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 9/11 conspiracy theories , Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 12th June 2009, 12:52 PM   #41
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
What a brilliant lecture that was. Harrit says that his original news spot is is still getting 3,000 hits a day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf2...eature=related
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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 12th June 2009, 01:00 PM   #42
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In the scientific world it is now up to you to disprove what he has established. Sniping and whining from the sidelines cuts no ice on this subject any more.

So accept what he says or try to rebutt it in in the traditional time-honoured way.
'Accept or rebut' is not how it works in science. Things don't pass into general acceptance overnight with one publication. Especially not when it is such a lame theory (no-one has successfully demonstrated how thermite, much less nanothermite, could even be used in a demolition like that).

Let's be clear: Even if Benthem Open was credible, getting a peer-reviewed article published isn't a set of goalposts as much as it is a hurdle. Another crucial obstacle to acceptance is getting a result independently replicated. Given that there are a whole plethora of other research labs that have been analysing WTC dust (mainly from the air quality perspective) and not one has reported any thermitic material, that one doesn't look too hopeful.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k 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 12th June 2009, 01:08 PM   #43
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
'Accept or rebut' is not how it works in science. Things don't pass into general acceptance overnight with one publication. Especially not when it is such a lame theory (no-one has successfully demonstrated how thermite, much less nanothermite, could even be used in a demolition like that).

Let's be clear: Even if Benthem Open was credible, getting a peer-reviewed article published isn't a set of goalposts as much as it is a hurdle. Another crucial obstacle to acceptance is getting a result independently replicated. Given that there are a whole plethora of other research labs that have been analysing WTC dust (mainly from the air quality perspective) and not one has reported any thermitic material, that one doesn't look too hopeful.
Interestingly the labs that performed the toxological studies of the 9/11 dust have reported finding the iron microspheres but never mentioned the red/grey chips. I find that very interesting.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 12th June 2009 at 01:09 PM.
bill smith 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 12th June 2009, 01:27 PM   #44
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,689
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Interestingly the labs that performed the toxological studies of the 9/11 dust have reported finding the iron microspheres but never mentioned the red/grey chips. I find that very interesting.

A truther makes an insinutation of conspriacy without any proof. How shocking.
dudalb 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 12th June 2009, 01:38 PM   #45
Juniversal
CIA + FBI + NWO Employee
 
Juniversal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,971
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
So was Harritt a troofer before he examined these samples?

So does this yet again, like the troofer owned lab in the US, that the analysis was never done by a neutral party?
Indeed he was.

Artical written by Harrit on Building 7 on March 31st, 2007
http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm

Closing from this artical:

"If you want to investigate the conditions described above, you won't find anything in the media. But Google something like 'WTC7' and you will find a flood of information. There are tens of thousands of people who have a feeling something is wrong.

But there is not a word about it in the media."
Juniversal 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 12th June 2009, 01:38 PM   #46
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Interestingly the labs that performed the toxological studies of the 9/11 dust have reported finding the iron microspheres but never mentioned the red/grey chips. I find that very interesting.
FYI, iron microspheres are not a sign of thermite - there are all sorts of sources of them and they're a common sight in filter samples from urban environments the world over. It's only woomongers operating outside their fields like Jones and Harrit that jump to the wrong conclusions.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k 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 12th June 2009, 02:04 PM   #47
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
FYI, iron microspheres are not a sign of thermite - there are all sorts of sources of them and they're a common sight in filter samples from urban environments the world over. It's only woomongers operating outside their fields like Jones and Harrit that jump to the wrong conclusions.
Perhaps. A comparison will tell us a lot when we get to that.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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 12th June 2009, 09:36 PM   #48
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.

I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality.

The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)

'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)

No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.

The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.

So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.



He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.

And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.

He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.


There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.

I've annotated the video with my usual snide comments. Enjoy:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

What's your evidence that KSM made the nano-thermite?
Galileo 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 12th June 2009, 10:31 PM   #49
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post

What's your evidence that KSM made the nano-thermite?
there isnt any
but theres evidence he organized an attack on the US involving Hijacked planes being used in kamikaze attacks on the world trade center in NY and the pentagon
a fourth mission crashed in PA when the passengers tried to retake the plane

hes not being charged with anything related to nanothermite
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 12th June 2009, 10:55 PM   #50
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
there isnt any
but theres evidence he organized an attack on the US involving Hijacked planes being used in kamikaze attacks on the world trade center in NY and the pentagon
a fourth mission crashed in PA when the passengers tried to retake the plane

hes not being charged with anything related to nanothermite
No, you must have missed it. A team of scientists found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

It was nano-thermite only made by the military. I don't see how KSM could have lined the WTC with nano-thermite. Wouldn't someone have seen him?
Galileo 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 12th June 2009, 11:03 PM   #51
FineWine
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
No, you must have missed it. A team of scientists found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

It was nano-thermite only made by the military. I don't see how KSM could have lined the WTC with nano-thermite. Wouldn't someone have seen him?

No, you missed it. Two months ago, a really stupid guy who pretends to be a famous scientist from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries got all hot and bothered about a bunch of frauds who published nonsense about red paint chips in a fake journal. Several people on this forum, including a materials scientist, exposed the scam. The stupid guy was too stupid to realize that he had been hoodwinked, but when asked why his heroes will never submit their fraudulent "work" to an independent lab, he clammed up.

No, KSM certainly didn't line the WTC with nanothermite. It is equally certain that nobody did.
FineWine 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 12th June 2009, 11:35 PM   #52
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by FineWine View Post

No, KSM certainly didn't line the WTC with nanothermite.
Yikes!
Galileo 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 13th June 2009, 01:31 AM   #53
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,414
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
No, you must have missed it. A team of scientists found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

It was nano-thermite only made by the military.
I take note of your delusion, but decline to participate.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 13th June 2009, 05:19 AM   #54
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
No, you must have missed it. A team of scientists found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.
Incorrect. A 'team of scientists' claimed to have found nano-thermite. It doesn't make it a fact and repeating it ad infinitum won't make a blind bit of difference.



I normally wouldn't bother getting on my high horse about this but the abuse of this common misconception really ticks me off. Just because something is published, doesn't make it so. You get incorrect conclusions just as much as correct ones getting through peer-review all the time and it takes much more than a single paper before something gets established as fact. In hindsight, it is easy to point fingers at seminal papers or presentations but it's not like they changed the world overnight. For example, Einstein's 1905 papers are revered as a leap forward in physics, but it's worth remembering it took decades before the general scientific community took them seriously.

General acceptance is a process that doesn't simply stop at peer-review. Independent validation of results is a crucially important step and unless that happens (which, given everything, is looking woefully unlikely), I can confidently predict that Harrit et al will forever languish in the well-populated dustbin of fringe science.

Rant over.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k 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 13th June 2009, 08:12 AM   #55
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Why does no one publish a rebuttal to the Jones/Haritt paper in the journal of their own choice?

Could it be that a mainstream scientific journal is hesitant to publish material concerning 9/11?
ImANiceGuy 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 13th June 2009, 08:18 AM   #56
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,255
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Why does no one publish a rebuttal to the Jones/Haritt paper in the journal of their own choice?

Could it be that a mainstream scientific journal is hesitant to publish material concerning 9/11?
For the same reason we don't see geologists rushing out to publish rebuttals to flat-Earth woo.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 13th June 2009, 11:25 AM   #57
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
For the same reason we don't see geologists rushing out to publish rebuttals to flat-Earth woo.
the flat earth society's website does seem a little "tongue in cheek"
ive also heard that the reason for the flat earth argument isnt the argument itself but to show that you can take any subject and debate forever without a clear winner

maybe 911 truth is the same thing and were all being fooled for the sake of an example like that, and all "truthers" are reallllly smart

i doubt it lol

also you have to think that paper was 2 months ago
time to compile a paper, have it submitted and reviewed is gonna take a while
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

Last edited by Justin39640; 13th June 2009 at 11:26 AM.
Justin39640 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 13th June 2009, 12:00 PM   #58
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,689
I am now convinced that the American Mental Health Association should class 9/11 Truth under the "Severe Delusions" category.
dudalb 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 15th June 2009, 06:28 PM   #59
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Hi Tony,

So do you also hold the opinion that no forensic investigation has been done, or that neither police or the FBI have charged anyone connected to the crimes of 9/11?

Don't you think Harrit is just a wee bit delusional? Maybe that's the norm for truthers, I don't know. Happily I don't know many of them personally
Alien, how would you describe what a proper forensic investigation into the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 would look like and do?

As for the FBI, we know that they have stated publicly that they don't have any hard evidence against Osama Bin Laden for the crimes of 911 and have not charged him for any crime related to 911. Have they formally charged anyone else in this regard?

I don't know of any police department which has charged anyone for crimes committed in relation to 911. Do you? I realize the issue really is the FBI and only answer here as it was in your question.

As for Harrit's sanity I can't judge. I can only look at the facts we have.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 15th June 2009 at 06:44 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 15th June 2009, 06:46 PM   #60
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

As for the FBI, we know that they have stated publicly that they don't have any hard evidence against Osama Bin Laden for the crimes of 911 and have not charged him for any crime related to 911. Have they formally charged anyone else in this regard?
They don't intend to arrest him and put him on trial in the US.

They intend to let the military take care of it. Guantanamo ring a bell?

Military trial. Execution. Get it yet, troofer?
Seymour Butz 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 16th June 2009, 10:24 AM   #61
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,661
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
No, you must have missed it. A team of scientists found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

It was nano-thermite only made by the military. I don't see how KSM could have lined the WTC with nano-thermite. Wouldn't someone have seen him?
Do these delusions and lies come to you when you are asleep or awake?
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 16th June 2009, 10:54 AM   #62
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Alien, how would you describe what a proper forensic investigation into the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 would look like and do?
Again, Harrit claims there was no forensic investigation. This is clearly false.

Using a standard definition of forensic science, ' the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication..' it is clear that extensive forensic investigation took place after 9/11. Harrit's statement is indefensible.

'the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks remain the largest DNA-identification project of all time.'
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/12/69877


Quote:
we know that they have stated publicly that they don't have any hard evidence against Osama Bin Laden
Again, if Harrit is quoted correctly, he says no one (related to the 9/11 attacks) was on the FBI's wanted list. This is another false statement. Even OBL is on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List, for a variety of attacks against US citizens and assets.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm As was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 'mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks.

Quote:
Have they formally charged anyone else in this regard?
'On February 11, 2008, the United States Department of Defense charged (Khalid Sheikh) Mohammed as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Walid Bin Attash for the September 11, 2001 attacks under the military commission system, as established under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. They have reportedly been charged with the murder of almost 3000 people, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism and plane hijacking; as well as attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury and destruction of property in violation of the law of war. The charges against them list 169 overt acts allegedly committed by the defendants in furtherance of the September 11 events."

The charges include 2,973 individual counts of murder — one for each person killed in the 9/11 attacks.[75]

The U.S. government is seeking the death penalty, which would require the unanimous agreement of the commission judges.
'

Quote:
As for Harrit's sanity I can't judge. I can only look at the facts we have.
Crazy 'foolish; totally unsound'. Yes, many of his claims fit the definition of 'crazy' to a tee.

Tony, I don't even live in the US, yet I seem to know a lot more about the investigation into the crimes of 9/11 than you do. That really surprises me given your obvious interest and public profile in the 9/11 'truth' movement.

Niels Harrit is clearly presenting a fraudulent story to the public. A little fact checking removes any doubt about it.
The FACT that he's a leader of the 9/11 'truth' movement should concern you even more than it does me. This is not a good sign..

Last edited by alienentity; 16th June 2009 at 10:57 AM.
alienentity 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 17th June 2009, 06:02 PM   #63
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Again, Harrit claims there was no forensic investigation. This is clearly false.

Using a standard definition of forensic science, ' the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication..' it is clear that extensive forensic investigation took place after 9/11. Harrit's statement is indefensible.

'the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks remain the largest DNA-identification project of all time.'
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/12/69877
You really didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for a definition of what a forensic investigation was. I asked what you think a proper forensic investigation of the three NYC high rise collapses would look like and do. For instance, do you think at least the steel from the five or six story fire affected zones should have been saved from the towers to ascertain how the collapses actually initiated and propagated?
Tony Szamboti 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 17th June 2009, 06:07 PM   #64
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You really didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for a definition of what a forensic investigation was. I asked what you think a proper forensic investigation of the three NYC high rise collapses would look like and do. For instance, do you think at least the steel from the five or six story fire affected zones should have been saved from the towers to ascertain how the collapses actually initiated and propagated?
This thread is about Harrit and his claims. He claimed no forensic investigation.
That's a lie.

You seem to bypass this fact. I don't.

If you want specific questions answered about the forensics of steel, you ought to direct them to the people who were in charge and had the mandate.
I can't determine what they should have done from the distance I'm at.

There are probably people who can competently answer those questions.
alienentity 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 18th June 2009, 01:36 AM   #65
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You really didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for a definition of what a forensic investigation was. I asked what you think a proper forensic investigation of the three NYC high rise collapses would look like and do. For instance, do you think at least the steel from the five or six story fire affected zones should have been saved from the towers to ascertain how the collapses actually initiated and propagated?
There wasn't any sort of precedent for what happened on that day, so no-one can objectively predefine what constitutes 'skyscraper collapse forensics'. What Niels Harrit really means when he claims "no forensic investigation took place" is that he thinks he can find fault with the investigation that did take place and he has found something new that wasn't looked for.

Both of which are completely at odds with reality. I'm not about to enter into a discussion about the validity of the investigation because I'm sick to death of hearing whining about steel recycling, collapse times and black box models. All I'll say is that I've yet to see a truther actually demonstrate what is wrong with the NIST report beyond the fact that they simply don't understand it. Similarly, for all of Jones' and Harrit's efforts to come up with hypothetical recipes of top-secret nano-super-thermite or whatever that would somehow match their observations, I've not heard anyone discount the more benign explanations for what they saw or even adequately explain how thermite could even be used for demolishing a skyscraper anyway.

ETA: I don't know if anyone has compared their arguments to The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy yet, but someone should have done.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Spud1k; 18th June 2009 at 01:45 AM.
Spud1k 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 18th June 2009, 05:03 AM   #66
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You really didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for a definition of what a forensic investigation was. I asked what you think a proper forensic investigation of the three NYC high rise collapses would look like and do. For instance, do you think at least the steel from the five or six story fire affected zones should have been saved from the towers to ascertain how the collapses actually initiated and propagated?
I have no idea what a "proper" forensic investigation would be for WTC but I know the names of 4 fire forensics experts that state they have no problem with what was done in the cleanup and with the general conclusion of the standard story, that damage and fire caused WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to collapse.

If there is a "forensics experts for Truth" group, I haven't heard of it.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl 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 18th June 2009, 05:07 AM   #67
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,414
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
If there is a "forensics experts for Truth" group, I haven't heard of it.
Since forensic experts would by their very nature have been trying to determine the truth, this proves that there was no forensic examination, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

Did I get that right?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 18th June 2009, 06:04 AM   #68
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You really didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for a definition of what a forensic investigation was. I asked what you think a proper forensic investigation of the three NYC high rise collapses would look like and do. For instance, do you think at least the steel from the five or six story fire affected zones should have been saved from the towers to ascertain how the collapses actually initiated and propagated?
wasnt that the point of Fresh Kills?
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 18th June 2009, 08:06 PM   #69
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
wasnt that the point of Fresh Kills?
There were no laboratory tests done on anything at Freshkills and there was no cataloging or any attempt to put the pieces together to determine a sequence of events.

Freshkills was nothing more than a walk through and random visual only observation of the steel.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th June 2009 at 08:08 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 19th June 2009, 01:30 AM   #70
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There were no laboratory tests done on anything at Freshkills and there was no cataloging or any attempt to put the pieces together to determine a sequence of events.

Freshkills was nothing more than a walk through and random visual only observation of the steel.
Uh-huh. Even a visual inspection of the debris would show evidence of CD as plain as day (primer cords, etc.).

So what are you saying they should have done? Somehow found the specific pieces of metal whose failure initiated the collapse in amongst all the gazillion bits of twisted metal that were present at GZ? And analysed them for what exactly? See if there were iron microspheres anywhere (except for where cutting torches were used to free up debris, of course...)? And putting the pieces together? Are you saying they should have completely rebuilt both towers from all the pieces? And then maybe knocked them down again, just to be sure?

There was an investigation to determine the sequence of events and it succeeded. No-one with any relevant credentials has disputed that point except for the handful of noisy people at AETwoof (and that's being highly generous with the term 'relevant credentials'). It's just sad that some people (such as Harrit) have this preconceived notion it was nothing but a whitewash and will come out with anything to try to prove their point.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k 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 19th June 2009, 04:54 AM   #71
cludgie
Critical Thinker
 
cludgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Juniversal View Post

Closing from this artical:

"If you want to investigate the conditions described above, you won't find anything in the media. But Google something like 'WTC7' and you will find a flood of information. There are tens of thousands of people who have a feeling something is wrong.

But there is not a word about it in the media."
Funny how you could swap 'WTC7' in the above for 'faked moon landings' or 'Bigfoot'....
cludgie 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 19th June 2009, 01:20 PM   #72
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Uh-huh. Even a visual inspection of the debris would show evidence of CD as plain as day (primer cords, etc.).
Hence no grounds to look for nonexistent nanothermite. There was no indication that as-yet-unknown demolition methods had been used. There still isn't.


Quote:
So what are you saying they should have done? Somehow found the specific pieces of metal whose failure initiated the collapse in amongst all the gazillion bits of twisted metal that were present at GZ? And analysed them for what exactly? See if there were iron microspheres anywhere (except for where cutting torches were used to free up debris, of course...)? And putting the pieces together? Are you saying they should have completely rebuilt both towers from all the pieces? And then maybe knocked them down again, just to be sure?
With aircraft investigations they try to rebuild the whole aircraft from the pieces. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to do the same with a 47 story building, does it? (sarcasm)

Tony S. may not agree with nor even understand the cleanup/investigation process, but that doesn't make it negligent, fraudulent or incompetent.
Further, it doesn't prove coverup, nor is it evidence of controlled demolition.

Again, I wish Tony would address these questions to those who actually were responsible for the work, and find out what the context really was. One could speculate forever on these issues - to what avail?

There's still no real evidence to support controlled demolition, in fact the evidence we do know of overwhelmingly RULES OUT CD. This is a waste of time.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 19th June 2009, 01:22 PM   #73
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by cludgie View Post
Funny how you could swap 'WTC7' in the above for 'faked moon landings' or 'Bigfoot'....
Well put. I especially liked
'But there is not a word about it in the media.'

Really? What's the 'media'? Hard to believe someone could write something so inane and expect to be taken seriously.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 19th June 2009, 06:52 PM   #74
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Juniversal View Post
Indeed he was.

Artical written by Harrit on Building 7 on March 31st, 2007
http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm

Closing from this artical:

"If you want to investigate the conditions described above, you won't find anything in the media. But Google something like 'WTC7' and you will find a flood of information. There are tens of thousands of people who have a feeling something is wrong.

But there is not a word about it in the media."
There is a massive amount of reporting in the archives of the newspapers in NYC and Washington and the local TV stations for the events of 9/11 and the subsequent cleanup and discoveries that came from it.

What is there matches what eyewitnesses like me saw on that day and read in the news on successive days.

None of it supports "Truth Movement" claims. That must be why the leading lights of the "Truth Movement" never refer it but only to cherry picked bits on 911 websites.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl 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 19th June 2009, 07:26 PM   #75
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Hence no grounds to look for nonexistent nanothermite. There was no indication that as-yet-unknown demolition methods had been used. There still isn't.




With aircraft investigations they try to rebuild the whole aircraft from the pieces. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to do the same with a 47 story building, does it? (sarcasm)

Tony S. may not agree with nor even understand the cleanup/investigation process, but that doesn't make it negligent, fraudulent or incompetent.
Further, it doesn't prove coverup, nor is it evidence of controlled demolition.

Again, I wish Tony would address these questions to those who actually were responsible for the work, and find out what the context really was. One could speculate forever on these issues - to what avail?

There's still no real evidence to support controlled demolition, in fact the evidence we do know of overwhelmingly RULES OUT CD. This is a waste of time.
I have asked the NIST why the investigation started by Worcester Polytech professor Jonathan Barnett as discussed in FEMA appendix C was not furthered. I also asked them why they did not get more of the steel from the twin towers, and other than that one piece discussed in FEMA appendix C, none from WTC 7. That was last September in response to their WTC 7 report. I haven't received an answer.

Didn't you say the other day that you feel you know more about this than me? If so, I am surprised you didn't know about the response 16 of us sent to the NIST. It is at the link below. http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

I wrote the part about FEMA appendix C and the steel not being saved for analysis and testing at the end.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 19th June 2009 at 07:29 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 19th June 2009, 07:36 PM   #76
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,862
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have asked the NIST why the investigation started by Worcester Polytech professor Jonathan Barnett as discussed in FEMA appendix C was not furthered. I also asked them why they did not get more of the steel from the twin towers, and other than that one piece discussed in FEMA appendix C, none from WTC 7. That was last September in response to their WTC 7 report. I haven't received an answer.

Didn't I see you claim to know more about this than me. If so, I am surprised you didn't know about the response 16 of us sent to NIST. It is at the link below. http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

I wrote the part about FEMA appendix C and the steel not being saved for analysis and testing at the end.
Hey Tony, couple of quick questions, give us a description of the amount of steel that you would have considered to be a statistically significant sampling and describe volume and weight of same, and further please describe the method of selection that you would have found acceptable (I will allow you to put aside other considerations involved in search, rescue and the recovery, and focus all available resources on evidence of Controlled demolition, I mean the hell with THAT).

Second, please describe what other physical sciences consider computer modeling to be unacceptable.

kthxbye
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog 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 19th June 2009, 08:37 PM   #77
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Tony, why not contact some of the FEMA team directly? NIST didn't start until well after FEMA did its work AFAIK.

you wrote 'Didn't you say the other day that you feel you know more about this than me?'

I don't recall saying that, no. I think I may have expressed surprise that YOU didn't know more about the criminal investigations. That's all I remember.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 19th June 2009, 09:25 PM   #78
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Tony, why not contact some of the FEMA team directly? NIST didn't start until well after FEMA did its work AFAIK.

you wrote 'Didn't you say the other day that you feel you know more about this than me?'

I don't recall saying that, no. I think I may have expressed surprise that YOU didn't know more about the criminal investigations. That's all I remember.
You can't really be serious about continuing to contact these people. It is obviously being stonewalled. What I wrote was professional and to the point and they simply never responded.

NIST had/has a responsibility to question why they were given so little steel for their investigation and they could have answered the questions we posed.
Tony Szamboti 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 19th June 2009, 09:33 PM   #79
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Hey Tony, couple of quick questions, give us a description of the amount of steel that you would have considered to be a statistically significant sampling and describe volume and weight of same, and further please describe the method of selection that you would have found acceptable (I will allow you to put aside other considerations involved in search, rescue and the recovery, and focus all available resources on evidence of Controlled demolition, I mean the hell with THAT).

Second, please describe what other physical sciences consider computer modeling to be unacceptable.

kthxbye
Certainly the steel from the fire affected areas in the towers should have been saved to at least determine how the collapses initiated and propagated for at least the first several floors.

It would be about 4000 to 5000 tons of steel per tower and could be stored in the space of a football field.

The steel could have been removed immediately for search and rescue and saved at a remote site.

Computer modeling is a good tool but it cannot take the place of actual physical evidence if it is available. I use solid modeling and finite element software in my work everyday, but I wouldn't dream of just modeling something based on exterior photos for a failure analysis, without examining the physical evidence and determining a sequence of failure from it. Once that is done a computer model is a good tool to replicate the failure.

What is problematic here is that there was no good reason the physical evidence from at least the fire affected areas couldn't have been provided to the NIST investigators.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 19th June 2009 at 09:43 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 19th June 2009, 09:40 PM   #80
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can't really be serious about continuing to contact these people. It is obviously being stonewalled. What I wrote was professional and to the point and they simply never responded.

NIST had/has a responsibility to question why they were given so little steel for their investigation and they could have answered the questions we posed.
Look Tony, you must've dealt with bureaucratic organizations before. What I'm suggesting is contacting some of the investigators directly, not contacting the organization they might've worked for 7 years ago.

And contacting NIST about something like the handling of steel is a little strange, it seems to me, since NIST wasn't in charge of the initial cleanup. How are they responsible for that?

Finally, considering the constant hostility shown towards NIST by truthers (perhaps including yourself) can you really blame individuals for avoiding contact with you? Especially if they're being badgered about things that were not their responsibility.

There must be individuals you could contact privately. That's what I would do if I wanted to get around the bureaucracy. But that's just me.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 09:22 PM.
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.