• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sad case of Niels Harrit

Meikel said:
No surprise. Meikel in German sounds like Michael in English. I'm German, my first name is Michael (German), my nickname is Mike (English).
Click to expand...

I know, I am German myself. I just haven't encountered any Michael who nicknamed himself Meikel, and now two of you in as many days ;) :D

Meikel said:
Nothing important. I saw some kaolinite micrographs. They show the mineral, not processed. In primer kaolinite is processed and mixed with other ingredients. I read something about suspensions and how kaolinite looks therein.

For example:

tuprints ulb tu-darmstadt.de/1038/2/Viel2008.pdf
Page 28, "In suspension you get flocked kaolinite which has a structure like a card house".

n1 slideserve com/PPTFiles/colloids_57810_63072.ppt
Slides 32/33.

So I guess (nothing more!) that micrographs from suspensions may be a little bit closer to what the Harrit paper shows. Some months ago I saw a real good matching micrograph, I think referenced from this forum, at a German university web side ... but I can not find it anymore.

I think such photos are much easier to understand than analyzing charts. For those people without expertise in the areas necessary.

Meikel aka Michael aka Mike.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links:
http://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/1038/2/Viel2008.pdf
http://n1.slideserve.com/PPTFiles/colloids_57810_63072.ppt

Where do you see card-houses in the Harrit paper that look like the slides you referenced? I see only card stacks, in Fig. 8.
 
Oystein said:
Where do you see card-houses in the Harrit paper that look like the slides you referenced? I see only card stacks, in Fig. 8.
Click to expand...
Yes, Fig. (8). At (c) left top that is what I would call a stack, for example. The term card house structure may be a bit misleading. He says only that the edges are oriented to the surfaces in suspensions. I think it can be seen at various places in the micrographs. But it is a somewhat subjective impression.

My hope was to find more suitable micrographs on the net with this technical term. Kaolinite together with hematite. Nothing more. No new theory.

Myself I do not need more suitable micrographs. For me the kaolinite / hematite / primer paint claim is very well proved.

I participate in many discussions on 9/11. Mostly with non-professionals. It would be nice just to be able to show only one image - instead of explaining diagrams, DSC, ... , and get the answer "I do not understand". BTW, I know the most used micrograph, www petrotech-assoc com/images/kaolinite_2.jpg.

Meikel.
 
Oystein said:
2 more images at ...

(Taken from Sunstealer's great post ... of april 5, 2009, one day after Harrit's paper was first discussed here)
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, that is the micrograph what I searched for: d5b352a015.jpg.

I am very sure that some days ago I read sunstealers post since it is a important link within my 9/11 link list. BUT - I do not know why - at the time I read it, the picture links are vanished!? I am sure since I remember very well the scielo link that worked.

Regarding to all this, Harrit's answers, no new tests, your fine blog information to the Jones video of matching XEDS spectra (while he tried to prove the opposite), for me only one question remains: Is it stupidity or intention?

Meikel.
 
Meikel said:
Regarding to all this, Harrit's answers, no new tests, your fine blog information to the Jones video of matching XEDS spectra (while he tried to prove the opposite), for me only one question remains: Is it stupidity or intention?

Meikel.
Click to expand...

To me, it's neither. Harrit, et al is a perfect example of why science can't be done with a political motive. Jones was already convinced that thermite destroyed the twin towers before he had the evidence listed in the Harrit paper. He had the samples, and his stated intention all along was to prove that they had thermite in them. That's not science. That's using the scientific method (or something that looks like it) to produce evidence to verify your beliefs.

It's neither stupid or intentional, it's just unfortunate.
 
Meikel said:
... for me only one question remains: Is it stupidity or intention?

Meikel.
Click to expand...

The Almond said:
To me, it's neither. Harrit, et al is a perfect example of why science can't be done with a political motive. Jones was already convinced that thermite destroyed the twin towers before he had the evidence listed in the Harrit paper. He had the samples, and his stated intention all along was to prove that they had thermite in them. That's not science. That's using the scientific method (or something that looks like it) to produce evidence to verify your beliefs.

It's neither stupid or intentional, it's just unfortunate.
Click to expand...

I rarely disagree with The Almond, but on this I diverge. Given that Jones and Harrit are researching with a political motive and using scientific method to produce evidence to verify their beliefs, I actually think it's both, not neither. I think it's intention-induced stupidity. Their intent to arrive at a conclusion is inducing a willing blindness to the faults of their experiments, and making them produce tortured explanations for their methods and findings. Examples of this are the blithe denials of paint as the genesis of the chips, or the more recent and eminently ridiculous argument that the towers weren't destroyed "under argon".

I've called this "cargo-cult" science before, and I reiterate that. Like The Almond, I too perceive that Jones, Harrit, Legge, and the rest are starting from a predetermined conclusion and trying to wrap that belief in a cloak of scientific process, but to me, doing so has to involves some personally internal acknowledgement that they're being deceptive. And that cognitive dissonance is inducing a level of deliberate, willful ignorance to reality. Hence, this is all stupidity induced by their intent to bend the narrative to point at specific conclusions.

That's my take, at least.
 
moorea34 said:
In their article, Tillotson and his co-authors does not precise the atmosphere....
But as there is some epoxyde or solvent residues in their samples (p343 of the article), we were very astonished that they used ambient air for their DSC...

So a friend has contacted two of the authors. And they have confirmed that they have used a pure argon atmosphere!

Other information, they have never spoken to any authors of the crap paper...
Click to expand...

I wish you could provide a link!
 
I hope you all got to hear Harrit's personal response to my question about whether the substances found in the WTC already existed in the building anyway, and if not, has his experiment really proven that their "nanothermites" are really different from what we'd expect to find in the building anyway.

Check these YouTube videos out. Harrit's response is surrealistic.

part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I&feature=related

Chris Mohr (Gage Rebuttal YouTube videos creator)
 
chrismohr said:
I hope you all got to hear Harrit's personal response to my question about whether the substances found in the WTC already existed in the building anyway, and if not, has his experiment really proven that their "nanothermites" are really different from what we'd expect to find in the building anyway.

Check these YouTube videos out. Harrit's response is surrealistic.

part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I&feature=related

Chris Mohr (Gage Rebuttal YouTube videos creator)
Click to expand...
At approximately 4.45 mins in the second video you talk about an email sent to Richard Gage and say (if I've heard correctly)

I am not convinced that this experiment has fully separated out the naturally occurring elements from the buildings themselves from the thermitic chemicals.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say that I have to side with Niels Harrit on this one given the information in the video.

I suspect that it's a wording issue. As I interpret the video, the word element or elements to me and I suspect Gage etc, in this case, is specific and refers to the periodic table of elements, as opposed to elements meaning constituent parts of the building, whether they be lumps of concrete, steel or aluminium parts, wiring, paint or for that matter any constituent that may contain elements seen in the examination of "red chips" in the Harrit et al paper.

There is no way that random elements of building can combine to produce these red/gray chips and the fact that these chips (samples a-d) were "broken open" so that the fresh exposed surfaces were examined negates such an assumption.

The red/gray chips are manufactured by man. The evidence points towards paint, not thermite or tnemec red primer for those examined samples.

I'm not sure what the whole "meat and potatoes and stew" thing is about though. :confused:

Separation of individual particles in the red chips so that they may be analysed simply isn't needed and would complicate matters. There is some form of organic binder material that is holding all these particles in situ. As yet we don't know what that material is so any method used to break it down and separate out the individual particles for analysis would be difficult. Secondly once you've broken down the binder material - how do you separate out the individual particles for further analysis and what method of analysis would you use? That to me is an unrequired, (over)complicated step since other analysis techniques such as FTIR and XRD are readily available.

On the subject of peer review then I agree and they are talking out their behinds.

I don't know anyone who has accused them of sample manipulation or falsification - I don't. As far as I'm concerned I take their paper as read on this issue. The data is fine, I don't know anyone who is questioning the data. Hell the data proves that their conclusions are wrong!

On the subject of "no-one has shown a better hypothesis" then I suggest they read my take on it. ;) :o If their paper had been published in any respectable journal then it would actually have been read by someone. :D Instead the mainstream academic world has no knowledge of the paper. How can you comment on a paper you've never read?

At 8.20 the old red herring that these chips look nothing like WTC tenemec red primer paint is rolled out - I agree apart from Fig 14 - but that is not the argument! The argument is samples a -d are a different coating. Infact a poster called Ivan Kminek has uncovered a potential candidate for these specific samples in this thread which looks very interesting. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214739

I fully agree that they should release their samples to fully independent testing free from any constraint. If they need money for this then there are many truthers to call upon for funding.

I have always said that if I thought their data supported evidence of nano-thermite then I would be on their side.

Best regards

Sunstealer
 
You're right Sunstealer, layperson that I am I used the word "element" incorrectly and Harrit busted me on this. What I meant to say was that the stuff found in the dust could have already been in the building and not been evidence of thermitics. He took me to be using the word element in its scientific sense... as a journalist I think of the word "element' as in "Elements of Style," a famous book for aspiring writers. This has been a problem with me and this subject: scientists take my words to mean something very specific, and I sometimes use those words incorrectly.
 
And one more thing...

"I don't know anyone who has accused them of sample manipulation or falsification"

There are certainly people on these JREF threads who are convinced Jones/Ryan/Harrit et al would get their dust from the BYU Stadium, add thermites, whatever. I am not one of those people and I'm glad you aren't either.
 
chrismohr said:
And one more thing...

"I don't know anyone who has accused them of sample manipulation or falsification"

There are certainly people on these JREF threads who are convinced Jones/Ryan/Harrit et al would get their dust from the BYU Stadium, add thermites, whatever. I am not one of those people and I'm glad you aren't either.
Click to expand...

No, not their dust, but a paint sample that they compared the dust chips with. Remember, in their paper they say they did some tests on "paint" (without specifying what kind of paint), and same tests on red/gray chips, and found them to be dissimilar. In my blog post "Origin of Steven Jones' paint controll sample", I pasted the relevant posts of an exchange between Sunstealer and a user metamars, who says that he heard from Jones during an email exchange that the paint control samlpe used in the Harrit paper came from BYU football stadium.
 
chrismohr said:
You're right Sunstealer, layperson that I am I used the word "element" incorrectly and Harrit busted me on this. What I meant to say was that the stuff found in the dust could have already been in the building and not been evidence of thermitics. He took me to be using the word element in its scientific sense... as a journalist I think of the word "element' as in "Elements of Style," a famous book for aspiring writers. This has been a problem with me and this subject: scientists take my words to mean something very specific, and I sometimes use those words incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Just a question, did you asked , people like mark basile, niels harrit how far they are with their research?
 
Marokkaan said:
Just a question, did you asked , people like mark basile, niels harrit how far they are with their research?
Click to expand...

How would any possible answer improve our understanding?
The only reasonable question would be: When is Harrit going to send a sample to an independent and competent lab?
 
Marokkaan said:
Just a question, did you asked , people like mark basile, niels harrit how far they are with their research?
Click to expand...
Hi Marrokkan,

I'm not sure I understand your question. Richard Gage linked me to Mark Basile's YouTube explaining his experiments, and even I (a total layman) could see that he didn't measure the energy released when the samples he cooked ignited. Also I could see he didn't use a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to heat the samples. As for Niels Harritt, I wrote to Richard Gage during debate preparation and told him I didn't think the "elements" Harritt found in the dust were provable to be different from the "elements" that appeared in the WTC buildings anyway. My misuse of the word "element" triggered Niels Harrit's heated response.
 
Furthermore, WTC was not demolished under argon.
Click to expand...

First of all this is stupidity beyond my wildest imagination.

Second, if Harrit honestly believes it will invalidate his results because argon atmosphere is not present in WTC, then his results are still invalid. Because WTC wasn't heated at 10oC/min...
 
Oystein said:
How would any possible answer improve our understanding?
The only reasonable question would be: When is Harrit going to send a sample to an independent and competent lab?
Click to expand...

It would be difficult to trust any major lab. especially an American one without special conditions like the whole thing being filmed and some Truth scientists sitting in and verifying every step. Wouldn't you agree ?

Then NIST could provide a sample. So could RJ Lee. They could all be tested simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom