The sad case of Niels Harrit

Can you please list the papers you have published? I don't mean to doubt you, and you may well have published, but you don't sound like a true scientist. You claim to be a critical thinker, but your mind is already made up before even looking. You make prejudicial statements such as "The reason is: I know it's a waste of time" and "I don't care what they find in the dust". Those are the statements of a dogmatist. Conclusion follows observation, not vice versa. A scientist does care what is found and is willing to make observations.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Specify means list specifics.
Click to expand...
Nothing we say is going to convince you, right?

Do this, bring the paper to any collage/university chemistry professor (someone that's not associated with 9/11 in anyway is best). It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
>It was a vanity journal which would publish your shopping list for $700.
OK you're on with this bet. Submit your shopping list to the Bentham Open Chemistry and Physics Journal, and if it is accepted and published, I'll pay your $700 fee.
Click to expand...

Not exactly a shopping list, but in this case thats just semantics:

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points" (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].
Click to expand...

Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.
Click to expand...

"This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication."
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html
 
Last edited:
Niels Harrit is a paranoid loon who published a dishonest, inaccurate paper. You need better reading material.
 
Please provide at least specific example to substantiate each general claim that the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate". Dishonest would mean that Dr. Harrit knew X and claimed Y. Inaccurate would mean Dr. Harrit reported X, but you found it was really Y.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Please specify how the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate".
Click to expand...
JonesHarritDelusion.jpg


Why make up a fantasy of thermite, look what has more energy!
JetFuelandWoodBeatThermite.jpg

Who knew when they tested each chip they proved it was no thermite. Those who know the energy thermite has in a chemical reaction. Which you don't.

Just like a failed paranoid conspiracy theorist to bring thermite to a office fires, where jet fuel and wood, even paper have more energy. Plastic beats thermite for heat energy in a fire; check you facts before supporting a paper that no one would publish in a real journal.
 
Last edited:
>Not exactly a shopping list
Then why did you say shopping list?
Tell you what. Instead of a shopping list, go ahead and make a SCIgen paper and submit it to Bentham, get it published, and our bet is still on.
 
cicorp said:
Please provide at least specific example to substantiate each general claim that the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate". Dishonest would mean that Dr. Harrit knew X and claimed Y. Inaccurate would mean Dr. Harrit reported X, but you found it was really Y.
Click to expand...

I know i'll probably get a ridiculous answer but i'm going to ask you, why do you think they didn't submit their paper to a more reputable and well known journal instead of such a pathetic little unknown and shady one???
 
>Nothing we say is going to convince you, right?
Specifics will. General accusations and unsupported claims won't.
>bring the paper to any collage/university chemistry professor
 
cicorp said:
Please provide at least specific example to substantiate each general claim that the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate". Dishonest would mean that Dr. Harrit knew X and claimed Y. Inaccurate would mean Dr. Harrit reported X, but you found it was really Y.
Click to expand...
I'll go one better and and show they were incompetent. I'll assume you have read the paper in depth and therefore know about the red and gray layers.

Here I show that the gray layer is highly likely to be oxidised steel, notably ASTM A36 for samples a-d. Note the abundance of Iron in the spectra.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4681210&postcount=183

Nowhere in the paper do they determine what the gray layer is in their chip samples. Infact they say on page 28

In addition, the gray-layer material demands further
study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers, as seen in Fig. (32).
Click to expand...

And for chip in fig 31

the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and
oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to
be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears
between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding
a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material.
One might speculate that the red thermitic material has
been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive.
Click to expand...
No Iron.

Yet previously the gray material has huge quantities of Iron in it!! Just compare fig 6 and 33. They are saying that this is the same material! It can't be.

Blimey I don't think I got as far in 2008 with comparing gray layers.

The problem is they have actually analysed two different materials - one will be an epoxy/adhesive/filler/organic material (and it looks like it) see fig 33 and fig 31 and the other is rusted steel - fig 6. Their own paper shows that the mysterious gray layer isn't consistent yet they seem to think it is!

So there you go, there is a specific for ya.
 
I love how they call anyone that doesn't buy their crap a "debunker", it's pretty much an admission that they are spewing "bunk" in the first place.
 
Last edited:
>I didn't. (say Bentham would post a shopping list)
OK. TruthersLie said that on March 1, 2011 at 08:02 AM.

>You don't see a problem with a publisher that accepts a fake paper.
There was definitely a problem, and a bigger one if they haven't fixed the hole.
We'll find out if Bentham fixed it or not, if they published TruthersLie's paper.
 
cicorp said:
>I didn't. (say Bentham would post a shopping list)
OK. TruthersLie said that on March 1, 2011 at 08:02 AM.

>You don't see a problem with a publisher that accepts a fake paper.
There was definitely a problem, and a bigger one if they haven't fixed the hole.
We'll find out if Bentham fixed it or not, if they published TruthersLie's paper.
Click to expand...

Your failure to use the quote button, is that indicative of the comprehension of the paper in question, which proves it was not thermite?

>
cicorp said:
Panoply_Prefect said:
I didn't. You don't see a problem with a publisher that accepts a fake paper?
Click to expand...
TruthersLie's paper.
Click to expand...
>
cicorp said:
didn't. ...
Click to expand...
Quote button?


Bentham is a vanity journal where fake papers like Jones' work can be published with no real peer review. The paper is only useful for people who can't comprehend what they read and use the article as proof of some thermite delusion on 911.
 
Last edited:
Patriots4Truth said:
yes, there is something called academic standards. [/URL]

you either missed or wished to obfuscate my point. hmmm I wonder which :p
Click to expand...

Indeed! And Jone's repeatedly runs from them.

1. He ran away from academic review at his own university.

2. He created his own peer review process concocted of nothing but people who already agreed with his conclusions

3. Went to a fake pay to play journal to get his research "published".

Trust me there is no need to obfuscate your ramblings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom