Two physicists with Defense Industry ties debate the science of the collapse of the twin towers with Richard Gage & Neils Harrit

KPFA – hour two of debate – moderator Mickey Huff on The Science around the Twin Towers collapse.

911’s Footprint on America ten years later - September 11, 2011 at 4:00pm

Click to listen (or download)

This debate was held in New York on the 10th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.


for posting!

Excellent debate

Peer-on-peer debates is the only way to go. Bravo to Project Censored for recognizing this. If we keep doing these this way, eventually our opposition will run out of lame scientific analysis.

Hard to believe

the stuff that these two scientists were getting out of their mouths. So many farfetched assumptions, unproven assertions and misleading statements, it's unreal.

I assume that Harrit et al have publicly stated that other scientists should also test dustsamples and see what they come up with. But there seems to be a problem with the availability of these dustsamples if I'm not mistaking. Harrit told the audience when he was in the Netherlands a few months ago that they have very little dust left after their research. So how do other scientists obtain samples of WTC-dust? And in the case that NIST should finally conduct tests on the dust, how do we make sure these tests are done in a proper scientific manner and that they do not commit fraud on those tests? What if they test and conclude that there are no red-gray chips, or that they, for some reason, do not react at all when heated?

Also, on a different note, I was wondering, why hasn't anyone of the TM talked to/interviewed the (french) people who are specialized in the controlled demolition technique called "verinage"? Surely they must be able to point out that:
-the technique only works for concrete reinforced structures, not steelframed structures
-the technique only works for structures up to a certain height
-it's essential that the toppart falls with great precision onto the lower part, otherwise the whole demolition will go astray

Good to listen to this debate. It's tough responsing to some of the more blatant bare assertions that were being made, I think Niels & Richard did a pretty good job pointing out the flaws.

Two Best Demolition Arguments (IMO)

1.) Even if fire weakened the impact zones (for arguments sake), how did buildings 1 and 2 shatter into thousands of pieces all the way to the ground, once each collapse started? How does a once motionless 20-25% of a structure, literally shatter the remaining and directly adjacent 75-80% of that structure naturally?

2.) Why were nano-tech, extreme incendiaries, capable of creating molten iron, apparently present within the WTC office towers?

Question #2 demands a direct and immediate explanation from the New York City District Attorney and the New York State Attorney General.

Your argument 1.)

is a VERY good argument that should be blatantly obvious to any structural engineer. It must be used much more often! (And the lower 75-80% is stronger, since the columns were considerably thicker than in the top segment.)

Your argument is underlined by the few photos that show the upper floors of one WTC broken away from, and at an angle to, the lower floors, at the beginning of 'collapse'. Given that, there is no way that BOTH parts of the building should have shattered.

After the "collapses".....

Normal fires involving jet fuel and office furnishings require a source of oxygen. These undergound fires were fueled, according to the official account, by "office furniture/equipment, and jet fuel", and continued burning after being repeatedly doused with millions of gallons of water, fire retardant, and copious winter rains. Jet fuel is quite volatile and would have most likely burned off in less than an hour. Regarding the remaining sources of fuel, we are left with office furnishings (ie carpeting, desks, computers, printers, curtains, couches, chairs etc) that, in a new twist of physics, burned at over 2800ºF, ie hot enough to liquify steel, underneath WTC1, 2 and 7, until January 2002... in other words, for FOUR MONTHS in an oxygen depleted environment.... (?!!).

In yet another case, belief in the official story requires us to suspend our acknowledgement of the laws of nature, presumably to accommodate a political mandate. Furthermore, if we are to believe the official story, we have to assume that there exists a remarkable source of energy somehow contained in lowly office furnishings, as of yet unrecognized by conventional physics, and ignored by the energy industry.

As a (rough) comparative test, we could try an experiment: Excavate a very deep hole, fill with typical office furnishings and discarded technology, steel girders, sheetrock, finely powdered concrete etc., and soak it all with thousands of gallons of kerosene, set fire to it all, and then, while continually dumping water and flame retardant on it, observe:
(a) how long would the fires burn
(b) what would be the highest temperature
(c) how much steel melted


Not an ideal control experiment (and an environmental hazard), but it would give us *some* idea of how far fetched/realistic, the official account of the source and nature of the underground WTC fires is.

Low fruit

Right out of the gate, one of the dunces said there were no explosions that would have accompanied a controlled demolition. But what about this, from the dorks' fav periodical:

The New York Times, Sept. 12, 2001, p. A7
"A Creeping Horror and Panicked Flight as Towers Burn, Then Slowly Fall, p. A7 (continued from p. A1)"
by N.R. Kleinfield

Police officers warned people in the vicinity to move north, that the buildings could fall, but most people found that unthinkable. They stayed put or gravitated closer.

Abruptly, there was an ear-splitting noise. The south tower shook, seemed to list in one direction and them (sic) began to come down, imploding upon itself.

"It looked like a demolition," said Andy Pollock.

"It started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all."
The witness said: "exploded." So that first statement should have been immediately addressed with quotes such as the above, and that statement certainly shows these guys were off the wall.

