Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked

Ragnarok said:
Anyone want to remind me why you debunkers accept the words of Jones and Harrit when they talk about demolitions, which they know nothing about, but you won't accept a word they say about nano-thermite? Talk about cherry-picking!
Click to expand...

Anyone want to remind me why you twoofers accept the words of Jones and Harrit when they talk about nano-thermite which they know nothing about but won't accept a word they say about the hundreds of tons of conventional explosives they say were used in the towers demolition? Talk about cherry picking!
 
alienentity said:
cmatrix - Consider this simple fact. The Jones/Harrit paper came out in early 2009. So far there has been no noticeable stir created in the highest level academic institutions around the world. This would have been the story of the century, had it any merit, I'm sure we can agree. therefore, we are confronted with 3 possible reasons for the lack of international hue and cry:

1) Qualified scientists just haven't heard of the paper.

2) They've heard of it, looked at it online, and dismissed it as nonsense or irrelevant.

3) They heard of it, looked at it online, realized how profound and true it is, but have kept silent due to academic pressure, NWO henchmen threatening next-of-kin, or that kind of intimidation.

Take your pick. y'know, I wouldn't bet a whole lot of money on #3 if I were you. But then, I don't like to lose bets. Maybe you don't care.:D
Click to expand...

Gee you`re right! After no one has ever had anything bad happen to them for supporting alternative 9/11 theories. Well except for Barry Jennings, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Sybil Edmunds and most recently Van Jones.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Anyone want to remind me why you twoofers accept the words of Jones and Harrit when they talk about nano-thermite which they know nothing about but won't accept a word they say about the hundreds of tons of conventional explosives they say were used in the towers demolition? Talk about cherry picking!
Click to expand...

Because like I just mentioned, I don't expect them to know how to bring a tower down by non-conventional means, but I do expect them to know a little bit about chemistry. Unless you can prove they have no qualifications whatsoever in this regard?

Or that you have better qualifications than them, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
Gee you`re right! After no one has ever had anything bad happen to them for supporting alternative 9/11 theories. Well except for Barry Jennings, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Sybil Edmunds and most recently Van Jones.
Click to expand...


Barry Jennings wasn't a crackpot supporter. Sorry.
 
unless you can prove that nano-thermite existed in 2001 in the amounts needed (thousands of tons of it) when in 2005 only small amounts existed in LABORATORIES (less than a ton so far), bringing up Nano-thermite to be used as anything but a research oddity, is nothing more than a red herring on the part of the Truth movement
 
Ragnarok said:
Because like I just mentioned, I don't expect them to know how to bring a tower down by non-conventional means, but I do expect them to know a little bit about chemistry. Unless you can prove they have no qualifications whatsoever in this regard?

Or that you have better qualifications than them, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Maybe you, then, can answer my questions about Dr. Neils Harrits hypothesis that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were responsible for the towers collapse. Cmatrix refuses to answer because he is either ignorant or afraid.

How do you explain no one hearing the conventional explosives described by Dr. Harrit?

How do you explain the complete lack of seismic signatures that would have been created by the conventional explosives Dr. Harrit describes?

How do you explain the complete lack of copper residues that would have been left by the conventional explosives that Dr. Harrit posits?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Maybe you, then, can answer my questions about Dr. Neils Harrits hypothesis that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were responsible for the towers collapse. Cmatrix refuses to answer because he is either ignorant or afraid.

How do you explain no one hearing the conventional explosives described by Dr. Harrit?

How do you explain the complete lack of seismic signatures that would have been created by the conventional explosives Dr. Harrit describes?

How do you explain the complete lack of copper residues that would have been left by the conventional explosives that Dr. Harrit posits?
Click to expand...

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just said that Harrit's opinions regarding the method of collapse are irrelevant, because he obviously knows nothing about this subject. But apparently, he does know about chemistry and they are the opinions you should be concentrating on.

The job for you derbunkers should be to prove there is no such thing as nanothermite and even if there is, that it did not exist in 2001.

It is not your job to ask how it was used yet.
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
unless you can prove that nano-thermite existed in 2001 in the amounts needed (thousands of tons of it) when in 2005 only small amounts existed in LABORATORIES (less than a ton so far), bringing up Nano-thermite to be used as anything but a research oddity, is nothing more than a red herring on the part of the Truth movement
Click to expand...

Speaking of small amounts. Something these nano-thermite fanatics can't grasp is that energy release has a time component. It doesn't matter how powerful it is. Smaller quantities = faster fuel consumption. Faster fuel consumption means less time for the energy output to affect the column. Even if it's "explosive" as these people assert, a paint layer isn't nearly enough. It doesn't take advanced chemistry to point this out.
 
