The sad case of Niels Harrit

grandmastershek said:
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.
Click to expand...
yes, there is something called academic standards. maybe you aren't aware of them. here's what you need to know about the purpose of scientific papers

grandmastershek said:
More appropriate analogy would be finding a rubber glove & clalming he/she planned on cheating because condoms and gloves are made both of rubber.
Click to expand...

you either missed or wished to obfuscate my point. hmmm I wonder which :p
 
Patriots4Truth said:
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"....
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous.
Patriots4Truth said:
...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"
Click to expand...
Hogwash. You are constructing a rambling path of diversion which I refuse to follow. Whether or not there was "X" in some dust is of no relevance to this 9/11 conspiracy sub-forum unless it is part of support for a demolition claim.

So I cut to the chase - there was no demolition and no point exploring every truther inspired side tack which implicitly pretends that there was then tries to pass burden of (dis)proof to me or anyone else who is sufficiently clear thinking to call you on your game.
 
Patriots4Truth said:
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".
Click to expand...
I found your problem. Most people haven't heard about any truth freaks. No offense.
 
grandmastershek said:
...More appropriate analogy would be finding a rubber glove & clalming he/she planned on cheating because condoms and gloves are made both of rubber.
Click to expand...
...Good one.

However to be pedantically accurate the analogy should be more along the lines "Starting with the assumption that he/she planned on cheating then lying about finding a rubber glove & claiming..etc"

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Why should anyone with professional standing waste time responding to idiocies?
Click to expand...
Patriots4Truth said:
To shut up truthers. To have a peer-reviewed scientific paper under your belt...
Click to expand...
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Why don't you guys get one first.

Then we'll talk.
Click to expand...
Ahh so you're on the high horse like Mackey now: god forbid you talk to fellow members of a public forum if they haven't published a scientific paper
 
Patriots4Truth said:
Ahh so you're on the high horse like Mackey now: god forbid you talk to fellow members of a public forum if they haven't published a scientific paper
Click to expand...

No horses, just facts.

Your side has never published a peer reviewed paper. Why should we do what you refuse to?
 
KDLarsen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol. In that interview with a Dutch or something TV show, he said that it was most likely brought in on pallets. LMAO! When the reporter asked him how they got it in, Harrit said "you're the journalist here, it's your job to figure that out" or something to that effect.
 
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation. No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically. We quickly had NASA scientists and Nobel Prize physicist Dr. Richard Feynman. Who was on the 9/11 Commisssion? A bunch of politicians. And one (Senator Max Cleland) quit, saying it was a farce. At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives. At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it. Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation. No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically. We quickly had NASA scientists and Nobel Prize physicist Dr. Richard Feynman. Who was on the 9/11 Commisssion? A bunch of politicians. And one (Senator Max Cleland) quit, saying it was a farce. At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives. At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it. Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?
Click to expand...
No you have no grounds for a better investigation, your shallow research is showing.
You missed the investigation done by the FBI. You missed investigations done by NIST, by schools, by industry. You have failed to research 911. Why?

The 911 Commission was political in a sense, but not the only investigating into 911, you are mistaken. The farce here is you have no clue there were other investigations.

There was no thermite used on 911 and the paper in question was fake, made up nonsense which proves no thermite.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation. No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically. We quickly had NASA scientists and Nobel Prize physicist Dr. Richard Feynman. Who was on the 9/11 Commisssion? A bunch of politicians. And one (Senator Max Cleland) quit, saying it was a farce. At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives. At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it. Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?
Click to expand...

Not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?

There have been five independent, full-scale investigations of the disaster -- six if you count FEMA's work. All came to the same conclusion.

You're welcome to start your own if you don't like the results. Go to work. Tell us what you find.

Or, you're welcome to remain behind your keyboard doing nothing productive, if you prefer.
 
cicorp said:
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation....
Click to expand...
We "can" but we won't until someone puts up a sound reason to do so.
cicorp said:
...No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically....
Click to expand...
Actually it's "engineeringly" but let that pass. Not so your false analogy. Define the purpose of the Challenger Investigation then ask if the analogous functions for WTC collapse were performed. The "technical part" was "find why the damage caused the collapse" and that occurred. No need to investigate irrelevancies such as truther lies about explosives. Q. Were explosives used? A. No! -- end of investigation into explosives. Same goes for "mini-nukes" and "death rays from space". They weren't used either.
cicorp said:
...At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives....
Click to expand...
Bullcrap! Standard procedures for what? There were no explosives nor any real evidence to establish a prima facie case. 9 years later still no prima facie case.
cicorp said:
...At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it....
Click to expand...
The need is for adequate analysis not some pie in the sky implication of whatever you are not prepared to say by "...fully analysed..."

cicorp said:
Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?
Click to expand...
Not only is it too much you have lost track of what you want analysed... - it's called "changing horses in mid-stream". :rolleyes:

EDIT: PS I'd better learn to type faster. Thanks Beachnut, R Mackey
 
Last edited:
Patriots4Truth said:
There is actually a difference between publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal and posting something anywhere on the internet.
Click to expand...

It's roughly the same as the difference between publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal and publishing a paper in the Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics, apart from the publication fee and the fact that you can't do the last one any more.

Dave
 
Patriots4Truth said:
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper.
Click to expand...

His own data doesn't prove any such thing. In fact, as we've pointed out ad nauseam, his own data specifically refutes the claim that the reaction they observed was a thermite reaction. The title of the paper is either a mistake or a lie.

Patriots4Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since the publication of the original appears to have been withdrawn, there seems little point.

Dave
 
Patriots4Truth said:
Well, I was referring to thermitic materials under a broad definition of explosives.
Click to expand...

And this is the sort of thing that destroys any credibility truthers might have. Would it kill you to say "OK, minor mistake, I meant thermite", instead of pretending that you're always right and the English language is the one who's at fault?

Dave
 
ok minor mistake - in that particular quote I left off "active". "Active thermitic materials" is used by Neil et al to describe the materials to makes thermite while in a stage where it's still charged and has explosive potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom