The sad case of Niels Harrit

[R.Mackey]

To know if the article has really been reviewed, Harrit could reveal these 14 pages (without the name of reviewer of course).
Thereby we will see if the reviewer was competent in the field of explosive or nanothermite!
Of course he can do it, and he will stop the polemic. Definitively...

If the reviewer wrote anything other than "This is the biggest pile of unsubstantiated, conspiracy-mongering crap I've ever read" then we know he or she isn't competent as a reviewer...

Seriously, griping about peer reviewers is usually an excuse for why papers aren't published. You never see it in the context of a paper that is. In this case, we know the paper is garbage, because we've all read it, and it is garbage. No need for further comment.

 

[alienentity]

I was rehearsing at UBC last night, and to my surprise came across this flyer:

'Dr. Niels Harrit
Explosive Evidence
Science and the collapse of the three towers on 9/11

Danish Scientist, Dr. Niels Harrit, analyzed dust samples collected after the 9/11 attacks in New York.
D. Harrit's explosive findings are shocking and contradict the official explanation given to the world about how or what made the towers collapse.

Listen to Dr. Harrit speak about his findings and decide for yourself.

Thursday, Feb 24
@7pm
The Geography Building
Room 100
1984 West Mall, UBC

The event will be streaming live at
www.ustream.tv/channel/voices-for-truth

I would've gone to it and heckled him if I hadn't been otherwise occupied. But I note how the flyer downplays the connection with the 9/11 Truth movement, controlled demolition etc... and also presents the findings as Dr. Harrit's.
It doesn't even mention what his field of expertise is.....

Nice propaganda

 

[Josarhus]

I was rehearsing at UBC last night, and to my surprise came across this flyer:

'Dr. Niels Harrit
Explosive Evidence
Science and the collapse of the three towers on 9/11

Danish Scientist, Dr. Niels Harrit, analyzed dust samples collected after the 9/11 attacks in New York.
D. Harrit's explosive findings are shocking and contradict the official explanation given to the world about how or what made the towers collapse.

Listen to Dr. Harrit speak about his findings and decide for yourself.

Thursday, Feb 24
@7pm
The Geography Building
Room 100
1984 West Mall, UBC

The event will be streaming live at
www.ustream.tv/channel/voices-for-truth

I would've gone to it and heckled him if I hadn't been otherwise occupied. But I note how the flyer downplays the connection with the 9/11 Truth movement, controlled demolition etc... and also presents the findings as Dr. Harrit's.
It doesn't even mention what his field of expertise is.....

Nice propaganda

It must be this flyer you are talking about:

http://www.i11time.dk/photo/niels-harrit-canada-tour-2011?xg_source=activity

Link to the Danish truth movement.

 

[grandmastershek]

In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments...

IIRC...didn't Jones say they got x number of pages of notes & Griscom said he had no criticisms? Also, wasn't Griscom acknowledged in the paper which was later followed by Jones welcoming Griscom to the TM even though Jones knew full well he was a truther? Yeah...we can definitely say whatever peer review took place it wasn't anything near free of bias.

 

[grandmastershek]

Also, Dennis Rancourt (The Activist Teacher) had a back and forth with Harrit via email. I haven't gone through the emails yet, but it sounds like arguing with the "scholars" is just as fruitless as arguing with the message board rift-raft.

After several back and forth contributions, Harrit simply quit without providing any of the extra data that he had mentioned and without answering the crux of the aluminum question. He ended with "Enough. It ends here." See last email in the main exchange.

My personal note is that Richard Gage is not included. Wonder why?

 

[grandmastershek]

IIRC...didn't Jones say they got x number of pages of notes & Griscom said he had no criticisms?

Here we go:

...I found no fault whatsoever when I read the version of the Harrit et al. paper under discussion here.

But then Griscoms says here:

And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions...And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! .

WTF? Well duh...wouldn't you find no fault after you gave and they succumbed to your criticisms?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

It must be this flyer you are talking about:

http://www.i11time.dk/photo/niels-harrit-canada-tour-2011?xg_source=activity

Link to the Danish truth movement.

There is a flyer on that page apparently sponsored by a canadian university, McMaster. Why on earth would a university sponsor one of the numerous truther "tours"? It seems to be a baptist university, wasn't Jones baptist?

 

[grandmastershek]

There is a flyer on that page apparently sponsored by a canadian university, McMaster. Why on earth would a university sponsor one of the numerous truther "tours"? It seems to be a baptist university, wasn't Jones baptist?

I was actually having a back and forth with a certain university representative which was to host Richard Gage. What took me aback most was that they were offering CE credits for attending his presentation. I expressed my concern that no counter position was being offered.

The person was a very reliable source and confided that Gage was recommended by some reliable sources. But upon learning the nature of his presentation decided to not offer CE credits, they were making it known the university did not agree with his "opinion", and nor were they going to promote it as they would normally. He said no to the counter point presentation as they didn't want a debate and had already had people present the collapse mechanisms. Unfortunately, this person did not give me permission to reproduce the emails. I got the feeling he didn't want truthers seeing this and having the school get harassed with the usual nonsense they are known for.

 

[grandmastershek]

I swear...I never get over the moron parade going on with "the scholars for truth". 2 planes & 3 buildings! OMG!!!!

 

[Patriots4Truth]

My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt until anyone analyzes the dust for the red chips and publishes their results in a scientific journal (because there is no way people at home can check the lab results like we can check the assumptions and math in Bazant's paper). But It has been almost two years since Harrit's paper was published and I would think that someone would try to replicate his experiments by now.

 

[grandmastershek]

My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt...

Of course...someone wrote it on the internet, must be true.

But It has been almost two years since Harrit's paper was published and I would think that someone would try to replicate his experiments by now.

Mark Basile allegedly confirmed it was nanothermite, not that he necessarily replicated the results. They have yet to say when, and if, he is submitting his findings to a journal. A real one would be nice.

 

[R.Mackey]

My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt until anyone analyzes the dust for the red chips and publishes their results in a scientific journal (because there is no way people at home can check the lab results like we can check the assumptions and math in Bazant's paper). But It has been almost two years since Harrit's paper was published and I would think that someone would try to replicate his experiments by now.

That dust was professionally analyzed by Dr. Paul Lioy, professor of occupational medicine at UMDNJ, and his results published in 2002. This work was further corroborated by the DELTA group at UC Davis. There are no suspicious materials in the dust, anywhere. Those results are unchallenged, and came out years before Harrit's paper.

If, on the other hand, you want us to challenge the specific dust samples that Harrit and Jones and the rest of those jackals have, we'd need access to those samples. Dr. Jones promised to make them available, but he has not done so, breaking his promise.

Let us also not overlook that the paper's own results prove it isn't nanothermite... or that their own hypothesis makes no sense at all.

Give these charlatans and frauds the benefit of the doubt? What doubt?

 

[Miragememories]

That dust was professionally analyzed by Dr. Paul Lioy, professor of occupational medicine at UMDNJ, and his results published in 2002. This work was further corroborated by the DELTA group at UC Davis. There are no suspicious materials in the dust, anywhere. Those results are unchallenged, and came out years before Harrit's paper.

If, on the other hand, you want us to challenge the specific dust samples that Harrit and Jones and the rest of those jackals have, we'd need access to those samples. Dr. Jones promised to make them available, but he has not done so, breaking his promise.

Let us also not overlook that the paper's own results prove it isn't nanothermite... or that their own hypothesis makes no sense at all.

Give these charlatans and frauds the benefit of the doubt? What doubt?

B.S.

Dr. Jones has made available the identity of the sources for his samples.

If they refuse to share with disingenuous people such as yourself, Mackey, it does not prove non-compliance.

If anything it reveals the integrity of their concerns.

MM

 

[grandmastershek]

If anything it reveals the integrity of their concerns.