Did cmatrix ever provide a rational for why the study tested the thermite energy density in air instead of an inert atmosphere? This would have been VERY strong evidence in favor of thermite. The only reason I can think that Harrit didn't test in an inert atmosphere is that he already knew it wasn't thermite and wouldn't react without the presence of oxygen.
 
Ragnarok said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just said that Harrit's opinions regarding the method of collapse are irrelevant, because he obviously knows nothing about this subject. But apparently, he does know about chemistry and they are the opinions you should be concentrating on.
Click to expand...


Huh? Harrit proposes an hypothesis for which the physical evidence is lacking. One is not supposed to point that out? The lack of physical evidence invalidates the hypothesis, that is the point. The field of expertise of the proposer of said hypothesis is thus a moot issue.
 
NutCracker said:
Huh? Harrit proposes an hypothesis for which the physical evidence is lacking. One is not supposed to point that out? The lack of physical evidence invalidates the hypothesis, that is the point. The field of expertise of the proposer of said hypothesis is thus a moot issue.
Click to expand...

No it isn't! If I made a proposal about aeronautics, you'd expect me to have some knowledge in that field. Why are you holding Harrit to a false standard?

He shouldn't have even been asked how it was done, because by exposing his ignorance on this topic, you have latched on to it like a pitbull on a juicy bone to the exclusion of anything else he might have to say.
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
"Yes this is my rebuttal that completely demolishes you "point". Remember, you point was that the chips were not consistent because they had different thicknesses. See? I used an analogy to expose your invalid reasoning. A slice of bread is still a slice of bread no matter what the thickness."
:jaw-dropp:
"Well we know O in iron oxide is available and we know iron oxide is there. Maybe its not me who needs the chemistry class."
:boggled:
A bullet firing from a silencer is an example of a comparatively quiet explosion. A small explosion is quieter than a large one. Gee your simple but non-existent equation certainly is believable.
:boggled:
"So a stick of dynamite is not an explosive when ignited in air? Gee that throws my whole reality in a turmoil."
:eek:

HA HA HA!!
Click to expand...

i bet some of my old cars had more iron oxide and aluminum in them than all of the nano-thermite in the world combined lol

wait
if i drive an old oxidized car real fast and sideswipe an aluminum truck trailer the car may burst into a thermitic reaction??
thanks for the heads up Cmatrix
ill be more careful on the BQE
:D
 
Ragnarok said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just said that Harrit's opinions regarding the method of collapse are irrelevant, because he obviously knows nothing about this subject. But apparently, he does know about chemistry and they are the opinions you should be concentrating on.

The job for you derbunkers should be to prove there is no such thing as nanothermite and even if there is, that it did not exist in 2001.

It is not your job to ask how it was used yet.
Click to expand...

Ragnarok: huh, you want us to prove a negative, while at the same we are not allowed to point out that Jones and his dim witted friends can't remotely explain how the "Super thermite" they did not find could have been used?

That is some Truther class thinking there, big guy! A big tasty dish of truther fail with a side of truther fail sauce.

Can I offer you a big heaping mug of STFU to go along with it?
 
cmatrix said:
A bullet firing from a silencer is an example of a comparatively quiet explosion. A small explosion is quieter than a large one. Gee your simple but non-existent equation certainly is believable.
Click to expand...

Gunpowder is not an explosive, it deflagrates, so it's not an example of a explosive.
 
Ragnarok said:
No it isn't! If I made a proposal about aeronautics, you'd expect me to have some knowledge in that field. Why are you holding Harrit to a false standard?
Click to expand...

I have a hard time following you. Harrit proposes an hypothesis in a field he knows little about. An hypothesis for which physical evidence is lacking. But we are not supposed to point out the latter because Harrit knows little about the hypothesis' domain. Is that your logic?

If you know nothing about aeronautics you should refrain from proposing hypotheses in said field. Likewise, I'd say Harrit should keep his mouth shut then about issues he knows nothing about. As I understand it, he did the oppososite.
 
Ragnarok said:
He shouldn't have even been asked how it was done, because by exposing his ignorance on this topic, you have latched on to it like a pitbull on a juicy bone to the exclusion of anything else he might have to say.
Click to expand...

Aaahh, I see... pointing out that he is dead wrong is sooo unfair to Mr. Harrit. Poor mr. harrit can't help he is wrong, you see, because he is ignorant in a relevant field.


You seem to have your own brand of truther logic.. you are original. Let's put it that way.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Did cmatrix ever provide a rational for why the study tested the thermite energy density in air instead of an inert atmosphere? This would have been VERY strong evidence in favor of thermite. The only reason I can think that Harrit didn't test in an inert atmosphere is that he already knew it wasn't thermite and wouldn't react without the presence of oxygen.
Click to expand...

No. He doesn't have a clue about that.

But he did say something about igniting a stick of dynamite in the air, a bullet firing from a silencer, and slicing bread. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom