• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Harrit sues paper for defamation

Ziggi said:
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!
Click to expand...

LSSBB said:
So being a crackpot is contagious?
Click to expand...

Looks that way. Lets hope it's not air born.
 
KDLarsen said:
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.
Click to expand...

But he was not able to support that claim when asked.
 
Ziggi said:
LSSBB said:
Ziggi said:
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!
Click to expand...
So being a crackpot is contagious?
Click to expand...
This kind of response fits you much better that your lame attempts at the Building 7 thread to appear professional.
Click to expand...
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:
crackpot sez wut?

Ziggi said:
This kind of response fits you much better that your lame attempts at the Building 7 thread to appear professional.
Click to expand...

http://rt.com/usa/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/

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…
Click to expand...

:crazy:
 
Let's hope Harrit remembers he is taking an explosive bag of dust into a court :cool:
 
"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.
 
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?
 
Oystein said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but there was all those office furnishing, and intact windows that, according to MM, will muffle the sound to a mere grumble.
 
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 said:
column 79 was not the most robust column in the WTC complex... try col 501, or 508 or 1001 or 1008 in the twins
Click to expand...

No big deal, I only meant to justify some starting number to arrive at some order of magnitude.
 
jaydeehess said:
Yeah, but there was all those office furnishing, and intact windows that, according to MM, will muffle the sound to a mere grumble.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom