The sad case of Niels Harrit

Patriots4Truth said:
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 Neil 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.
Click to expand...

You're really going to defend a journal that accepted a paper that the author admitted was phony? And the only reason they didn't publish it was because they didn't fork over the money? Does that sound like a legitimate publication to you? Really? Wow.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

ug. I promised myself that I wouldn't reply to this sort of nonsense.
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
 
The Platypus said:
And the peer reviewer just happens to be a truther too... gee what a coincidence...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

... and acknowledged by name in the paper itself. :boggled:

Only Truthers could engineer a paper so bad, that it took down the frauds who they paid to promote it.
 
>The burden of proof is never reversed in academic research. If Jones and Harrit make an argument that the cr*p they found is nano-thermite, it's up to them to prove it.

You are trying to reverse the burden yourself. Journals are a means to inform the scientific community of an experiment that has been done, and is an invitation to refute or replicate it with another experiment. Before the Internet, journals were the only way to get the word out. An open journal maximizes awareness since it does not cost anyone a penny to read the study. Jones and Harrit have done their study and written their paper. Now it is the debunkers' turn. Jones and Harrit have publicly stated they are waiting, as we all are, for some scientists to take WTC dust and write a paper proving it is something else than thermitic material.
 
cicorp said:
>The burden of proof is never reversed in academic research. If Jones and Harrit make an argument that the cr*p they found is nano-thermite, it's up to them to prove it.

You are trying to reverse the burden yourself. Journals are a means to inform the scientific community of an experiment that has been done, and is an invitation to refute or replicate it with another experiment. Before the Internet, journals were the only way to get the word out. An open journal maximizes awareness since it does not cost anyone a penny to read the study. Jones and Harrit have done their study and written their paper. Now it is the debunkers' turn. Jones and Harrit have publicly stated they are waiting, as we all are, for some scientists to take WTC dust and write a paper proving it is something else than thermitic material.
Click to expand...
Reading the paper shows they did not find thermite. Try reading the paper.
 
Patriots4Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's never been disputed because it's never been published in a peer reviewed journal. It's worthless.

P.S. I've already debunked the SEM data and others have debunked the DSC data. I suggest you use the search function.

Now I know you won't, so read this and my sig. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017&highlight=thermitic
 
Patriots4Truth said:
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
Click to expand...

I'm going to repeat what I said because you obviously weren't reading my post. The editor-in-chief of the Bentham journal did not see the Harrit/Jones paper or authorize it for publication.

This is what a peer review procedure looks like:

Author --> Editor-in-Chief --> Peer Reviewers --> Editor-in-Chief -- Publication

This is what Harrit and Jones did:

Author --> Reviewer --> Publication

What Jones and Harrit did was similar to trying to hold a criminal trial without the approval of a judge and/or behind the judges back. If Jones and Harrit were lawyers, they would have been disbarred.

The Harrit/Jones paper was never, ever peer reviewed. Get it?

The most damning indictment of Jones and Harrit comes from Jones and Harrit themselves. They will not submit their paper for proper review. Their only attempt came from attempts to unethically game the system in their favor. They refuse to resubmit the paper for real.

There is no need for us to rebut or refute Jones and Harrits pile of crap because Jones and Harrit themselves believe it's a pile of crap.
 
ozeco41 said:
Just for the record when you can explain why it isn't a formal fallacy....

(Hint: It is about context. Given that your main "trick" is switching contexts [or redefining limiting contexts] you should be able to work it out. :D ;))
Click to expand...

The claim that "active thermitic materials" were not discovered is your formal fallacy. Saying that they were not discovered is equivalent to saying "I'm 100% sure they were not discovered". You cannot know for sure whether or not Niels, Farrer, Jones, Ryan and all discovered "active* thermitic materials". To claim that they 100% couldn't have discovered these materials is malarkey (and sounding desperate).

*as defined by them in the paper (just in case you are very semantic with your next response)
 
Patriots4Truth said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yep, it also helps when you know what you are doing rather than just operating the instruments willy nilly which is what they did.

Why did they perform the DSC experiments in air when a thermite reaction requires no external Oxygen present? Why do they not give any semi-quantitative results with the XEDS when they are readily available without standards by using mathematical corrections based on the analysis parameters and the sample composition?

Lastly, if these instruments are sooo easy to come by then why didn't they use the correct ones that would give definitive, absolute answers for material characterisation? Namely FTIR and XRD.

You see when you are a layman you are impressed with acronyms and funny looking machines that sound all sciency. In your mind it gives credibility because when it comes down to it you don't know your rear-end from your elbow. Those of us that do can see through the BS.
 
Patriots4Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...
And no one in the scientific community considers Bentham to be a peer review journal publishing "viable works".

By your own standards the work is not viable and therefore it cannot be rebutted.

Truther: Can you rebut the paper?
Scientist: What paper?
Truther: The one in Bentham.
Scientist: That's not been peer reviewed, Bentham is a vanity publisher.
Truther: So you can't rebut it?
Scientist: No, it hasn't been published properly, but I could have a quick look and write something online for you.
Truther: I don't consider threads/email to be viable works.
Scientist: Err, Ok then I can't help you.
Truther: Active thermitic material found at ground zero!!!
 
Patriots4Truth said:
The claim that "active thermitic materials" were not discovered is your formal fallacy. Saying that they were not discovered is equivalent to saying "I'm 100% sure they were not discovered". You cannot know for sure whether or not Niels, Farrer, Jones, Ryan and all discovered "active* thermitic materials". To claim that they 100% couldn't have discovered these materials is malarkey (and sounding desperate).

*as defined by them in the paper (just in case you are very semantic with your next response)
Click to expand...
Well that is strike one.

Try reading what I actually said - not what you want to think I said. :D
 
Sunstealer said:
And no one in the scientific community considers Bentham to be a peer review journal publishing "viable works".

By your own standards the work is not viable and therefore it cannot be rebutted.

Truther: Can you rebut the paper?
Scientist: What paper?
Truther: The one in Bentham.
Scientist: That's not been peer reviewed, Bentham is a vanity publisher.
Truther: So you can't rebut it?
Scientist: No, it hasn't been published properly, but I could have a quick look and write something online for you.
Truther: I don't consider threads/email to be viable works.
Scientist: Err, Ok then I can't help you.
Truther: Active thermitic material found at ground zero!!!
Click to expand...

And the killer which P4T is fully aware of is that it matters not if tonnes of thermate were found at ground zero. It wasn't used. The whole discussion of "was it thermXte?" is a truther diversion - it is irrelevant. ThermXte was not used.

(Hence recent identification of a false analogy by P4T)
 
cicorp said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now you are showing your ignorance. You don't understand what a compound is. You certainly are not going to understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative in respect to EDS/XEDS and you certainly won't be aware of the limitations of this technique.

Lets have some fun. Answer me this:

The binding material that the "thermite particles" are embedded in shows up as mainly Carbon and some Oxygen. This is therefore an organic compound. However, we would certainly expect Hydrogen to be present because organic materials usually have Hydrogen in their compounds. Why do we not see any Hydrogen in the EDS spectra when we know it is there?

Cruel I know, but it would be good for him to exercise his brain/google skills, he'll learn something and it will show why the bolded part of his text isn't right.
 
Patriots4Truth said:
ug. I promised myself that I wouldn't reply to this sort of nonsense.
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
Click to expand...

from that link

it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty (sic)."
Click to expand...
Yet he didn't question why Harrit et al didn't identify the organic binder material that is clearly evident in the paper. Nor the gray layer (which I've shown as ASTM A36. Wow. The truth makes one blind.
 
Last edited:
Panoply_Prefect said:
Seriously? Was he in the paper as well?
Click to expand...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio,
Jody Intermont, Janette MacKinlay, and Steve White
for dust samples acquired soon after the WTC 9/11 catastrophe.
We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile, David Allan,
Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe, David
Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage,
Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis,
Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for elucidating
discussions and encouragement. Thanks to John Parulis
for gathering samples of residues from reacted commercial
thermite.
Click to expand...

So yes. Unbelievable isn't it? Yet P4T keeps on spouting. Yo! P4T you might want to check your links and truther sites before shouting here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom