Harrits february 28th online chat

[Josarhus]

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

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

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

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

It is a clear-cut evidence of the use of explosives.

His oppinion on the new Freedom tower:

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

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

Because it does not contain any new structural requirements for the actual construction.

When asked if 9/11 is main income:

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

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

There was no molten steel at Ground Zero - or at most very little.

And later:

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

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

I assure you, everything which happened on Ground Zero was in agreement with the laws of nature.

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

No. There is no truth in science. Only today's best hypothesis.

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

But the towers did not collapse due to the impact of the airliners. There is some misunderstanding here.

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

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

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

We do not know. The gray side is an iron oxide. This is probably superparamagnetism.

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

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

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

It cannot be answered when you only react one chip at a time.

What do you think happened at the Pentagon?

There was no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon.

 

[DGM]

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

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

Odd how he doesn't mention having to test them for conductivity.

 

[rogers619]

Interesting so Harrit not only believes that no steel melted at ground zero but also states that all the other red material he found wasnt magnetic.

No wonder he refuses to respond to Millette's work! Thanks for the translation

 

[Spanx]

Very non eventful,

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

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

 

[Josarhus]

I don't think that there is a single Danish truther who does not claim pools of molten steel at Ground Zero.

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

 

[DGM]

I didn't remember Harrit being a "no-planer". I wonder what he thinks it was?

That goes huge for his credibility.

 

[Josarhus]

The only Danish truther who agrees that a plane hit the Pentagon, is Jeppe Severin.

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

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

Harrit has always been a Pentagon no planer.

 

[DGM]

Harrit has always been a Pentagon no planer.

I don't hold any distinction for anyone that claims the plane were not what they were. This requires way too much denial of evidence that is beyond reproach.

This shows a clear flaw in his research and reasoning skills.

 

[Josarhus]

I don't hold any distinction for anyone that claims the plane were not what they were. This requires way too much denial of evidence that is beyond reproach.

This shows a clear flaw in his research and reasoning skills.

Harrits research seems to be the same Youtube videos as any other truther.

 

[NoahFence]

His oppinion on the new Freedom tower:


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

Christ on a stick! Even I knew that.

So basically he's as ill-informed and ignorant as his cult followers. Surprise...

 

[GlennB]

There was no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon.

i.e. nuts.

Bit of a shame for those who seek to laud his scientific credentials.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

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

If the OP's reporting is correct then yes, some misunderstanding indeed. He was asked if impact AND fire caused the (initiation?) of destruction, yet addressed only impact.

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

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

WTC 7 is another story. It was shown in the NIST FEA that it was possible that the removal of a single column low down in the structure could cause a progression to global collapse. However, actual collapse progression, as observed, included both fire damage AND some heavy impact damage on the south side which included the loss of several storeys of the SW corner of the building.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I don't hold any distinction for anyone that claims the plane were not what they were. This requires way too much denial of evidence that is beyond reproach.

This shows a clear flaw in his research and reasoning skills.

But his work is published and peer-reviewed, and Dr. Millette's isn't.

 

[DGM]

But his work is published and peer-reviewed, and Dr. Millette's isn't.

Funny thing is, he addresses that subject:

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

No. There is no truth in science. Only today's best hypothesis.

 

[JSanderO]

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

and their unique design and shoddy construction.

 

[DGM]

and their unique design and shoddy construction.

I'll give you the unique design............

 

[Redwood]

IOW, after all these years, Harrit and the rest of the Truthers have made zero progress towards a coherent narrative. Paging Mr. Windley!

 

[beachnut]

It is a clear-cut evidence of the use of explosives.

What, no Pulitzer? That would be a big 60 Minutes story.

There was no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon.

Insanity mixed with delusions of CTs based on woo.

 

[cjnewson88]

That last question is telling indeed. Harrit appears not to be moved by fact, only theory, as his 'no-planer' stance on the Pentagon attack shows.

 

[Spanx]

I didn't remember Harrit being a "no-planer". I wonder what he thinks it was?

That goes huge for his credibility.

Well there must be a peer reviewed paper out there somewhere, how else could he come to that conclusion