Saturday, 11 September 2010

Professor Niels Harrit - The London Interview on the Evidence for Thermitic Material at the WTC site.

This is a great interview. Harrit covers a lot of ground here and, apart from covering the science, deals with the attempts to smear or avoid the evidence proving 911 was an inside job.
Note: There is more politics in the world of science than most people imagine.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, September 11th, 2010.]


steven andresen said...


Neils says that he doesn't have enough time to consider all the cockamamie theories that people come up with. He said the "no plane" theory was rubbish.

He's correct to point out that he personally has only so much time. He would be wasting his available time to work on his project if he would be forced to consider and respond to and test all these kinds of theories.

So, maybe I'd say that there was a difference between science and the scientists. Whereas the scientists can only do the important things by their own lights so we should not expect Harrit here to test all the alternative explanations.

However, one of his arguments that the buildings came down by controlled demolition was that there wasn't a better explanation. The demonstration that Harrit has proved that explosives did the job has to include some good discussion of all these alternative theories whether or not Harrit himself does that study. Otherwise, some bozo will be able to say that his theory about the bombs is flawed because he did not consider the possibility that X.

The strategy here , on the part of the disinfo people, might be to demand the scientists do all the tests and discredit them when they cannot, because of time and money constraints, do the work.

It's sort of an ad hominem attack. You attack the argument made by harrit by claiming his work has no merit because he personally hasn't investigated all the possible "...and very reasonable..." alternatives.

The answer to this is to point out that we expect the science to be completely thorough, whereas we do not fault the science because the individual scientists have limitations.

I have to note that this seems to be the complaint about the Cliimate Change theory. The claim that the planet's climate is changing because of man-made greenhouse gases is being discredited, or we are being asked to ignore it, because some scientists have been shown to have fudged some of the data.

This seems to be the same kind of attack.

Anyway, good find.


SpookyPunkos said...


You are right about the disinfo strategies: asking scientists to go into excessive detail on every single possiblity and then ruling that if they do not we can never be sure that their research is faultless. The science is pretty much conclusive for things such as nanothermite, melted steel etc.

When Harrit here confidently rules out alternatives I think it is because he is considering things like the freefall collapse of WTC7, the downward acceleration of the Towers through the path of greatest resistance, and the molten steel. This stuff pretty much precludes the fire/gravity collapse as a viable hypothesis and leaves the CD as the only other alternative that fits the data.

The "natural" explanations cannot be applied here unless you are NIST and cook up a dodgy computer simulation.
My own view on the climate science is that the pro-AGW political groups/scientists have been reading more into the data than is there. Consider misrepresentations of sea level rises and glacial melts etc. Furthermore we know some of the data has been outright cooked (CRU).

When the claim is made that this decade contains the hottest years on record one has to consider that the key data here is faulty. The NOAA satellite data was admittedly reading temps 10-15 degrees F hotter than real, the CRU temps were cooked (climategate) and NASA has admitted their own material is of lower quality than the other two institutions.

To top off this entire situation are the oil companies that, regardless of any truth, are promoting groups that are against AGW.

I see two mafia groups at work here. The bankers who want a tax on everything and the oil companies that don't want to see their businesses curtailed.

Personally, I am not against the position that there may be some a level of climate temp increase but I question whether our human outputs are a major driver as opposed to the sun and natural conditions on earth (el Nino, submarine volcanos etc).

I do not like pollution, so I am FOR the clean tech, but because I do not think there will be a carbon caused catastrophe (AGW) I'm against a tax which I think is a banker scam.

I want clean tech via tax holidays for R&D companies but no more taxes !

Thanks for watching the vid.