The other low hanging fruit was the statement that thermite is not an explosive, or is simply aluminum powder and iron oxide, or whatever was said. That should have also been answered immediately, because it is so easily shot down.

Of course when one is under the pressure of a debate, the tendency is to repeat one's rehearsed lines, but I think that is not very effective. More effective would be to listen to one's opponents and to address what they have said. Otherwise, it is people talking at each other, which does not generate a lot of interest. Not that the whole debate was like that. It was a good debate, and the OCT defenders lost hands down, as they must. It was great that the debate occurred, and the OCTs once again revealed their bogus hand.

It is difficult to have a measured response for

everything one's opponent says in a debate, especially when you are limited to 60 seconds and have to think on the fly.

The best way to discuss the building demolitions would actually be in an academic environment with presentations and real discussion afterward.

The only thing these radio debates actually do is provide exposure of the issue, and I am sure that was the reason Niels Harrit and Richard Gage did it here.

Thank you everyone

I am very thankful to the community here.
You have my deepest admiration and support.
Thank you for all you have done to advance Truth and Justice.

-We Are Change Atlanta


I think Niels Harrit has a firm grasp of the underlying principles. Richard Gage, while a good spokesperson, ought, in my opinion, to work on the way he interacts with his debate adversaries.

As far as arguments for controlled demolition, I would like to see explored the thermodynamic argument. When heat is used as an agent of work, A quantity of heat must move from a higher temperature to a lower temperature, and there is a limit to the efficiency of this process. In other words, you need a lot of heat, more than its energy equivalent in work, to do the work, even in an ideal case. The fact that high temperatures persisted in the rubble pile for months tells us something about this process. (Some analysis has been done with a thermodynamic analysis of the dust cloud, but I'm talking about the larger process). The very well-documented heat in the rubble pile is evidence that a "heat engine" was used to bring down the towers, not the relatively tiny amount of heat from fires and plane crashes. "Heat engine" is more of a physics term, and does NOT mean "energy directed beams."

This is no theory about 9/11

Today an article was published in the free (inter)national newspaper called "Spits", which was entitled "New theory about 9/11". I was very surprised to see this, and of course what did enter my mind immediately was "Why do they publish this story, and absolutely nothing about the new theory that has been around for years and culminated in the amazing research and analyses of a number of WTC-dustsamples a few years ago now"?
Below I will write down the translation of the article (it's in Dutch):

"Twin Towers collapsed due to chemical reaction

San Diego - It wasn't a large scale fire that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001, but the molten aluminium from the two hijacked planes. It was dripping through the two skyscrapers and came into contact with hundreds of liters of water from the sprinklersystems, thereby creating an explosion that damaged the construction of the buildings.
At least that is the explanation of the Norwegian scientist Christian Simensen. He presented his theory yesterday at a technologyconference in San Diego. Simensen works for the researchinstitute Sintef, the Norwegian counterpart of TNO.
Simensen bases his statement among other things on an experiment performed by the American aluminiumproducer Alcoa years ago. Scientists then let 20 kg of molten aluminium come into contact with 20 liters of water. "The explosion destroyed the entire lab and created a crater with a diameter of 30 meters wide", according to Simensen. Both hijacked planes on 9/11 consisted of about 30 tons of aluminium each.
The chemical reaction can explain why eyewitnesses heard explosions prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers. In those loud bangs conspiracytheory supporters see evidence that the United States blew up the skyscrapers themselves.
After the collapse of the towers the American government had issued a few studies into the causes of it. Those studies provided the explanation of tremendous heat from the burning kerosene from the hijacked planes. The fires would've weakened the steel supportcolumns of the building, therefore not being able anymore to carry the weight of the towers. About 2700 people lost their lives in the attacks on New York.

Anybody any comment on this???

Concerning the argument that

Concerning the argument that the molten material seen pouring from the hole in WTC2 before collapse was molten aluminum rather than molten iron,I find it interesting that he compared it to the 'fire fall' they used to do at Yosemite (a huge bonfire burned down to embers pushed over a cliff). It was quite popular and people used to wait all day for it. They had to wait all day because it was only done at night! It wouldn't have been too spectacular during the day.
As we all know,weather something,at a given temperature,appears to 'glow' or not is somewhat dependent on the amount ambient light (an ashed over,ready to cook charcoal brickette appears greyish/white in daylight but glows deep orange at night). It isn't enough just to say that aluminum doesn't appear red/orange when molten because if the light level were lower,it would.
I think we should do a test taking the ambient light level into consideration. As any old school photography buff who grew up using the 'Sunny 16' rules knows,it's easy enough to quantify the light level under which the molten material was seen pouring out of WTC2 (basically,open shade or F5.6 with shutter speed @ the reciprocal of the film speed or EV?). The question is how hot would we have to get molten aluminum in order to have it glow red/orange at that light level. I suspect,if it could be done at all,the temperature required to do it would be hotter than the fires in the WTC were admitted to be.
Maybe,it would be best not to dispute that it's aluminum,but to show (through experimentation) that if it is aluminum,temperature above what office fires could produce were present in the WTC that day. Just a thought.