Harrit is claiming thermite, not explosives.
The sad case of Niels Harrit
- Thread starter alienentity
- Start date
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
And he didn't find that either. His own data proves it.
Patriots4Truth :
Why do you think they had to make-up their own test to find something that could be found using standard lab tests?
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 252
Well, I was referring to thermitic materials under a broad definition of explosives.
Lioy's report doesn't appear to have sufficient detail to use as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question ofexplosives thermitic materials.
Lioy's report doesn't appear to have sufficient detail to use as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 252
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper. If anyone doesn't like the results of his tests or wishes to challenge the paper then they are encouraged to publish a paper doing just that.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). -Niels et al
You do realize that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get a hold of these instruments and that many scientists use these instruments quite regularly?
Depends on the time of day.
Last I heard, Harrit had joined the Jones camp in thinking that therm*te was used as fuse to set off actual explosives. I think he said something along the lines of "many, many tonnes" of explosives.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
That's right. Thank you for the reminder. Many, many tonnes of explosives. Harrit almost makes me ashamed of my danish-ness. An akvavit should fix that.
Patriots4Truth - Why would they test for explosives in the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings?
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Hundreds of tons, actually (Harrits exact words):
Niels Harrit: Actually, within this group of authors behind this paper, which we published in April, there are diverging opinions about what this nano-thermite was used for. And my opinion is: we should not speculate on a scenario for the demolition. There is no doubt that the three towers were demolished on 9/11. But beyond that there is very solid evidence that some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams. We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.
RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?
Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!
RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?
Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!
To see what "hundreds of tons" of explosives looks like, google "Operation Sailor Hat".
Last edited:
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 252
ozeco41
Philosopher
That is the key question.
We become so accustomed to bending over backwards to answer truther idiocies that we can lose sight of the basics.
There was no use of explosives in the 9/11 WTC Tower collapses so why test for explosives?
Very simple really.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Why should anyone with professional standing waste time responding to idiocies?
There was no thermXte used at WTC on 9/11 and no thermXte in Jones dust. Even if there had been thermXte on site it wasn't used so it is a non-issue twice over.
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 252
Q: Why would anyone test for explosives?
A: The original story doesn't add up. It would be irresponsible and immodest to not test for explosives.
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 252
To shut up truthers. To have a peer-reviewed scientific paper under your belt...
That's like finding condoms in your significant other's carry-on bag after they returned from a business trip and saying that it's a non issue because the condoms weren't used.
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Any given pile of crap only needs to be refuted once.
Your implicit concession that Sunstealers article does refute the Harrit/Jones paper is noted.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Waste of time trying to shut up truthers - they only shift the goalposts. And who is this mysterious "your" whose belt needs padding with a peer reviewed paper? There was no demolition. There was no use of thermXte. The whole thermXte issue is a truther scam. So what reasonable person needs reinforcing against liars?
Nothing like a false analogy to confuse those who cannot think clearly.
Respectfully, that doesn't make any sense. In Fall of 2001 there was no "original story." The planes hit the buildings. The buildings wobbled a bit, then burned for a while. The two buildings hit by planes eventually fell down. A couple of other buildings not hit by planes eventually fell down. No explosives were observed.
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
Except thats not what he said. He flat out refused. Take note, MM is retreating to semantics.
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
Except what Jones & Harrit have done is the equivalent of writing something on the internet. But of course its demanded anyone contradicting them should meet the real standards of academia.
FYI- There was CD experts & teams of structural engineers at ground zero starting the day after. Maybe NISt didn;t do chemical tests because the people who were actually examining the steel saw no signs of incendiaries or explosives involved in the collapse? Nor did the collapses yield anything even remotely close to the sound of an explosive. They also didn't test for mini nukes or space beams. But I guess since this is your choice pet theory its different.
More appropriate analogy would be finding a rubber glove & clalming he/she planned on cheating because condoms and gloves are made both of rubber.
Last edited:
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 252
Who would want to publish a scientific paper debunking the active thermitic materials claim? You are still asking? How about someone who doesn't have any scientific papers under their belt and could pop one out easily after acquiring dust samples. All you would have to do is the exact things that Niel et al did and suddenly you got a scientific paper on your resume. Employers that know jack **** about 9/11 truth will be all "good, a patriotic paper dispelling them damn truth freaks that I heard about".
By thermXte do you mean the "active thermitic bi-layered chips consisting of a red layer that is an engineered nano-composite substance" that Neil et al discovered?
You are saying that there wasn't any of that? If you or anyone are so sure about that then why don't you test the dust, write the paper and publish it. Because right now you lack the evidence to make this claim. It's impossible for you to be 100% certain about this. You have committed a "formal fallacy"