being announced early), the truthers evidently see this as some grand opportunity to get their argument on the court records, regardless of whatever little relevancy it has to the case at hand.

The county court, in its ruling in the first installment, found that Søren K. Willemoes had offered up a general commentary, that Harrit himself was active as a truther in the public eye, and that Søren K Willemoes was well within the boundaries of freedom of speech.

None of what Harrit intends to offer up, will have a noteworthy impact on that finding.
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Ziggi 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 6th March 2015, 08:02 PM   #370
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,589
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
So being a crackpot is contagious?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 6th March 2015, 08:04 PM   #371
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
I know Harrit's and Jones's work and I can tell you with definitely he is a crack pot.
Where are the quantifications and relevant experiments?
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th March 2015, 08:08 PM   #372
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,064
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily.
Yes, you must study the full extent of the Emperor's tailors' oeuvre before you can discuss his new "clothes".

__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay 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 6th March 2015, 08:14 PM   #373
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Yes, you must study the full extent of the Emperor's tailors' oeuvre before you can discuss his new "clothes".

With thermite underwear for truthers.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 7th March 2015, 12:07 AM   #374
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily.
Harrit is a crackpot when it comes to 911. He was part of a fraud with a thermite paper published in a vanity journal, and he things termite was used on 911. Is he a liar, or a crackpot when it comes to 911? Why is he spreading BS about 911?
But you are right, we should not call people with delusional lies about CD on 911, crackpots; their claims are crackpot claims. Got it.

Love the "people like you"; I am a pilot, are we all pilots here? I am an engineer, does "people lie you" mean we are all engineers with a master degree. I love scuba diving, does the "people like you" mean we all love scuba diving? I like people who protest war, as an pilot in the USAF, I appreciate anyone who makes others think about war, and why we go;, does "people like you" mean we all appreciate war protesters, even if we are in the military.
Who are "people like you"? Harrit failed to make a valid claim on 911, and supports the fantasy of CD on 911; mocking the murdered of 911 with lies like thermite and CD is pathetic, Harrit lies about 911. Don't get upset with "people like you", get upset with the liars who fool those who can't think for themselves.

BTW, Harrit's work is not science, it is more like BS, propaganda, and lies. When it comes to judging Harrit's work, it earns a the crackpot seal of approval.


Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Are you saying now the guy who called Harrit a crackpot, is a fellow crackpot, fooled by lies? Wow, irony, a guy got it right the first time, but now has gone nuts like Harrit, and believe in BS born in ignorance. (nuts on 911 issues)

"people like you"

Ironically, you are saying the reporter is so stupid, he fell for the BS of CD after he realized Harrit did some fake work? This gets better and better.
13 years, a reporter (guess he is not an engineer, or lay person with any critical thinking skills) fell into the pit of ignorance, 911 truth.

Funny stuff. A reported declares Harrit's lies are correct. Does that mean he thinks Harrit's claims are correctly called lies? Is the reporter an engineer, or better yet, a chemical engineer? Any science at all?

Is this a scam, are you making a joke.

Last edited by beachnut; 7th March 2015 at 12:11 AM.
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 7th March 2015, 01:00 AM   #375
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,471
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!

Speaking of name-calling, I'd remind you of the visitor message you left on gerrycan's profile page the other day (since removed, thankfully), in which you made some rather unsavoury accusations about another forum member.


Regarding Harrit and Utzon; two swallows don't make a summer. In fact, they'll barely make the news. AE911Truth flushes away another $15,000.

Regarding the trial; just another attempt by a truther to use a courtroom as a soapbox for his cranky beliefs (see also Tony Rooke).

And for us, a little iegaltainment:

"I can prove I'm not a crackpot your honour. I have with me a very important video and a bag of dust..."
Ape of Good Hope 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 7th March 2015, 02:10 AM   #376
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
...
And for us, a little iegaltainment:

"I can prove I'm not a crackpot your honour. I have with me a very important video and a bag of dust..."
Jest as you like - sanity will shine over Denmark when Harrit also hauls into the court room an electron microscope, a calorimeter, an oxy-acetylene torch, an infrared spectrometer and the XRD equipment!
Oystein 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 7th March 2015, 02:33 AM   #377
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Not only is Ziggi an expert in everything he is also a mind reader.

What a very special individual he is.

Love the way he is now quoting his own comments on DTD in this forum.
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 7th March 2015, 02:49 AM   #378
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,532
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Factually wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. The reporter told the county court that he had watched Harrit's presentation and read his articles.

He also readily admitted he had no basis for judging it scientifically, other than observing that Harrit and the 9/11 truthers are an ever decreasing fringe of the generally accepted theory about what happened on 9/11, but that wasn't the point of the article in any case.

Last edited by KDLarsen; 7th March 2015 at 02:51 AM.
KDLarsen is online now   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 7th March 2015, 03:08 PM   #379
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,275
Would scientific validity even be relevant? If Harrit makes presentations to the general public and specifically invites journalists, as I'm told he does, then to me that means he invites lay opinions from the general public, and lay opinions from journalists. Scientists have their own methods and venues for ascertaining scientific reputability, so I doubt he could argue that a journalist's opinion of his presentations intended for the general public affects his stature in the scientific community. If he's going to present his claims to a lay public, he shouldn't be able to use the courts to ensure that he gets only a favorable reception.
JayUtah is online now   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 8th March 2015, 12:58 AM   #380
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,532
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Would scientific validity even be relevant? If Harrit makes presentations to the general public and specifically invites journalists, as I'm told he does, then to me that means he invites lay opinions from the general public, and lay opinions from journalists. Scientists have their own methods and venues for ascertaining scientific reputability, so I doubt he could argue that a journalist's opinion of his presentations intended for the general public affects his stature in the scientific community. If he's going to present his claims to a lay public, he shouldn't be able to use the courts to ensure that he gets only a favorable reception.
That was pretty much the line of reasoning the county court used, in determining that Harrit was 'fair game'. He's been very active in the press, going on morning chat shows, writing articles and letters to the editor, etc. and so he can't therefore expect not to be called on his fringe theories.
KDLarsen is online now   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 8th March 2015, 06:05 PM   #381
Playing Games
Thinker
 
Playing Games's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
So being a crackpot is contagious?
Looks that way. Lets hope it's not air born.
Playing Games 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 8th March 2015, 09:18 PM   #382
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Factually wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. The reporter told the county court that he had watched Harrit's presentation and read his articles.

He also readily admitted he had no basis for judging it scientifically, other than observing that Harrit and the 9/11 truthers are an ever decreasing fringe of the generally accepted theory about what happened on 9/11, but that wasn't the point of the article in any case.
But he was not able to support that claim when asked.
Ziggi 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 8th March 2015, 09:23 PM   #383
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
So being a crackpot is contagious?
This kind of response fits you much better that your lame attempts at the Building 7 thread to appear professional.
Ziggi 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 8th March 2015, 09:35 PM   #384
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
So being a crackpot is contagious?
This kind of response fits you much better that your lame attempts at the Building 7 thread to appear professional.
The lame attempts are those trying to bash NIST, failing to present their theory. You claim the reporter went full blown crackpot. Work on logic skills, get some help with cause and effect, and consult an engineer independent of 911 truth to help you with fire science and structural engineering. Good luck; that advice is from me an engineer since 1974; but don't trust anyone...

The logical response, the humor might be hard to understand.
Building 7 thread?, where you don't post your claims, only bash NIST. Call posters NISTians because you are hung-up with NIST, obsessed with spreading BS about NIST. You are the NISTian, a person who can't stop bringing up NIST, and incapable of presenting evidence for CD.

It was humor;- he beat us to the punchline, you were the straight-man.

... , you have run out of stuff for the BS analysis on WTC 7, and then more failed BS flows; as with this thread, where it appears you think Harrit used science to form his 911 claims; that is funny.

Last edited by beachnut; 8th March 2015 at 10:40 PM.
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 9th March 2015, 04:15 AM   #385
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,589
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
This kind of response fits you much better that your lame attempts at the Building 7 thread to appear professional.
Just don't stand next to Harrit. Or he wife. Do you agree with her views also?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 9th March 2015, 04:19 AM   #386
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,532
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
But he was not able to support that claim when asked.
[Citation Needed]
KDLarsen is online now   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 10th March 2015, 07:34 AM   #387
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,414
crackpot sez wut?

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
This kind of response fits you much better that your lame attempts at the Building 7 thread to appear professional.
http://rt.com/usa/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/

Quote:
RT: So, what effect would nano-thermite have had on the collapse of the towers on September 11?

Niels Harrit: Actually, within this group of authors behind this paper, which we published in April, there are diverging opinions about what this nano-thermite was used for. And my opinion is: we should not speculate on a scenario for the demolition. There is no doubt that the three towers were demolished on 9/11. But beyond that there is very solid evidence that some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams. We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.


RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?

Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!


RT: So we are not just talking about nano-thermite. In fact, we are talking about both nano-thermite and conventional explosives used in large quantities…
carlitos 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 10th March 2015, 08:03 AM   #388
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Having worked on a project in the WTC, and many in Manhattan......the concept that tons of explosives could have been placed with not one individual ever noticing and revealing it is beyond crazy.
Animal 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 10th March 2015, 08:09 AM   #389
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Let's hope Harrit remembers he is taking an explosive bag of dust into a court
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 10th March 2015, 09:27 AM   #390
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
"Hundreds of tons" is at least 200,000 kg.

NIST has estimated that 9 kg of some CD-industry standard high explosive would be required to cut col 79 of building 7 - and that column is about the fattest piece of steel there was in the three towers.

So let's say that charges of up to 10 kg were used.

That's at least 20,000 individual blasts of 10 kg each. Split those among the three towers, and Harrit is talking about >6,666 large blasts per collapse.

Let's be very generous and say: Half of those went off before collapse initiation, half at initiation and during collapse.

Then in the case of WTC2, that stood for 56 minutes, there must have been at least 3,333 10 kg blasts in 56 minutes - 60 per minute, 1 each second.
Each one would have shattered numerous windows. None could have been missed by the many sound recordings.
Then, during the 16 seconds or so of collapse itself, there would have been 3,333 more blasts - over 200 per second! 2 tons of explosives going of every second for 16 seconds!

Adjust numbers for the other collapses.

If you propose smaller charges, you multiply the number of charges.
If you propose fewer blasts, you increase average size beyond 10 kg.

To get an idea of what 10 kg of explosives sound like:
1.35 kg C4
5 kg TNT from maybe 200 m away
7 kg ANFO
4.5 kg ammonium nitrate + 4.5 kg of a flammable liquid, from over 500 m away
10 kg ANFO
10.5 kg blasting gel
15 kg TNT
22.5 kg C4
Roughly 40 kg ANFO (was heard 30 km away, they claim)

That's 9 blasts there. Harrit claims >20,000.

If that isn't a crackpot idea, I don't know what is.
Oystein 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 10th March 2015, 10:14 AM   #391
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,764
So harrit sues for defamation, but he essentially qualifies as a public speaker with the way he does his work. Seems like a free speech issue, harrit being a nut job aside. People may not like being called names... but hey, we have people all the time accusing for example, a property owner of demolishing his own building for fraud. In spite of the fact that the accusations are nothing more than libel

Who indeed is on the moral low ground?
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 10th March 2015, 03:43 PM   #392
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Hundreds of tons" is at least 200,000 kg.

NIST has estimated that 9 kg of some CD-industry standard high explosive would be required to cut col 79 of building 7 - and that column is about the fattest piece of steel there was in the three towers.

So let's say that charges of up to 10 kg were used.

That's at least 20,000 individual blasts of 10 kg each. Split those among the three towers, and Harrit is talking about >6,666 large blasts per collapse.

Let's be very generous and say: Half of those went off before collapse initiation, half at initiation and during collapse.

Then in the case of WTC2, that stood for 56 minutes, there must have been at least 3,333 10 kg blasts in 56 minutes - 60 per minute, 1 each second.
Each one would have shattered numerous windows. None could have been missed by the many sound recordings.
Then, during the 16 seconds or so of collapse itself, there would have been 3,333 more blasts - over 200 per second! 2 tons of explosives going of every second for 16 seconds!

Adjust numbers for the other collapses.

If you propose smaller charges, you multiply the number of charges.
If you propose fewer blasts, you increase average size beyond 10 kg.

To get an idea of what 10 kg of explosives sound like:
1.35 kg C4
5 kg TNT from maybe 200 m away
7 kg ANFO
4.5 kg ammonium nitrate + 4.5 kg of a flammable liquid, from over 500 m away
10 kg ANFO
10.5 kg blasting gel
15 kg TNT
22.5 kg C4
Roughly 40 kg ANFO (was heard 30 km away, they claim)u

That's 9 blasts there. Harrit claims >20,000.

If that isn't a crackpot idea, I don't know what is.
Yeah, but there was all those office furnishing, and intact windows that, according to MM, will muffle the sound to a mere grumble.
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 10th March 2015, 03:56 PM   #393
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,653
column 79 was not the most robust column in the WTC complex... try col 501, or 508 or 1001 or 1008 in the twins
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 10th March 2015, 03:57 PM   #394
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
column 79 was not the most robust column in the WTC complex... try col 501, or 508 or 1001 or 1008 in the twins
Sorry JSO, what post were you referring to?
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 10th March 2015, 05:19 PM   #395
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,653
Sorry Jaydee...it was a correction to an Oystein post...
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 11th March 2015, 12:03 AM   #396
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,064
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yeah, but there was all those office furnishing, and intact windows that, according to MM, will muffle the sound to a mere grumble.
Yes, all those office contents that don't exist when it comes to the fires burning.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay 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 11th March 2015, 06:09 AM   #397
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
A date has been set for the appeal case.

Harrit will be back in the courtroom March 12, 2015.
Tomorroooooow!
*checking beer and popcorn stockpiles*
Oystein 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 11th March 2015, 06:14 AM   #398
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
column 79 was not the most robust column in the WTC complex... try col 501, or 508 or 1001 or 1008 in the twins
No big deal, I only meant to justify some starting number to arrive at some order of magnitude.
Oystein 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 11th March 2015, 06:28 AM   #399
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Sorry Jaydee...it was a correction to an Oystein post...
Ok, found the post. its is an overstatement of column 79, however that is not to minimize the size of that column, nor its apparent importance in keeping the structure upright.
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 11th March 2015, 06:50 AM   #400
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,414
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yeah, but there was all those office furnishing, and intact windows that, according to MM, will muffle the sound to a mere grumble.
At least those things existed in the towers. Inactive forum member SteveAustin once linked me to an article on how the army artillery range uses dirt berms and giant rubber mats to attenuate bomb blasts as "evidence" for silent explosives.
carlitos 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 08:37 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.