• 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.

Truthers Say The Darnedest Things!

Harrit is clearly losing his marbles. He has decided that his paint chips are actually an explosive, yet, when he burned one, the residue remained where it was when he started heating it.

His brain has clearly sprung a leak.
 
For some reason I always pictured Harrit as a higher brand of truther - but he's really no better than tmd / ergo / bill smith.

Unreal.
 
Wow, a hand wave and deflection after all of that; pretty sad. Nice work though Dave T and, by proxy, Oystein.
 
Niels Harrit said:
Ahem....why should the generation of elemental iron be conditioned by the
presence of oxygen?
The DSC was performed in air because the only available DSC of
nanothermite was done in air (we called Tillotson).
Beyond, WTC was not demolished under argon.
If the polymer can burn (that is, if it is not a perfluoro alkane) it is
more than likely that it initiated the reaction.

If the paint you suggest can do work like throwing things around like a
propellant, it starts getting interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw
If it can, please inform me:
When was it applied, by which company?

NH
Click to expand...

Again, this is easy to reply to

a) "why should the generation of elemental iron be conditioned by the presence of oxygen?" -> Strawman. No one says that. The burning of the organic matrix that Harrit e.al. admit is there is "conditioned by the presence of oxygen".
b) Tillotson had an objective that was the opposite of Harrit's. He knew exactly what materials his sample consisted of, because he made it, but he didn't know some properties of it. The objective of his test was to establish such a property. Harrit had an unknown material, and wanted to find out what it is.
c) Harrit got a different result than Tillotson
d) "Beyond, WTC was not demolished under argon." -> Assuming the conclusion. WTC wasn't demolished.
e) "If the polymer can burn (that is, if it is not a perfluoro alkane)" -> That premise is satisfied - LaClede primer is epoxy amine based
f) "it is more than likely that it (the polymer) initiated the reaction." -> That's not how nanothermite works. If n-t dependet on the thermodynamic behaviour of organic polymers, you'd throw away some of its key properties
g) "If the paint you suggest can do work like throwing things around like a
propellant, it starts getting interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw" -> Of course it can't. Gravity did that. Harrit is again assuming the conclusion
i)"If it can, please inform me: When was it applied, by which company?" -> We'll inform you even if it can't: It was applied ca. 1967-1972 by LaClede Steel Company.
 
Oystein said:
Again, this is easy to reply to

a) "why should the generation of elemental iron be conditioned by the presence of oxygen?" -> Strawman. No one says that. The burning of the organic matrix that Harrit e.al. admit is there is "conditioned by the presence of oxygen".
b) Tillotson had an objective that was the opposite of Harrit's. He knew exactly what materials his sample consisted of, because he made it, but he didn't know some properties of it. The objective of his test was to establish such a property. Harrit had an unknown material, and wanted to find out what it is.
c) Harrit got a different result than Tillotson
d) "Beyond, WTC was not demolished under argon." -> Assuming the conclusion. WTC wasn't demolished.
e) "If the polymer can burn (that is, if it is not a perfluoro alkane)" -> That premise is satisfied - LaClede primer is epoxy amine based
f) "it is more than likely that it (the polymer) initiated the reaction." -> That's not how nanothermite works. If n-t dependet on the thermodynamic behaviour of organic polymers, you'd throw away some of its key properties
g) "If the paint you suggest can do work like throwing things around like a
propellant, it starts getting interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw" -> Of course it can't. Gravity did that. Harrit is again assuming the conclusion
i)"If it can, please inform me: When was it applied, by which company?" -> We'll inform you even if it can't: It was applied ca. 1967-1972 by LaClede Steel Company.
Click to expand...

The old column-full-of-nanothermite could act like a rocket Oystein. Did it have a white trail ? Maybe it was part of the one that didn't melt clean like the others.
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I sent the YouTube to Niels Harrit, and he replied thusly:

Certainly, Niels did make at least a couple of mistakes. Like mistaking paint for thermite. And then publishing it.
Click to expand...
Wow! He's made some mistakes in there. I'll spend some time having a look later. One thing that immediately jumps out at me is his lack of observational skill with regard to his own samples. The gray layer is absent in post-ignited chips yet a large proportion of the red layer is still present.

One would expect that the supposed thermite in his samples would fully react under heating to ignition temperature and beyond (430°C igniton v 700°C maximum temperature in DSC) leaving no discernible red material left. However, this is not the case. The "gray layer" composed of predominantly iron, oxygen and carbon that is not "intimately mixed" because it's not part of the red layer is the material that predominantly forms the iron rich microspheres by the simple fact that it is no longer present post-heating/reaction.
 
bill smith said:
The old column-full-of-nanothermite could act like a rocket Oystein. Did it have a white trail ?
Click to expand...

Therm*te produces very little gas so no, it couldn't act like a rocket propellant. Not even a little bit.

Maybe it was part of the one that didn't melt clean like the others.
Click to expand...

Oh Bill, there you go again... How many times must you be told that Pez is not a suitable substitute for your meds. I don't care if you do like the "Candy out of a neck" thing, it just isn't the same.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Therm*te produces very little gas so no, it couldn't act like a rocket propellant. Not even a little bit.



Oh Bill, there you go again... How many times must you be told that Pez is not a suitable substitute for your meds. I don't care if you do like the "Candy out of a neck" thing, it just isn't the same.
Click to expand...

You're probably right Sam. Still, it does behave a bit like a rocket.
 
Oystein said:
g) "If the paint you suggest can do work like throwing things around like a
propellant, it starts getting interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw" -> Of course it can't. Gravity did that. Harrit is again assuming the conclusion
Click to expand...
The object that that silly twit calls a rocket projectile clearly is not.

In the first place, what kind of a drooling moron would build a rocket of any sort into a demolitions train? It clearly leaves the building a little bit ahead of the collapsing front and exits almost perfectly level for a stretch. Now ask yourselves whether a rocket would even come out of that mess in one piece.

Now, I am admittedly not any kind of engineer, and I am incapabl;e of doing any kind of higher mathematics, but it looks to me like the moron's "rocket does a near-perfect 90 degree turn, and its "smoke" trail followed with out the slightest perturbation.

I would expect a rocket, under those circumstances to break up just for the excessive g-forces involved.

I would also expect a rocket to move a lot faster it level flight. It has no wings and thus could not have remained airborn for that distance.

The jet engine seen exiting the tower enroute to Murray street moved faster than that, yet showed roughly the same aerodynamic properties as a bowling ball.

Let me introduce into this discussion a word that is used more often (every day, actually) in art class than in physics. The amount of light reflected from an object is called "value." The "smo0ke" following the "rocket" has the same value as the dust plume where the sun shines on it.

Were the "smoke" emissions from an actively-burning thermite charge, it should have been an awful lot brighter. It should, in fact, have been incandescent.

The object looks about the right size to be a bit of the aluminum sheating from the olutside of the building. I am sure that when some of those broke free, they did it so rather energeticly, and would have had taken along a long plume of dust behind it.

That is what I see here.
 
around noon on 9/11

The old column-full-of-nanothermite trick! It's second time we've fallen for it today! What will KAOS pull next...?

picture.php
 
I warned Dave before his debate that I think Niels Harritt is a loose cannon. He didn't lose his temper but I was shocked to hear his interpretation of Dave's statement. If you want more, just listen to what Harritt said to me when I asked him about the thermitic experiment:

part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I&feature=related

This speaks for itself.
 
brazenlilraisin said:
The old column-full-of-nanothermite trick! It's second time we've fallen for it today! What will KAOS pull next...?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=633&pictureid=5032[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Yes. John Cole doing his experimants also was thinking about nanothermite inside the columns. They are getting there bit by bit. They just need a hypothesis to pull it all together.
 
Last edited:
You know, there's already thread where the many shortcomings in that report were already held up to scrutiny. Try using the search function.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I sent the YouTube to Niels Harrit, and he replied thusly:


Certainly, Niels did make at least a couple of mistakes. Like mistaking paint for thermite. And then publishing it.
Click to expand...

As I understand, you had not enough time during this three minutes speech to cite relevant source (namely NIST report NCSTAR 1-6b), as regards our claim that Laclede paint was used for WTC1 and WTC2 floor trusses protection.
But then (without proper citation from your side), no wonder that N. Harrit was not willing to accept the "official existence" of Laclede paint in his response:confused:

(Otherwise, his defense is stupid and biased as usual...)
 
Last edited:
Abandon All Hope?

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
what can one say when faced with such an obvious wit; you must be correct - this doesnt look anyting like a controlled demolition: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0i2KZn9Hc
newton3376 said:
It doesn't. Of course you don't know why it doesn't, but that is not the point....
Click to expand...

actually I dont know why and I guess you're not going to say.

There is danny jowekno: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
Tom Sullivan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3e2K_gNU4I

newton3376 said:
The majority of the worlds CD experts don't think it does either.....but nice try.
Click to expand...
How could you know what most people think. You have two experts above giving you their opinion and disagrees with yours.

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
"Exactly" huh.
Nonsense. There are numerous examples of much larger, longer lasting fires, in comparably sized highrise buildings. Aside from 9-11 no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed highrise building to collapse. On 9-11 we had three. *although it is unrealistic to call what hap'd to Twin Towers 'collapses' because they were so completely and thoroughly shredded from top to bottom with explosives, but NIST tells us office fires and gravity are to blame)
Please don't post stupid comments like this ever again.

newton3376 said:
You don't even understand why your argument is ridiculous.....this has been debunked as nonsense years ago.....do you have any actual arguments that have not been refuted for years?
Click to expand...

refuted how? By column 79 failing in wtc7?
that is like explaining these:
http://ajl.smugmug.com/9-11/North-Tower-Exploding/17630751_wwz6mG#1343703016_fqRVcPc-O-LB
by calling them "compressed air from the pancaking floors above"
Its utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
For example the Mandarin Hotel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg
It 'was built using far less steel than conventional skyscrapers' -wiki.

http://izismile.com/2009/02/11/manda...n_29_pics.html
newton3376 said:
Please do a forum search or maybe just basic research on the Mandarin hotel before ever mentioning it again.
Click to expand...

Please, if you have a point just make it

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
The Windsor fire in Spain. 32 storeys, burned for 18-20 hours. This building had reinforced concrete columns. Unlike (tempered structural) steel, concrete is terrible conductor of heat so if any highrise building was ever going to collapse from severe fires this would've been a prime candidate. And parts of it did collapse in just the manner one would expect: asymmetrical damage with gradual deformations leading to localized failures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA&NR=1

The FACT that wtc7 dropped suddenly into freefall acceleration for the first 100' of it's collapse can mean only one thing: that the columns were severed. That it did so symmetrically means they were severed simultaneously, or nearly so. You can whine and call people childish names all you like, that is not going to change the facts.

NIST finally Admits Freefall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
newton3376 said:
It did not collapse "suddenly"....ever hear of the east Penthouse?
Click to expand...

I have, it falls a few seconds before the perimeter, in the same manner in which a building is imploded. (the core is always taken out first so it pulls the perimeter in and down) Look at the debris field and you will find large sections of the perimeter walls on the 3 story pile that remained of this massive skyscraper.
newton3376 said:
It collapsed in stages...stage two was where there was measured "freefall"....that is hardly "suddenly".
Learn physics. Learn engineering. Learn math. Learn how WTC7 actually fell. Learn about structures.Learn about fire. After you learn about this stuff come back and maybe then we can have a discussion.....right now you don't actually know anything so we can't have a conversation.

Go learn and come back.
Click to expand...

It should not have collapsed at all much less that rapidly and symmetrically. By 'learn' you obviously mean whatever anyone throws in front of you. Saying wtc7 doesnt look like an implosion doe snot make it nay less so. And deleting these messages really impugns the credibility of this forum.

**This post was removed to a place where I could not even reply! (and no real reason was given) That is hardly fair.
Moved to: "Abandon All Hope" The dumping ground for bickering and irrelevance! Generally these threads contain posts that are at best borderline inappropriate. Moved here they can at least serve some purpose: to help illustrate what is not appropriate for the JREF Forum.


IRRELEVANCE? Does my post really fit that description? I am making a series of arguments and backing them up.."Bickering (without any actual content) is what I get back. --------------and then I see all this! ha!!

and this post deleted!http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218544
wow.. I guess I was wrong about free and open debate on jref! at least where 9-11 is concerned. bummer.


AutoModAction : Post Moved
Hi atavisms, The post that you created in the following thread has been moved ----- Post: Fell what way? Show me a demolitio... New Thread: How do truthers explain the phone calls? -----


18th September 2011 12:46 PM
AutoModAction : Post Moved
Hi atavisms, The post that you created in the following thread has been moved ----- Post: Sigh...IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS! You are... New Thread: How do truthers explain the phone calls? -----


Messages: 1 2 Weeks Ago


6th September 2011 08:31 PM
AutoModAction : Post Deleted
Hi atavisms, The post that you created in the follo
 
Foolmewunz said:
But seriously, folks... Is Niels really "all there"? Either he's more willfully ignorant than even Alex Jones, or he has some serious issues. This was a qualified, and I believe published, scientist. Now it's not uncommon to see professionals from one discipline in over their heads in another, and that's what I attributed this to, originally. But this and a few other things he's been quoted as saying over the previous six months or so lead me to wonder if he's suffered a stroke or is experiencing some other form of dementia.
Click to expand...
He sounds nuts in the video/tape. Gage made twice 300k? Gage sets his salary at 70k for AE, out of the 300k. I assume the organization uses the 300k for travel expenses, and that is a perk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom