|
|
|
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 45 guests online.
User loginNavigationFeatured Content WTCD Wiki WTCD Compendium WTCD Podcasts Glossary 9/11 TV News Archive 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud David Chandler's YouTube Channel Council for the National Interest Popular Mechanics: Money Masters Orwell Rolls in His Grave Reel Bad Arabs Recent blog posts
WTCD User Comments
|
Niels Harrit on Danish TV; Interviewed about Nanothermite Findings |
PollCan Maduro get a fair trial from Alvin Hellerstein? Of course, Judge Hellerstein is a jurist with integrity. 0% No, Judge Hellerstein works on behalf of the Zionist deep state. 0% Whether he does or not is irrelevant, Maduro is part of the op. 0% He will be bribed into pleading guilty to something minor. 100% Other (specify in comments.) 0% Total votes: 1
Disqus Comments |
So here's an example
of media covering the issue (for the moron at the Amazon discussion).
well i pointed it out to him
that guy Suetonius has been at this for years now I remember him well!
fantastic
i can't believe how they replayed the planes crahsing into the buildings in the background over and over. i mean, they did show the "collapses" a few times too but i think the intention was to link the two in viewers' minds. plus they didn't show building 7 collapsing over and over even though Prof. Harrit brought it up...
Yeah, I was aware of that, too
The absence of Bldg 7 was conspicuous and the planes planes planes biz was definitely an attempt to tap back into the mother-meme: plane goes boom and building falls down!
Danish, Dutch,
Danish, Dutch, whatever--they're both "old Europe"... someone's getting confused!
Dutch TV Show Feeds Conspiracy Theories on Bin Laden's Role in 9/11
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
By Joshua Rhett Miller
A fake jury that exonerated Usama bin Laden from the Sept. 11 terror attacks following a televised mock trial on a popular Dutch program sends a "disturbing" message to the world and fuels conspiracy theories, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and other former U.S. prosecutors told FOXNews.com.
In just 30 minutes, the jury of three men and two women who appeared on the Danish show "Devil's Advocate" ruled last Wednesday that there was no proof bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks or that he remains the head of Al Qaeda. The television jury did acknowledge, however, that bin Laden is a terrorist.
Dutch TV Show Feeds Conspiracy Theories on Bin Laden's Role in 9/11 - FOXNews
On controlled demolitions and thermite
[Warning: racist shit at the links below -- OTOH, when someone calls himself RonMossad it's hard to know whether to take him seriously or not!]
Just posted two articles on 9/11 craziness:
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/ive-done-research-and-it-was-arabs...
and
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-controlled-demolitions-and-ther...
With Troofers like this, who needs Bedunkers?
This is from user "mark" at Truthmove:
"Sorry that I don't find alleged analysis of a bag of dust that lacks any "chain of custody" to qualify as science.
There are a lot of solid pieces of evidence that have nothing to do with the collapses of the towers after a large plane shattered their structures (or even WTC 7 after parts of the towers fell onto it)."
The central characteristic of fake truthery is visible in this idiotic comment (which is why I'm reposting it). If you can't UNDERSTAND an argument, then STFU. Planes "shattered" the structures of the buildings? The dust was "allegedly" analyzed? I would have much less of a problem with this guy if he simply stuck to what he finds interesting (sucking Ruppert's figurative dick) and didn't parade his intellectual inadequacy in front of people with legitimate questions about 9/11 (in this case, a high school girl writing a report)as if he is doing anything of value for the truth. The seemingly bitter unwillingness to let go of the core articles of faith of the OCT -- and to admit that we were all tricked so profoundly that we're still figuring out how tricked we were -- is the identifying mark of the Fake Truther. Real truth requires some humbleness (not to mention anti-racism) and if you don't have it, get out of the way of those of us who do.
Mike Ruppert and Jenna Orkin: Nails Meet Coffin
This clarifies just how irrelevant Ruppert and his minion Orkin have become. The same is true of Robinowitz: if scientific analysis of the physical evidence is not your forte, okay -- but you will demonstrate your good faith in such circumstances by politely shutting up about it. When you rail shrilly about "junk science" in the face of a breakthrough development like the publication of this article -- while giving obvious evidence that you don't understand the science, period -- you might as well have taken a black marker and written 'disinfo' on your forehead.
From Ruppert's blog:
From Jenna Orkin:
A few days ago, Businessman sent in the following comment:
Great article, Jenna! Since you brought up the subject of 9/11 and scientific panels, here's a 10-minute video from Denmark featuring an interview with scientist Niels Harrit, stating they've now determined through scientific testing of the WTC dust, that there were more than 10 tons of thermite explosives in the World Trade Center: Click Here for the Video ********************************************************************************
JO's response:
Businessman, if you were not the wonderful loyal helpful guy you are, I would have just rejected your comment. But you're Businessman, so I clicked on the video and was impressed to see that the nanothermite boondoggle has been awarded over ten minutes on a Danish news channel.
Not a prominent channel, it seems, for its hits on google are unimpressive, as are the other outlets that lend time, space and credence to the highly speculative nanothermite venture. But at least the interview was slickly produced.
So a highly engaging ten minutes ensued, reminiscent of those puzzles in which you have to spot what's wrong with the picture.
Without devoting too much time to the shortcomings of this bit of junk science, ask yourselves these questions (if you entertain the matter at all, which we are not recommending:)
How does the scientist concerned, Niels Harrit (Is he a Ph.D? There's little sign of it) know that there was ten to a hundred tons of nanothermite in the World Trade Center debris? Who found it? Where is it now? The debris was removed to Fresh Kills in Staten Island as well as to Third World countries ASAP. Is Harrit just assuming there was ten to a hundred tons (give or take an order of magnitude) because that's what he thinks it would take to demolish the buildings?
He says the nanothermite was discovered "by chance" a short while ago. What kind of chance is it when scientists beg for dust samples for years so they can test it for said nanothermite? Every couple of months I used to get their emails. I never complied because the science would not have been valid; the chain of custody was broken. And mind you, the requests were for a few measly samples, not ten to a hundred tons. All of this, by the way, ignores the myriad scientists (Millette, Lioy, Yiin....) who, whether well-intentioned or not, were studying the dust for pollutants.
So Harrit didn't know any of this? Does he know the other scientists working on this wild goose chase? But the best part was the dead silence when the politely incredulous journalist didn't know what to say next because the only reasonable response was, "Huh?"
While only cursory, this response is intended to quash speculation about issues which at this point can never be proved. It is not intended to open up the floodgates to further questions. Harrit is either a loony patsy or pure disinfo. But it's enlightening to see what's getting into the European media so thank you for the link.
Comment from Ruppert:
BUSINESSMAN -- You've been so valuable but what you're doing now is a major distraction that cannot contibute to what's most important for all of us.
The building demolition crap will not be injected into my list -- ever. From a legal standpoint nothing of what your posts are about is legally admissible evidence and proves nothing. Even if thermite were used, this so-called evidence (which wouldn't be considered by any court) does nothing to prove who put it there does it?
This is a distraction I won't permit. Your intelligence and loyatly and friendship are valued here. But the timing of this is highly suspect to me. If Jenna doesn't stop posting this thread I will.
I learned a long time ago that if COINTELPRO isn't nipped in the bud early it gets real "expensive" later on.
Go back and read FTW and what I wrote about physical evidence for the last eight years. Did you read Rubicon?
That's the last 9/11 physical evidence post I'll allow here. There are many other places more suitable for that. This is a blog that does things.
MCR
Good discussion, including downward gauntlet-throwing from LeftWright, at the blahhgerhttp://www.911blogger.com/node/19901
And the full string of comments at Ruppert's blog
is quite instructive. I suspect the initial submission of the article by "Businessman" was a stunt, because by the end of the comments thread he is groveling and thanking Orkin and Ruppert for showing him the light...
oh L-Dub, Say it Ain't So!
LeftWright said in his gauntlet throwing post that if Ruppert doesn't change his tune he "will stop recommending Crossing the Rubicon" to people? For about 4 years now the only reasons I have kept my copy are that I don't want anyone to make the mistake of reading it and to archive it as a museum piece in the Hall of Fake Truthing that I'm having built in Oneonta, NY.
He also still gives links to
He also still gives links to wtc7.net which I used to do myself until I found more about Jim Hoffman and his Pentagon "don't go there" angle. Honest mistakes? What do you think? I give LW the benefit of the doubt for now.
An enjoyable comment from JohnSchroeder at 911b
Very well put, from someone with whom I frequently disagree...
These are the most embarrassing comments on the paper that I've yet read. Mike and Jenna are not even pretending to know a damn thing about the study, they're just celebrating their own ignorance. And, inevitably, in the comment section Mark Robinowitz ("M" is almost definitely him) chimes in with this gem: "Nanothermite seems about as real as the 'hologram' claim that used to infest the suburbs of the 'truth' movement some years ago", which is possibly the most self-discrediting thing he's ever written, and goes on to once again reveal that he doesn't even know the official WTC 7 collapse explanation by babbling about the heavy damage it allegedly sustained. That's so awfully painful to read, I couldn't cringe harder.
And at the same time it's terribly sad, because all three of them have done important work in the past. "The Truth & Lies of 9/11" is still one of the best 9/11 videos, if not the best. I really used to admire Mike. And Robinowitz's site "Oil Empire" has always been very valuable, too. But now they seem to have lost touch with reality completely and to have turned into blind anti-demolition zealots. I think there might be psychological issues involved: All these years they've been telling us, sometimes condescendingly, sometimes aggressively, that CD couldn't be proved anyway and that we should therefore ignore it completely - and now that proof seems closer than ever before, they're having public nervous breakdowns. Especially Ruppert couldn't bear to be proven wrong.
And Ruppert is being proven wrong on a lot of things nowadays. I stopped reading his blog some months ago after his 100th or so wild prediction that totally missed the mark, only to be followed by one of his usual "I've always been right about everything, I don't know how I do it, I must have supernatural powers" [paraphrased] comments. One year ago I felt deep admiration for him. Now I only pity him.
The full comment from "M"
which nicely encapsulates the talking points he is pushing.
the journal that this alleged scientific report (tons of nanothermite) was published in is a newsletter based in UAE. There might be some politics interfering with objectivity here. A bag of dust from a 9/11 truther that supposedly was in her NYC apartment provided years after the event is not "chain of custody."
Nanothermite seems about as real as the "hologram" claim that used to infest the suburbs of the "truth" movement some years ago.
All three towers - even WTC 7 - were observed leaning and bulging before they fell down. And no demolition theories seem particularly interested in the structural impact of large planes flying full speed into the towers or the parts of the towers that fell on WTC 7 (first time that has ever happened).
I'm waiting for the "no buildings" theories.
Mission: Preserve Islamophobia
Here's a second-generation reposted comment -- just to further illustrate the attitudes of the Hijacker Myth Protection Squad -- from some guy named "Jeff".
I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.
I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hijackings; the al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shootdowns changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? ...
Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?
Answer: Yes, we were mostly all steeped in that stuff for several years as the compelling evidence for explosive demolition -- the center ring action, not the patsy sideshow -- was coming together. It all points at evil brown people with some Bush/Cheney thrown in for good measure. It starts with acceptance of major parts of the OCT that have NEVER been satisfactorily proven or explicated. If "M" is disturbed that no physical evidence people will examine the effects of a plane "shattering the structure of the building" (which is flatly untrue), we are AT LEAST as concerned that the Porkchop Transfer lives on in endless iterations as something relevant to the events of 9/11 when no one will ever even offer a guess as to what that money might have been used for.