• 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

W.D.Clinger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have practically zero experience with Google Scholar, and generally with citation statistics.
Does anybody know if Google is likely to find most, close to all, citations? I find that many of the 16 citations on GS are not very scholarly, so how to interprete that number... How does GS work, how do they decide which links to include in their search results as citations and which not?

Anyway, for future reference (# oysteinbookmark), here is a compilation of the (currently) 16 citations for Harrit e.al. "Active Thermitic Material...":

First the Google Scholar search results (hope that link is permanent):
http://scholar.google.de/scholar?start=0&hl=de&as_sdt=0&sciodt=0&cites=4125420714015252865

Now the 16 citations in the order they appear at Google Scholar:
No|Authors|Title
[1] |König, René|Eine Bewegung für die Wahrheit? : gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeitskonstruktion in Wikipedia am Beispiel alternativer Deutungen des 11. September 2001
[2] |Griffin, David Ray|Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight
[3] |Brookman, Ron; Cole, Jonathan; Gage, Richard; Keogh, Justin; Ryan, Kevin; Spellman, Thomas|Dear Sir Paul (Letter to Royal Society)
[4] |Woodworth, Elizabeth|Why the Fuss? The Call to Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in the 9/11 Official Story
[5] |Castro-Chavez, Fernando|The Rules of Variation Expanded, Implications for the Research on Compatible Genomics
[6] |Griffin, David Ray|Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
[7] |Woodworth, Elizabeth|The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010
[8] |Grabbe, Crockett|Showing that the South Tower of World Trade Center Collapsed from Forces More Powerful than Gravitation
[9] |Griffin, David Ray|THE MYSTERIOUS COLLAPSE OF WTC SEVEN WHY NIST'S FINAL 9/11 REPORT IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND FALSE
[10] |Beall, Jeffrey|Standard Review of Bentham Open
[11]|Woodworth, Elizabeth|(same as [7])
[12] |Grabbe, Crockett|What really caused the WTC Towers to Collapse
[13] |Phillips, Peter; Huff, Mickey|Project censored international: Colleges and universities validate independent news and challenge global media censorship
[14] |Griffin, David Ray|Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
[15] |n/a|n/a
[16] |Griffin, David Ray|DID 9/11 JUSTIFY THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN? USING THE MCCHRYSTAL MOMENT TO RAISE A FORBIDDEN QUESTION

Of these 16, two citations have to be dropped immediately: [11] refers to the same article as [7], and [15] is not a proper citation at all; the linked article is from 2007. It's just coincidence that Harrit e.al. Is linked to in the menu on the left.

Of the remaining 14, 8 are by the usual proponents of the TM: DRG (5 articles alone), Crockett Grabbe (2) and Richard Gage with a few buddies. Hardly independent "scientists" at all; all of them outside the field of chemistry.

Of the remaining 6, 3 are about media response and coverage, and are thus more political in nature than scientific.

Only 3 of the articles that cite Harrit e.al. are scientific in nature - not one is about the use of nano-thermite as incendiary or explosive at WTC:

[5] is a paper in the somewhat esoteric biological field of "Biosemiotics". From the abstract: "Population and ecosystem biosemiotics will be exemplified by a possible genetic damage capable of causing mutations by breaking the rules of variation through the coordinated patterns of atoms present in the 9/11 World Trade Center contaminated dust (U, Ba, La, Ce, Sr, Rb, K, Mn, Mg, etc.), combination that may be able to overload the molecular quality control mechanisms of the human body."

[1] is a sociological study from the University of Bielefeld (coincidentally the University where I studied business for 2 years) that shows "social construction of reality in Wikipedia using the example of alternative interpretations of the September 11 attacks". I am not sure if the author is neutral of these CTs, or approves or rejects them. In any case, that citation in no way affirms the conclusions reached by Harrit e.al., as the author of that paper is not in the natural sciences at all.

[10] finally cites Harrit e.al. as an example for the bad science that gets published at Bentham, and wouldn's stand a chance elsewhere



Summary:
  • 16 citations of "Active Thermitic Material..." amount to exactly 0 confirmations by scientists in chemistry, physics or engineering outside the inner circle of the truth movement
  • It is mainly cited by truthers, or by authors from social sciences
  • At a maximum, two of the articles that cite Harrit e.al. are peer-reviewed (the others are letters, blog articles, self-published etc)
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...



I don't think he created it....it says near the top
This web site is a gift to Dr. Niels Harrit, from admirers of his work. As a scientist, he allows us to
post his impressive credentials and publications, as long as this site focuses on his work, not himself.
The purpose is to help people to better understand and verify his research, leading to new studies.
Click to expand...

Its just a twoofers sloppy work.
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, apparently someone's going to finally take a stab at it. Good for Oystein. Putting his money where his mouth is.
 
ergo said:
Well, apparently someone's going to finally take a stab at it. Good for Oystein. Putting his money where his mouth is.
Click to expand...

He must have plenty of money then.lol. Seriously though, I'd be happy for someone to force a reaction from Jones and co. They don 't move fast enough for me.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.
I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality. The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)
'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)
No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.
The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.
So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.
He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.
And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.
He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.


There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.
Click to expand...

It may seem that way because you may not have looked at the evidence and simply believed what youve been told by the corporate media. That much seems clear from your post. And that's what you come up with to refute Harrit's claims nearly a decade later? the testimony of a torture victim and the '20th hijacker.' In fact Dr Harrit's assertions are correct whether you believe them or not. (I know this post is 2 yrs old, maybe you have caught up by now but I'll reply for the sake of others who may still believe the official al qaeda did it conspiracy theory).

The real issue to focus on is that none of those things (2 terrorists) explains away the mountain of well established and easily verifiable facts on the ground that reveal the use of explosives.

Their study of the dust documented the presence of hi-tech thermitic explosives in all the samples tested. (so-called 'debunkers' talk about chain of custody or call them paint chips!) You find that a compelling explanation?

Before that we learned of the the elemental iron microspheres (so-called 'debunkers claimed are simply 'fly ash from the concrete" which are oxides. Does not explain the iron spheres

Debunkers claim the squibs, so clearly seen in many videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8, are actually only 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above." You find that a compelling explanation? I don't bc in some clips the squibs are 20-30 floors below the fountain of debris above and u can see how concentrated and explosive they are.

So you see (or you will if you look), it's the so-called debunkers ("so-called" bc they fail so badly) who fail to satisfactorily explain what we know and can see occurred. I fancied myself a debunker when I started looking into this, so dont take it personally). I dealt with the consequences (reality) by supporting 911 Truth.

Maybe when subpoenas are issued and someone is actually charged and tried in open court with the 9/11 attacks we'll see what you're talking about. But until then,. Harrit's assertions remain 100% correct. And with bin ladin executed without a trial (who shoots an old unarmed man in the head while he is in bed? Nazis?? who ? No moral person would do that) He was not convicted of anything all we have are people's empty words. Hopefully he deserved it. (a million other victims of these wars clearly did not. For example,
14 yr old Abeer Qasim Hamza did not deserve to watch her mother father and baby brother machine gunned by an American soldier so she could then be gang raped and shot in the face herself).

I have never seen evidence BL had anything to do with it. Have you? No. All we have are empty words and a clearly phony video. He supposedly denied it days after 9/11 in the Karachi Umat interview, -I have no clue if that is correct. I know the taliban said they would hand him right over if the US showed evidence of his involvement. we couldn't, they didn't, and the rest is shameful history.

What I know with complete and utter certainty is that wtc 1,2&7 were blown up with preplanted explosives and I would bet anyone's life on it because that's how solid the evidence is. Evidence that derives from so many different strands that all dovetail seamlessly (themite explains the 99 day fires underground for example bc thermitic reactions provide their own oxygen and burns even under water) that it's just simply categorically undeniable to anyone who has really looked at the FACTS with an OPEN MIND.

Believe me when I tell you, I wish to God it were Islamic religious extremists! But should we just lie to ourselves and pretend the facts are otherwise?

This event was used to murder 3000 of my fellow NY's. As a pretext for 2 continuing illegal and immoral wars and all kinds of attacks on our civil liberties. The evidence is clear: it was staged event. Even without the Harrit study the evidence is monumental -The 'Harrit paper' btw, was a large group effort involving scientists from 5 or 6 different universities. It was peer-reviewed and published and no one has 'debunked' it or shown any error with it's conclusions. *Oh right, the red-gray chips are actually explosive paint chips which leave iron as a by-product after being ignited.
ok, shuuure, yeah that explains it.

NIST refused to even test for explosives. Why didn't you test for explosives when that was sop?
NIST: "It is a waste oif time to looking for something that isn''t there."
That is called beginning with your conclusions (or putting the ox before the cart) and is NOT the way a real investigation proceeds.
 
atavisms said:
It may seem that way because you may not have looked at the evidence and simply believed what youve been told by the corporate media. That much seems clear from your post. And that's what you come up with to refute Harrit's claims nearly a decade later? the testimony of a torture victim and the '20th hijacker.' In fact Dr Harrit's assertions are correct whether you believe them or not. (I know this post is 2 yrs old, maybe you have caught up by now but I'll reply for the sake of others who may still believe the official al qaeda did it conspiracy theory).

The real issue to focus on is that none of those things (2 terrorists) explains away the mountain of well established and easily verifiable facts on the ground that reveal the use of explosives.

Their study of the dust documented the presence of hi-tech thermitic explosives in all the samples tested. (so-called 'debunkers' talk about chain of custody or call them paint chips!) You find that a compelling explanation?

Before that we learned of the the elemental iron microspheres (so-called 'debunkers claimed are simply 'fly ash from the concrete" which are oxides. Does not explain the iron spheres

Debunkers claim the squibs, so clearly seen in many videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8, are actually only 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above." You find that a compelling explanation? I don't bc in some clips the squibs are 20-30 floors below the fountain of debris above and u can see how concentrated and explosive they are.

So you see (or you will if you look), it's the so-called debunkers ("so-called" bc they fail so badly) who fail to satisfactorily explain what we know and can see occurred. I fancied myself a debunker when I started looking into this, so dont take it personally). I dealt with the consequences (reality) by supporting 911 Truth.

Maybe when subpoenas are issued and someone is actually charged and tried in open court with the 9/11 attacks we'll see what you're talking about. But until then,. Harrit's assertions remain 100% correct. And with bin ladin executed without a trial (who shoots an old unarmed man in the head while he is in bed? Nazis?? who ? No moral person would do that) He was not convicted of anything all we have are people's empty words. Hopefully he deserved it. (a million other victims of these wars clearly did not. For example,
14 yr old Abeer Qasim Hamza did not deserve to watch her mother father and baby brother machine gunned by an American soldier so she could then be gang raped and shot in the face herself).

I have never seen evidence BL had anything to do with it. Have you? No. All we have are empty words and a clearly phony video. He supposedly denied it days after 9/11 in the Karachi Umat interview, -I have no clue if that is correct. I know the taliban said they would hand him right over if the US showed evidence of his involvement. we couldn't, they didn't, and the rest is shameful history.

What I know with complete and utter certainty is that wtc 1,2&7 were blown up with preplanted explosives and I would bet anyone's life on it because that's how solid the evidence is. Evidence that derives from so many different strands that all dovetail seamlessly (themite explains the 99 day fires underground for example bc thermitic reactions provide their own oxygen and burns even under water) that it's just simply categorically undeniable to anyone who has really looked at the FACTS with an OPEN MIND.

Believe me when I tell you, I wish to God it were Islamic religious extremists! But should we just lie to ourselves and pretend the facts are otherwise?

This event was used to murder 3000 of my fellow NY's. As a pretext for 2 continuing illegal and immoral wars and all kinds of attacks on our civil liberties. The evidence is clear: it was staged event. Even without the Harrit study the evidence is monumental -The 'Harrit paper' btw, was a large group effort involving scientists from 5 or 6 different universities. It was peer-reviewed and published and no one has 'debunked' it or shown any error with it's conclusions. *Oh right, the red-gray chips are actually explosive paint chips which leave iron as a by-product after being ignited.
ok, shuuure, yeah that explains it.

NIST refused to even test for explosives. Why didn't you test for explosives when that was sop?
NIST: "It is a waste oif time to looking for something that isn''t there."
That is called beginning with your conclusions (or putting the ox before the cart) and is NOT the way a real investigation proceeds.
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but thermite is an incendiary not an explosive. None of harrit's experiments show evidence of explosives. I debunked the Harrit paper 2 1/2 years ago. In the last few months we've managed to find out that 4 out of 5 of Jones' samples are Laclede standard red primer paint and the 5th is tnemec red. The paper was never peer reviewed and it was published in an obscure internet journal that is pay to publish that no one reads. Why don't you ask Harrit et al to submit it to JoM or any other proper materials science journal?

Nope you'd rather wallow in your ignorance. post rubbish and spout the same old long debunked tired truther memes on the internet. Go truther go! Only another 10 years of failure awaits you. Then another 10...... lol.
 
Sunstealer said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but thermite is an incendiary not an explosive. None of harrit's experiments show evidence of explosives. I debunked the Harrit paper 2 1/2 years ago. In the last few months we've managed to find out that 4 out of 5 of Jones' samples are Laclede standard red primer paint and the 5th is tnemec red. The paper was never peer reviewed and it was published in an obscure internet journal that is pay to publish that no one reads. Why don't you ask Harrit et al to submit it to JoM or any other proper materials science journal?

Nope you'd rather wallow in your ignorance. post rubbish and spout the same old long debunked tired truther memes on the internet. Go truther go! Only another 10 years of failure awaits you. Then another 10...... lol.
Click to expand...

:doublefacepalm:
 
Sunstealer said:
I debunked the Harrit paper 2 1/2 years ago. In the last few months we've managed to find out that 4 out of 5 of Jones' samples are Laclede standard red primer paint and the 5th is tnemec red. The paper was never peer reviewed and it was published in an obscure internet journal that is pay to publish that no one reads. Why don't you ask Harrit et al to submit it to JoM or any other proper materials science journal?
Click to expand...

Says the anonymous internet poster who hasn't published his findings... :rolleyes:

Secret tip for newbie truthers: bedunkers don't debunk. They post their own hypotheses anonymously on internet forums, blather on for several pages of amateur conjecture, then let the thread die and call the subject "debunked".

Until Sunstealer publishes his results somewhere credible, he has not debunked anything.
 
ergo said:
Says the anonymous internet poster who hasn't published his findings... :rolleyes:

Secret tip for newbie truthers: bedunkers don't debunk. They post their own hypotheses anonymously on internet forums, blather on for several pages of amateur conjecture, then let the thread die and call the subject "debunked".

Until Sunstealer publishes his results somewhere credible, he has not debunked anything.
Click to expand...

Considering you truthers claim 8-10 stories in WTC7 were instantly remove/vaporised like in Star Trek this is particularly laughable :rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
Until Sunstealer publishes his results somewhere credible, he has not debunked anything.
Click to expand...
Until Harrit et al publish in a respected journal there is essentially nothing to debunk. They might as well have published it in The Beano. No one reads Bentham. Get them to publish in a respectable journal like JoM and see how it's laughed away and ripped to shreds in peer review.

My rebuttal takes the same form as Harrit's paper - simply published on an obscure website that not many people in the relevant scientific field(s) read. My argument stands - no truther ever dares to show how I'm wrong. They don't have the knowledge or experience and if they did they wouldn't be truthers.

Damn I shouldn't have used "essentially", ergo doesn't know what it means.
 
Edx said:
Considering you truthers claim 8-10 stories in WTC7 were instantly remove/vaporised like in Star Trek this is particularly laughable :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Free fall for 2.5 seconds in WTC 7 was confirmed. You can't explain free fall without the building's resistance being removed completely in some way. I'm sorry you don't understand this. It seems elementary for just about anyone outside of JREF.
 
ergo said:
Apparently you did.

But if it's so easy to publish there, why don't you gather all your internet postings together and send them in? How hard can that be?
Click to expand...
Because I'm working on my paper showing that the world is round rather than flat first.
 
ergo said:
Apparently you did.

But if it's so easy to publish there, why don't you gather all your internet postings together and send them in? How hard can that be?
Click to expand...

So buckling is absurd to you but vaporising like Star Trek 8-10 entire floors each the size of a city block, instantly, is not.

OKAY ERGO :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
But if it's so easy to publish there, why don't you gather all your internet postings together and send them in? How hard can that be?
Click to expand...

A.) Why should Sunstealer get his work published when Harrit hasn't?

B.) Paying 600 bucks to have your work not peer-reviewed is stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom