The sad case of Niels Harrit

[ElMondoHummus]

Very well done, Sunstealer. This is an example of the best that this subforum can offer. And as has been said before, it's further proof that the Bentham paper's own data contradicts the authors' conclusions.

Thanks, Sunstealer.

 

[The Almond]

They had red tnemec primer paint all along but didn't recognise it! Muppets.

I once had a professor who told us that spending 2 months in the lab would save us 2 hours in the library. I guess to scale that back down to truther level, spending 2 minutes in the library would have saved them 3 years worth of silliness.

 

[Sunstealer]

Very well done, Sunstealer. This is an example of the best that this subforum can offer. And as has been said before, it's further proof that the Bentham paper's own data contradicts the authors' conclusions.

Thanks, Sunstealer.

And that's the sweet beauty of it; the more data that the fool Jones produces the further he debunks his and Harrit's paper and his ludicrous claims.

It's particularly juicy because in his own presentation he quotes the EDX spectra from the WTC dust samples for kaolin with gypsum (obviously my analysis has gotten around!) yet singularly misses the point with regard to peak height ratios of Si, Al and O and why they are applicable to the platelets observed in samples a-d in his own paper - which is the whole point. He proves he cannot read EDX spectra! He only concentrates upon which elements are present, yet as he twitters on, he fails to realise that the spectra obtained from WTC primer paint collected from the "Clarkson University 911 memorial" is actually of the same composition as the chip soaked in MEK as evidenced by Fig 14 in the same paper that he is quoting data from!

It's hilarious.

His graphic says "Red material is NOT like primer paint!" Unfortunately he doesn't understand that the samples (a-d in the paper) he is comparing this to certainly aren't WTC primer paint. However, what he doesn't understand is that the chip subjected to MEK soaking IS WTC primer paint as evidenced by his new data! Yet in the paper he backs, he's fully convinced that the "MEK chip" is thermite! LOL.

It's made my day.

Thanks Anders I owe you one!

 

[The Almond]

And that's the sweet beauty of it; the more data that the fool Jones produces the further he debunks his and Harrit's paper and his ludicrous claims.

It's particularly juicy because in his own presentation he quotes the EDX spectra from the WTC dust samples for kaolin with gypsum (obviously my analysis has gotten around!) yet singularly misses the point with regard to peak height ratios of Si, Al and O and why they are applicable to the platelets observed in samples a-d in his own paper - which is the whole point. He proves he cannot read EDX spectra! He only concentrates upon which elements are present, yet as he twitters on, he fails to realise that the spectra obtained from WTC primer paint collected from the "Clarkson University 911 memorial" is actually of the same composition as the chip soaked in MEK as evidenced by Fig 14 in the same paper that he is quoting data from!

It's hilarious.

His graphic says "Red material is NOT like primer paint!" Unfortunately he doesn't understand that the samples (a-d in the paper) he is comparing this to certainly aren't WTC primer paint. However, what he doesn't understand is that the chip subjected to MEK soaking IS WTC primer paint as evidenced by his new data! Yet in the paper he backs, he's fully convinced that the "MEK chip" is thermite! LOL.

It's made my day.

Thanks Anders I owe you one!

You should be congratulated for your yeoman efforts on this. I stand in awe of your ability to unwind the many, many, many layers of incompetence and stupidity in this paper. Bravo, sir!

 

[Fizzard]

the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

But at 4:36 Jones says that the primer paint soaked in MEK solvent became very limp, whereas his MEK-soaked red chip swelled up but remained hard. What's the deal with that?

 

[TSR]

.
Does anyone know the EDX spectra for Vialis?
.

 

[Sunstealer]

But at 4:36 Jones says that the primer paint soaked in MEK solvent became very limp, whereas his MEK-soaked red chip swelled up but remained hard. What's the deal with that?

Unsure - the problem is Jones isn't converse with correct material's terminology so it's difficult to know exactly what he is inferring. He's also very sloppy so that doesn't help either and nor does he show this evidence, even in his lecture - he just states it.

An example of this is at 4.40 (yes you've forced me to listen to it again - it's painful). At 4.40 he shows a slide

Soaking chip in strong paint solvent MEK, chip does NOT dissolve. No ZINC and now this.

Yet the very chip he is talking about does contain Zinc as evidenced by his own data - Fig 14!

I like that slide. On the left is Fig 13 from the paper on the right is??? The same thing? WTC primer paint??

Transcript

Here's an example of one of these red chips, it swells up but it's still hard. When I soaked the primer paint in MEK, which is a solvent methyl ethyl ketone, the paint became very limp, you can do this experiment.......

From the paper (remember that the paint in the paper is from BYU stadium not WTC Primer paint.

2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent

By employing some means to separate the different components of the material, the chemical compositions of the different particles in the red layer were more accurately determined. The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK. It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form.

The chip that was used for this experiment was extracted from dust sample 2 and is shown in the images below. Fig. (12a) shows an SE image of the chip prior to the MEK treatment. It is positioned with the interface between the red and gray layers nearly parallel to the plane of the image. Fig. (12b) shows a BSE image of the chip after the MEK soak.

Note that the chip fractured during the MEK treatment and handling. In this image the red layer and gray layer are side by side so that the interface between the layers is edge-on (perpendicular to the plane of the image) with the gray layer on the right. The red layer of the chip was found, by visual inspection, to have swelled out from the gray layer by a factor of roughly 5 times its original thickness. The photomicrograph shown in Fig. (13) also shows the chip after the MEK soak. The red layer can be seen extending out from the gray layer.

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?

Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

Mmmm - silicon rich matrix, that's BS, however it does say "hard". The MEK chip swelled and fractured when handled which may indicate it was brittle thus inferring hardness but we just can't tell. The chip was dried for several days. Was it "limp" before drying? Did the sample break when limp or hard? What condition is Jones describing the limpness of the primer paint sample in, dry or wet?

Who knows - it's inconclusive. However, we can be sure that the hard data shows how limp their argument is.

I'm sure when they start publishing more data that data will further debunk their claims.

 

[alienentity]

Something tells me they won't be publishing much more data. I suspect any further testing has already shown them that they have nothing, and they're not in a rush to release this damaging info.

It's already been a good while since their first efforts, plenty of time to do follow-up reports. Why haven't they done this?

Harrit is going around peddling his 'expert' opinion based on version 1.0 of the research, published in a dubious journal. That's all he's got - but I think that's all these snake-oil salesmen need to keep the circus going.

 

[alienentity]

On a more positive note, the 9/11 Truth movement, circa 2011 has, as its leading 'scientific' propositions:

1) one inconclusive paper published by people who are not experts on the subject
2) various pulsating gifs of Femr2 and Achimspok signifying nothing
3) Can't think of anything else worth mentioning

Total impact on the scientific and engineering community (where it would actually amount to something) - ZERO

Politically the movement may be alive, mainly as a Zombie Doctrine, but scientifically it is dead. Just dead is all.

 

[Fizzard]

Something tells me they won't be publishing much more data. I suspect any further testing has already shown them that they have nothing, and they're not in a rush to release this damaging info.

Well, they're certainly in no rush to disclose their x-ray diffraction findings. At 5:36 in the above-linked YouTube video, Jones mentions that he's started "in earnest" an XRD study of the red chips. Finally, I thought, something that may show once and for all what these chips are really made of. Then I realized that the lecture was recorded back in November of 2009, as part of the "Hard Evidence Tour Down Under". A year and 4 months later, we haven't heard a further peep about the XRD analysis.

 

[Sunstealer]

Well, they're certainly in no rush to disclose their x-ray diffraction findings. At 5:36 in the above-linked YouTube video, Jones mentions that he's started "in earnest" an XRD study of the red chips. Finally, I thought, something that may show once and for all what these chips are really made of. Then I realized that the lecture was recorded back in November of 2009, as part of the "Hard Evidence Tour Down Under". A year and 4 months later, we haven't heard a further peep about the XRD analysis.

Yep, I would expect XRD analysis to take days especially with modern computer methods. The slide shows Debye Scherrer method which produces rings on a strip of film which can then be indexed to determine lattice parameters.

Blimey - that has taken me back almost 20 years! That was the last time I indexed one of those. There's a method to it.

http://www.matter.org.uk/diffraction/x-ray/indexing_powder_pattern.htm

Shame there wasn't a graphical representation, we may have gleaned some info from it.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Sunstealer, thanks for your detailed explanations easily understood by a layman.

I have done a fair bit of research into this paper, the 'great thermite debate' and Prof Jones from a Truther perspective. The more information you get(if you're willing to accept new information), the more you realize that Jones' work is self-debunking ,and that is the most polite description possible.

As Sunstealer has pointed out, many many times(enough to justify posting thread links, imo) Jones provides enough data within his paper to debunk the conclusions. It's like science irony.

I wholly reject this paper, and therefore refuse to debate the contents, for these two simple reasons:

A) Jones has had ample opportunity to share his samples and have his experiments replicated, duplicated, falsified, whatever. Jones' dishonest nature is easily revealed (to anyone still thinking that he is a earnest scientist) by asking themselves: Why would someone so invested in proving the CD theory not take action to have their evidence verified conclusively?

Jones has two hypothetical choices each day.

1)He could choose to independantly verify his results. This could blow the lid off the whole thing tomorrow(maybe...for arguments sake); the implications of such a conspiracy uncovered would have global consequences.

2)Alternatively, Jones could chose(as he does every day) to keep his samples to himself so no progress is ever made.

Jones make the latter choice each time because there is no real progress to be made; only further obfuscation which, imo, serves to extend the life of his lecture tour.

B) They published in Bentham, which almost serves as immediate invalidation of their paper. Fellow Truthers, please suspend, for a minute, everything you have read from both truthers and debunkers regarding the il/legitimacy of Bentham Journals. Just ask yourself; If Jones had actually made the most important discovery of our lifetimes, why would he pay to have a paper published in a little-known journal not fully recognized by the scientific community? I thought the main purpose of publishing findings was to validate and share new information. Why would Jones chose to publish the 'most important finding ever with the most far-reatching implications ever' in a journal that not many people read and that would forever cast doubt on their findings?

If he wanted validation, he would have absolutely published with a respectable journal. This is not an attack on Bentham, since they're not respected. Sure, you can find a few scientists who will tell you that the open-concept journal has its place. In my opinion, it is a place of business well before science.

Based on these two, easy-to-grasp reasons, I can avoid wasting anymore time on this subject and we haven't even opened the paper; it only gets worse. If this paper had been peer-reviewed, would chemists like Sunstealer be able to point out so many errors, so quickly?

Fellow Truthers; Please be careful and always question the source...many people sell the 'Truth', but the 'Truth', is just a widget, not necessarily the facts. A fool and their money are soon parted....

In conclusion, Jones is a success in his current field. However, he is no longer a professional scientist, he is a professional entertainer. I bet he makes more now than he did then: Has anyone looked at his tax filings? Thermite is a sexy CT to sell, and will draw bigger crowds then a lecture on foreknowledge and the cover-up.

 

[dc1971]

link

Good! You linked to Prison Planet forum! Where the next message in the thread that you linked says how debunkers are paid disinfo agents!

That and they love to criticize us "debunkers" and talk about how we're "scum" yet when someone like me comes along and tries to show a picture of plane parts scattered around the outside of the Pentagon, I'm thrown off the forum and told to never come back!!

I always thought it was interesting how everyone there agrees with each other. It's because those who disagree, or those who want to make an effort to provide constructiveness to the conversation, are immediately ejected from the forum.

Yes, Patriots, such wonderful facts they're providing!

 

[DGM]

Just ask yourself; If Jones had actually made the most important discovery of our lifetimes, why would he pay to have a paper published in a little-known journal not fully recognized by the scientific community? .

I've heard this somewhere before.




Anyway, where does this leave you in regards to CD?

BTW: Good post.

 

[Oystein]

Sunstealer, thanks for your detailed explanations easily understood by a layman.

I have done a fair bit of research into this paper, the 'great thermite debate' and Prof Jones from a Truther perspective. The more information you get(if you're willing to accept new information), the more you realize that Jones' work is self-debunking ,and that is the most polite description possible.

As Sunstealer has pointed out, many many times(enough to justify posting thread links, imo) Jones provides enough data within his paper to debunk the conclusions. It's like science irony.

I wholly reject this paper, and therefore refuse to debate the contents, for these two simple reasons:

A) Jones has had ample opportunity to share his samples and have his experiments replicated, duplicated, falsified, whatever. Jones' dishonest nature is easily revealed (to anyone still thinking that he is a earnest scientist) by asking themselves: Why would someone so invested in proving the CD theory not take action to have their evidence verified conclusively?

Jones has two hypothetical choices each day.

1)He could choose to independantly verify his results. This could blow the lid off the whole thing tomorrow(maybe...for arguments sake); the implications of such a conspiracy uncovered would have global consequences.

2)Alternatively, Jones could chose(as he does every day) to keep his samples to himself so no progress is ever made.

Jones make the latter choice each time because there is no real progress to be made; only further obfuscation which, imo, serves to extend the life of his lecture tour.

B) They published in Bentham, which almost serves as immediate invalidation of their paper. Fellow Truthers, please suspend, for a minute, everything you have read from both truthers and debunkers regarding the il/legitimacy of Bentham Journals. Just ask yourself; If Jones had actually made the most important discovery of our lifetimes, why would he pay to have a paper published in a little-known journal not fully recognized by the scientific community? I thought the main purpose of publishing findings was to validate and share new information. Why would Jones chose to publish the 'most important finding ever with the most far-reatching implications ever' in a journal that not many people read and that would forever cast doubt on their findings?

If he wanted validation, he would have absolutely published with a respectable journal. This is not an attack on Bentham, since they're not respected. Sure, you can find a few scientists who will tell you that the open-concept journal has its place. In my opinion, it is a place of business well before science.

Based on these two, easy-to-grasp reasons, I can avoid wasting anymore time on this subject and we haven't even opened the paper; it only gets worse. If this paper had been peer-reviewed, would chemists like Sunstealer be able to point out so many errors, so quickly?

Fellow Truthers; Please be careful and always question the source...many people sell the 'Truth', but the 'Truth', is just a widget, not necessarily the facts. A fool and their money are soon parted....

In conclusion, Jones is a success in his current field. However, he is no longer a professional scientist, he is a professional entertainer. I bet he makes more now than he did then: Has anyone looked at his tax filings? Thermite is a sexy CT to sell, and will draw bigger crowds then a lecture on foreknowledge and the cover-up.

Excellent post - I am pleasantly surprised. This deserves quoting in full, as you put a new twist on a good summary!

 

[LashL]

Several posts on the topic of "Fission in NYC on 9/11" have been split to a separate thread here.

Posted By: LashL

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Smaller amounts of explosives than estimated needed for WTCs

Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons![/I]
"Hundreds of tons", got that P4T?
This is less than a half ton going off.

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed ejection of steel girders and pulverization of concrete at the WTCs.

 

[Oystein]

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed explosions of the WTCs.

This is correct.
In fact, 0 explosives are necessary for the observed explosions of the WTCs.

However, Niels Harrit concluded that hundreds of tons of thermitic materials would have to be present based on his research, which did not involve analysis of any supposed observed "explosions" at all.
Are you saying that Niels Harrit's research and science is flawed, and his results erroneous?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed ejection of steel girders and pulverization of concrete at the WTCs.

Since the amount estimated is zero, that's not possible.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed ejection of steel girders and pulverization of concrete at the WTCs.

Could you explain how steel cutting explosives could cause ejection of steel girders?