|
Post by bob0627 on May 31, 2013 12:02:31 GMT -5
Niels Harrit is the Associate Professor for the Department of Chemistry at the Copenhagen University in Denmark, who has published a large number of scientific papers with a special focus on nano-science. He was part of the scientific team which discovered nanothermite in dust samples from the 9-11 World Trade Center attack. In the first hour, he’ll discuss his scientific opinion on the collapse of the WTC and also WTC building 7. Niels tells his story as an independent researcher investigating 9-11 wreckage. He explains why he thinks nanothermite was at work. In the second hour, we discuss the official scientific report of the 9-11 disaster. He speaks more on the strange materials found in the rubble. Later, Niels discusses the loss of civil rights due to the events on 9-11. As a Danish citizen, he talks about the obstacles he faces when discussing the truth about the 9-11 attack. www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/05/RIR-130528.php
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 31, 2013 12:13:40 GMT -5
An interesting photo from Dr. Niels Harrit's website nielsharrit.org/ that I had not seen before: Photo of 4 ton steel ejected 600 feet (3628 kg flew horizontally 182 meters) from the World Trade Center North Tower, along with concrete dust, at approximately 55 miles per hour (88 kilometers per hour) with enough force to embed beams in neighboring buildings like pushing an automobile 2 football fields within 10 seconds
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 1, 2013 5:27:24 GMT -5
The buildings were made of thermite precursors. Yet again you ignore the overwhelming evidence that WTC's 1&2 were crashed into damaged weakened by fire and collapsed outwards from their footprints damaging surrounding buildings including WTC7 which was hit by tonnes of debris including burning debris, caught fire and burned for seven hours collapsing after it's structure was made weak by fire.
Furthermore steel in fire goes rusty. Rust is a component of Thermite. It doesn't mean Thermite was used to destroy the towers. To suggest so is ridiculous. Thermite is not and has never been used in controlled demolitions.
Once ignited it burns rapidly but not explosively. The debris fire was on fire for months, thermite cannot burn that long.
Stop lying and fabricating and misrepresenting and accept that the inside job theory is a lie.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 1, 2013 9:19:38 GMT -5
"The buildings were made of thermite precursors."Yes, every building is made of thermite precursors, you put a match to them and they all collapse in free fall every time. Then you can find engineered nano-thermite particles in the ensuing dust debris, which is really rust, it happens all the time. Architects and engineers know this but they don't care, they build these things that way every time knowing they could easily collapse when set on fire. If you actually listened to the interview (as well as knew and understood the supporting independent experiments by another expert), you would know that the unreacted nano-thermite particles found in the WTC dust samples were tested with a sophisticated differential scanning calorimeter and showed an extremely high temperature reaction. Rust doesn't do that. This is a long article on the subject but it seems you took much of your material from a debunking piece called "Screw Loose Change". These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers...
Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
...
... so what if the materials found in the WTC dust have the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite. BB guns have the same physical structure and chemical composition as real guns, but that doesn't mean that they shoot real bullets!911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/03/super-duper-thermite-year-in-review.html Furthermore, a gravitational collapse means a downward force (you know - GRAVITY), it doesn't mean 4 ton steel beams hurled horizontally 600 feet and imbedding themselves into adjacent buildings (as irrefutably EVIDENCED in the photo) or material falling at a rate faster than free fall. Good old Sir Isaac Newton just happened to figure these things out and they're still as applicable today as they were when Newton figured it out. Wait maybe that photo is doctored, maybe they ALL are, you never know. Oh well, I'll let the viewer decide for him/herself. Just some basic FACTS for those who don't want to spend the time listening to the interview. But as an anonymous poster in this forum, feel free to keep pushing your agenda all you want, you mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Real experts, such as Dr. Niels Harrit among thousands of others, will contradict your agenda based opinions every time. BTW, you forgot to attack Dr. Niels Harrit as a "so-called expert", you're losing your touch.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 1, 2013 9:33:49 GMT -5
All your lies and fabrications mentioned in the above post are disproven by this scientific paper: It explains why the spandrels were flung as the buildings collapsed: www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdfNo need for scifi crap like nano thermite charges structural damage + fire is all it took. In the debris fires the steel was oxidised. Aluminium melted. But all this happened without Thermite or demolition charges. Therein ends todays lesson. Now perhaps you could explain what your thoughts are about the harassment of Charlie Veitch (former friend of Alex Jones & David Icke).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 1, 2013 10:00:24 GMT -5
You well know that paper was a theory written in December 2001, there's nothing in it that explains anything that's been discovered in the last 11+ years. This is really old material you keep bringing back. Try to find new material if you want a reasonable discussion, your s**t is really tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 1, 2013 11:46:54 GMT -5
The laws of physics and mathematical facts haven't changed Bob. The paper is far more valid than any of the worthless thermite tripe from the so called 'truth' movement you've posted.
Read it. It tells the real truth.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 1, 2013 12:30:49 GMT -5
"The laws of physics and mathematical facts haven't changed Bob."
True, free fall is still free fall and it still can't happen unless there's no resistance according to the laws of physics and Shyam Sunder. The free fall collapse of WTC7 is documented in NIST's Final Report on page 48 that you agree with 100% ("[STAGE] (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"). Those FACTS haven't changed either even if you try to deny what you said.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 1, 2013 12:45:34 GMT -5
2.25 seconds of a 16 second collapse isn't freefall. The building lost structural integrity 13.25 seconds before the 2.25 seconds you mistakenly make out to be a wholly "freefall" collapse.
Stop misrepresenting the facts and look at the full picture instead of making a small part of the picture out to be the whole.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 1, 2013 13:18:29 GMT -5
2.25 seconds of a 16 second collapse isn't freefall. The building lost structural integrity 13.25 seconds before the 2.25 seconds you mistakenly make out to be a wholly "freefall" collapse. Stop misrepresenting the facts and look at the full picture instead of making a small part of the picture out to be the whole. Your fakery is so OBVIOUS and it gets more ridiculous as you keep flailing. The entire collapse of WTC7 (47 stories) took about 8 seconds. Anyone can count the seconds off from the videos. That's as close to free fall as it gets. The EXACT free fall time was for 2.25 seconds for the FIRST 100 feet or 8 stories, as DOCUMENTED by NIST and PROVEN using the video EVIDENCE, it is INCONTROVERTIBLE. Free fall is free fall no matter what other bulls**t nonsense you want to use to try to pretend it's meaningless or didn't happen. That IS an extremely significant part of the picture that YOU want to misrepresent. Yes there is a lot more to it but that alone is irrefutable evidence that the collapse of WTC7 was NOT a natural collapse because all 82 steel columns cannot all be removed at the EXACT same time by fire. I won't be going over this again, I posted ALL the EVIDENCE available in this forum that I found so far several times. If I find anything else, I will certainly post it. So piss in the wind all you want.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 1, 2013 13:31:54 GMT -5
As usual you lie. As usual you ignore the key factor of the Penthouse collapse. From the moment the Penthouse collapsed into the building to it disappearing from shot altogether takes roughly 16 seconds.
16 seconds to lose structural integrity is not freefall, even if the last 2.25 seconds of that 16 seconds is freefall, it took far longer than 2.25 seconds to lose structural integrity.
You're the faker mate. It brings me no pleasure to say it. So stop lying mate it doesn't suit you.
|
|