Transcript of debate on September 22, 2012
Transcript of debate on September 22, 2012
Between Niels Harrit from the Danish Truth Movement, and Steen Svanholm and Claus Larsen from 911facts.dk on Danish Radio24syv.
The interview (in Danish) can be found here.
(Weather forecast from 0:00 to 00:20.)
Host: Welcome to “Aflyttet” (“Bugged”), the program that wears a fake beard and sunglasses, at last on the inside, and the last couple of weeks, the beard and sunglasses have changed from a slight itching to being almost stuck in the throat of me, your host, who receive angry e-mails and twitter messages and even handwritten letters that accuse me and this program of disregarding truth, of not investigating things properly, and of not choosing the right guests.
This commotion has a name; it is called 9/11, in Danish: “11. September”. This year, it has been 11 years since the World Trade Center collapsed before cameras and two weeks ago, our guest here was the Danish chemist and 911-skeptic, Niels Harrit, who questioned everything we thought about what happened back then. Osama died in 2001, Building 7 collapsed due to explosives, and the world as such is in danger. One week later, we were relieved when our guests, Steen Svanholm and Claus Nielsen (Larsen, host’s mistake) from 911facts.dk, told us that there were no big, slimy conspiracies, or that is the conspiracies come from those who claim that something inexplicably happened on and a around 9/11.
But when last week’s program ended, we had a problem: Who is actually right? Who has the truth about September 11? And we have quite an ambition, today. I do not know if we can make it it but at least, we are going to try. We choose to deal with the topic one last time, in the hope that the two sides of the debate might agree on something that perhaps could give us all some solid base. Welcome, again, Niels Harrit, chemist, professor emeritus and 911-skeptic, I guess it is all right to call you that. And welcome, Steen Svanholm and Claus Nielsen from 911facts.dk. You have met before at a lecture where you each presented your version of what happened on September 11th. I am sure, we will get back to that but firstly, I would like a short explanation, if that is possible, completely without questions. Niels Narrit, what do you think happened at World Trade Center on September 11 2001?
Niels Harrit (NH): I do not know. And no one in the public knows that either, because this crime, the killing of 3,000 people has never been subject to a criminal investigation. Therefore the public still lacks the evidence.
Host: But what happened according to you?
NH: Physically, two airplanes flew into World Trade Center, the twin towers, and later three high risers collapsed, the latter at 5:20 in the afternoon, and when it was all over, they sealed off the area, and in the months to come they removed all the evidence which in itself is a federal crime. Rudy Guiliani, the mayor, ordered this. And it was all sent to China and Taiwan where it was melted down, all this steel that fell down. This is more or less what we know, and the general public has had to guess the rest. And, without a doubt, everything that has been presented contradicts the official conspiracy theory.
Host: Claus Nielsen (Larsen, host’s mistake) and Steen Svanholm from 911facts, what happened on Sep. 11, 2001?
Steen Svanholm (SS): To begin with, it is true that no one knew what was going on when a plane flew into the North Tower, but there had been some intelligence in the months up until September 11 stating that terror attacks were likely to happen, and afterwards more intelligence kept coming… And it is fair to say that when you consider all the evidence – and there is a lot compared to other incidents and catastrophes – it points to one direction: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was behind this terror attack and later they took responsibility for the attacks. So it is a relatively open and shut case in the light of their confessions.
Host: Those are the facts?
SS: Well, yes, this is the direction to which the evidence points. This does not mean that Claus and I claim that this is the truth, just because we believe so. We follow the evidence put forward and the expert conclusions from those who investigate the incident.
Host: We will get back to all three of you in a minute in this program called “Aflyttet” (“Bugged”) that deals with the surveillance society that surrounds us and where everything is up for debate. We are going to hear the soundtrack of a few videos during this program but we are also going to take a look at another conspiracy that appeared after 9/11 concerning an extremely invasive surveillance program that the NSA initiated shortly after September 11. The magnitude of this is now finding its way to American media. Welcome to “Aflyttet”. Your host today, and the guy in the middle, is Anders Kjærulf. Welcome.
Host: This is Radio24syv. The program is called “Aflyttet”. My name is Anders Kjærulf and today, the topic is 9/11. I have with me in the studio two different opinions about what really happened… Or two different ways of asking questions. On one side I have Niels Harrit, professor in chemistry at The University of Copenhagen, who is very skeptical about the official accounts of 9/11. And on the other side, I have Steen Svanholm and Claus Nielsen from 911facts.
All three of you visited this program before but not together, which we thought was necessary because you disagree so very much. I think it serves us all best to talk about that disagreement. I would like to begin with the fact that if you look up 9/11 on the internet, you will see that 2,995 people died that day. That is a lot of people and this has been investigated very much and very thoroughly ever since. At first there was an investigation by the FBI who concluded that there were obvious, indisputable evidence against bin Laden and al Qaeda concerning World Trade Center. In 2002 the National Commission on Terrorist Attack on the United States was established. They presented a report in 2004 that describes the actions of the 19 terrorist prior to the attack. And then there is the so-called NIST-report that deals with the technical investigations of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7. This report from National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, is not your cup of tea, Niels Harrit. Why not?
NH: May I first comment on what you said about FBI just now…?
Host: Be my guest.
NH: …Because Osama bin Laden has never been wanted by the FBI in connection with the September 11 terrorist attack. And in 2005 the journalist Ed Haas called The FBI and asked them why they did not issued a wanted poster on their website of bin Laden for the 9/11 terrorist attack. The FBI spokesman, Rex Tomb, was quite blunt and explained this by saying that the FBI did not have any proof that connected bin Laden to 9/11. That was just a comment on what you said about FBI. They do not hold any evidence. They never made an indictment. There has been no trial. There has never been any conviction. In our society, we do not accept any sentence before you have been convicted. That should end this topic, right?
About the NIST report, it was presented in two instances. The one about the towers was presented in 2005, 14,000 pages. And let me say this right away: It simply does not cover the collapse itself… Shock! Let me repeat: The official report about the towers does not cover the collapse. The report on Building 7 came in 2008. It contains so many errors that I do not hesitate to call it a counterfeit, a cover up. For example: They had to be pressed very hard to admit that Building 7 collapsed in free fall.
Still, this does not lead to any consequence for their conclusion; Building 7 collapsed due to random office fires. This is an outraging claim seeing that it has never happened before or after that a building of this type, a steel framed high-rise, has collapsed due to fire. We could in fact stop this program here and now, because science is based on experience, and since there is no experience of collapses in connection with any fires that has previously appeared in similar buildings, then you cannot claim that this is what happened on that day (Sep 11). It totally contradicts all observations; free fall, complete symmetry, it falls into its own footprint.
Host: The NIST report mentions among other things Building 7 that was situated approximately 100 meters from the towers and was not hit by any planes. You said last week, and please repeat this, the two of you from 911facts, Steen Svanholm and Claus Nielsen, how could this building collapse?
Claus Larsen (CL): When the North Tower collapses at 10.28… It is situated about 100 meters from Building 7… then Building 7 is bombarded with a lot of large debris that starts several fires on several floors. Quite early, the firemen decide to leave the building on its own. It has already been evacuated at this time. There are no people in it. And the firemen have more than enough to do with getting people out of the Twin Towers. After the building has been hit, it burns for seven hours, without any firefighting. It is true when Niels Harrit says that this has never happened before but that does not mean it cannot happen. That is comparable to saying that if you broke your leg, and never broke it before… Then you would not say that it is not true that your leg is broken. It is a silly argument.
Host: You could perhaps also say, if I may support you here, it does not happen very often that anyone flies a passenger plane into a tall building…
SS: Let me please interrupt… Fires in tall buildings are quite rare. Fires in tall steel buildings are even more rare. Thus this is a unique event. Nevertheless, it happened three times on that same day. So the claim of “first time” is so-so.
CL: And then, of course, if we should cover the issue about the reports. Regarding the claim that the reports do not cover the collapse itself: They do, of course. They may not cover it to Niels Harrit’s satisfaction but that is another thing.
Then there is the “cover up” of Building 7: Here, Niels Harrit accuses NIST of being an accomplice in an inside job.
About science: No doubt that Niels Harrit is a scientist, but science is not only based on experience… You cannot just observe and then conclude, you have to also do experiments and the results of these experiments have to be replicated by independent researchers before you reach a somewhat reasonable conclusion.
Host: But I assume that it is a bit difficult to do an experiment with two passenger planes hitting a skyscraper…
CL: Yes, obviously. Therefore, we have to stick to those engineers and experts who have investigated all the steel that really did not get shipped to Asia right away. Much of it was sent to a place called “Fresh Kills” where it was later examined very thoroughly, leading to the conclusion that the damage caused by the planes and the subsequent fires, not fought by the firemen, softened the steel, and then the building could not hold together.
SS: I would like to ask… Niels, you say that Osama bin Laden was not wanted. To begin with, we know that the reward for him was raised immediately after 9/11. Secondly, we know that the Wanted poster states that he was wanted for other crimes as well. The fact is that once a person is wanted, then you do not necessarily issue a new wanted poster. It is not needed. But, I would like to know, because you use FBI as a source: Is FBI a reliable source or not?
NH: Ha-ha. If FBI is not a reliable source then Osama bin Laden is innocent because we just heard Anders saying that Osama bin Laden was guilty.
SS: But is FBI a reliable source to you?
NH: No, not in this case. I definitely do not think so.
SS: Because you quote Rex Tomb as if FBI is in fact a reliable source.
NH: Yes, Rex Tomb admits… You may say to our… What he says is not unimportant… whether you believe it or not… I think… I am certain that if FBI had any evidence that connected Osama bin Laden with September 11, they would present it to us. I am convinced about that. That would be quite natural, I think.
Host: I sat all night watching a lot of videos and I have got something here that may support Niels Harrit. It is about Building 7 which I think we should deal with. Some people say that it collapses because of explosions inside the building. I remember that we mentioned this video earlier in “Aflyttet”. It was shared on Facebook by a man named Brendan Raup, an ex-marine who does not believe that the United States of America tells the truth. Shortly after he shared this video, he was arrested and sent to a psychiatric institution. He is back again, now, and the video asks a lot of questions. It begins with three very shocked firemen who just witnessed one of the twin towers collapse while they were inside the other tower. And they heard something while inside, namely explosions, and they were not the only ones to hear this.
(Video is in English)
Host: This was a video compilation from the day when the World Trade Center and the mysterious Building 7 collapsed. Many people claim they have heard huge explosions during. Steen Svanholm and Claus Larsen, how do you explain remarks like those? What did these people hear?
CL: They heard explosions. But explosions are not necessarily the same as explosives and bombs. There are many things in the area that may explode. For instance computer monitors, pressurized tanks or other inventory. Outside the buildings it could be cars, rescue vehicles which tires and fuel tanks and other equipment may explode. So we cannot equate explosions with bombs.
Host: Steen, you said…
NH: Ha-ha, I cannot help laughing, Ha… OK… But… Let us just leave it at that…
CL: No… please comment…
NH: May I…
CL: Niels, then you have to explain. Is it absolutely impossible that some of these explosions come from pressurized tanks?
NH: Absolutely. Come on…
NH: …did your computer monitor ever explode in such a way that people come out like wrecks…
CL: No, no, I did not say that was the only… It is an example. Could it be pressurized tanks, for example?
NH: Christ, no…
CL: Why not?
NH: Please stop. It is really far out that we have to sit here and debate these completely ridiculous things. I am sorry to say that. The fire chief and the chief of police, they asked, 1.5 week after 9/11, all the surviving officials to tell what they experienced that day. And there were 500 of them sitting in front of a microphone and 123… They got no questions… and 123 of these 500 people talked about explosions that they heard. It is an overwhelming collection… The videos you played before is a drop in the ocean…
CL: Did they talk about bombs?
NH: Christ almighty, if you…
CL: You are the one to make the connection between explosions and bombs, not those who experience it.
NH: Yes, they talk… No, that is true…
NH: …they talk about explosions, but when they come out like these… We cannot see the photos right now… but in those sound bites, we heard, people sit in rags and that does not happen because a computer monitor explodes. Why on Earth would a computer monitor explode…
SS: They do so in fires.
CL: They do so in fires.
NH: …so they hear it all over town. Christ almighty, this is simply…
CL: You continue to…
Host: But before we get too far away…
NH: We talk about experience…
Host: …then let me just say: You say that something explodes inside Building 7…
NH: In the towers as well, for crying loud…
Host: …and that is…
SS: But there is no sound from it…
Host: …In your opinion this is due to explosives placed there.
NH: Then I have got to tell the story about Barry Jennings. He was second in command in New York City… security deputy… and he was supposed to be at the emergency center on the 23rd floor of Building 7 and he did show up, actually. He was there at 9 o’clock. Oddly enough, the whole department had been cleared, which is irrelevant right now, actually. But then he walks down the stairs with his colleague, Michael Hess. When they get to the 8th floor, the stairway underneath simply disappears. He got locked inside… he was shut inside the building… He could not get down… They had to go back and the lift did not work. We are talking about Building 7, now, in the morning. He was in the building and was actually shut inside of it until they helped him out at 12:30. He comes out and gives an interview right there in the street, being recorded on camera. It is all on the Internet. He is completely covered in debris. He talks about explosions, explosions… “the stairs disappeared underneath me…” Computer monitors do not cause this. He died on August 24, 2008, in a hospital. A man in his prime. He was in his forties. He died in the hospital four days before the NIST report was released. He..
SS: Niels, let us just stick to this… Because I know the story about Barry Jennings. We do not have very much use of it. The interesting point is: Can you show us any rhythmical explosions, which are classical for a controlled demolition, in the time up until the collapses of Building 7 or World Trade Center 1 and 2?
NH: No, no.
SS: No, you cannot….
NH: But it has not…
SS: But this is completely… This is completely fundamental for whether it is a controlled demolition or not. It is simply the most basic proof. You may come up with a lot of circumstantial evidence or stories about people having heard explosions. We acknowledge that, completely. Many people have heard various explosions and there may be a lot of natural explanations for that. But the most basic fact is, and you just confirmed it now, you do not have any recordings, because they do not exist, of rhythmical explosions which is fundamental for a controlled demolition.
NH: What Anders presents to us here, are recordings during that day.
CL: Precisely, and that is why they are not controlled demolitions, because when you carry out a controlled demolition, you do not detonate a bomb now and then, here and there. You do it just before you want something to collapse.
NH: Nobody knows why these bombs have been detonated.
CL: But that is a weakness in your explanation, right?
NH: But I do not have any explanation to those bombs.
CL: Ah, you do indeed, because you say that there are explosions…
NH: Yes, yes…
CL:…that they are bombs…
Host: We just have to…
CL: …it is your claim…
Host: We just have to mention: You are listening to Radio 24syv. The program is called “Aflyttet”. This is the last round of the debate of what happened on September 11, 2001. With us in the studio, we have Niels Harrit and 911facts.dk. To put it mildly, they do not agree. But I do hope they will agree a little more during this program, because the topic is, in my opinion, too important to fight about.
Host: I think it is time to change the subject, I know we could talk a lot more about this, but… from whatever happened to those buildings to who was behind because it seems more and more evident that Niels Harrit thinks that somebody had a kind of a plan and used some explosives in these buildings, and you two think that it is an ordinary terror… That the official account is correct. All the official accounts and investigations claim that al Qaeda were behind together with 19 terrorists lead by Osama bin Laden, the guy who got killed in Pakistan in May last year. I have to ask you, Niels Harrit: Was it Osama bin Laden and his 19 terrorist?
NH: No, he simply has hundreds of great alibies that exclude that al Qaeda could have anything to do with it.
Host: Who did it, then?
NH: We do not know because we still have not, I repeat, we have not had a criminal investigation of this crime.
Host: Well, there was an FBI investigation, i.e. what you may consider to be an FBI investigation…
NH: Well, FBI… A police investigation normally leads to a result…
CL: It did too…
NH: Either you present some evidence and prosecute someone, or you drop the charges. And in this case no evidence has been put forward. And if you know of any evidence, then let us hear about them here. But no evidence has been put forward. No one has been prosecuted. There has been no trial. No conviction has been made. Normally, that would follow a police investigation.
Host: But the conclusion of the FBI investigation was unambiguously that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were behind.
NH: That is not correct. We have seen no indictment. You would do that… They had no problem with convicting Osama bin Laden in absentia after the bombings in Dar es Salam and Nairobi. No doubt they would put up a wanted poster for him, if they had any evidence that he was behind 9/11. It is totally nonsense when Steen Svanholm claims that there were no reason to put up a Wanted poster for him. Of course, they would put up a poster for Osama bin Laden if they thought he was guilty, but they have no evidence and the rest of us has seen no evidence either.
SS: I say there is no reason to put up a wanted poster for anybody twice when they are already wanted. By the way, that is not my claim. That is just the normal procedure of FBI. Neither you or I can change that.
NH: Christ almighty.
Host: I also have to ask… A man was killed in Pakistan and buried at sea in May last year. This was Osama bin Laden, says President Obama. Who do you think it was…?
NH: How do you know that?
Host: President Obama says so.
NH: Yes, that is more or less all we know about that. And that…
SS: You may say…
NH: And that military unit, Navy Seals Team Six, which according to Barack Obama was responsible for the attack, they crashed in a helicopter one week later.
Host: I hear silence from the other side.
SS: Well, I would just like to say… I will let Claus answer…
CL: Let us take the last part first. Not all members of Team Six were killed in that helicopter. One of them just published a book about the attack, for instance.
NH: Yes, what is his name?
CL: Okay, yes, yes, yes, but let us go back, then, and finish the issue of a police investigation. Zacharias Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison for participating in 9/11.
NH: Ha, ha, in 2000…
SS: Mounir el Motassadeq got 15 years in Germany.
NH: In 2000…
CL: Yes, so there was a police investigation.
NH: In 2005, right? And he was water boarded 173 times.
SS: But listen…
CL: Listen, you cannot say…
SS: You cannot say that there has been no trial about it all. Whether… You may think that it was not a fair trial, but it was there.
CL: And then… we do not get much further here because this is a fact that you yourself admit.
NH: The man you talk about… We are talking about a trial in 2005…
CL: It does not help you… There was a police investigation and a sentence was handed down.
NH: It has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. It is a 20th man, we are talking about now.
CL: You said that… Listen, you said that there was no police investigation of 9/11. There was indeed. End of story.
Host: Yes, but you also said, last time you were here in this studio, that Osama bin Laden died already in 2001.
NH: Yes. We have not seen or heard from him since… the 9th or 10th of November, 2001. That is when the last interview with him was made. And by then, he is clearly dying. CNN brings forward their medical expert in the studio. His name is Sanjay Gupta and he describes the physical condition and says: “This is clearly a kidney patient on the brink of death.” He has… Yes… I could go into details but…
SS: Oddly enough, the very same Gupta and, I believe, all the media that wrote about this story, you refer to, including Gupta, they also say, now, that Osama bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011. So… might it be that they got one piece of intelligence at first, and later they learned that reality… Truth was different…?
SS: In your world, the first piece of intelligence they got early on and a long time ago is still to be believed…
NH: Yes, of course. Otherwise, he would not still be employed at CNN. If he… did not change his explanation…
SS: This means that you cannot change you explanation? Can you not…? You do know that the flow of news changes. There is even something called “disclaimers”. But when all the sources, you refer to, tell a different story now, then why do you not believe them now?
NH: I do not refer to other sources. I see what I see. And what I see in 2001 is a dying man.
Host: What you could see on TV was that in 2004… It is true that Osama bin Laden denied having anything to do with 9/11, and we did not hear much from him after 2001 where the attacks took place. In 2004, another video was actually released.
Host: That was NBC News who presented this video that originally came from Al Jazeera and that allegedly was 18 minutes long at first and there was not just one terrorist but two.
Steen Svanholm and Claus Larsen, the claim is that Osama bin Laden never admitted to be behind 9/11.
CL: That is not correct. He did actually. You have to be careful about assuming that if he does not say it constantly then it means that he never said it. We have to consider the total amount of evidence, and within that he admits it. Regarding the claim that we have not seen any evidence of the death of Osama bin Laden, for example… I think Niels Harrit mentioned it in in this program a couple of weeks ago that there are no pictures of the body. However, no pictures of the body of Hitler have been published either, but that does not mean that people claim that Hitler is still alive or died earlier. No clear pictures of the victims of Breivik have been published either… So… I mean, quite a few politicians have seen photos and evidence of the death of Osama bin Laden, for instance Hillary Clinton. Does that mean that they are guilty too or accomplices in mass murder of their own citizens? And, by the way, I would like to ask Niels Harrit a direct question, if I may. If you saw pictures of Osama bin Laden’s body, why would you now, all of a sudden, believe the Americans? You do not do that to begin with.
NH: It is quite funny you should mention just that. It was actually Madeleine Albright… She says in 2004 that… A few months before the reelection… that “they have Osama bin Laden on ice”, but because she says that… She breaks this piece of information, so they cannot show the body. This is just a little funny story. That was Madeleine Albright and she was, as mentioned, also foreign secretary just like Hillary Clinton. But…
Host: I have to ask you: We heard this video clip before… If it was not bin Laden, who was it then?
NH: I do not know. But it is obviously a man who is 30 years younger than Osama bin Laden because… If we are referring to the same video, the one that came four days before the re-election of George Bush… Then it is apparently a man who is 30 years younger than Osama bin Laden was in 2001 because his beard is completely black. And it is a very diffuse video. And if you analyze the text, people have done that, then it is not at all his vocabulary and he does not mention Allah very much… not near as much as he usually does, only two or three times. He would have done it 25 times during that time. And so on, and so on, and so on… I would not hesitate a second to characterize it as a forgery.
Host: But that means… What you are really saying is that the United States of America or some intelligence service has made a fake Osama bin Laden say something, and later, they publish it via Al Jazeera?
NH: I will say that if this was a final exam project in animation at the National Film School here in Copenhagen, the person who made it would flunk.
CL: That means that you would not be convinced by photographs of a dead Osama bin Laden.
NH: Well, that depends…
CL: But you just said that…
NH: Yes, yes, yes, but that is a question of authorization or what is called “chain of custody” that you need every time you produce anything like this. Documentation is not just a question of getting a picture of a dead Osama bin Laden, which I am sure they would have published if they had had it and… So it is more or less a hypothetical question, honestly, what would convince me if I saw it. Should we not see that before…
CL: You were the one to say… You were the one to crave…
NH: Let us see it to begin with… It is absolutely grotesque…
CL: OK, so you take it back. OK.
Host: One of the arguments was… To why they did not publish it… That was because they said that even if they published it, people would not believe it…
NH: But, Christ almighty, here we are talking about hypothetical evidence. You are saying… You give all sorts of excuses to why there are no evidence. If you are going to judge a person, you need a positive burden of evidence… positive evidence. You cannot pronounce Osama bin Laden dead… There has to be solid evidence that it is in fact so instead of just a rumor. I could show you the picture of the dead Osama bin Laden, that Danmarks Radio (Danish National Radio) showed that morning… They showed it three times during that morning. It turned out during the day that it was a clear forgery merged by two different persons who had to take it back. It was Associated Press who…
SS: And that proves exactly the fact that news comes first, truth comes later. This demonstrates that sometimes, the media makes mistakes. Therefore you have to also recognize that at first they think that Osama bin Laden died in 2001 but later they discover something else. You are using two opposite arguments, depending on what fits.
NH: He cannot die twice, can he?
Host: You are listening to Radio24syv. The program is called “Aflyttet”. My name is Anders Kjærulf and we are talking with Niels Harrit, chemist and professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen, and Steen Svanholm and claus Larsen from 911facts.dk. As I said to begin with, it is like entering a hornet’s nest every time you debate 9/11. Primarily, I have been accused of not inviting clever experts into the studio, such as scientists like Niels Harrit, but instead we have to listen to you two, a schoolteacher, musician and a computer consultant who are behind 911facts.dk. Why should we listen to a couple of autodidact experts like the two of you?
CL: You should not do that necessarily. What you need to focus on, is what we are pointing towards and what sources we use. But you have to make up your own mind and decide what to believe. We cannot dictate any kind of truth. We are just trying to present the documentation that we have discovered. The rest is up to people themselves.
SS: And then we do… When the Truth movement, whom Niels Harrit represents… When they come up with various extraordinary, exotic claims or ideas of how things happened, we take them very seriously and investigate it, in the form of articles. Not in order to shoot down what they might have discovered, but to investigate, quite seriously, if there is something to it. Because if there is, it would be a grave matter.
Host: So you think you are able to be both objective and thorough and do all your stuff even though you are not scientists?
Host: Niels Harrit, you are indeed a scientist. How do you use that in connection with 9/11?
NH: Then I would like to go back to what Claus said earlier about the NIST report and the two towers and ask: Have you read the NIST report?
CL: Yes, I have.
NH: About the two towers?
NH: And you have seen their… how… their… how the towers collapsed in the NIST report.
CL: Yes, yes.
NH: Christ almighty. It is chapter six in the NIST report.
CL: Yes, but Niels…
NH: They do not even cover… And they admit… Then you have also read footnote 13 at the bottom of page 82, because their timeline stops before the towers collapse. You cannot say that… claim that… This is directly in conflict with reality.
CL: That is not correct. Niels, listen, when a building starts to fall, what do you expect, then?
NH: But we are asking… We are talking about the NIST report…
NH: OK… whether you have read it…
CL: I have.
NH: And the NIST report does not cover of the two…
CL: Of course it does. It does not cover it to your satisfaction. But that is a different matter.
NH: Now, listen, the timeline stops… May I show you where they say in the NIST report that they simply stop.
CL: Niels, I have read the whole report, so you cannot pick one single page, because that is what you always do. You have to consider the whole report…
NH: You say that you have read it.
NH: A statement about the collapse of the towers, and I say that the report does not cover the collapse…
CL: No, it does not cover it to your satisfaction.
NH: Satisfaction? Their timeline stops before the towers collapse.
CL: It is no use, Niels. It may not be to your satisfaction, but…
NH: It is not a question of satisfaction, it is a question of whether the report covers it, and it does not cover the very collapse of the towers.
CL: That is your opinion.
SS: But that…
NH: My opinion? It is in the NIST report.
SS: You know, NIST are here to investigate the cause of the collapse. They are not here to investigate the collapse itself after its initiation.
NH: Christ almighty.
SS: But they are not. Niels, you do know that NIST… Their main job is to secure buildings in the future, secure them in case of fire and in case of damage. How do we build better? That is NIST’s job. They are not here to do a criminal investigation even though that is what you want. So whether they stop at the collapse or not is completely irrelevant because it is not NIST’s job. So you are looking for something that is not supposed to be there in that report.
Host: I will change the subject right here. I just want to say to Niels Harrit that during all this you have criticized the media about their coverage of 9/11. What went wrong, in your opinion?
NH: They have… Danmarks Radio simply admitted… And we are talking about the director general Maria Rørbye Rønn’s office. Danmarks Radio admitted that they do not have any evidence that the official conspiracy theory is correct. And I can prove that, and I can show you the documentation afterwards. It is clear as a bell that… And it is the news department… It is the editor of the listeners and the viewers who says that Danmarks Radio pass on official accounts and that it is not the duty of Danmarks Radio to document the official accounts.
NH: Danmarks Radio… I do not know about 24syv, of course… but it is symptomatic for the media that they just repeat what they have been told by Associated Press and by Reuters.
Host: I would like to mention, also, that there is a very interesting example of a mistake in the media that we have a short sound clip about. Because… This is a brilliant example… It is from BBC who are reporting from New York, and they say that Building 7 has now collapsed. Unfortunately, it is still standing.
Host: BBC happen to do a very strange reportage here, because there is a building still standing behind them while they say all this. They say that Building 7 has collapsed due to fires because a lot of debris from the World Trade Center started them, and this becomes the official explanation later. They announce it too early. How can that happen, Claus Larsen?
CL: This is simply because the reporter sits in a studio and that is probably the least informed place to be. She has the information from the rescue workers onsite and they say that this building has been abandoned because we can see it is going to collapse sooner or later. They are not going to do anything about it because there is no one inside. Then she says… She simply misunderstands it. But that is yet another example of: News comes first, truth comes later. You cannot… Every time… Should we suspect a conspiracy every time the media misinterprets something? That is grotesque.
Host: So what you say is that she actually sits in a studio with a TV-monitor behind her…
CL: Yes, she gets the feed, you normally get in a studio.
Host: How do you regard this, Niels Harrit?
NH: What Claus says is not possible. When it never ever happened before in the history of the world that a steel framed high rise, a building of this type, collapsed due to fire, then the thought cannot be thought. The most experienced building expert is not able to predict anything he never saw before. If it never snowed, you cannot predict snow.
SS: Then we could not get to the Moon either.
NH: So the explanation that Claus presents is simply so far out because… Unfortunately, it is correct that everybody was waiting for the building to collapse.
CL: So they knew it.
NH: Yes, but the thought of it collapsing due to fire cannot be thought.
CL: It was thought.
NH: When… Exactly, because it came down due to a controlled demolition. The thought…
CL: That is your claim.
NH: No, the thought of it collapsing due to fire cannot be thought when the phenomena has never happened before.
CL: It is not…
SS: How could the firemen predict it, then?
NH: Because… You simply do not understand the fundamentally epistemological idea of what I am saying.
CL: We are talking practice here.
NH: You cannot think… You cannot imagine an event that has never happened before.
CL: There are people on site… They can see… They have their experience… You talk a lot about experience…
CL: But they have experienced that these things collapse…
CL: “Abandon it. Get away”.
NH: No. Firemen know very well that buildings like these do not collapse…
NH: Otherwise they would not swarm inside it.
CL: Why did they give the order to abandon it, then?
Host: But now I would like to ask you, Niels Harrit. You say the thought cannot be thought. But she says something…
Host: I mean, she does say something that has not yet happened. Why does she do that?
NH: It… She is apparently ahead of time… They have a schedule… It should have been demolished at 5 pm and unfortunately they are 20 minutes late, so she happens to read it too early.
Host: What you…
SS: So BBC is part of the cover up?
Host: What you say is really that there are a lot of people around the World Trade Center who are acting out some sort of manuscript?
NH: Yes, there… Apparently… Well, I… Is there any other conclusion…? We can say that the thought of the building collapsing due to fire cannot be thought.
SS: You definitely cannot think it, and that is OK.
NH: It is completely…
SS: It is OK that you cannot do that.
NH: Nobody can.
SS: You are now accusing BBC…
NH: You… You… Listen, we are talking about experience. You cannot think… You cannot imagine a phenomena that never has been.
SS: I do understand your point but if you use that argument you also say that you cannot imagine a way to get to the Moon. I do not know whether you also belong to the Moon conspiracy theorists. But the point is that all buildings are in danger of collapsing in a fire. That is on page one in every fireman’s handbook, so all firemen know that. All types of buildings are in danger of collapsing in a fire. And why do you think they fire proof steel buildings? That is, of course, because they are particularly vulnerable.
Host: I just want to say that there are three people in here that still disagree very much.
NH: Very much.
Host: You have all had a lot of time to speak. And this is the third program where we talked about this and that about the World Trade Center, something that happened 11 years ago, and that we are still debating right now. Is there nothing that the three of you can agree on?
CL: Oh, yes. Well, the aftermath is clearly terrible. Now, we have to live in a world where… terrorism is an everyday event for us. It may be that Niels Harrit thinks that the terrorism rose out of something else but the aftermath is definitely not pleasant to think about. For example the issues of surveillance that you are going present in a while in this program. That is not nice.
Host: That is a direct consequence of what happened back then?
CL: Yes, undoubtedly.
Host: How about you, Niels Harrit, do you have anything that you might agree with 911facts on?
NH: No, actually not.
Host: Nothing at all?
NH: No, nothing of what they have said today.
Host: How do you feel about the aftermath of 9/11? Do you think about that?
Host: I mean, besides what happened…
NH: …I am deeply concerned for my six grandchildren. I mean, the lie that I think… And the distortions, the concealments and the denial that dominated some of the comments today are very… are some of the most poisonous for a culture, because it destroys all human relations. It destroys the trust between people which is an assumption for both our culture and our business and the whole shebang. So we are ill positioned because of 9/11 and we shall not feel better until we confront reality.
Host: Personally, I find it very important that we reach some sort of agreement of where we are. For example if we can agree that it has had some consequences for us all, for example an increased surveillance and less freedom for ordinary people as such, and we also sent the Western world to a couple of very unpleasant wars. I just think we should hear a suggestion to a real conspiracy or, at least, a very unpleasant consequence of the paranoia that rose shortly after September 11, namely surveillance. The National Security Agency are expanding with the founding of a new data center that allegedly can contain all communication in the world, including all our phone calls the next 100 years. But the very system behind started as early as 2001 shortly after September 11, says a former NSA code breaker named William Binney.
William Binney worked for the American intelligence service, NSA, for 30 years as a programmer and was responsible for large systems that, among other things, bugged the Soviet Union. But after September 11, he worked on a large project called Stellar Wind, “Stjernevinden”. But the new thing was that Stellar Wind was not going to spy on the Soviet Union, it was supposed to bug Americans.
Host: Actually, you are not allowed to bug your own people in the United States. This is against the constitution. But after 9/11, they got more creative, says Binney. Now, they said that as long as they were only gathering information about people, it was not a bugging. Not until they manually started to examine the data. Binney says that NSA, National Security Agency, has constructed a system where they establish a kind of social network, a Facebook of all citizens in the country. They create a timeline for everybody, a timeline for all telephone calls, all e-mails, and all other communication. According to him, they have done this since 2001 as a part of the 9/11 terror fear.
Host: The interview of Binney was made by the moviemaker, Laura Poytras, who works on a trilogy, a documentary of America after 9/11. That did not make her popular. Every time she leaves the USA and returns, she is detained and interrogated according to the law. This has now happened 40 times. Several times, the agents told her that she might as well tell them everything, since they already know it all, also everything she does electronically. William Binney has himself been visited by the FBI. They came by, with guns drawn, while he was in the shower. They said he endangered specific people’s life. He said, they were the ones to break the constitution. They left again. He has never been indicted for anything. On the contrary, he accuses the CIA and the NSA and their superiors of creating a monster of a system. A system that the Stasi, the KGB, and the Gestapo would have cherished.
Host: That was William Binney, former NSA code breaker and now a whistleblower who talked about Stellar Wind, “Stjernevinden”, that is used to gather information about American citizens and maybe all of us. A victim to all this was Eliot Spitzer who ran for mayor in New York but was instead exposed not as a terrorist but a buyer of prostitutes, due to information that came from his timeline at the NSA via interconnections of credit cards and e-mails. He was never mayor. They tried to shut down the program in 2004, but Bush started it again despite a court ruling in the justice department. The Stellar Wind cases are also called “the pizza cases” because a lot of those that seemed suspicious just concerned pizza deliveries. Despite all these errors, the people behind the system claim that the system is right in 1% of the cases when it concerns the identification of terrorists that they might keep an extra eye on.
Host: Here in the studio, we still have Niels Harrit and 911facts’ Steen Svanholm and Claus Larsen. We have talked about World Trade Center and we have tried to… We have discussed the Truth Movement and skeptics and tried to find out whether we could agree on something. What do you think, when you hear what William Binney has to say?
NH: Well, I think about the fact that our civilization is threatened, and that is clearly a consequence of the lie and September 11. It is very serious. We are on the brink of a civil war in the USA and the war will be worse than before. Many have compared this situation… You did that yourself, you talked about Gestapo… The laws of a police state are prepared and ready. On December 31, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, according to which the American Military is authorized to practically detain and arrest any person, they think pose a threat and… has connections to terror. And this could actually mean every one of us… And indefinitely… I think that is a terrible… a terrible perspective… The lie… Truth hurts but the lie will kill us.
Host: Steen Svanholm and Claus Larsen, what do you say?
SS: Wow, do you also believe, just like Alex Jones says over there that people are already interned in concentration camps? And that… What was it… No, let us settle at that… No, we were supposed to answer that question… You may do that, Claus.
CL: Yes, the mere fact that we are having this discussion in public… And it takes place in the public in the USA… That proves… It may be that some interpret this as if we are preparing a police state or, as Niels Harrit just said, that we are on our way to a civil war… In which case, it is imperative to arm oneself… But the fact that we are having this free debate, means… We have to trust democracy, now that we have democracy, at least to a fair extent both in the USA and in Denmark… So we have to trust that.
Host: Thanks to all three of you, and thanks for the debate about World Trade Center. It may continue on the internet on Facebook.com/aflyttet, and let me then say: You have listened to “Aflyttet” on Radio24syv. Ninette Birch was our producer. Nicolaj Kirk was our technical assistant. I am Anders Kjærulf. I feel the stellar wind blow and want to travel on it instead, move about in the universe, but even there I cannot avoid cameras from satellites and Mars robots and long telescopes and scientists who want to reach further and further inside me, but instead just smile and smile at everything, all that flashes on this our only mutual Earth where we all dream about truth in one soul and one body. However not right now, but perhaps in a while, because now it is time for the news on Radio24syv.