The sad case of Niels Harrit

Patriots4Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

If he did, he would have submitted his findings for peer-review.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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.
Click to expand...

The paper has been undisputed - perhaps because the conclusions are correct. If you strongly disagree with the science in the paper then write a rebuttal or get an e-mail exchange going with one of the several writers. Maybe they can help address your "no it didn't" concerns.
 
Patriots4Truth said:
The paper has been undisputed - perhaps because the conclusions are correct. If you strongly disagree with the science in the paper then write a rebuttal or get an e-mail exchange going with one of the several writers. Maybe they can help address your "no it didn't" concerns.
Click to expand...

You did, at some point, notice the "search" button at the top of the page? Just curious. There's also a nifty and sometimes more user friendly JREF/Google search function too. :D
 
Justin39640 said:
You did, at some point, notice the "search" button at the top of the page? Just curious. There's also a nifty and sometimes more user friendly JREF/Google search function too. :D
Click to expand...

You do realize that what I meant by "undisputed" is that in the academic realm there has been no rebuttal. I don't consider jref threads to be viable works cited sources.
 
Patriots4Truth said:
You do realize that what I meant by "undisputed" is that in the academic realm there has been no rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Why would there be? If you see a turd lying in the street you don't stoop to pick it up. No academic worth his/her salt is going to respond formally to garbage like Harrit's paper.
 
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...

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!
Click to expand...
http://rt.com/usa/news/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/
 
AZCat said:
Why would there be? If you see a turd lying in the street you don't stoop to pick it up. No academic worth his/her salt is going to respond formally to garbage like Harrit's paper.
Click to expand...

Why respond to Niels et al.'s paper? Perhaps:

1.) To shoot down truthers. God knows that there is a lot of debunkers on the internet that like to at least try to shoot down truthers.
2.) Resume material. I shouldn't have to ask why someone would want resume material.
3.) Politics. I've seen some jref debunkers admit that they have political reasons for posting here. If people are posting on jref for political reasons then what's to stop them from stepping up their game by publishing a scientific paper. And I might as well mention that people are commissioned or straight up told to investigate "random junk" all the time.
4.) Passion of a debunker. If a debunker is really passionate about their argument then they might be passionate in a way that encourages themself to debunk Niels et al.'s paper.
5.) A retired or bored scholar who is aware of the 'Active Thermitic Materials' paper might have nothing better to do - some writers/scholars just need to be kept active.
6.) I know of at least one person that had strong objections during the peer review/e-mail exchange process for this paper (that person is Dr. Greening). People that participated in that particular process might wish to do their own dust analysis.
7.) Someone that is a colleague/student/friend/competitor of Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley or Bradley R. Larsen may have personal reasoning behind wanting to conduct a dust analysis.
8.) A truther or undecided person might have an interest in recreating Niels et al.'s tests. The truther might be looking for further "truth support". Independent might be looking for answers by doing things for themselves.
9.) Students, teachers and/or scientists who are familiar with the paper, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) and/or differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) might enjoy making a project out of WTC dust analysis.
10.) Original conspirators of 9/11 might want to silence "truth support"/propaganda
 
Last edited:
>not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?
You should know, if anyone, there was one major commission, the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Of course there were additional studies around that time. The point is there are were no movements or hundreds of web sites (or JREF forums) calling for a new Challenger investigation 10 years after the event. It was done right, and the public accepted the results. The 9/11 Commission did not answer enough of the public's questions.
 
cicorp said:
>not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?
You should know, if anyone, there was one major commission, the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Of course there were additional studies around that time. The point is there are were no movements or hundreds of web sites (or JREF forums) calling for a new Challenger investigation 10 years after the event. It was done right, and the public accepted the results. The 9/11 Commission did not answer enough of the public's questions.
Click to expand...

The public has accepted the 9/11 Commission Report. The people clamoring for a do-over have come up with no coherent objections, and are numbered in a tiny, tiny minority, comparable to the percentage of citizens with diagnosed mental disorders. And even were this not the case, it still wouldn't matter -- there is no dispute in scientific circles. Not a single published paper, not a single conference paper conflicts with the major conclusions of the Report. That's as iron-clad as consensus gets.

Anyway, you missed my point -- because, as you suggest, I should know. I do. You do not.

The Rogers Commission (Challenger investigation) was not, as you suggested above, superior to the 9/11 Commission due to the inclusion of scientists or the way everybody played nice together. There were plenty of scientists, and darn good ones, contributing to the 9/11 Commission, notably fellows like Dr. Astaneh-Asl of Cal. Now, on the Rogers commission, Richard Feynman in particular was extremely unhappy with the way the investigation was run, and nearly got himself thrown off the team on several occasions. There is essentially no difference between his complaints and those of Cleland regarding the 9/11 Commission.

Not only that, his Nobel was in quantum physics. Hardly relevant to the phenomenology of the Challenger accident. I can imagine -- heck, I don't have to imagine, I've seen it -- the Challenger deniers attacking Dr. Feynman over his "improper credentials." Yes, there were conspiracy theorists back then, too. Some of them are the same people that we see today in the Truth Movement.

Another lesson from the Rogers Commission is this: As Dr. Feynman later understood, he did not so much "discover" the O-ring problem as find himself led to it, by conscientious scientists and engineers within NASA and its contractors -- the very "whistleblowers" that inevitably appear when there's real deception afoot. But there aren't any for 9/11. Curious, that.

Please do attempt to understand the above. It exposes quite clearly how your previous post was completely backwards. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
The equipment used to study the WTC dust is objective. It gives the same results regardless of the opinions of the person running the equipment, such as what chemicals are present, and in what proportions.
 
>There is essentially no difference between his complaints and those of Cleland regarding the 9/11 Commission.
A major complaint of Senator Cleland was that the Commission would ask for information, and was denied. Did Dr. Feynman have a similar complaint? Did NASA withhold information from him? If so, then there would be "no difference". Did Dr. Feynman quit, calling the Commission a farce? Show me a reference to his doing so, since there is "no difference."
 
cicorp said:
>There is essentially no difference between his complaints and those of Cleland regarding the 9/11 Commission.
A major complaint of Senator Cleland was that the Commission would ask for information, and was denied. Did Dr. Feynman have a similar complaint? Did NASA withhold information from him? If so, then there would be "no difference".
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. Read What do You Care What Other People Think? and learn something.

The famous O-ring and icewater experiment was his way to publicly embarrass those who were withholding information.

Did Dr. Feynman quit, calling the Commission a farce? Show me a reference to his doing so, since there is "no difference."
Click to expand...

He didn't quit. But he had to work outside the system in his own way.

Seriously, kid, learn something about how government works. There's nothing at all unusual about vested interests with respect to the 9/11 Commission. What matters is whether they got it right, and since there is no hint of a challenge to its conclusions, the answer is undeniably "yes."

ETA: Just to further reinforce this point, let me direct your attention to an article called "The Rogers Commission Failed -- Questions it Never Asked, Answers it Didn't Listen To" by Richard Cook, Washington Monthly, November 1986. You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
>not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?
You should know, if anyone, there was one major commission, the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Of course there were additional studies around that time. The point is there are were no movements or hundreds of web sites (or JREF forums) calling for a new Challenger investigation 10 years after the event. It was done right, and the public accepted the results. The 9/11 Commission did not answer enough of the public's questions.
Click to expand...

The 9/11 Commission's job wasn't to endlessly answer ridiculous questions from small minority of mostly crazy and ignorant people who can't understand and won't listen to the answers anyway because they have been brainwashed into an agenda.

Most of the public is satisfied. Just the lunatic fringe isn't.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Why doesn't Neils Harrit et al publish a paper first?
Click to expand...

I realize that the paper unexpectedly disappeared from Betham's website a few days ago. This does not mean that the paper hasn't been on their site for nearly 2 years. Claiming that Niels et al.'s paper wasn't peer reviewed is absolute nonsense.

I also know how notorious jref debunkers are at depicting the journal giant that is Bentham Science Publishers. Anyone listening to the debunker spins and lies oughta do themselves a favor and research Bentham Science Publishers on their own. I will not reply to debunker lies and spins on this subject matter. I do not want to waste my time when there is a giant thread full of lies and spins already.
____________

I'll share a few quotes from one particular user that I just found on google

nornnxx65:
link

"The more people that vet the paper the better, and if there are flaws in it, let them be exposed- I've said so since it was published."

"As for why it hasn't been published in other journals- why would it; do non-copyrighted open access papers normally get republished in other journals? I haven't looked into it, but it doesn't seem likely, since they were already published and made available free to the entire world online."

"I don't think it's fair to characterize Bentham or the open access model 'pay to play'; open access is an increasingly popular model as it facilitates research and the sharing of info. And in the case of the Harrit et al paper, those involved have said BYU and Copenhagen U paid the fees- and that the paper was reviewed by those responsible at the Universities..."
____________

And here is one more link which describes the jref reaction to Niels Harrit, Bentham, the whole works
 
Last edited:
Patriots4Truth said:
Claiming that Neil et al.'s paper wasn't peer reviewed is absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

It wasn't peer reviewed. The E-in-C of the Bentham chemical physics journal said so. It is the E-in-C who gives final approval on whether to publish and she said she never saw the paper.

Harrit's paper was... not... peer... reviewed.

What's most telling is that after this debacle blew up in Harrit and Joneses faces, they never again submitted it either to Bentham or any other journal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom