Squibs and thermite, take 2: “Rocket projectiles” at WTC2

I’m eager to see all the video that comes out of the Toronto Hearings, because it sounds like it’s going to be a riot. First up: David Chandler and Niels Harrit discussing rocket-propelled explosives shooting out of the Towers after they’re already collapsing.



Around second thirty-three (coincidence?!) of this video, the narrator talks about seeing an object falling faster than some of the smoke coming from the collapsing WTC2. In his mind it is a piece of super-thermite, and confirmation kicks in when, as it falls past the camera, a puff of air and debris shoots out of one of the floors of the tower – you know, one of those normal things that happens when something collapses and pushes air out of the lower floors.

In order:

The debris falling out of the tower faster than other debris falling out of the tower is probably heavier than the median piece of debris. Most of the cloud is shards and pieces of office, things that are much more subject to air resistance than a much heavier piece of debris (which the author seems to concede is what it probably is around minute two second thirty). The puff of air ejecting out of one of the caving floors is just that. As a building collapses, its caving mass forces out air and debris from wherever it will escape: elevator shafts, broken windows, vents, you name it. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it is: this is a rehashing of the “squibs” claim originating from around 2005. Debunked around 2006.

In the video the narrator claims to have controlled for the motion of the camera, but even in this endeavor he fails. He may try to correct for the x-y jitter of the camera, but not the x-y-z artifact arising from the annoying fact that vision happens in three dimensions. The apparent “change of motion” of the object looks more like the object moving towards the camera as it falls – that is, pushed out of the tower by the ejection of air and debris. You can artificially halt the jitter of a camera, but it’s much more complex to flatten an image beyond how flat video makes an image, and that is not something for which the notoriously sloppy David Chandler corrected. Go figure.

This one’s barely worth the bandwidth. I repeat the same challenge I proffered at my Denkfest talk: 9/11 deniers, come up with a claim that can’t be debunked with evidence proffered over half a decade ago. Yeesh.

"International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001"

For what may be the third or fourth consecutive year the denier movement won’t be able to get enough attention in America to host a full-scale event and so is hosting its big conference in Toronto. I cut my teeth in Toronto at a CFI event debating AE911truther Doug Plumb. Toronto is the hub of 9/11 denial, and it makes sense in a lot of ways. The movement is driven by a handful of obscure postmodern academics – the staple of Canadian academia’s history departments.

This one looks to be pretty dull. The usual round of faces will headline the event – David Chandler, Richard Gage, Steven Jones… No new “whistleblowers” or fresh faces, unless you count the shockingly lame 9/11 newcomer du jour Niels Harrit.

In case you couldn't tell, this event won't actually include "hearings," in the technical sense of the word (though technical accuracy was never the movement's strong suit). Judging by the lineup its going to be yet another PowerPoint parade that takes itself far too seriously and accomplishes far too little except in terms of repeating the same hashed-out arguments about shoddy thermite research and since-refuted attacks on NIST and "the American government" (whoever that is) in general.

I base my cynicism purely on the event’s thus-far announced objectives, which read like a how-to guide for creating an echo chamber:

(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
(3) To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.
(4) To engage the attention of the public and media through witness testimony as well as through public talks and media events during the four day event.

Guesses: The event is going to be well-attended but not sold out. We will hear at least one presentation about “molten steel.” The movement will continue not to recognize its complete failure to gain a foothold in the mainstream. No one will present a case for bin Laden’s innocence. It will go largely unnoticed.

Niels Harrit - Copypasta Chef du Jour

The 9/11 denial community has been passing around an interview with Dr. Niels Harrit. At the outset of the interview he says that he was convinced to become a 9/11 denier by three Steven Jones DVDs. Sounds like a hell of a rational thought process. Here’s that interview.

It actually takes Harrit about two solid minutes of talking to commit his first error. Around the four thirty mark (he begins talking only at the end of his interviewer’s own charming little monologue) he says that three building collapsed “as a result” of the plane impacts. He makes the point that “two planes” caused “three skyscrapers” to collapse, a reference to the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane. This claim is actually false: In total, almost a dozen buildings were heavily damaged by falling debris in the same way that WTC 7 was, and most of them were eventually razed due to that damage.



But from there, he really picks up the momentum. He says that WTC 7 “fell straight down” (false), and even incredibly says that there is “no believable reason” WTC 7 collapsed. Obviously, 200,000,000 pounds of debris is insufficient for Dr. Harrit.


Dr. Harrit: 200,000,000 pounds of debris is INSUFFICIENT.

And then, of course, not only does he state that “the official report says that [all three] of these buildings collapsed due to office fires” (false) and then that such a thing “has never happened before” (false – irrelevant, but still false, dammit).

Here comes a doozie. Here comes one that’s going to get us some criticism from the deniers, always eager for an excuse to hold onto their faith. Here comes the part where I tell you that this is where I turned off the video, and stopped caring about what this guy has to say. I get it. I’m open-minded, I’m open to new claims and evidence, but that is not what Dr. Harrit was offering. Harrit was brainlessly parroting the same errors and falsehoods perpetrated by this dying cult for the past eight years, breathlessly committing the same simple factual errors. If Dylan Avery had taken out a copyright on his laundry list of idiotic statements about 9/11, he’d be a wealthy man by now – thanks in part to Dr. Harrit.

Guys, you’ve been caught telling too many lies. Too many of your key articles of faith have been exposed as obvious errors. You’ve fallen too far, and faced too many long-ignored refutations to think that the bullshit parade can continue to march apace. If your new mouthpiece is exactly as credulous and fact-ambivalent as the rest, he’s already forfeited his right to be taken seriously. Dr. Harrit: I yawn at you. You have nothing for me. You’re exactly as intellectually lazy as your dubious forebears. Don’t expect to be treated differently.