Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus in Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, joins us to discuss his scientific paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" [external PDF], published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009. We also talk about musicianship, his BBC interview with Michael Rudin and 9/11 as a 'coup du monde'.
Julian Charles: Hello, this is Julian Charles of TheMindRenewed.com, podcasting to you from the depths of the Lancashire countryside here in the UK. Today is the 16th November 2012, and I’m delighted to be speaking to Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus in Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Dr. Harrit received his PhD from that same university in 1975, and served there as Associate Professor from 1976 until his retirement two years ago. Though well-known as a scientist in academic circles with over sixty co-authored, peer-reviewed articles published in some of the most prestigious scientific journals, Dr. Harrit has become more widely known in recent years because of a particular paper he authored in 2009, which presents physical evidence that calls into question the official account of the destruction of the three World Trade Centre high rise buildings on 11th September 2001 published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. This paper, entitled ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Centre Catastrophe’ [external PDF], is going to be the subject of our conversation, and Dr. Harrit joins me now to discuss this paper and its implications. So Dr. Harrit, thank you very much for speaking with me on The Mind Renewed.
Niels Harrit: Hello Julian, and thank you for taking me on.
JC: I’d like to start by asking you to say a little bit more about yourself. I know I’ve given out a little bit of information, but I think it might be good if you could just say perhaps a bit more about how you came to be Associate Professor, now Emeritus, and a little bit more about your area of specialism.
NH: How I actually got into science?
NH: That goes back to my childhood. I would say it was just a matter of curiosity. If you’re curious, and have questions about nature, it seemed a natural way to go, and maybe my problem was that I didn’t meet much resistance; I actually found it easy, and still do. So if there are any listeners who think that science is complicated and hard to understand, maybe they didn’t have the right teachers or maybe they had teachers who felt the need to make things more complicated than they needed to be. Science is easy. All you have to do is put your life into it if you want a career, and that’s about all it takes.
JC: It’s a matter of motivation, you would say?
NH: In a way. It’s not difficult if you have the right teachers and just sit down and take a look at it. I think that the emotional side of life is more difficult, because in science you are accumulating both knowledge and publications. Your pile of work is always getting bigger. But if you’re in the performing arts, if you’re an actor or musician or dancer, you cannot rely on what you did yesterday. This is a state of ‘existence’. But in science you can fall back on what you did yesterday. You cannot do that as an artist, so I think that it’s easier to be a scientist than an artist.
NH: Well, I have had some experience, actually, because I am a musician as well.
JC: Ah ha! Right.
NH: So I know, and when we’ve finished this interview, I have to go down and practise for a concert I’m actually rehearsing for tomorrow.
JC: Wonderful! What is it you’re playing?
NH: My main instrument is saxophone, but I also play the flute, the piano and various keyboards, and compose, etc.
JC: Wow! Now, I’ve introduced you as a professor of Chemistry. What is your more specific area within that?
NH: It is photochemistry, which deals with the interaction of light with matter, chemical reactions, and also physical implications of reactions between light and matter, or more generally in electromagnetic radiation and matter. My core expertise, you might say, is in photochemical reactions. Photosynthesis is one well-known example of a photochemical reaction in which the energy of the sunlight is converted into trees and green leaves and actually produces oxygen as the convenient by-product.
JC: Right. Well, I’d like to move on to the question of 9/11, of course, and most people who question the events of that day say that it was watching a video of Building 7 fall that first triggered their sceptism towards the official story, and I have to say that was true of me as well. What was it that first caused you to question 9/11?
NH: The same thing, actually. My wife is a fellow warrior in the pursuit of 9/11 truth. We are a team, probably due to her lifelong involvement as a peace activist. In 2006 she received a couple of DVDs anonymously sent by some people who we later came to know. But for a couple of months we left them lying around until we finally slipped them into the DVD player, and what we saw there was a presentation by Prof. Steven E. Jones from the Brigham Young University. I think it was actually the first one he did. And in that he showed the collapse of Building 7, the third of the WTC skyscrapers to collapse on 9/11. I would describe it as more of a jaw-hanger than an eye-opener, because what was going on there?
This immediately presented a twofold problem. First, we hadn’t seen it before, so there was somebody who actively wanted us not to know about the most spectacular collapse in modern history of architecture. Second, as a natural scientist, I couldn’t understand what was going on. There was no obvious reason for this building to collapse, so it gave us a lot to think about. And after a couple of weeks we realised that this was the most important event actually in our lifetime. It took me a couple of weeks to realise the consequences and the perspective, and I think this is a normal, what you might call, ‘delayed time’ for people to actually appreciate the enormousness of this event and how it has influenced the whole global society. So from then on we haven’t really had a day off. It has accelerated eventually up to the point of the publication of the paper you referred to in your introduction.
JC: Yes. Could you talk us through more detail about what you found and how you went about it?
NH: Steven E. Jones, who I’ve just mentioned, should be given all the credit for having initiated the research. He started to look into the dust from 9/11 in 2006. Up until that time there had already been two reports on the pulverisation of the skyscrapers: one from a private company called the R. J. Lee Group published in 2003/4, and another publication from the United States Geological Survey, which came out in 2005. When Jones initiated these reports, using supplementary material he had requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the United States Geological Institute―who at first wouldn’t release some data, but in the end did so―he wrote a paper [external PDF], because in the dust there are many, many findings, each of them alone implying that there were very high temperatures occurring during the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers. I could of course go into detail, but just let me mention the finding of some tiny iron spheres. These are completely round iron particles in huge quantities―actually, 5.87%―which is enormous compared to ordinary building dust. The occurrence of these iron particles in themselves―and this is not our finding, this was known already at that time―imply that thermite was used during the demolition of the WTC skyscrapers.
We could stop here, actually, because this is enough. When I’m talking about thermite, I need to explain a bit what this means. The word is over a hundred years old and is attributed to a German chemist called Hans Goldschmidt, who, in 1893, discovered that the reaction from a mixture of two solid particles―pulverised aluminium (aluminium powder) and iron oxide (which you would call rust, pulverised rust)―is very violent, like gunpowder. Enormous heat is produced and the product is elemental iron. So what it’s doing is the aluminium is reducing rust to elemental iron, but the iron comes out at a temperature of 2500 degrees Centigrade, which is roughly a thousand degrees higher than the melting point of iron and steel, so the thermite reaction is very useful. It can be used for welding and was already patented in 1898 for that purpose. But because the iron produced in the process has this enormous temperature, it can also be used for the destruction of other iron or steel items, and now I’m talking about armour. So the thermite reaction has been used for military purposes for many, many years after WWI in torpedoes and grenades.
But the classical old-time kind of thermite is not an explosive; it is an incendiary. It destroys other things by means of heat, while a conventional explosive destroys things by means of pressure. An explosion mechanically blows things apart, but an incendiary destroys things by means of heat. So a torpedo, which has a thermite charge, is actually melting its way through the warship. This must therefore be kept in mind, because there’s been a lot of hype around our findings on this thermitic material. The fact is that we do not know where it fits into the hypothetical blast scenarios at the WTC. Many people think that this is explosive, and all we can say is, “Maybe”.
Actually, we do not know. In my opinion the collapses of the WTC are very complicated. There’s a lot of energy in the thermite reaction. In recent years, from the early 90s, this has been a subject of military research: to use the energy of the thermite reaction to create an explosive action by adding chemicals to the reaction to form a pressure wave, which makes the material explosive. At the same time, you may recall, we saw the advance of nanotechnology, which is a field of technology in between molecular sciences, like chemistry, and what we call 'border materials', which is a realm of physics. Nanotechnology is a border discipline between our physical world and the world of chemistry, which is molecules. It just makes all the particles much smaller. So what you have are particles almost the size of molecules. They’re bigger than molecules, but if you make the particles very, very small―in the case where you have a thermite reaction, a solid-state reaction, that is two powders reacting with each other―the reaction is much faster and much more violent. So if we talk about nano-thermite, where the particles are approaching molecular dimensions, the reaction is roughly a hundred times faster than the classical thermite reaction. For that reason―we know the research has been going on―the principles of the thermite reactions form the basis of making explosives and rocket fuel (propellants) as well.
So now we have three categories of what we call energetic materials: incendiaries, explosives and rocket fuel. As an example the second ‘step’ of the space shuttle rocket was a nano rocket fuel. So what I’m saying here is that we have a chemical reaction with a lot of energy and that can be used either as an incendiary or as rocket fuel or as an explosive, and we do not know where are findings come in.
JC: But your paper says that you have found material that you reckon to be nano-thermite.
NH: Yes. Our most pertinent finding is that some of the chips were still reacting, because when you apply an explosive or an incendiary, there is always something left. So again, we must credit Professor Steven Jones for this, who suspected this and looked for unreacted material. We knew that thermite had been used for other reasons, which I may get a chance to mention. And so he started simply to see if there were something left and found these red-grey chips. Most pertinent, when you heat them up, they react and form elementary iron, and that was the single observation that makes it thermitic material.
JC: And this is consistent with the microspheres of iron, which were found in the dust?
NH: Strangely enough, yes. But scientifically strictly speaking, we must say that this is just a strange coincidence, but it is consistent. Other models are consistent and consistency is an important requirement for any scientific statement.
JC: Yes, so the nano-thermite would be sufficient to explain that phenomenon, though not necessarily the explanation.
NH: Well, there’s another observation, which was actually made by Jonathan Barnett and a colleague from Worcester Institute of Technology already in late 2001. Because due to circumstances, of which I’m not quite aware, they got access to some of the steel beams from Ground Zero, and they found a phenomenon generally known as sulfidation of steel, whereby the steel beams had been corroded and had reacted in a strange way. They looked like Swiss cheese and were razor-thin, with big holes in them. And when they took a closer look at the structure of the steel, they found, I should say, iron sulfide, sulfidation of steel. And this points to another variety of thermite known as thermate.
Now things get a little complicated, because if you want to cut steel with thermite, one of the early discoveries is that this becomes easier with the addition of sulfur―not because the reaction is more violent, but because the steel melts more easily. I could go on to say [that's] because it forms an eutectic mixture with the steel, but that very quickly becomes complicated. The point is that if you add sulfur to thermite, the thermite cuts through steel like a hot knife cuts through butter. Now, our nano-thermite cannot account for this finding. So if you want to cut the steel columns of WTC prior to the demolition itself―because this is what happened, as you could see molten iron pouring out of the South Tower minutes before it collapsed, meaning that the whole structure had been weakened by the cutting of the steel beams before the final stages of collapse―[you do it] most probably using thermate that does not involve the red-grey chips.
So in my opinion, there were at least two kinds of thermitic material being used― and eventually also the explosives. But we do not know the nature of the explosives that were used in the final stages. If you look at the two Twin Towers―and you have no doubt seen the Twin Towers as well as the collapse of Building 7―you would agree that these are two completely different scenarios. Building 7 was a classic structural demolition taken from the bottom up, and it goes into free fall; but the Twin Towers were blown up from the top down. If you care to look with an open mind, without prejudice, you can simply see the towers being blown up.
David Chandler, the American high school teacher, did a lot of brilliant video work on the collapses of the Twin Towers. From these [videos] you see large structural pieces from the building being ejected out whilst the building is exploding, ejected out a hundred, two hundred meters. Some of these weigh ten or fifteen tons―enormous steel beams and girders being thrown out. Small fragments were also ejected, some of them accelerating towards the ground faster than free fall, some of them changing direction in mid-air making 90-degree turns. Some of them are exploding in mid-air if you take a closer look. This could very well be our nano-thermite.
You may speculate as to why this was done, as to why most of the weight of the towers needed to be ejected outside the footprint―because this is what happened. The buildings could have been brought down into their own footprints, but were not. Instead there was this exploding, mushroom-like phenomenon and it is exceedingly hot in those pyroclastic clouds. Now, we’re really getting into the speculative arena as to why this was done. But this is what you see, and so in my scenario there were at least two different types of thermites involved, plus explosives, the nature of which we do not know.
JC: Could I turn to your interview that you had with Michael Rudin of the BBC? It was suggested that maybe primer paint was used in the WTC buildings, and that maybe that might account for the red-grey chips. Did your research exclude that possibility?
NH: Well, the funny thing about Michael Rudin’s interview is he actually accepts all findings.
JC: Does he?
NH: Oh yeah, he does. He accepts that the chips are reacting to form elemental iron, so this is a thermite reaction. So the BBC was actually endorsing thermitic paint. I can live with that. We call it painted-on thermite. Mr. Rudin did not realise this when he asked me the question, and I was actually at that time too exhausted to catch on as to what was happening. But he, and therefore the BBC, was endorsing thermitic paint at that time, because he said that the same kind of paint had been applied to the Manhattan Bridge. Fine, I could easily go along with that, and I explained this to him in post-production―that that was actually what he said. So maybe that was why that fact failed to make it into the final production. But the BBC had in fact endorsed thermitic paint, and the researchers that Rudin quoted haven’t said a word about this since. And everything that’s not published doesn’t count.
JC: Yes, he mentioned a couple of professors from Carnegie Mellon University.
NH: Yeah, how dare he! I had no idea who these people were, and to bring on camera second or third-hand rumours was obviously unacceptable. But all told the BBC was actually endorsing thermitic paint.
JC: I must admit I did think that was a very strange part of the interview, because he mentioned that these professors had said that the paint was specialised, cured paint, and then he seemed to suggest that this had the same kind of properties as the thermitic material that you had discovered, and I did think to myself, “Why on earth would you use a paint with those kind of properties in buildings like the WTC?”
JC: Do you know anything about the paints he’s talking about?
NH: Oh yeah, of course. I had great problems actually locating the scientists he was talking about. That he should present stuff like that on camera was a dirty trick on his part. But the point is that it’s true that you use aluminium, but they don’t have the properties. I sincerely do hope that the paint he’s talking about does not react. I have not followed up on this. It really doesn’t matter, because what we are saying is that we have found thermitic paint―thermitic material in the WTC dust. It shouldn’t be there, and that’s it. There are other kinds of primer which people have suggested should be identical to our findings, but they do not match the chemical composition. One of them contains―and now I have to be a little technical―30% strontium chromate, which we do not find. It leaves our finding, as you may now realise, as purely an academic footnote because the evidence for the demolition of the WTC towers is so overwhelming. There’s a mountain of evidence. One factor alone is that no steel-framed structure has ever collapsed due to fire. That by itself is enough.
JC: It is sometimes suggested that your article is published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal because it wouldn’t have made it through the more rigorous peer-review process of a more prestigious publication. Is there anything to that claim?
NH: No, and the problem here is not the peer-review process; the problem is that . . . well, there are several problems. One thing is that the established publishing companies, for reasons that may become obvious, would never touch something like this. I mean this is the same thing as the BBC or the establishment, who are part of the mainstream media picture. Another thing is actually the open journals were an innovation at that time, and still are. It’s in the name that open journals should have open access to everyone.
What has happened in the scientific community is that the traditional publishing companies have cranked up the subscription costs on the regular journals to such an extent that they are out of reach of ordinary companies, let alone individuals. Only big libraries and institutions are able to afford to subscribe to the procedures journals. That’s one thing. This has nothing to do with our paper. You must remember that it’s always the scientists who pay for the publication, either as subscribers, or, in this case, with page charge. With some journals you do both, that is you pay for the publication and you pay for the subscription. This is only a matter of politics―of how the money comes into the system of the publication. In the open journals, the system is that you pay for the publication; but with the journals that are completely controlled by very few publishing companies, you pay by subscription. The review process is the same and has nothing to do with that. The number one advantage of the journal in which we published is that it can be accessed publicly, so you can go and read it. If this were one of the traditional journals, you would either have to go to a library or be affiliated to a university in order to read it. That’s one thing.
Another thing is that it is very long. If this journal had a paper version, we would never be allowed to publish such a long paper with 33 colour pictures. The technical production of this paper is the most complicated I have ever been involved with. Point three: we keep the cover rights of the pictures. You couldn’t do this if it were one of the traditional publishing companies. Then they would own the copyrights of the pictures and I would have to ask them every time I gave a presentation. Point four: my Dean at the university, my super over-boss, was on the external advisory board of this journal. He pulled out very fast because he got cold feet―that’s another thing. But at the time of publication, since his name was Anderson, he actually headed the list alphabetically as one of the endorsers of this paper. So I think that says it all.
JC: Sometimes people bring up the question about the chain of custody of these dust samples, and I understand that you were very, very careful about this and you did a lot of meticulous documenting to make sure that the chain of custody was secure. Can you describe what you did?
NH: Well, actually, each individual submitting samples signed the usual documents, and in some cases also submitted a video explaining how it was sent and how it was actually transferred to us, and at that time we had five good samples. But the fifth individual was not ready to come forward with a name and identification in the public domain, so we pulled out all the results from this fifth sample because that person did not want to publicly certify the chain of custody. I think that is hopefully illustrative of the scrutiny that we put into it. I must admit now that I thought this whole procedure was ridiculous. All my life, in science, nobody has ever accused me of falsifying a sample. I thought it was so far out, but some of the others guys insisted that this had to be done accurately. I said, “Come on! Isn’t this a bit far-fetched?” But they said, “No, we must do it.” So, I went along with it and I realised that maybe they were right. It was good that you should bring up that specific question.
JC: You’ve already mentioned about these iron microspheres being something like 6% of the dust. Now, some people have suggested that this could have been as a consequence of welding when the buildings were constructed in the first place. That seems to me to be a huge proportion of the dust―6%. I don’t know, I’m not an expert in these things, but do you think that is an adequate explanation to say that it could be caused by welding?
NH: I think it sounds completely ridiculous. Their theory must be backed by experience. Then they have to go into another high-rise and actually document that there is still this enormous number of tons left, in case it must be prevalent or dominant in any steel-framed high rise which has been raised by the same methods, so it’s a matter of let them go and document this.
JC: Good point, yes. Can I also ask you about the carbon nanotubes that you mentioned in your Toronto Hearings presentation that have been found in the lung tissue of emergency responders? What’s the significance of that?
JC: What’s the significance of that?
NH: Well, actually you’re touching on a sore point here, because I’ve been so busy over the last year that I have simply not had the time to write up these results in a publication, unfortunately, but I must do it very soon. Actually, the fact that we’ve shown that these nanotubes, which are made up of some very tiny threads of carbon material, are formed when the nano-thermite reacts is just coincidental. Kevin Ryan, a colleague of mine from Bloomington, Indiana, is making nano-thermite in his own backyard. He sent me a sample of one of his reaction mixtures. I took a look at it and that’s where we found these nanotubes. So it’s a matter of coincidence, but I can see that the discovery that I did, actually, that nanotubes are formed in this process, is new. So when I publish this, there’ll be no mention of WTC. The reaction itself is a new and very interesting discovery, but the fact is that the carbon nanotubes are ending up in the lung tissue of the first responders and, you know, they are sick by the thousands from breathing in this dust.
NH: If you ever saw it under a microscope you would say, “Ouch!” I mean, just to breath this stuff―it’s so filthy. It’s filled with blast fibres, asbestos and mercury, and―ouch!―it looks very ugly. This is looking at it through an optical microscope. To see the carbon nanotubes that are so much smaller you would need to use an electro-microscope. But they’re ending up in the lung tissue of these poor first responders, and eventually they become decisive for their disease. This is all very recent research. I have a paper lying around here, which connects this to some kinds of cancer. Just to give you the headline: 'Carbon nanotubes enhance metastatic growth of lung carcinoma via up-regulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells'. I’m not a biologist or a doctor, but here the carbon nanotubes play a role in metastatic growth of lung cancer.
JC: Just to get the connection with your research, am I right in thinking that these carbon nanotubes are some by-product of a thermitic reaction?
JC: So they are consistent with the hypothesis again of a thermitic destruction.
NH: Again, it is a striking coincidence, but it is consistent with the whole model.
NH: We cannot say, “This is caused by that”; we can say that this is a remarkable coincidence and is consistent with the overall model.
JC: Yes. I’m coming back to the question that you touched on earlier when you were saying how important it is to deal with these questions about 9/11. So, I’m going to ask you again: Why do you think it is so important to question the events? I mean, some people say, “Well, it’s all ‘conspiracy theorising”; others say, “It’s a long time ago, so why bother about it?” So, why do you think these questions are so important that we can't just 'move on'?
NH: First, let me take the opportunity to make a little footnote about the word ‘conspiracy’, because the only conspiracy theory that we are involved in is the one with Osama Bin Laden, the nineteen hijackers, and Al Qaeda. It was a conspiracy, because according to the official version of events, they conspired to commit a crime, okay. And it is a theory, because so far we have seen no single piece of solid forensic evidence that the official conspiracy theory is correct. We have been brought into at least three wars―I’m counting Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror. Other people will add to that list what is currently happening in the Middle East. So, not only are we brought into war, but the whole global society is going down the drain. We are talking about our civilisation, which is in the balance―at stake now, no less. No matter whether you look to the economy, to the environment, to the human rights situation, no matter where you turn your eyes, it’s not going very well. I would say that it’s going so badly that Western Civilisation is now at stake.
In my opinion, the most important corroding factor is the lie: the fact that everybody knows, more or less, that we have been lied to. But for different reasons, which we may not have time to go into, they find it difficult to accept that they have been lied to. So it is devastating, not only for language, but for everybody’s confidence. Everybody is scared and everybody is lying, and that is accepted. We simply cannot survive that state of lies and fear and that is the main reason, in my opinion, why not only are we going to war, but that the economy is going so badly, and it’s all converging on what happened on September 11th 2001. Of course there’ve been plenty of processes leading up to that day, but everything that has happened since then would not have been possible had 9/11 not happened. So that’s why our society―and I’m very, very serious and now talking on behalf of my grandchildren―we cannot survive and maintain our society without confronting the event of September 11th 2001. And it is getting late. That’s why we spend all our time trying to tell our fellow citizens the truth about 9/11.
JC: Yes, I had an interview with Kevin Barrett, and he said that he understood 9/11 to be a coup d’etat, that a faction within the American establishment essentially―presumably, I think this is what he meant―took over that day in a very strange way and that we are living with the results of that coup d’etat. Do you understand it in that way?
NH: Well, I would say coup du monde, if you want to speak French. It is not a state coup; it’s a global coup. I think, to talk about a specific country I think is not correct. Every attempt to rationalise this conflict along national, ethnic or religious factions is a digression, a derailment. I’m not pointing fingers at any individual perpetrators behind 9/11 because we simply do not know, but nevertheless we can feel that there is a power in charge that is beyond the national level and beyond national laws, and can apparently override anything, so I would rather say it’s a coup against our global community, because we are all connected now.
NH: And when we go, we’ll go together. It’s very difficult to foresee, actually, what the course of events will be. If you look at the economy, we are facing very, very serious events, and it may happen anytime, or it may take some time, because the situation now is metastable. That means, it is bound to accelerate at some point, but you cannot say when. It’s getting worse every day. The American debt is increasing by three billion dollars a day, just to pick one number, and the situation in southern Europe is not stable at all, etc., etc.
JC: I know we are digressing here, but . . .
NH: No, not really, because 9/11 was needed to solve all these problems, an unimaginable paradigm shift so profound and unprecedented in history. Personally, I believe that 9/11’s key, and without truth there’ll be no peace.
JC: So, do you feel that the problems that we are encountering with the economy are just the result of poor decisions, or do you have the sense that this too is somehow engineered?
NH: Well, I would say that the political actions, which actually led to the financial situation, would not have been possible without 9/11. Now we’re talking politics, which I very rarely do, but somebody used the opportunities of 9/11 to take political actions that have lead us to the economic situation in which we are now. 9/11 is key to the whole thing, and also the key to restructuring our society and our democracy.
JC: Before we end, for people who are still unfamiliar with this whole business of questioning the events of 9/11, what resources would you personally point people to in order to find out more? When you look on the Internet there’s a great deal of rubbish out there. There’s good information; there’s bad information. What would you point people to?
NH: Maybe a little advertisement for something called Consensus 9/11. This is an initiative taken by David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth and an attorney called William Veale in the United States. Behind the project is a panel of experts who evaluate what we call consensus points, something we can agree upon as solid evidence regarding 9/11. I am a member of the panel, and so far we have reached twenty-nine points where we can say with a high level of certainty that this is the best evidence available. So, I will suggest that people go to www.consensus9/11.org. This is the most solid and well-researched field behind 9/11, because it’s true there’s is a lot of rubbish out there, and that is the way you might say the perpetrators actually work. They are deliberately spamming the whole field with nonsense by mixing correct data with false information so that everybody gets confused and we all get tired and would rather watch 'X Factor' on television and fall back into apathy.
JC: I do wonder sometimes if some of that is as a consequence of Obama’s information czar, Cass Sunstein?
NH: Ah, yes, that’s right! Well, not entirely. The global media became complicit with the official story within a day or two of 9/11. What’s interesting is that on the day itself the media was actually honestly recording events, in Denmark also. But it only took the global media a day and a half to fall in line with the official version. Cass Sunstein has been exercising what you call cognitive infiltration in the 9/11 Truth Movement; and it works, actually. He’s making a lot of people very tired through in-fighting. That’s another thing.
JC: I was just wondering if some of the rubbish that we find on YouTube― for example, the outlandish suggestions―is triggered by that policy?
NH: Definitely, absolutely. Every time you hear some nonsense, you can be sure that it is planted. That’s true; that’s the way it works. Well, at least you don’t die from that kind of repression, but you get very tired. So I would end by suggesting that people go and read David Ray Griffin’s books, who is actually a brilliant American theologian. Then just trust yourself. Don’t trust me or any other person out there, just trust yourself. See what you see. Go and watch the Twin Towers collapsing, and you’ll realise that this is not the consequence of the impact of the two airplanes, but it is a controlled demolition. Everybody can count to three, okay? There were two planes, but there were three skyscrapers. So, we should all realise that there was something wrong here. And then go and do your own research.
JC: Thank you very much indeed. So we should all question, we should not be afraid to question.
NH: That’s right.
JC: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Dr. Harrit. It really has been a fascinating conversation.
NH: You’re welcome, and good luck with your show, Julian.
JC: Thank you. Bye-bye.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by Dr. Niels Harrit in this interview are his responsibility alone; they do not necessarily reflect those of The Mind Renewed.