9/11 cover up or crazy conspiracy
Photo: U.S. Navy photo by Mate Eric J. Tilford
An aerial view of the collapsed World Trade Center 7 building following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001
World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) imploded seven hours after the 9/11 attacks on New York City in 2001. This Wednesday in Copenhagen, nine years later, a crowd had turned up to watch Lecturer Niels Harrit and Professor Per Hedegård debate its collapse.
While Harrit argued that it must have been a deliberate controlled demolition that has been covered up, his opponent Hedegård countered that this is an absurd conspiracy theory.
»This is a mysterious, fantastic collapse. Nobody wants to touch it. That is why we never hear about it,« said Harrit, from the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.
He has evidence that the official explanation, that the collapse was a result of fire after the planes hit the twin towers, must be wrong.
Secret man-made demolition
There are several suspicious features of the collapse, Harrit argued, including the velocity and symmetry with which the building falls. This makes the official explanation of a »fire-induced collapse« implausible.
»We need another hypothesis for this enigma,« Harrit said, showing a video of the 47-story building being swallowed up by the ground and replaced with a puff of smoke.
»This has never happened before to a burning building!«, he said. Instead he believes WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, a man-made explosion carried out by several dozen professionals.
Truth hurts
The debate quickly became spirited, contentious and personal. Even members of the audience interrupted with shouts of disagreement and irritation.
»The truth hurts us, but the lie kills us,« Mr. Harrit said grandiosely.
Uncovering the alleged cover-up is a case of searching for truth and justice, according to Harrit. The US government’s »fire-induced« explanation, given in a subsequent report, was an attempt to sweep something very squalid under the carpet.
»In her right hand Lady Justice holds a sword, in her left a scale, which could represent science. Justice is blind. Science is also blind. But science is not stupid,« he said, alluding to the Greek personification of the moral force of judicial systems.
Science is not stupid, nor is it illogical
But all this is nonsense.
At least according to Per Hedegård from the physics department, the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
Maybe the US government report was incomplete, but just because something cannot fly, does not automatically mean that it’s a rock, he reckons.
»Niels Harrit reaches a very drastic conclusion! In science we cannot prove anything to be absolutely true. We have to be careful and look at probabilities. I believe this theory has a very low probability of being correct. Where are all the whistle-blowers? How did they manage to cover it all up?«
And the method behind the theory is unscientific, Hedegård maintained.
»You should write your theory down and get it published in a scientific journal instead of going around giving presentations!«
Don’t know what to believe
At the end, a show of hands showed that many in the audience were in doubt as to exactly what they should believe.
While some see the WTC7 as a fringe theory that could find its place alongside theories like the Apollo moon landing conspiracy, others think that there are questions that need answers.
See a youtube video of the collapse here:
18 comments
Some of most convincing youtube videos around! I find the BBC early report one of the most interesting.
1. Architect Richard Gage – third building - WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM
2. David Chandler – North Tower Exploding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3lq7nr6098
3. Steven Jones - Molten iron and nano-thermite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related
4. Niels Harrit TV2– Uni Copenhagen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
5. BBC reporting WTC 7 collapse early , the presenter Phil Hayton responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2oqQ
Thank you for this, and I hope he keeps fighting to be heard!
Someone has to.
And, fyi, it has been fascinating to hear and have these discussions in Denmark.
There is a fundamental cultural difference between our countries that I have found to be an obstical in conversation about this:
The Danes trust their government and we don't.
-And this distrust/trust is in a fundamental "what our country was founded on" sort of way. Not in a popular culture modern trend way.
I find that it is difficult for many Danes to suspend disbelief long enough to really see the evidence. It seems too impossible from the outset.
American's are different regardless of what they think about 9/11, and we have lived with a government of secrets (and a fat budget for those secrets) for a long time.
Hence why half the country thinks Obama is a terrorist, while the other half thinks Bush blew up the world trade center.
In this atmosphere no one will see or believe whatever truth there may be, because everyone is blinded by their mindset despite, left or right, or what continent they are on, and I'm guessing no one has it right.
As an American, my biggest problem with the official story comes down to, "where were the jets?"
Every cessna that has veered of course by only a few miles for a short time has had F16's on it's tail in minutes. It's common knowledge here that you don't mess with that especially in D.C. airspace.
They had four hijacked planes and around an hour and a half total. Where were the jets? I've heard the explanations, and it's just not enough for me.
Believe me after six months in Denmark I know all the criticisms of my country well. I say that with a smile - it's not a dig - though it's true. I know we suck at redistributing the wealth (cause we don't really try) I know the big long list.
But come on guys! Guns and F16's! That's something you have to give us credit for. You know we are good at that. Where were they?
My hope is that the white house was merely complicit - a precedent set at Pearl Harbor that is now taught in quality American Universities, and no longer dismissed as conspiracy theory. I hope they were stupid and it was worse than they expected. I hope this because I don't want to believe they did it.
I suppose it doesn't matter, and I can believe what I choose, because sadly I'm afraid that the truth of one of the most pertinent moments in modern history will be forever relegated to nearly religious status, because the truth will always be a matter of faith. Something - at least when it comes to government - American's lost a long time ago. And rightly so.
I enjoy seeing the debate about WT7. Two points immediately come to mind: 1) Like all conspiracy theories this one relies very heavily on huge suppositions. In the chaotic aftermath of the attack I fail to see how a group of explosive experts could have wired up the building and brought it down...and kept it a secret? At that point, what would be the reason for covering up a demolition? The Twin Towers had already fallen. If it had been on purpose it could have simply been chalked up to safety. 2) No demolition of this magnitude has happened in a metropolitan area like this and so there is little or no precedence as to how these buildings would come down. Has a major city ever set fire to a building using jet fuel, or another extreme accelerent, to test this theory?
The whole event was something on a scale the world hasn't seen before. A conspiracy...very doubtful. Try keeping a secret within a large group on your campus. Odds are, somebody will tell someone something.
"In the chaotic aftermath of the attack I fail to see how a group of explosive experts could have wired up the building and brought it down"
Neither do I, but no-one is making this claim. Of course it is impossible to have rigged a controlled demolition in the few hours after the attack, and therefore if the buldings were brought down in this way (as they rather obviously were) then the charges had to have been placed over a period of time and before 9/11. Your second point again is puzzling - there are innumerable examples of metropolitan buildings being brought down by controlled demolition - where do you thing the term 'controlled demolition' comes from?
"A conspiracy...very doubtful."
No doubt whatever. We only differ on the identity of the conspirators. You think Arabs, whereas I find that case to be riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. I don't know who was responsible, but there should be a new and independent public enquiry. As for the difficulty of keeping it secret - well, it hasn't really been kept secret, has it?
In these times of guaranteed freedom of speach we must be satisfied with Harrit's possibility to at least give these presentations.
Because where else is he to be given space to promote truth?
Not in the scientific papers: There, a political 'truth' has been given long ago. So it seems to me.
WTC 1 and 2 were 110 floor high steel structured high rises and 'collapsed' in around 10 seconds, symmetrically and totally.
If you dropped a stone from where the plane hit it would take approximately 10 seconds to hit the ground traveling through air!
WTC 7 was 47 floors high was not even hit by a plane and 'collapsed' in around 6.5 seconds symmetrically and totally.
Under all 3 buildings was molten iron flowing like lava. Nano thermite confirmed in the paper by Niels Harrit converts steel into molten iron.
All of this information is there for you to see and confirmed even by the official government reports and the laws of physics!
Time to wake up from the 'matrix'.
How many times have you watched WTC1 & 2 collapsing? It's astounding that you have never noticed the a 'stone' was dropped from where the planes hit -when the collapses start, large heavy pieces of debris start to fall at the same time and they fall away and down, way ahead of the collapsing floors. They are 20 to 30 stories ahead of the collpasing floors when they hit the ground. The experiment was done , it is there in the video for anyone to see. Have you seen photos of debris falling past undamaged floors? - how could the floors be collapsing at 'freefall speed' if the debris is falling past undamaged floors?
At KU kan præsentere Niels Harrits konspirationsteori som videnskab er det samme som at bringe holocaustbenægtere eller folk med UFO encounters ind i varmen. Vi kan være interesseret i deres tro, ovenikøbet underholdt af dem, men videnskab er det ikke. Dette ved man andre steder i verden. Harrits udenlandske kollega Steven Jones, der har fremsæt lignende teorier er blevet tvangspensioneret fra sit universitet. Ikke fordi han var farlige men fordi universiteterne frygtede for deres rygte som videnskabsfolk. Harrits videnskabelig artikel blev publiceret i et helt nyt elektronisk tidsskrift, hvor man betaler 800 dollar for at komme ind, og redaktøren sagde straks op i protest efter artiklen udkom. Harrit skal tages på alvor: han påstår at der er ingen sammenhæng mellem fly der crashede ind i World Trade Center og bygningernes kollapse. At nogen har planlagt sprængninger af 2 tårne og bygning 7 med den usynlige nanotermite, sammen med planlægning af 4 flykapringer. Og der var ingen der vidste. Men nu, 8 år senere, er der ikke en eneste person der er kommet frem og sagt, "Jeg vare med", "Jeg kender nogen der plantede sprængstoffet", "Jeg har set planenrne", osv Ingen. Videnskaben begynder med hypoteser som er plausibil. Folk med stærk religion, med kult og med tro er ikke belastet med plausibilitet. Harrit hører til disse, ligesom holocaustbenægtere og andre konspirationstilhængere. Det er pseudovidenskab. Shame on KU for at give dette en forum. Eliteuniversitet? Not quite. Steven.Sampson@soc.lu.se
Tror ikke Steven Sampson ved ret meget om ufo fænomenet og hvor meget det bliver studeret og undersøgt af efterretnings organisationer rundt om i verden. Og hvad han mener er trosbaseret !
Kritisere, men alt andet end de hårde facts! Det lugter langt væk af dårlige bortforklaringer.
M.H.T. Steven Jones, så viser det en dårlig side af det USA som Barak Obama forhåbentlig får rettet op på! Tror simpelthen ikke på Det vil kunne ske i Danmark.
Hvor kan jeg se en ægte verificeret fragment af en UFO, Jan. Bare een? Hvorsomhelst? Eller en allien? Hvorsomhelst? Harde facts om 911: 19 arabs, flight school, hijack airplanes, planes crash into buildings, buildings fall down, WTC damaged and catches fire. Falls down. hard facts. Case closed. At uduelige lærere kan blive i stillinger i Danmark, stillingr som vi allesammen betaler over skatten, ja der er ingenting at være stolt af.
Jeg synes du skulle prøve med en lidt mere jordbunden og fattet retorik. Måske ligefrem en videnskabelig funderet én a slagsen.
Du lyder mest som en fundamentalitisk religiøs leder under deklæring af et dekret.
Der er efter min opfattelse kun seriøse debatindlæg her. De eneste indlæg der skller sig ud der dine. Nuvel, de fleste indlæg er positivt indstillet for Niel Harrits teori, men derfor kan du da godt file lidt på retorikken.
...at se Per Hedegård opponere. Hans oplæg var i høj grad præget af arrogance. Ironisk at han skulle bruge de første 5 minutter på at snakke om Erasmus Montanus, når han selv udtalte sig i videnskabeligt klingende vendinger, som i sidste ende var blottet for andet end ad hominem argumentation.
En rundspørge, metoden udokumenteret, blandt et lille udvalg af fysikere på NBI? Uredeligt.
Satire fra fysikrevyen om Niels Harrit? Usagligt.
En udregning af den teoretiske mængde termit (som Harit ikke nævnte noget om i sit oplæg) anvendt i WTC? Endelig noget med en egentlig relation til hans felt. Desværre produktet af en bunke løse estimater, baseret på en procentdel med blot et enkelt betydende ciffer, fra et antal prøver ingen selvrespekterende statistiker ville kalde repræsentative. For lægmand lignede det det de var kommet efter, et sagligt indspark fra anden retning end de såkaldte truthers, men reelt set bare en beskæmning af hans eget felt.
The 47-storey WTC 7 was destroyed in a way that rivals a highly skilled controlled demolition. Could office fires (=the final official explanation) replace the time-consuming and expensive practice of controlled demolition? Just light a few fires and expect a highrise to come symmetrically to its foundations into a neat pile of rubble a few hours later? Sounds quite economical to me!
The investigation of WTC 7's destruction was preceded by a rapid destruction of all the research material (NIST: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7"). Years of various theories and speculation followed, with the following statement in 2006 by NIST's lead WTC investigator: "... we don't really know. We have had trouble getting a handle on building 7". However, in 2008, they come up with the precise cause of the collapse: a "critical" column failing as a result of thermal expansion (hardly a feature missing in all the other skyscraper fires), and somehow causing all the remaining 80 columns to fail in seconds, and then somehow producing a very symmetrical, resistanceless collapse. According to NIST, thus, WTC 7 had ultimately been dependent on one column - the "critical column" - only!
Who can take such "investigations" seriously?
Three months before the final report, NIST said that WTC 7 could not have freefalled, as there was at all stages material that had to be broken during the collapse, which would take time and slow down the collapse; yet in their final report, due to pressure from David Chandler and others, they had to acknowledge a period of 2.25 seconds of complete freefall during the collapse. This means that *all* the resistance of the 80 support columns and other building material had to have been externally removed - as in controlled demolitions, where some floors are removed by explosives, allowing buildings to freefall during part of the collapses.
Humanity has little hope as long as people don't see a problem with the way in which WTC 7 was destroyed and in which the destruction has been officially "investigated".
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
The picture above says a lot. Where's the 'pile driver' that is supposed to have crushed the building? The picture shows the core of one of the twin towers. It looks a lot more like a bomb site than a fire-induced collapse. Re: WTC7, search for "Danny Jowenko" on YouTube and see what a demolition expert has to say about it when he has not been prejudiced.
Well, in regard to qualified names who dispute the official explanation there is a very impressive list of names here, physicists, engineers, architects, congressmen, high ranking intelligence officers, etc:http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
A translated report by intelligence officers here in Danish;
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Counterterrorism_Veterans_Danish.pdf
English; http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Counterterrorism_Veterans.pdf
BOTTOMLINE IS: MOST PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT THE OFFICIAL "EXPLANATION" WITHOUT EVER LOOKING INTO IT = RELIGION
First of all, there was way too little time for this subject. 20 minutes pr person to make his point was not nearly enough.
There was not time enough for giving people a meaningful explanation.
I think it was pretty obvious that Per was in complete denial on this subject.
Because it completely contradicts his world view, he refuse to look at any other hypothesis than fire induced collapse.
He spent all his time attacking Niels Harrit and trying to make fun of him, instead of talking about why the official explanation is true.
Attacking the messenger instead of looking at the evidence. Classic state of denial.
If you can't counter the arguments, attack the messenger.
I thought it was sad, because I was hoping to hear some a good explanation on why Niels Harrit is wrong.
But Per wasn't able to answer anything in a meaningful way.
It seemed like he didn't know much about 9/11 at all or interested in learning anything about it.
He wouldn't even support a new investigation, which would be to goal of this whole debate.
By saying Niels Harrit is crazy for thinking that explosives brought WTC 1, 2 and 7 down, he is actually saying that more than 1100 architects and engineers who have taken the time to examine the evidence and signed a petition at www.ae911truth.org are crazy.
Including the family members and first responders who have fought for a new investigation and even got 80.000 signatures to get a vote on the ballot in NY. They are crazy too.
And the scores of military and government officials from many different countries who have publicly supported a new investigation.
He mentioned why any whistle blowers haven't come out. Well, they have! And the have had their lives destroyed for it.
If he had done his research, he would know.
One example is Sibel Edmonds.
She said they knew what, when and where 9/11 was gonna happen.
She has spoken of high treason by top US officials, but was gag-ordered by John Ashcroft.
Meaning that she would go to prison for telling her story.
She offered her story to all the mainstream news stations in the US, and go to prison, if they would do it either live of uncut.
They all turned her down. Why? Good question. Nonetheless, they did.
Watch the documentary about her "Kill the messenger".
I would like someone to prove the official story right, instead of attacking people who have questions. But since that's impossible, let's attack anyone who dare challenge our worldview.
Maybe Niels is wrong, and if so, I would LOVE if someone could prove it.
I think he and many others would as well. I'm sure he has other things he could spend his time on than 9/11.
We all do.
Assoc. Prof. Niels Harrit has published his findings concerning Nano Thermite in the peer-reviewed 'The Open Chemical Physics Hournal 2009, 2, 7-31. Can be found by googling Niels Harrit Bentham.
Also, molten iron flowing like lava was found under all 3 high rises for weeks after the destruction. Nano thermite converts steel into Molten iron.
Subscribe to newsletter
The University Post
- most read
- least read
- newest
More, and yet more, students to Copenhagen
Year-on-year increases continue. More international students than ever
-
Danish is worth the effort -
DHL 2010 - Running in the rain -
Colourful KUA demolition grafitti -
Life Sciences intro week for internationals -
International Students at Havnebadet -
International students' first day -
Goodbye to old KUA -
Copenhagen summer through the Canadian lens, part 3 -
New science park -
Medical Museion has some weeeeiiiird stuff -
Dutch soccer party -
Student demo vents cuts frustration -
Top 10: Things to do before leaving Copenhagen -
Top 10 study spots -
Termites hard at work -
DHL highlights: 19:00-19:15 -
DHL highlights: 18:45-19:00 -
DHL highlights: 18:30-18:45 -
DHL highlights: 18:00-18:30 -
DHL 2010 - KU teams
Sign up for free staff language courses
Need to refresh your English or Danish skills? Make sure you are signed up before these deadlines
Kontakt redaktionen
Write us an e-mail: uni-avis@adm.ku.dk
Nørregade 10
PO Box 161
1017 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel. +45 35 32 28 98
Copyright 2009 © Universitetsavisen.ku.dk