Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs) (update)

Hanne Kari Fossum - presenter, Schrödinger’s Cat<br><sup>Foto: Ned Alley</sup>

Hanne Kari Fossum - presenter, Schrödinger’s Cat
Foto: Ned Alley

Schrödinger’s Cat is a television program about scientific research, technology and popular science that runs on channel NRK1 every Thursday at 7:30 PM. It is one of the NRK’s longest running programs. The program was launched in 1989, and was named after a thought experiment by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger. Since it’s inception a crew of fifteen employees (Auto-translate en) on Tyholt in Trondheim has produced forty broadcasts per year.

The program is usually in magazine format, led by a presenter. Coverage must reflect the news in research, science and technology, with emphasis on what happens in Norway. The program has won several awards, including the ‘Informing the Public’ Prize in 2003.

Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University og Copenhagen

The average number of viewers is 487,000.¹

Their broadcast on September 10th 2009 (Norwegian) is described as follows on NRK’s web pages for streaming video:

Niels Harrit chemist at the University of Copenhagen have scientific discoveries, which he believes undermines the official story of the 11 September tragedy. … The presenter is Hanne Kari Fossum.

The issue is also followed by a news article aptly titled “The World Trade Center was blown up” (Auto-translate en) on Schrödinger’s Cat program-page at the NRK website. This is the first written presentation of 9/11 Truth done by NRK Television. You might call it more than fashionably late, but the content is no less groundbreaking considering Norway’s NATO membership and military participation in US led operations in Afghanistan.

Click image below to see the complete segment with subtitles.

To give the international 9/11 Truth movement an opportunity to reply, We’ve transcribed and translated statements made by scientist Øyvind Mikkelsen and Finn Sandmæl during the program:

REFLECTIONS ON METHOD

Øvind Mikkelsen (9:31 in clip above)

- Professor at the Institute of , Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(Back at his desk September 22th 2009.)

English	Norwegian
Voiceover: Harrits claims are controversial. We got other professionals to look at them. Øyvind Mikkelsen is a professor of chemistry and has gone through the report. Øyvind Mikkelsen: It’s an interesting read. There are some findings here that pose some questions. When it comes to the shape of this report analytically, methodically speaking, I have a couple of critical remarks. Methodically, in analytical chemistry, one would normally have more control over the samples. Here there are four samples that are sent from people who have randomly collected dust at different times after the towers fell. Reporter: Harrit talking about this material nano-thermite and interprets that it can have an explosive-like role in this instance. What do you think about that? Øyvind Mikkelsen: Yes, there is no doubt about it. Nano-thermites themselves have that role and they are used among other things, as additives in fuels and explosives. Reporter: But he believes therefore that it was this, among other things, that brought the towers down. What do you think about such a conclusion? Øyvind Mikkelsen: That conclusion is not proven in the work that has been done in this report so far, and that is because there has not been done a critical assessment of other sources. Reporter: But if nano-thermite is in the picture here, then how much of the substance would have had to be present to bring down this kind of building do you think? Øyvind Mikkelsen: There has been done a few calculations. It is a quite large amount. One would have had to paint this substance on all the pillars, and even then temperature development would have been relatively small. So there must have been some tons, yes.	Narrativ: Harrits påstander er kontroversielle. Vi fikk andre fagfolk til å se nærmere på dem. Øyvind Mikkelsen er professor i kjemi og har gått igjennom rapporten. Øyvind Mikkelsen: Det er interessant lesing. Den har en del funn som stiller en del spørsmål, det har den. Når det gjelder selve rapportens form analytisk sett, metodisk, så har jeg nok et par kritiske bemerkninger. Metodisk sett i analytisk kjemi så ville en normalt sett ha mer kontroll på prøvemateriale. Her er det fire prøver som er sendt inn i fra personer som tilfeldig har samla støv ved ulike tidspunkt etter at disse tårnene fallt. Reporter: Harrit snakker om dette stoffet nanotermitt og tolker det som at det kan ha en sprengstoffaktig rolle i det her. Hva tror du om det? Øyvind Mikkelsen: Ja det er det ikke noe tvil om. Nanotermitter i seg selv har det og de brukes blandt annet som tilsetningsstoffer i brensel og eksplosiver. Reporter: Men han mener altså at det var dem blant annet som fikk de her tårnene ned. Hva tror du om en sånn konklusjon? Øyvind Mikkelsen: Den konklusjonen er det ikke belegg for i det arbeidet som er blitt gjort i denne rapporten så langt og det går på at det ikke er gjort en kritisk vurdering av andre kilder. Reporter: Men hvis nanotermitt skulle være i bildet her da, hvor mye av det stoffet måtte vært tilstede for å få ned sånne bygg tror du? Øyvind Mikkelsen: Det er blitt gjort noen beregninger. Det er ganske store mengder. En måtte nok ha malt dette stoffet på samtlige bærebjelker og selv da ville nok temperaturutviklingen ha vært relativt liten. Så det måtte nok ha vært noen tonn ja.

English

Norwegian

Voiceover:

Harrits claims are controversial. We got other professionals to look at them. Øyvind Mikkelsen is a professor of chemistry and has gone through the report.

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

It’s an interesting read. There are some findings here that pose some questions. When it comes to the shape of this report analytically, methodically speaking, I have a couple of critical remarks. Methodically, in analytical chemistry, one would normally have more control over the samples. Here there are four samples that are sent from people who have randomly collected dust at different times after the towers fell.

Reporter:

Harrit talking about this material nano-thermite and interprets that it can have an explosive-like role in this instance. What do you think about that?

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

Yes, there is no doubt about it. Nano-thermites themselves have that role and they are used among other things, as additives in fuels and explosives.

Reporter:

But he believes therefore that it was this, among other things, that brought the towers down. What do you think about such a conclusion?

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

That conclusion is not proven in the work that has been done in this report so far, and that is because there has not been done a critical assessment of other sources.

Reporter:

But if nano-thermite is in the picture here, then how much of the substance would have had to be present to bring down this kind of building do you think?

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

There has been done a few calculations. It is a quite large amount. One would have had to paint this substance on all the pillars, and even then temperature development would have been relatively small. So there must have been some tons, yes.

Narrativ:

Harrits påstander er kontroversielle. Vi fikk andre fagfolk til å se nærmere på dem. Øyvind Mikkelsen er professor i kjemi og har gått igjennom rapporten.

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

Det er interessant lesing. Den har en del funn som stiller en del spørsmål, det har den. Når det gjelder selve rapportens form analytisk sett, metodisk, så har jeg nok et par kritiske bemerkninger. Metodisk sett i analytisk kjemi så ville en normalt sett ha mer kontroll på prøvemateriale. Her er det fire prøver som er sendt inn i fra personer som tilfeldig har samla støv ved ulike tidspunkt etter at disse tårnene fallt.

Reporter:

Harrit snakker om dette stoffet nanotermitt og tolker det som at det kan ha en sprengstoffaktig rolle i det her. Hva tror du om det?

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

Ja det er det ikke noe tvil om. Nanotermitter i seg selv har det og de brukes blandt annet som tilsetningsstoffer i brensel og eksplosiver.

Reporter:

Men han mener altså at det var dem blant annet som fikk de her tårnene ned. Hva tror du om en sånn konklusjon?

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

Den konklusjonen er det ikke belegg for i det arbeidet som er blitt gjort i denne rapporten så langt og det går på at det ikke er gjort en kritisk vurdering av andre kilder.

Reporter:

Men hvis nanotermitt skulle være i bildet her da, hvor mye av det stoffet måtte vært tilstede for å få ned sånne bygg tror du?

Øyvind Mikkelsen:

Det er blitt gjort noen beregninger. Det er ganske store mengder. En måtte nok ha malt dette stoffet på samtlige bærebjelker og selv da ville nok temperaturutviklingen ha vært relativt liten. Så det måtte nok ha vært noen tonn ja.

Mr. Mikkelsen’s professional contact information:
(Only serious, respectful communication please. Give people space to discover the evidence for themselves. It’s too much to put in an email anyway. -ed.)

Telephone:	+ 47 73 59 62 60
E-mail	oyvind.mikkelsen?chem.ntnu.no
Mail:	Høgskoleringen 5 7491 Trondheim Norway
Office:	Natural Sciences Building D2-123

CRITIQUE

Finn Sandmæl (11:23 in clip above)

- Architect (although not a member of the Norwegian Assosiation of Architects since 2004²):

English	Norwegian
Voiceover: Architect Finn Sandmæl draws skyscrapers himself. He thinks he knows why the buildings came down. Finn Sandmæl: There… That and the … I think that is an engine and I think that is the landing gear. And if there had been another engine, it should have been further beyond and it is not, it has hit eh … One of the main pillars. There are three things that makes eh … the hit do real damage in addition to eh… the petrol. I’ll tell you that eh … specialists can work out eh … the energy in such a cloud of jet fuel and how much dynamite that is equivalent to, for example. That’s a lot! So this is not an office fire – there’s a jet inside the office. In addition to the engines that transferred all their energy to the structure of the building. Reporter: So you believe that where you see the reason for them falling? Finn Sandmæl: Yes, the beginning on the cause, and then it burns for so long, everything catches fire… from the petrol … and so the beams become hot and so they lose their .. eh .. they weaken gradually and then it comes. When both towers have fallen down the structure under the ground had become so bad that there would be more, I sat and waited for it to be multiple buildings. What is not said anything here… about… there are energies that can be freed by such a building falling. When we had Chernobyl as it was recorded on the survey data on Hamar (town in central Norway) … the effects of that quake, right? What about the effects of quake here? We’re talking about forces that are gigantic. For problems with high-rises is that the heavier it is, the harder it is to build it and the close to spider web thin structures that hold … eh .. held world trade center up. For one who is not a layman you become … you can believe that it can stand, but all constructions, all that is inside the building is the lightest of the light, that is .. a wall is just plasterboard. There is very little weight in it. Hm, so it’s easy to get it down. It is not like a Norwegian building, we use concrete in everything, reinforced concrete. The Americans don’t. Had they done so it might have withstood.	Narrativ: Arkitekt Finn Sandmæl tegner selv skyskrapere, han mener han vet hvorfor bygningene raser. Finn Sandmæl: Der… det og den… det tror jeg er en motor. Og det tror jeg er understellet. Og hvis det hadde vært en motor til, så skulle den ha vært lenger bortenfor og det er den ikke, den har truffet øh… en av hovedbjelkene. Det er de tre tingene som gjør at eh… treffet virkelig ødelegger i tillegg til eh.. bensinen. Jeg skal si deg atteh eh.. spesialister kan regne ut energien i en sånn sky som det som er flybensin og hvor mye dynamitt tilsvarer det eksempelvis. Det er mye! Så dette er jo ikke en kontorbrann, det er jo en jetfly inni kontoret. I tillegg til de motorene som overførte all sin energi til strukturen i bygget. Reporter: Så du mener at der ser du årsaken til at de detter? Finn Sandmæl: Ja, begynnelsen på årsaken. Også brenner det så lenge, alt tar fyr… av bensinen… og så blir bjelkene varme og så mister de sin .. eh.. svekkes de gradvis også kommer det. Når begge tårnene har falt ned så er strukturen under bakken blitt så dårlig at da kommer det flere. Jeg satt og ventet på at det skulle være flere bygg. Det som ikke blir sagt noe her… om… det er energiene som blir frigjort ved at sånt bygg faller. Når vi hadde Tsjernobyl så ble den registrert på seismikken på Hamar… den rystelsen, ikke sant? Hva med den rystelsen her? Vi snakker om krefter som er gigantiske. For problemer med et høybygg er jo tyngre det er, og jo vanskeligere det er å bygge det og det spindelvev nærmest av tynne konstruksjoner som holder… eh.. holdt World Trade Center oppe. For en som ikke er lekmann så blir man… skjønner man ikke at det kan stå, men alle konstruksjoner, alt som er inne i bygget er jo det letteste av det lette, det er jo… En vegg er jo bare gipsplater. Det er veldig lite tyngde i det da, så det er lett å få det ned. Det er ikke som et norsk bygg, vi bruker betong i alt, armert betong. Det gjør ikke amerikanerne. Hadde de gjort det her så hadde det kanskje stått.

English

Norwegian

Voiceover:

Architect Finn Sandmæl draws skyscrapers himself. He thinks he knows why the buildings came down.

Finn Sandmæl:

There… That and the … I think that is an engine and I think that is the landing gear. And if there had been another engine, it should have been further beyond and it is not, it has hit eh … One of the main pillars. There are three things that makes eh … the hit do real damage in addition to eh… the petrol. I’ll tell you that eh … specialists can work out eh … the energy in such a cloud of jet fuel and how much dynamite that is equivalent to, for example. That’s a lot!
So this is not an office fire – there’s a jet inside the office. In addition to the engines that transferred all their energy to the structure of the building.

Reporter:

So you believe that where you see the reason for them falling?

Finn Sandmæl:

Yes, the beginning on the cause, and then it burns for so long, everything catches fire… from the petrol … and so the beams become hot and so they lose their .. eh .. they weaken gradually and then it comes.
When both towers have fallen down the structure under the ground had become so bad that there would be more, I sat and waited for it to be multiple buildings. What is not said anything here… about… there are energies that can be freed by such a building falling. When we had Chernobyl as it was recorded on the survey data on Hamar (town in central Norway) … the effects of that quake, right? What about the effects of quake here? We’re talking about forces that are gigantic. For problems with high-rises is that the heavier it is, the harder it is to build it and the close to spider web thin structures that hold … eh .. held world trade center up. For one who is not a layman you become … you can believe that it can stand, but all constructions, all that is inside the building is the lightest of the light, that is .. a wall is just plasterboard. There is very little weight in it. Hm, so it’s easy to get it down. It is not like a Norwegian building, we use concrete in everything, reinforced concrete. The Americans don’t. Had they done so it might have withstood.

Narrativ:

Arkitekt Finn Sandmæl tegner selv skyskrapere, han mener han vet hvorfor bygningene raser.

Finn Sandmæl:

Der… det og den… det tror jeg er en motor. Og det tror jeg er understellet. Og hvis det hadde vært en motor til, så skulle den ha vært lenger bortenfor og det er den ikke, den har truffet øh… en av hovedbjelkene. Det er de tre tingene som gjør at eh… treffet virkelig ødelegger i tillegg til eh.. bensinen. Jeg skal si deg atteh eh.. spesialister kan regne ut energien i en sånn sky som det som er flybensin og hvor mye dynamitt tilsvarer det eksempelvis. Det er mye!
Så dette er jo ikke en kontorbrann, det er jo en jetfly inni kontoret. I tillegg til de motorene som overførte all sin energi til strukturen i bygget.

Reporter:

Så du mener at der ser du årsaken til at de detter?

Finn Sandmæl:

Ja, begynnelsen på årsaken. Også brenner det så lenge, alt tar fyr… av bensinen… og så blir bjelkene varme og så mister de sin .. eh.. svekkes de gradvis også kommer det.
Når begge tårnene har falt ned så er strukturen under bakken blitt så dårlig at da kommer det flere. Jeg satt og ventet på at det skulle være flere bygg. Det som ikke blir sagt noe her… om… det er energiene som blir frigjort ved at sånt bygg faller. Når vi hadde Tsjernobyl så ble den registrert på seismikken på Hamar… den rystelsen, ikke sant? Hva med den rystelsen her? Vi snakker om krefter som er gigantiske. For problemer med et høybygg er jo tyngre det er, og jo vanskeligere det er å bygge det og det spindelvev nærmest av tynne konstruksjoner som holder… eh.. holdt World Trade Center oppe. For en som ikke er lekmann så blir man… skjønner man ikke at det kan stå, men alle konstruksjoner, alt som er inne i bygget er jo det letteste av det lette, det er jo… En vegg er jo bare gipsplater. Det er veldig lite tyngde i det da, så det er lett å få det ned. Det er ikke som et norsk bygg, vi bruker betong i alt, armert betong. Det gjør ikke amerikanerne. Hadde de gjort det her så hadde det kanskje stått.

I’m powerless with regard to publishing Finn Sandmæl’s professional contact information, simply because he has (understandably) not been employed with a company since the early 80’s.

UPDATE 10/22/09:
REPSONSE TO FINN SANDMÆL BY GRAZYNA SAMBORSKA, AIA

Dear mr. Sandmæl,

From what I understand, you basically make ten claims during the Schrödinger’s Cat program on NRK. I have listed these below and I will comment where relevant.

The South Tower collapsed because the left engine of United Airlines flight 175 hit one of the center columns in addition to the heat from the jet fuel fires.

The core of the tower contained 46 steel tube columns. Even if one was hit by the engine, it would not constitue deformation of anything close to a significant portion of the scructural framing bearing the load of the building. You need to look at the building as a whole as all structural framing members, vertical and horizontal were interconnected.

In a 1993 interview John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#engineers

The jet fuel explosion was equal to a lot of dynamite.

The majority of the jet fuel exploded and burned outside of the buildings, which is visible on multiple videos.

People (including engineers), often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

WTC 7 collapsed because the collapsed of the towers had weakened “the underground structures” in addition to the (presumably) kinetic energies “released/freed” when the towers fell.

The underground structures were indeed weakened by internal explosions, as reported by Barry Jennings and in Michael Gross’ original statement. Building 7 had fires of limited extent and unknown duration before it’s precipitous and total collapse at 5:20 PM.
http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

What is also important here is that collapse has all characteristics if controlled demolition. Multiple resources are easy available on internet.

I expected more buildings to come down do to the weakened underground structures.

It’s easier to build light skyscrapers than heavy ones.

The world trade center held up by spider web thin structures and easy to get down.

Experts are amazed that a structure as light as the World Trade Center could stand. (As one who is not a layman…You can’t believe it.)

All structures and everything inside the buildings were ultra light material making it “easy to get down”. (Exemplified by “A wall is just plaster board.”)

Since you are an architect, you can read architectural drawings. Please visit http://www.ae911truth.org/links.php and view North Tower blueprints and become familiar with the building’s real construction.

Norwegians use reinforced concrete in everything. Reinforced concrete was not used in the towers because Americans don’t use reinforced concrete in everything.

Reinforced concrete constructions have height limitation to about 35 stories so this type of construction can’t be utilized in buildings 110 stories high. There many different structural steel framing systems; again this information is also available on internet, if you are interested in American building systems.
http://www.concrete.org/general/home.asp

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0321014626?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib%5Fdp%5Fpt#reader

Had the concrete in the buildings been reinforced they might have withstood.

I’m looking forward to your thought on these comments.

Yours,

Grazyna Samborska, AIA,
ae911truth.org

JOURNALISTIC REMARKS

This program is part of the factual programing on NRK Television. It’s crew has in this instance, bravely defied the dominating zero-9/11Truth-tolerance culture which still permeate everything under the TV-broadcasters news-programming umbrella. For this I am very greateful. If you read this – Thank you.

Lars Ole Skjønberg, Schrödinger's Cat, NRK

Even though the segment is introduced by the show’s presenter, Hanne Kari Fossum, she only covers one (Harrit) of the four experts featured. The rest is covered by Lars O. Skjønberg and my remarks will focus on his contributions to the segment.

There is two proponents of 9/11 Truth (Harrit and Griffin), one proponent of the Buch/Cheney conspiracy theory (Sandmæl) and one neutral party (Mikkelsen) featured in the segment.

Although I suspect someone wanted Mikkelsen portrayed as endorsing the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory, this is not the actual result as keen viewers surely already have picked up on. Mikkelsen encourage people to read the paper, when he describes it as interesting. Some of you might remember Steven Jones asking Ola Nilsen if he could conseed that the findings are interesting in my last post. Mikkelsen leaves no doubt about his position in that regard, nor does he doubt nano-thermites explosive role in this case. So far so good.

However, when it comes to Griffin the subtitler and the editor curiously manage to slip on the exact same banana-peel. Audio of Griffins voice is present underneath the voiceover at the beginning of this installment. This creates an illution of continous speech when in fact the audio changes track just before the correct video joins the new audio at 13:35. This allows for quoting Griffin out of context, omitting the fact that Griffin is speaking ironically about the “unique fire event”, which of course never really took place, something Griffin covers thoroughly in his ‘9/11: Time for a Second Look’ lecture, from which the clip is taken. This is so far like any other unfortunate mistake made by the mainstream media with regards to 9/11 Truth. What makes these first few seconds which are vital to establishing / disestablishing Griffin’s credibility so special, is like I just mentioned the tandem-mistake made by the subtitler in this very narrow corner of time in the world. When Griffin says “9/11 is seen as unique, on this day…” the subtitler translates it to “9/11 is ‘unique’, on this day…” further covering up the fact that Griffin is speaking ironically. This opens for the possible impression that Griffin agrees with Sandmæl and contradicts Harrit. Now; there are several oppotunities after this confusing intro, for acute and attentative viewers to understand Griffin’s position correctly. The reason I’m making a fuss about this is that first-impressions are often strongly guiding for how a following message is perceived and interpreted – a lesson learned the hard way by the youth of the countries invaded, because Osama bin Laden was and remains the boogie-man.

Still, I’ve been involved with 9/11 Truth long enough to realize that even accidental odds might yield bounty – in other words – it might actually be an honest mistake. Maybe everything will be perfect next time.

The ‘two-man banana-peel’-speculations aside, this is definately one of the most balanced mainstream stories on 9/11 Truth I have ever seen. Now let’s just hope an architect or an engineer decides to inform Finn Sandmæl publically on the many issues he seems to have with reality.

References:

THANKS:

Ole Sivertsen (vimeo/youtube) for help with the video
Kenneth Johansen (Norwegian blog/Auto-translate en) for transcribing Finn Sandmæl’s statements

About this entry

You’re currently reading “Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs) (update),” an entry on From the top of the world at the end of time

Published:: 17/09/2009 / 09:49

Category:: 9/11 Truth, Events, Obama, Politics, War, science

Tags:: 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, Finn Sandmæl, Hanne Kari Fossum, Jones, mainstream media, nano thermite, Niels Harrit, NRK, Schrödinger’s Cat, science, Steven Jones, super-thermite, War

About

This site does not work properly in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

I was pulled out screaming after an oil-rig toppled in the North Atlantic, with a tong by my right eyebrow – a dissenter from the beginning, a proud co-founder of 9/11 Truth Norway, a student of contemporary civil eschatology who welcomes the revolution whole-heartedly. I’m currently looking for people who can help out with video editing. Oh, and the nearly invisible RSS-utilities can be found at the bottom-right.

Only English comments will be posted.

Make-not-war-love_225

albury 9.18.09 / 11am

I couldn’t be more ecstatic over the “discovery” of a new way to collapse buildings, but when are Jones, Harrit, Gage and the rest of the guys going to take the next step? Harrit says it was painted on the columns, survived major fires for varying lengths of time, and then detonated with precision, although there’s no evidence of it at all in the debris, and no sign of it just prior to or during any collapse. Why not get some of this “nanothermite” they claim they were “reminded of” in their paper, paint it on a steel column, light it up, record it all on video, and post a link to it at Gage’s web site, where he’s seeking donations which could easily finance this modest project?
If I were a NIST engineer being harassed and libeled by these luminaries of the 9/11 “truth movement,” I’d be inclined to offer them all of the NIST facilities to help them out, and even try to get PBS to document it for them.
Their “research” isn’t even halfway there at this point, sad to say, and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

gamlerik 9.18.09 / 3pm

Hello Albury,

Niels Harrit has taken the time to reply to your comment himself. However, I don’t think you should expect this sort of special treatment in the future, unless you manage to produce more constructive and factual criticism than what you put forth this time.

Harrit says it was painted on the columns,

Harrit: No. Never have I said that. It doesn’t matter, but I don’t believe it either.

survived major fires for varying lengths of time

Harrit: Some of it may have detonated on the local floors of the impact. But the orchestrators had many options for avoiding it. For once, the locations for the impact of the planes were not accidential. See ”Demolition access to the Towers part 1” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00124.htm The temperatures in the core of the building were not elevated. Exept for the local damage on the impact floors, the core war protected by wallboard, which offers an excellent fire and temperature protection. See the temperature maps in the NIST report on the towers.

and then detonated with precision

Harrit: We do not know if the thermitic material found in the dust served as an explosive or an incendiary (which does not ”detonate”, we should rather say ”ignited”). Precision is an indispensable requirement in modern demolitions and is routinely achieved by wireless connections and computer control.

although there’s no evidence of it at all in the debris

Harrit: Oh, yes there is. In addition to our findings of unreacted thermitic material, an abundance of iron-containing, small spheres was found in the dust. These can only occur if the the iron has been melted and dispersed in the atmosphere.

no sign of it just prior to or during any collapse

Harrit: Oh, yes there is. Molten iron was pouring out of the south tower minutes before the collapse. Molten iron was observed in pools in the rubble for weeks after 9/11 according to scores of witnesses and photographic evidence. Thermite is the ONLY concievable chemical reaction which can account for temperatures beyond the melting point of iron.

Why not get some of this “nanothermite”

Harrit: We would love to, but noone wants to give us some. We have tried to prepare it ourselves, but we haven’t obtained exacly the same stuff. Still, it behaves as expected, as we have dutifully accounted for in the paper.

which could easily finance this modest project?

Harrit: We have received zero funding for this work. All expenditures have been paid out of our own pockets.

If I were a NIST engineer being harassed and libeled by these luminaries of the 9/11 “truth movement,” I’d be inclined to offer them all of the NIST facilities to help them out, and even try to get PBS to document it for them.

Harrit: Of course, why haven’t they done that??? Instead – repeatedly – NIST has refused to take any steps investigating the dust and look for remains of explosives or incendiaries. In my opinion, we – the scientific community – are the those being harassed and libeled by the NIST reports. They are a disgrace in the history of scientific investigations. These reports are SO flawed in SO many ways, that they can only be characterized as a deliberate part of the cover up.

Their “research” isn’t even halfway there at this point, sad to say, and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

Harrit: Our work is just an ordinary piece of science. We present the data honestly and offer the best possible interpretation of the data. This imply, that the thermitic material should not have been in the dust, and we call for an independent investigation out of which we expect an explanation as to why and how the red/gray chips got there.

Arthur Scheuerman 9.18.09 / 4pm

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the deep seated pockets fire in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead and the aluminum from the plane and aluminum from the tower’s own aluminum cladding which probably were the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. There were also quantities of lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards. In the some people’s imagination the reported ‘molten steel (actually metal) flowing down the channel rails’ (the channel rails are the angles created by steel beams webs and flanges) became when repeated by others ‘rivers of molten steel’.

Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid they are over in a matter of seconds and wouldn’t last the hours or days at which times the pockets of fire were observed. As far as I know thermite (which is a mixture of iron oxide and finely divided aluminum and burns hot enough to melt steel) has never been used to demolish buildings and the expertise probably doesn’t exist.

Thermite burns downward and is hard to control and can’t be held against the columns because it would burn, spall or melt down through any material used to support it against the vertical columns long enough to do enough damage to cause the column to buckle. EMRTC designed an experiment which is shown on a National Geographic Documentary to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The test used 175 pounds of thermite placed in a steel funnel around a column. The reaction was not even able to melt the column which was much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.The presence of finely divided iron oxide (rust), aluminum, and red chips from the paint on the steel found in the dust recovered after the collapse are to be expected and in no way indicate the presence of thermite.

The reason this dust was so fine is that the heavier pieces dropped out of the dust cloud first and the finer pieces settle out further away from the collapses and not because they were originally produced as the finely divided dust necessary for thermite explosives. Any dust reaching the Brooklyn Bridge would surly be finely divided.

gamlerik 9.18.09 / 7pm

Harrit:

Molten lead is silvery white.
Molten aluminium is silvery white.
There is no way molten lead or aluminium can be red by contamination with organic materials. They don’t mix.
Molten gold is an option, but even though its melting point (1064 degr centigrade) is below that of iron, not even this temperature could be reached in an office fire.
Right, the debris pile kept reacting, and the fire was not extinguished before december 20th according to NYCFD (other sources say 13th and 14th).
If you can come up with any conceivable chemical reaction which can explain the exhausts in the amosphere, I would like to know. See
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
The experiment in the National Geographic documentary is amateurish.
One way thermite can be used to melt vertical steel beams is seen in this video:
http://blip.tv/file/2619414
This is a commercial product.
The red/gray chips are not primer paint. See other entry on this site:
http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/.

1. albury 9.18.09 / 8pm
  
  Why was this phenomenon only seen on the north side of the exact floor where the plane hit, right where the fires were the most intense, and why did it only involve one or two perimeter columns Gamlerik? And why did it have no visible effect on those columns structurally? Many of the south perimeter columns were severed by the plane, and it was the east columns that actually triggered the collapse. I agree with Arthur on this. It could easily have been either molten fuselage and other plane components, or lead from a UPS system. The aluminum cladding would only have come from the impact side, and probably didn’t contribute much to the flow of material briefly seen before the collapse. Molten aluminum will combine with other material to produce the red or yellow color seen. Dr. Harrit has also placed emphasis on the molten metal in the debris months after the attacks. The USGS aerial surveys did not record temperatures high enough to melt steel, and incendiaries would have cooled by the next day, if not sooner, depending on how well the surrounding material insulated them. No incendiary would have continued to produce heat for more that a few minutes before starting to cool.
  
  1. gamlerik 9.18.09 / 9pm
    
    No no no. Like I said an hour ago (below) I’ll gladly whip it out for a ‘civilian expert measuring contest’ with you, but please return the costume and put that stuff back on the table. There will be no dancing monkeys at this meeting. Sorry, Dumbo. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (.ORG!) will be arriving shortly so please – save it for the experts.
    
    1. albury 9.18.09 / 9pm
      
      Why are you resorting to ad hominem, Gamlerik? To answer your question about my use of the term “civilian,” what would you call the engineers from Skidmore… (SOM) or Les Robertson’s consulting firm (LERA), to name a few? More than 65% of the scientists and engineers on the NIST WTC project are and were not government workers, but were from the private sector and academia. Robertson is the engineer of record for both towers and totally dismisses demolition theories. I was drafted and spent two years in the Army, including 7 months in Vietnam, but I would call non-government workers civilians regardless.
      Please leave the personal attacks and name-calling out of this discussion. If you have legitimate arguments, you shouldn’t need them, and your insults prove nothing and waste bandwidth.
      
      1. gamlerik 9.18.09 / 10pm
        
        I admit I’ve resorted to colorful language in your general direction – not because I need to but because I now realize, clearer than ever, that people differ enormously on the issue of wasted bandwidth.
        
        More than 65% of the scientists and engineers on the NIST WTC project are and were not government workers, but were from the private sector and academia.
        
        Where is your reference? If so, do you think the government appointees constituted the bottom or top 35%?
        
        Robertson is the engineer of record for both towers and totally dismisses demolition theories.
        
        Lastest count of certified architects and egineers challenging his claims: 867. Also, Robertson was NOT the chief engineer. His boss, John Skilling, was. Skilling has passed away and is not around to correct Robertson’s lies. And who got contracted for work on the new WTC 1, 7 and 4? Leslie Robertson’s firm.
        
        …
        
        Did you enjoy your time in Vietnam?
        
        
        albury 9.19.09 / 2am
        
        Did you enjoy your time trying to steer a conversation toward this obscure 1996 draftee’s Vietnam experience in 1968 that’s totally irrelevant here? My “latest count’s” around 230+, and it’s not anonymous Internet entities who claim to have engineering credentials, it’s people who actually have them in spades. Doesn’t the structural engineer of record for both WTC towers even care what happened to his biggest projects? Skilling was Robertson’s partner, and it’s too bad he’s not around to hear you call Les Robertson a liar. I’d like to know why you think an accomplished and celebrated engineer in his 80s would lie to you. And why wouldn’t Robertson’s firm have been consulted? They had a better connections to the towers than any other consulting engineering firm, and did computer modeling for NIST. It’s what they do for a living. Should they have been disqualified for knowing more about tower design than a competing firm?
        
        
        gamlerik 9.19.09 / 3am
        
        1996 draftee’s Vietnam experience in 1968 that’s totally irrelevant here?
        
        I think it’s very relevant, since the movement you are opposing is, more than anything, a Peace-movement. If you enjoy war, you are at least abiding by your own logic. I wonder what a psycologist would make of that – if it would bump you up or down the lala-scale… Seriously, did you enjoy your time in Vietnam?
        
        I’d like to know why you think an accomplished and celebrated engineer in his 80s would lie to you.
        
        Money, power and the loyalties that comes with it. Why would he not lie… because his firm made Toy-Story 4 with NIST?
        
        Should they have been disqualified for knowing more about tower design than a competing firm?
        
        I’m just point at a potential fiscal motive not to stir up too much dust.

albury 9.18.09 / 4pm

You are not a structural engineer,Dr. Harrit, at least to my knowledge, yet you’re questioning the expertise and work products, as well as the integrity, of some of our best ones, along with many professionals in related fields. The tower collapse initiation scenario is largely visible from outside on videos, and was confirmed by eyewitness accounts, including those from the FDNY overhead. It is not solely an abstract NIST hypothesis using software and other methods a lay person wouldn’t understand. In addition, both planes severely damaged tower cores, and coreboard isn’t plane-proof.

The real evidence would have been on the steel, not in some dust samples with ambiguous offerings. What structural members were pulled out with cut or melted ends that couldn’t be explained by the collapses? Why did Dr. Jones use photos of torch-cut columns as evidence of incendiaries, and claim that the glow from a halogen lamp out of view in the debris was indicative of molten steel? Many people saw and handled every piece of structural steel that left the site, regardless of the myth that it was too quickly sold as scrap to cover something up, so the evidence was destroyed.
The molten “iron” from one place in one tower was right where the burning fuselage of UA 175 ended up, and was most likely contaminated molten aluminum or possibly melted batteries from a UPS system. You did claim that nanothermite was painted on the steel in an interview with a female reporter that’s on video and on the Internet, and I’ll give you the link if you’d like, but won’t look for it unless you want it. You also claimed a preposterous tonnage of high explosives in the same video.
NIST SHOULD make this offer, IMO, as should PBS to document it for a special, and their failure to do this isn’t acquiescence or deception. You have a whole “truth movement” behind you, and people are making money from donations as well as tee shirts, DVDs, and other items. This isn’t big budget, so it could be completely financed by you and your colleagues, and your supporters. A better question is why haven’t you done it yet?

You’re at a crossroads here, and can just continue touting your alleged discovery, or you can show us its practical application on real steel columns. If it melts steel and keeps it that way for three months or more afterward, it could very well replace fuel oil, which is becoming more expensive lately. We’d only have to find a way to harness so much energy. You have the chemical composition of whatever you think you found, and don’t need anyone to give it to you. It’s doubtful that you’ve explored all possible sources of it either.

I’m waiting for the link to your video on Gage’s web site, or a TV documentary on PBS. Thanks for your reply.

gamlerik 9.18.09 / 8pm

The tower collapse initiation scenario is largely visible from outside on videos.

Harrit: Yes, indeed. Let us take a look again:
North Tower exploding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page

South Tower explosions:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20938

South tower projectiles
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/5343

The real evidence would have been on the steel, not in some dust samples with ambiguous offerings.

Harrit: I agree.

What structural members were pulled out with cut or melted ends that couldn’t be explained by the collapses?

Harrit: These: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Many people saw and handled every piece of structural steel that left the site, regardless of the myth that it was too quickly sold as scrap to cover something up, so the evidence was destroyed.

Harrit: Many people saw that the evidence was destroyed.

The molten “iron” from one place in one tower was right where the burning fuselage of UA 175 ended up, and was most likely contaminated molten aluminum or possibly melted batteries from a UPS system.

Harrit: Aluminum cannot be contaminated by organic materials. They don’t mix.

You did claim that nanothermite was painted on the steel in an interview with a female reporter that’s on video and on the Internet, and I’ll give you the link if you’d like, but won’t look for it unless you want it.

Harrit: Nanothermite CAN be sprayed, painted and coated on materials. I might have said that. Some of my fellow authors believe that it could have been applied this way in WTC. I don’t. Please, find the link for me.

You also claimed a preposterous tonnage of high explosives in the same video.

Harrit: I still do. Take a look at the videos linked to above. It takes an awfull lot of explosives to blow up buildings this size.

NIST SHOULD make this offer, IMO, as should PBS to document it for a special, and their failure to do this isn’t acquiescence or deception.

Harrit: To prove your conclusion, I suggest you apply every possible means of putting pressure on NIST.

You have a whole “truth movement” behind you, and people are making money from donations as well as tee shirts, DVDs, and other items.

HARRIT: If you have any idea about how I can make money out of this, I would really like to know. I tried to sell T-shirts on the corner, but I couldn’t by a sandwich from the revenue.

You’re at a crossroads here, and can just continue touting your alleged discovery, or you can show us its practical application on real steel columns.

Harrit: I think your government should support the official conspiracy theory by telling us how the towers collapsed due to fires. The NIST report DOES NOT cover the collapses. Did you know that? Their time-line simply stops before the towers collapse. Look at footnote #13 at the bottom of page 82.

If it melts steel and keeps it that way for three months or more afterward,

Harrit: Of course, the melting process takes microsesconds. But remains of the thermite kept reacting: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

I’m waiting for the link to your video on Gage’s web site, or a TV documentary on PBS.

Harrit: You are not the only one waiting for PBS to be what it should be.

albury 9.18.09 / 5pm

I reconsidered and found the link to the Russia Today interview you did, Dr. Harrit, in which painting it on was alluded to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bel9UeqnHi4
Your video comments were somewhat ambiguous, but in your Bentham paper itself, it was very clear that your team thought it was painted or sprayed on:

“Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or
even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic
or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the
WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of
“hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed,
the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent
film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips
which survived the WTC destruction.”

If you’ve reconsidered that hypothesis, which seems to have been made based on the thickness of your samples, then select any method of application you want. The properties of the substance are far more important that the method of applying it.

You also posited “a hundred tons” or even more of high explosives in the video. Unfortunately, an experiment in buildings with tight security and 24/7 occupancy in some tenant areas would be much more difficult to do. I’d be interested in how you’d have gotten a lunch bucket full of it past PAPD security, and it takes a few of them to equal a hundred tons.

gamlerik 9.19.09 / 12am

Harrit:

Albury,
First, I usually do not write to anonymous persons. Please identify
yourself.
Second, this looks like an attempt to deliberately waste my time.
Third, just answer one question from me: Do you believe Osama bin Laden and
Al-Queda was respondible for the 9/11 attacks?

NH

To Gamlerik:
My comments to Dr. Harrit were intended as suggestions, not criticism, and my “special” treatment so far is better than being blocked and having my posts removed, which is what usually happens on sites like this as soon as it’s realized that I’m not a believer. I don’t see how it’s extraordinary for a discussion forum to allow me to bring this up with Dr. Harrit and to discuss his answers with him, and I feel that my remarks so far have been very constructive and factual. They’re here at your discretion, however, since I’m assuming you’re the moderator.

gamlerik 9.18.09 / 6pm

…I’m not a believer.

That’s great! It’s so important to base one’s view of reality on facts. Have you signed the ‘World for 9/11 Truth’-petition yet?

my “special” treatment so far is better than being blocked and having my posts removed

I’m afraid this is more the rule than the exception for us non-believers with regard to news-media so far, but don’t let it curb your enthusiasm.

…

But seriously, I think most honest people believe their statements to be constructive and factual – the question is: Are you one of them? Since I’m a big fan of giving people the benefit of the doubt I’ve dutifully forwarded your comments to Harrit so far. Now, if you’ve got credentials from some Institution in the establishment – good for you. However, to sustain my faith in your integrity I’m afraid I’ll have to place you on the receiving end for a little bit and ask you what proof you have seen for whatever perception you may entertain regarding the events of September 11th.

1. albury 9.18.09 / 7pm
  
  I’m not sure what rule you’re referring to, or what your news-media reference meant, but I’m a private US citizen with no connection to the government other than paying taxes to it and collecting Social Security, and I don’t question the tenets of the “truth movement” because I support Bush, since I never have. In fact, I voted for his opponent in both national elections, and consider him one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had in our entire history. Of course, now that he’s no longer in office, Obama has been woven into the 9/11 fable, and is accused of being part of the “cover up,” and since I enthusiastically support him, you may be able to draw some inference, but I hope not if you’re really into discussing facts.
  
  I always observe board rules, and certainly don’t resort to personal attacks on anyone, but I’m frequently banned just for my opinions, using my behavior as an excuse, which would definitely curb anyone’s enthusiasm, at least toward a venue where he isn’t allowed to participate just because of his beliefs.
  
  My comments are intended to be constructive, and if they’re not factual, please feel free to point out any errors you see. Since I simply suggested that Dr. Harrit demonstrate his hypothesis, my honesty and integrity shouldn’t even be an issue, and I’m much more interested in discussing this topic itself than openly questioning yours, as you seem to have done mine.
  
  The issue here is Dr. Harrit’s claim that the towers and WTC 7 were demolished by hidden explosives and incendiaries, and I don’t need any expertise in related fields to ask him about it. I’m also backed up by 230+ NIST engineers, scientists, and other experts, mostly civilians, and have read much of what’s been written by both sides of the debate. As I explained to Dr. Harrit earlier, some of my proof is in simply watching tower collapse videos, which show how the tower collapses began even without NIST’s explanation. However, I’ve also read both NIST’s NCSTAR 1 and 1A, and other releases from them, including two FAQs, FEMA’s WTC Building Performance Study, and the 9/11 Commission Report, along with almost all of the claims and opinions from their detractors.
  
  I hope I answered your question.
  
  1. gamlerik 9.18.09 / 8pm
    
    Albury, since you claim to have had these discussions with poeple before I find it very hard to believe that you can’t tell ae911trurth.org from the spoof-bullsh%* at ae911truth.com . Remember what I said about sustaining my faith in you integrity? Well guess what. I have lost faith in your noble intentions here. You are welcome to continue using your spare time attacking the 9/11 Truth movement to protect the powers that be, but please understand that I will not spam Harrit’s inbox because you’ve got strange taste in hobbies.
    
    I’m also backed up by 230+ NIST engineers, scientists, and other experts, mostly civilians,
    
    NIST is old and not very clever news in this instance. However if you really think your ego can handle it, I’ll gladly whip it out to have a ‘civilian expert measuring contest’ with you… boy.
    
    “Civilians” … a word so rarely used by civilians.
    
    1. albury 9.19.09 / 4am
      
      Why do you think I’m “attacking the 9/11 Truth movement” when I’ve only suggested a good way for its most prominent researchers to demonstrate their theories? And why does Dr. Harrit need you to speak for him? Please, Gamlerik, let’s get all comments here and not by proxy, and let’s discuss this intelligently. If thermite can be planted on steel columns to destroy them, it needs to be demonstrated before the entire theory can gain acceptance. It’s not that difficult or expensive, so let’s do it.
      
      1. gamlerik 9.19.09 / 5am
        
        Why do you think I’m “attacking the 9/11 Truth movement” when I’ve only suggested a good way for its most prominent researchers to demonstrate their theories?
        
        I’d love to hear of your opinions on yourself and your thoughts on what you believe you are doing, but my observation is that when well educated, busy people takes time out their schedule to answer an anonymous cowards inane crap, the coward doesn’t even make an attempt to respond when asked simple questions. Since you can’t play fair by accepting that we have to take turns on the swing set, I wont play anymore with you. It simply to boring to endure. I mean if you’d share some tall tales about how it was you who came up with the idea of ripping people apart using Hueys in Nam I’d might put down the remote, but not for this.
        
        If thermite can be planted on steel columns to destroy them
        
        You mean like Harrit already showed you several hours ago? http://blip.tv/file/2619414/
        
        It’s not that difficult or expensive
        
        No not at all. That why everyone, sorry U.S. national high-tect labs, have been describing them since the late 1800’s, sorry since 1999.
        If you know where to get a good price on nano-thermites, which wouldn’t surprise me, let us know. For anything else, sorry boring, time-wasting cowards not welcome. This is in no way a triumph for me, as your are the only person I’ve ever gagged online, but if you do not seize and desist I will share your IP with the Norwegian IT-equivalent to the guys mr.Wallace sent to deal with Zed, and in the words of Turbo B; you don’t want that.

Tony Wicher 9.18.09 / 7pm

Thank you, Niels Harrit. You are a great man of science. It’s surprising how many people like albury there are that give lip service to science without really understanding its value.

Professional architects and engineers from Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth will be commenting here to answer these sorts of posts so that Niels will not have to waste his valuable time.

albury 9.18.09 / 8pm

The NIST investigators gave more than lip service to science; it’s their area of expertise. Go to AE911truth.com and read some of the claims made in personal profiles of its members. Do they sound like engineers to you?
I’m not wasting anyone’s time except mine, apparently, by simply suggesting that he demonstrate how nano-thermite cuts steel. A good understanding of how it works will allow people to draw their own conclusions about his hypothesis.

1. Tony Wicher 9.18.09 / 9pm
  
  The NIST experts were not behaving as real scientists but as operatives for the Bush administration who were involved in a cover-up. A surprising number of NIST scientists are authorities on nanothermite and were probably involved in one way or other in providing the nanothermite that was used on 9-11.
  
  1. albury 9.18.09 / 10pm
    
    Science and engineering are not political concepts, Tony, and I don’t understand how you would know how the NIST investigators were acting.
    
2. Tony Wicher 9.18.09 / 9pm
  
  I do agree with you that it would be nice to have a demonstration of how nanothermite cuts steel. However, as Harrit has pointed out, there are many different recipes for nanothermite depending on what other chemicals are added. We would have to figure out exactly where it was being produced in quantity in 2001 – probably only a few places in the world – and what the exact recipe was. Also we don’t know how it was configured. It has been suggested that it was painted on the columns. It could have been, but there is no proof of that. I think it was probably used in more than one form, perhaps as a paint but also in more explosive configurations that produced the effects we observe in the videos of the event. So it would be hard to produce a conclusive experiment in the current stage of our knowledge. Of course if the U.S. government would be willing to honestly investigate it, we could answer all these questions very quickly. So far it is not.
  
  1. albury 9.18.09 / 10pm
    
    That’s fair enough, Tony, although Drs. Harrit and Jones have studied the samples thoroughly using very sophisticated methodologies, and I’m sure they both have a good idea of what they were looking at. Put ANYTHING in that category on the surfaces of an in-place steel column sample or even one or more in an old steel-framed box store slated for demolition and cut or destroy it using the nanothermite they discovered or something close to it. If it works, wouldn’t you like to see what was left behind for the cleanup crews to handle at the WTC site?
    With more latitude here, the project is even easier, and as I told Dr. Harrit earlier, it just wouldn’t cost all that much.
    Do you send donations to AE911truth or similar sites? They solicit them constantly if they have your email address. Earmark them specifically for the project I suggested and urge them to collaborate with the two or more chemists or physicists who published the Bentham paper. Unless I’m missing something here, the research just stopped with the work described in the paper they published. It’s insufficient to prove their assertions, IMO.
    
    1. Tony Wicher 9.18.09 / 11pm
      
      It is indeed important that the work done in this paper is verified, replicated and extended by as many indpendent scientists and laboratories as possible. That is how consensus is reached in the scientific world. I have approached one college (Harvey Mudd College) to see if they would be interested in doing a WTC dust analysis such work as a project for their physics, chemistry and engineering students under the supervision of senior faculty. Although some faculty may be sympathetic, this project would be such political dynamite that the administration would never allow it. Perhaps universities outside the United States would be more likely to risk this kind of political controversy.

Tony Wicher 9.19.09 / 12am

I should also add that the reason I say the NIST scientists are not behaving like scientists but like political operatives covering up a crime, is simply that the NIST report is such preposterously bad science, such an obvious and flimsy fabrication. But to understand that, you actually have to read the report in detail.

I very highly recommend a book that just came out,
“The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7:
Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False” by David Ray Griffin. He goes into great detail with the thoroughness and clarity of a world-class scholar. Read it and you will be really well informed on this subject.

albury 9.19.09 / 3am

Yes, Tony, a theology prof trumps 230+ NIST scientists and engineers, many with doctorates, and chemists who look at dust samples take precedence over experts with all of the evidence, because the latter must be biased.
I joined this discussion to suggest a way to show Dr. Harrit’s theories in a practical light. I’ll be much more informed on this subject when Dr. Griffin or Dr. Harrit and his associates explain to us why that’s a bad idea. You appear to want more truth than you’ve gotten already, so I’ll assume that you support this idea until I hear otherwise. How am I doing so far?

1. Tony Wicher 9.19.09 / 9pm
  
  For every real scientist dedicated to truth there are a hundred hacks with degrees and political motivations. But it takes a real scientist or someone who understands science to tell the difference.

Niels Harrit 9.19.09 / 3pm

Dear Mr Albury

1) We do not have access to large amounts of the nanothermite used in WTC. Only the military manufactures do. Go and ask them how they made it or ask them to provide you with a big sample.

2) We have no idea how the nanothermite, we have found, was configured. We don’t even know, whether it served as an incendiary or as an explosive.

3) But we do know, however, that SOME sort of thermite incendiary was used, because molten iron was observed pouring out of the towers (also witnessed in the north tower, but no video documentation) and because pools of molten iron was found in the debris for weeks.

4) If you cared to actually use your eyes, follow the links I posted above and watch the towers collapse, this discussion would end.

5) The evidence for a controlled demolition was so crystal clear even before we started looking into the dust, so I for my part consider our contribution to be just an academic footnote.

Niels Harrit

If I may add: The observation of iron rich spheres in the dust is likewise a solid evidence for the application of thermite incendiaries. This was verified already in the report from the RJ Lee Group for Deutsche Bank.

Look, there were two airliners and three skyscrapers.
You don’t need a scientist to count to three.

Bring the discussion back on track and tell us – positively – why you believe in the official conspiracy theory?

gamlerik 9.19.09 / 6pm

Mr.Albury will be let back in the discussion as soon as I receive his now much anticipated account of the events of 9/11 with some references. Until then, this nameless entity’s (hopefully temporary) exclusion will remain in place.

His best attempt so far, submitted on 2009/09/19 at 9:01pm (GMT +1), is…

My account of the events of 9/11 is in line with the mainstream account, and would take far too long to articulate here in its entirety.

…without a single reference. Not good enough. Sorry.

albury 9.20.09 / 8pm

NH: “Look, there were two airliners and three skyscrapers.
You don’t need a scientist to count to three.”

ALBURY: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Elias Davidsson 9.19.09 / 8pm

While applauding the courage of NRK to broadcast this program, I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence – whatsoever – that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events. Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

I urge NRK to inform its viewers about this unreported and crucial fact.

gamlerik 9.19.09 / 8pm

Hello mr. Davidsson,

Excellent point and thank you for a very interesting paper.

The facts (or lack thereof) about the hijackers can be submited to the NRK newsdesk through this form (Auto-translate en). English submission is not a problem, unless they make it one as a formality. If so, I will translate your submission to circumvent such an inane and obviously deliberate delay.

PS: I hope the BDS-efforts are going well on the atlantic ridge.

Maybe it’s worth a try? If they ignore it at least we can charge them with neglecting important information. It would be interesting to see just how far news-programming has drifted away from facts and factual programming, which really is the crux of the matter, not just in Norway.

albury 9.20.09 / 5pm

Thank you Mr. Davidsson. In addition to at least one participant here who thinks name-calling, insults, and threats to ban people add to our understanding of the facts, we now have someone who believes that airliner crashes can be faked in front of numerous live eyewitnesses, as well as thousands who cleaned up the wreckage afterward. Apparently, I’m not alone in wanting to shed doubt on 9/11 “truth movement” beliefs. Help sometimes comes from the most unexpected places.

albury 9.20.09 / 4pm

DR. HARRIT 9/19/2009 8:54:41 P.M. EDT:
“Dear Mr./Ms. ???
Of course, I dissociate myself from any personal attacks in this
discussion. It is just stupid.
On the othe side, I believe that I honestly have responded to all of your
questions and explained why your proposal is not feasible in the real
world. Please, read my last post on the website.
In my opinion, you do not understand what a scientific paper is, namely a
set of data and the best hypothesis to explain them.
In our short exchange, I have the feeling, that you did not read my answers.
Basically, I don’t care to prove the official conspiracy theory wrong.
I do not want to win.
I would rather hear or see you and your government (?) present forensic
evidence proving the official conspiracy theory correct.
Niels Harrit”

From ALBURY (in response to the above):
I’m not certain that my comments will show up on that board, Dr. Harrit, now that Gamlerik (a moderator?) is threatening me, so I’ll email my response to you and then paste it there and hope it isn’t blocked. You’ve been very civil, and my words in that regard weren’t addressed to you, although you might be interested in the behavior of some of your followers.
My proposal is not only “feasible in the real world,” similar experiments have already been done by NIST and EMRTC, among others, the latter with the ability to run tests using up to ten tons of high explosives at their New Mexico facility. We’ve even tested nuclear weapons in the continental US, so a very small-scale demonstration like this would not be difficult to arrange, even by non-government entities.
My suggested project would also not be costly, and would answer a simple question that’s essential to your claim. What doesn’t seem feasible in the real world to me is that an incendiary, even a highly-reactive one, can be painted, sprayed, rolled, troweled, shoveled, or in any way applied to a steel column to destroy it. There are simply too many reasons why it couldn’t have happened in the WTC towers, including the lack of access without extensive removal of visible architectural elements in a busy, occupied building, the blinding flashes they produce, and the sounds, assuming they were combined with high explosives, but these considerations are all beyond the scope of your paper, which was published by the same site that also published this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html,
and they charged a fee to do it. Your findings are ambiguous and inconclusive, as NIST explained in their August 30, 2006 FAQ:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
when discussing similar testing. You have also not even begun to explain why no evidence of incendiaries was found on the columns themselves, instead of just allegedly being found in dust samples.
NCSTAR 1 and NCSTAR 1A have both provided very rigorous forensic evidence for the real cause of all three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, and explosives weren’t apparent before the ~125,000 tons started downward to crush the lower part of the South Tower (half that in the North Tower later), and would have been redundant after that point, when they were also not evident.
You’ve also made an issue of the fact that complete collapse modeling wasn’t done by NIST. Do you have a software program that would tell me where to find every framing element of each tower in the debris pile, and to trace its entire trajectory? NIST doesn’t either, and it’s not essential to deriving a collapse initiation sequence.
Although beyond the scope of your technical research, how did anyone know in advance that flaming debris from the North Tower would rip open the south face of WTC 7 and start major fires, and that the collapse would also sever a large underground water main, making sprinklers useless and giving the FDNY no hose pressure? Was it directional explosives on the upper floors and planted bombs to sever the main? Aside from no plausible motive, there would also have been no cover for the alleged bombing or controlled demolition roughly seven hours later without the fires, which were documented on more than a dozen floors.
That’s a legitimate question, unlike yours citing NIST’s inability to do something as impossible as producing a full collapse model.

L Burik 9.20.09 / 10pm

Comments on Albury’s posts:

1. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer. His boss, John Skilling, was. Do you seriously think Skilling would allow his underling to handle the most important structures of his career? Skilling has passed away and is not around to correct Robertson’s lies. And who got contracted for work on the new WTC 1, 7 and 4? Leslie Robertson’s firm.

2. Those same scientists and engineers “from the private sector and academia” receive government contracts and funding. Just ask Van Romero.

3. AE911Truth.org is a non-profit organization and is largely staffed by unpaid volunteers. Richard Gage, as founder and CEO, is paid a small salary – less than half his salary as an architect, with more than double the hours – and a few key employees are also paid a small salary, as is the custom with any non-profit. No one in the truth movement is getting rich selling dvds and t-shirts. Truth groups give away dvds by the 1,000s on the street. Your statement has no basis in fact.

4. “I’m also backed up by 230+ NIST engineers, scientists, and other experts, mostly civilians.” At least you don’t try to claim ‘tens of thousands’ of engineers and scientists, as I’ve seen elsewhere. I would posit that many of those who worked on the physical tests for NIST are likely horrified at how their results were twisted or ignored in the final reports, but they won’t say anything for fear of losing their jobs.

BTW, AE911Truth.org is backed by over 875 architectural and engineering professionals
and 4720 other supporters including A&E students.

NIST’s reports on the towers and WTC 7 have never been peer-reviewed, and to date they have not responded to FOIA requests for data from their computer models. It is not science if it can’t be independently verified.

Interesting, isn’t it, that NIST relies on Bazant’s infamous paper written and published within two days of 9/11 without benefit of structural plans, etc., and likewise non- peer reviewed prior to publication.

John Scrivener 9.22.09 / 2pm

Albury’s contributions have all the hallmarks of Military Operations Specialty 37F, Psychological Operations Specialist, trained by US Army in psychological operations, psyop production methods, dissemination techniques, preparing target audience analysis reports, developing media scripts, and assuring that psyops products and messages are properly disseminated. These skills can be easily transitioned to the civilian sector, according to US military recruitment advertisements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Lc5cnnpxE

Army Manual on Psychological Operations

“The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to U.S. national objectives…

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/02/army_manual_on_psychological_o.html

Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1
Department of the Army

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts

albury 9.22.09 / 9pm

Response to L. Burik’s post:

LB: Robertson was NOT the chief engineer. His boss, John Skilling, was. Do you seriously think Skilling would allow his underling to handle the most important structures of his career? Skilling has passed away and is not around to correct Robertson’s lies. And who got contracted for work on the new WTC 1, 7 and 4? Leslie Robertson’s firm.

ALBURY: I covered Leslie Robertson’s role in this previously. Skilling and Robertson were peers, and Robertson has lied about absolutely nothing. Please don’t invoke the name of a deceased person and presume to speak for him. His colleagues are alive and four of them, including Robertson, spoke on this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#

They completely dismiss WTC controlled demolition theories, and to indict a top structural engineer simply because he consulted to the government is specious.

LB: Those same scientists and engineers “from the private sector and academia” receive government contracts and funding. Just ask Van Romero.

ALBURY: I did: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/

Demolition experts can draw hasty conclusions just from watching something once, and then retract them very candidly later. Danny Jowenko is an exception, of course, because he has X-ray vision, and can even use it on videos of the collapses to tell not only what caused them, but also to gain an immediate understanding of a building’s framing plans and details, even though all of this took NIST engineers quite a bit longer: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

niqnaq 9.23.09 / 5am

I would like to know whether nano-thermite can be applied in the form of cutting charges, since Gordon Ross demonstrated years ago that such charges placed every three stories or so on selected central core columns, all of which could be reached from the lift-shafts, would have done the job. The corner columns would have required cutting charges every twelve stories or so, in addition, but this is not a very difficult demand to fulfil unobtrusively. His detailed explanation is here:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

gamlerik 9.23.09 / 5am

Hello Ninaq,

You can see a demonstration provided by Niels Harrit at the following link:

http://erikkamfjord.blip.tv/file/2619414/

Thank you for bringing a new researcher to my attention.

niqnaq 9.23.09 / 8pm

I watched the clips. It is very important to rebut this claim about ‘painting’ the stuff on — especially because dubious ‘researchers’ keep repeating it:

Øyvind Mikkelsen: There has been done a few calculations. It is a quite large amount. One would have had to paint this substance on all the pillars, and even then temperature development would have been relatively small. So there must have been some tons, yes.

What Ross is saying is that whatever the explosive, it ca nbe used in the form of cutter charges, and that these can be small, few, and easily put it place surreptitiously.

albury 9.24.09 / 1am

Gordon Ross can also claim that the twin towers were in Brooklyn if he wants. The fact is that Dr. Harrit’s paper specifically says that an “energetic coating” or “nice adherent film” of nanothermites will cut steel, and I asked him to provide a very basic demonstration of that claim, which he says he can’t or won’t do, despite his knowing the chemical composition of this alleged explosive or incendiary compound, and given his presumed access to something as common as a steel column.
And if you believe that a small number of charges could have been planted on the steel and severed enough columns to precipitate a total collapse of a half-million ton building without being seen or heard before and during the collapses, and without leaving unmistakable evidence in the debris that a blind man could see afterward, then you don’t understand how a controlled demolition works.
It simply could not have happened, and on these columns, which gave out before the core did, it’s even more obviously impossible: http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/images/image008.gif
They were almost completely outside of the towers, in plain view on both the inside before 9/11, and from the outside before and during the collapses, where explosions wouldn’t need Gordon Ross to point them out to you on a video.

By the way, you can also see Gordon Ross presenting his theory on video, using film of the actual collapses:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615

albury 9.24.09 / 2am

It’s a little more prosaic, but you can read an explanation of what really caused the collapses here, niqnaq:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf

niqnaq 9.24.09 / 5pm

Dr. Harrit’s paper specifically says that an “energetic coating” or “nice adherent film” of nanothermites will cut steel.

You yourself seem to have inadvertently confirmed my point, which is that we are talking about CUTTING charges. If you read Ross’s paper you will see in detail exactly how few such charges would be needed, and where and how they could be unobtrusively put in place. However, I have no interest in playing the sort of verbal pingpong you seem to enjoy, albury, since I am familar with sarcastic trolls like you from my own blog, and I always ban them, because all they do is waste time and diffuse people’s attention. The point is that we need to know whether nano-thermite can be configured into the form of cutting charges or not, and I should imagine it can.

ReOpen911 – News » Le 11-Septembre et la Spirale du Silence 9.26.09 / 8pm

[...] et Kropotkine (l’un des bons connaisseurs du sujet). Il nous aura aussi permis de voir que la télévision norvégienne est bien plus ouverte au débat que la nôtre, ou encore d’assister à une [...]

psikeyhackr 10.4.09 / 5pm

Don’t skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? Don’t the designers have to figure out how much steel and concrete to put on every level?

So why is it after EIGHT YEARS we don’t have something as simple as a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers? Why hasn’t it been possible to analyze whether or not the top 13% of the north tower could come straight down and crush the rest in less than 18 seconds? That alone should be IMPOSSIBLE!

These Eight Years of SCIENCE have been a joke.

albury 10.5.09 / 12pm

Here’s FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study:
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
It was issued less than eight months after 9/11.Chapter 2 is on the towers, and Chapter 5 is on WTC 7.
Here are the links to NCSTAR 1 and 1A:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
The information you’re claiming to be seeking has been available for quite a few years.

1. psikeyhackr 10.7.09 / 3am
  
  {{{ The information you’re claiming to be seeking has been available for quite a few years. }}}
  
  It is curious how people BELIEVE things they don’t check. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report 2 years ago. The NIST doesn’t even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. They admit there were 12 different types of the 2500 exterior wall panels above the 9th floor but they don’t specify the weights and quantities of each of those panels.
  
  People accept BS from AUTHORITY but don’t check.

Tony Wicher 10.12.09 / 6pm

On the pseudo-science of professional architects and engineers who echo the government fabrication about 9-11:

Show me where a man gets his corn pone, and I’ll tell you his ‘pinions.

Mark Twain

From the top of the world at the end of time

Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs) (update)

REFLECTIONS ON METHOD

Øvind Mikkelsen (9:31 in clip above)

CRITIQUE

Finn Sandmæl (11:23 in clip above)

UPDATE 10/22/09:
REPSONSE TO FINN SANDMÆL BY GRAZYNA SAMBORSKA, AIA

JOURNALISTIC REMARKS

THANKS:

About this entry

53d Comments

Have your say

About

Recently

Monthly Archives

Pages

Categories

From the top of the world at the end of time

Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs) (update)

REFLECTIONS ON METHOD

Øvind Mikkelsen (9:31 in clip above)

CRITIQUE

Finn Sandmæl (11:23 in clip above)

UPDATE 10/22/09: REPSONSE TO FINN SANDMÆL BY GRAZYNA SAMBORSKA, AIA

JOURNALISTIC REMARKS

THANKS:

About this entry

53d Comments

Have your say

About

Recently

Monthly Archives

Blogroll

Pages

Categories

UPDATE 10/22/09:
REPSONSE TO FINN SANDMÆL BY GRAZYNA SAMBORSKA, AIA