MM

Sure it does. It appears that the good Dr. will only share his samples with people who already agree with his conclusions. Wonder why?

Steven Jones:

Here is my recommendation: request that Mr. Corley acquire several ‘official’ WTC dust samples directly from the USGS, and scrutinize these for red/gray chips as defined in our paper. Based on our scientific team's experience, those samplings taken nearer to ‘ground zero’ will be more likely to contain larger numbers of these red/gray particles, so the ‘nearest samples’ should be sought.”

Someone rev-up the Rationalizer 6000!

 

[Miragememories]

Sure it does. It appears that the good Dr. will only share his samples with people who already agree with his conclusions. Wonder why?



Someone rev-up the Rationalizer 6000!

They are not his samples.

He shared his sources.

What more could you ask of him.

MM

 

[beachnut]

B.S.

Dr. Jones has made available the identity of the sources for his samples.

If they refuse to share with disingenuous people such as yourself, Mackey, it does not prove non-compliance.

If anything it reveals the integrity of their concerns.

MM

There was no thermite used at the WTC, Jones made it up. If you don't comprehend the fact Jones made it up due to some political bias or insanity, you may not be a skeptic, you may not be critical thinker, you may of made a mistake coming to a skeptic forum with no evidence based support for the failed thermite lies made up by Jones and some crazy paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Jones made it up, the paper is a fraud. The dust is not thermite, the paper proved it; all you have to do is look up what thermite is, and look at the paper. The dust was not themite. Simple chemistry, but you failed to look up thermite, and use critical thinking skills to compare the woo in the paper to reality. Are you too busy to do the easy work?

If you think the paper is right, take it to a chemical engineering school, the professors will tell you it is nonsense. Are you too afraid to take it to a real chem engineer? My roommate in college is a chemical engineer, I took chemical engineering courses, but all that is need to debunk the failed paper is a grade school education, do you have that?

It is not hard, go to a school with chem engineering and get the paper authenticated. Good luck.

 

[Sunstealer]

What more could you ask of him.

Hahahahaha, Oh lots. Hhahahaaha, if only I could stop myself from, Hahahhahaha, laughing my tits off, I'd ask him to conduct some proper, umm, definitive, Oh Hahahahaha, tests like, umm, you know, what are they called, umm, Heehee, oh yeah, haha um, FTIR analysis or, um, XRD or something on his samples of paint adhered to steel.

Go MM! Go!

 

[Dave Rogers]

What more could you ask of him.

That he draw conclusions that are not flatly contradicted by his data.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

What more could you ask of him.

Have samples analysed for their constituent compounds rather than elements? By an independent lab? Have that lab send the results to a professional journal or some other agreed source for the results, to be published without the lab or the journal even knowing what the samples are supposed to be? Something along those lines.

i.e. act like a proper scientist rather than someone with an axe to grind.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt until anyone analyzes the dust for the red chips and publishes their results in a scientific journal (because there is no way people at home can check the lab results like we can check the assumptions and math in Bazant's paper).

Of course...someone wrote it on the internet, must be true.

There is actually a difference between publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal and posting something anywhere on the internet (besides the fact that Mackey might respond to your questions if you publish a peer-reviewed paper).

That dust was professionally analyzed by Dr. Paul Lioy, professor of occupational medicine at UMDNJ, and his results published in 2002. This work was further corroborated by the DELTA group at UC Davis. There are no suspicious materials in the dust, anywhere. Those results are unchallenged, and came out years before Harrit's paper.

"Finally, the scientists did not broach the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues. Their report does not appear to have sufficient detail to use it as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives. All their disclosures of the dust composition are partial, addressing questions about the levels of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons, but failing to provide even complete compositional analysis of elements." -911research link

Here's a link to Lioy's paper. I reached the same conclusions as 911research this time around. Furthermore when Nist admits to not searching for explosives it's easy to imagine Lioy et al not performing a full (or any) search for explosives.