The sad case of Niels Harrit

[grandmastershek]

Grassroots science! Have to love it. Just like creationists.

 

[DGM]

But I agree that it's getting critical for him to step up to the mark and and drop the hammer. Your plan seems to be a good way to go. If he doesn't do something soon conspiracy theories will start about him.

Getting?

Bill, even you have to agree that the scientific world is not paying attention to the "truth".

You can argue all you want about "they're paid off" or "don'r know the details" but. we all know this is just an excuse for the fact their "evidence" is just not compelling.

Nice to see you at least this short coming.

 

[chrismohr]

part 18 Building 7 freefall collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0
FYI my new revised Gage rebuttal #18, more info on the Gage Rebuttal thread

 

[Oystein]

Re: The sad case of Niels Harrit

Watch this video from the latest installment of the BBC's "Conspiracy Files", "9/11 Ten Years On":

At the 3:56, and talking about the Bentham paper:

Interviewer: "What's the reaction of scientists to your conclusion?"

Harrit: "None. None. It is beyond doubt the best peer-reviewed paper ever in my career."



Who wants to read his other papers, if the Bentham crap was his best?!? That's really really sad.

 

[bill smith]

Re: The sad case of Niels Harrit

Watch this video from the latest installment of the BBC's "Conspiracy Files", "9/11 Ten Years On":

At the 3:56, and talking about the Bentham paper:

Interviewer: "What's the reaction of scientists to your conclusion?"

Harrit: "None. None. It is beyond doubt the best peer-reviewed paper ever in my career."



Who wants to read his other papers, if the Bentham crap was his best?!? That's really really sad.

Yes. he indicated that it has been downloaded thousands of times and still no technical challenge. Peer review upon peer review by default that could be called.

 

[Oystein]

Yes. he indicated that it has been downloaded thousands of times and still no technical challenge. Peer review upon peer review that could be called.

Harrit knows full well that it has been downloaded by thousands of truther nuts very far away from science and academia. A scientist who takes the cheers of nutjobs as a gauge for his acedmic achievement has hit rock bottom.

Prof. Postorius hits it on the nail later in that clip when he says that it would be very easy to disprove Harrit, but it's so irrelevant that no one can be bothered to publish a paper about it.

You, Bill, know very well of course that Harrit has been debunked here at JREF only days after his paper was out. More importantly, Harrit knows full well he has been debunked.

 

[bill smith]

Harrit knows full well that it has been downloaded by thousands of truther nuts very far away from science and academia. A scientist who takes the cheers of nutjobs as a gauge for his acedmic achievement has hit rock bottom.

Prof. Postorius hits it on the nail later in that clip when he says that it would be very easy to disprove Harrit, but it's so irrelevant that no one can be bothered to publish a paper about it.

You, Bill, know very well of course that Harrit has been debunked here at JREF only days after his paper was out. More importantly, Harrit knows full well he has been debunked.

As I said to Sunstealer and I quiote:

'' Let me see then. An 8 man team of Ph.d scientists spend two years proving that the dust at the WTC contains still reactive chips of explosive nanothermite and have their paper peer reviewed to boot. A huge storm of protest arises from the government side of the story going on until today and with no sign of dying down. In that time no scientist on the government side of the story raises a credible technical challenge to the science of the paper.....and you tthink it's credible for Professor Pistorius to say:-''

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''

A jref debunking is mostly not worth the pixels it consumes in my experience. Harrit is standing strong on the nanothermite and you guys haven't been able to touch him since the date of publication of the peer reviewed paper. Neither has any other pro-government story scientist on the Planet.

This is clearly a second major peer-review- by default this time.

 

[Oystein]

As I said to Sunstealer and I quiote:

'' Let me see then. An 8 man team of Ph.d scientists spend two years proving that the dust at the WTC contains still reactive chips of explosive nanothermite and have their paper peer reviewed to boot. A huge storm of protest arises from the government side of the story going on until today and with no sign of dying down. In that time no scientist on the government side of the story raises a credible technical challenge to the science of the paper.....and you tthink it's credible for Professor Pistorius to say:-''

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''

Cool. This is a good thread to address your post
Short answer: Yes, Pistorius is credible. His expertise alone beats that of all the 8 men combined (by the way: Make that 9 men). He and his colleague say credible and obvious reasons why the 9 men paper is bunk:
- Calling the chips "highly energetic" is nonsense - they are less energetoc than paper
- The chips look just like ordinary primer paint chipped off from steel

A jref debunking is mostly not worth the pixels it consumes in my experience.

Are your JREF posts any more worthy?

Harrit is standing strong on the nanothermite

That's called "CYA"

and you guys haven't been able to touch him since the date of publication of the peer reviewed paper.

Masochistic lie.

Neither has any other pro-government story scientist on the Planet.

Your attention span is short: You forgot Pistorius.

This is clearly a second major peer-review- by default this time.

Has Harrit been cited by any scientist?
Has anything come from this paper?
The true test for a paper is not the lack of debunking, but it being used by others as a building block of increasing knowledge.

 

[bill smith]

Cool. This is a good thread to address your post
Short answer: Yes, Pistorius is credible. His expertise alone beats that of all the 8 men combined (by the way: Make that 9 men). He and his colleague say credible and obvious reasons why the 9 men paper is bunk:
- Calling the chips "highly energetic" is nonsense - they are less energetoc than paper
- The chips look just like ordinary primer paint chipped off from steel


Are your JREF posts any more worthy?


That's called "CYA"


Masochistic lie.


Your attention span is short: You forgot Pistorius.


Has Harrit been cited by any scientist?
Has anything come from this paper?
The true test for a paper is not the lack of debunking, but it being used by others as a building block of increasing knowledge.

[sigh] I don't know why I bother arguing with you Oystein. Holding onto an untenable position and watching it further deteriorate around you seems to be de rigueur for you. But I have to confess it's quite enjoyable most of the time.

What did Professor Pistorius say about ' the scientific way ' just before he said the following ?

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''

 

[bill smith]

Cool. This is a good thread to address your post
Short answer: Yes, Pistorius is credible. His expertise alone beats that of all the 8 men combined (by the way: Make that 9 men). He and his colleague say credible and obvious reasons why the 9 men paper is bunk:
- Calling the chips "highly energetic" is nonsense - they are less energetoc than paper
- The chips look just like ordinary primer paint chipped off from steel


Are your JREF posts any more worthy?


That's called "CYA"


Masochistic lie.


Your attention span is short: You forgot Pistorius.


Has Harrit been cited by any scientist? Has anything come from this paper? The true test for a paper is not the lack of debunking, but it being used by others as a building block of increasing knowledge.

It's time that somebody writes a piece that clearly explains and illustrates this lack of reaction from the scientific community. But basically most are afraid to oppose the status quo for reasons of career and continued health.

 

[Oystein]

What did Professor Pistorius say about ' the scientific way ' just before he said the following ?

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''

He said that the conclusions of a paper are not necessarily true just because nobody has so far bothered to publish a refutation.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[sigh] I don't know why I bother arguing with you Oystein. Holding onto an untenable position and watching it further deteriorate around you seems to be de rigueur for you. But I have to confess it's quite enjoyable most of the time.

What did Professor Pistorius say about ' the scientific way ' just before he said the following ?

'' There are lots of reasons why nobody would take the time. It's frankly I think irrelevant. It would be fairly easy to rebut, but everybody's got more interesting things to do I think. ''

So? what part of that don't you understand? If a nut claimed the moon was made of green cheese should nasa investigate that claim?

 

[Animal]

It's time that somebody writes a piece that clearly explains and illustrates this lack of reaction from the scientific community. But basically most are afraid to oppose the status quo for reasons of career and continued health.

Why would someone write a two sentence book? That is all it would take to explain why the scientific community doesn't react to nonsense claims.

 

[DGM]

Why would someone write a two sentence book? That is all it would take to explain why the scientific community doesn't react to nonsense claims.

Personally I think it would be impossible to write a paper that "truthers" would except as refuting this paper. Considering they are the only ones paying attention. Another idea would be to erase all traces of the paper from the internet and the minds of the believers. Naturally this is also un-likely (but maybe become the ultimate answer over time ).

What I would suggest is an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION where Harrit and Co. would be called to support their findings and submit their samples for independent review.

I'm positive all "truthers" would agree to this considering all they want is to find the truth.

So what do you say "truthers"? Call for the independent review of the paper now.What possible excuse could you have not to?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Re: The sad case of Niels Harrit

Watch this video from the latest installment of the BBC's "Conspiracy Files", "9/11 Ten Years On":

At the 3:56, and talking about the Bentham paper:

Interviewer: "What's the reaction of scientists to your conclusion?"

Harrit: "None. None. It is beyond doubt the best peer-reviewed paper ever in my career."



Who wants to read his other papers, if the Bentham crap was his best?!? That's really really sad.

Harrit may genuinely believe that the Bentham paper was the best of his career.

He has co-authored many papers, but was seldom the first author. According to a search at Google Scholar, the 16 citations of Harrit's Bentham paper are the most for any paper of which he was first author.

 

[funk de fino]

Harrit came across as a delusional idiot last night on the Beeb. Didnt seem to tell as many lies as Fetzer though.

 

[alienentity]

Is anyone listening to Uncle Fetzer anymore? I hope not. The guy is a certified wingnut.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Harrit may genuinely believe that the Bentham paper was the best of his career.

He has co-authored many papers, but was seldom the first author. According to a search at Google Scholar, the 16 citations of Harrit's Bentham paper are the most for any paper of which he was first author.

I hadn't realised that Harrit was retired. If he's never had a paper with more than 16 citations as first author, that's not exactly a stellar career. Perhaps it's little wonder that he wants a cause that'll make him feel important. He came across as believing what he said on the BBC documentary, which is rather sad.

Dave

 

[alienentity]

Here's Harrit's own website bio

http://nielsharrit.org/

 

[Oystein]

I hadn't realised that Harrit was retired. If he's never had a paper with more than 16 citations as first author, that's not exactly a stellar career. Perhaps it's little wonder that he wants a cause that'll make him feel important. He came across as believing what he said on the BBC documentary, which is rather sad.

Dave

He's only made it to Associate Professor till retirement. What do you expect?

I guess he has made a decision and practised hard to believe his own stuff, just to save his face when he looks in the mirror. No doubt his former peers at Copenhagen University laugh at him or shake their head in disbelief.

Here's Harrit's own website bio

http://nielsharrit.org/

Not exactly a slick webdesign, is it?
He misspelled the name of the institute that awarded him his Master's degree, it's missing an "e" at the end, should be "Max-Planck-Institute for Strahlenchemie". (Chemie = chemistry; Strahlenchemie = Chemistry of radionucleids). Unless he chose to write that German institute's name in a strange mix of Engish, German and Danish.
We knew already that Harrit is a sloppy worker, didn't we?