The sad case of Niels Harrit

[bill smith]

Vanity press is not peer-reviewed. They are still immature little boys with delusions of manhood.

What don't your guys try to publish a peer reviewed paper at Bentham Sarge ? That would even things up I guess it must be because they can't.

 

[leftysergeant]

What don't your guys try to publish a peer reviewed paper at Bentham Sarge ? That would even things up I guess it must be because they can't.

Because it would ruin our intellectual credibility in the eyes of anyone with an IQ over 50 should we become in any way associated with such a buncho of whackadoodles, shysters and grifters.

 

[bill smith]

Because it would ruin our intellectual credibility in the eyes of anyone with an IQ over 50 should we become in any way associated with such a buncho of whackadoodles, shysters and grifters.

Whoa there Sarge. You realise that you are defaming and slandering a real and existing institution that survives on it's reputation for integrity ? I wonder how much of this Bentham will take before they call in the lawyers.

 

[leftysergeant]

Whoa there Sarge. You realise that you are defaming and slandering a real and existing institution that survives on it's reputation for integrity ? I wonder how much of this Bentham will take before they call in the lawyers.

They cannot afford the sanctions that wouild be imposed on a vexatious litigant, should they sue me for defaming them after I call them a bleedin' fraud.

They have less IQ power than they have scientific integrity.

 

[triforcharity]

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

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.

Well, how can you properly rebut something, that wasn't properly published in the first place?

 

[Oystein]

When you say that none of these scientists 'care' Oystein do you mean that they are aware of the conspiracy but just do not care ? If not, in what other context are you using the word 'care' here.'

Give us a sentence or two with examples of the usage you mean.

Whoa there Sarge. You realise that you are defaming and slandering a real and existing institution that survives on it's reputation for integrity ? I wonder how much of this Bentham will take before they call in the lawyers.

Your reading comprehension sucks, and is thus on par with truthers in general. Read my previous post again:

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)

I hilighted the parts that are responsive to the two Bill Smith quotes above.

Again:

• No Chemist, and no chemistry journal, outside the immediate inner circle of thruthers around Jones e.al. has cited the paper approvingly.
• No Physicist, and no physics journal, outside the immediate inner circle of thruthers around Jones e.al. has cited the paper approvingly.
• No Engineer, and no engineering journal, outside the immediate inner circle of thruthers around Jones e.al. has cited the paper approvingly.
• No Fire or Materials Scientest, and no fire or material science journal, outside the immediate inner circle of thruthers around Jones e.al. has cited the paper approvingly.
• Instead, the paper is cited as an example in a sociological study that deals with "construction of reality" on the internet.
• Instead, that paper is referenced as a prime example for the bad science that gets published at Bentham

Here is an excerpt from [10], a study of Bentham Open as a publisher:

Critical Evaluation
The site states that, “All submitted articles undergo a fast but rigorous
peer-review procedure, followed by prompt submission of an article
for publication.” However, the journals contain articles that take unpopular
views on topics and were likely unacceptable in mainstream
journals.
...
it is likely that if this article [Oystein remarks: one titled "“Cosmological Constraints on Unifying Dark Fluid Models"] were submitted to any mainstream journal it would be rejected, and the author sought to publish it here because of the less-rigorous or façade-like peer-review process. Alternatively, the author submitted the article to Bentham Open because he
knew that merely by paying the fee he could get his work published. ... Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science. ...
Another example comes from The Open Chemical Physics Journal. In the article “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11World Trade Center Catastrophe,”2 the authors conclude that some of the dust found in the World Trade Center debris is unexploded bomb material. They lead the reader to conclude that planted explosives were the real source of the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, and not the aircraft that struck them. This article has helped fuel 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus, Bentham Open is a place for people to publish their theories, theses, and ideas that are out of the mainstream. ...
...
Bentham Open is exploiting the good will of those who established the Open Access model by twisting it and exploiting it for profit....

Bentham Open’s emergence into scholarly publishing in 2007 has served mainly as a venue to publish research of questionable quality. The site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research. By linking to sites such as Bentham Open, libraries are diluting scholarly research and making it more difficult for scholars to sort through the abundance of journal articles available.
...

And the article finally awards scores in star-rating system. Bentham Open gets a rating of 1* out of 5 possible for "Content":

Content: *
The site has over 200 online, Open Access journals, but many haveonly a few articles in them. Many articles are of questionable quality and likely not publishable in mainstream journals.

In summary: This review considers the contents of the papers published by Bentham to be, in general or on average, of the worst quality out there in the world of science publishers, and "Active Thermitic Material..." serves as one of two examples to highlight why Bentham gets the lowest grade.

 

[ergo]

I've not raised questions I've shown conclusively with data that the chips are paint. Others have helped identify that paint.

I don't think so, Sunstealer. Harrit has already explained to anyone who cares to read why the chips aren't paint. I know that JREF 9/11 "debunk"ery consists mainly of creating doubt and spreading rumours. In many instances, you folks outright lie. I know you didn't conduct your own test. You're drawing conclusions from those that Harrit presents. That's not science. I'm sure you have some knowledge on the subject, but I highly doubt your conclusions have anything to do with reality. The main reason you don't want to be more public with your assessment is that you really don't want to hear why you're wrong. Run your own tests, or at the very least engage in some discussion with Harrit himself instead of with amateurs who can't evaluate what you're saying.

Another clue that your theory is only half-baked is that you spend most of your time attacking Harrit. That is not science either. This is amateur hour by someone who is not fully certain that he's correct. If your argument really was sound, you would be much more confident in spreading the news. As it is, you seem to be hiding behind some junky, scattered postings on JREF.

Publish your argument somewhere where it can be read without having to wade through piles of intellectual detritus, or accept that you haven't debunked anyone. I'm sure your JREF buddies can come up with a lousy $500 to publish. If you don't like Bentham, choose a journal, or at least a reputable website, ffs that will present your arguments.

Until you do this, I suggest you stop presenting your conclusions as fact. You're misleading people.

 

[Sunstealer]

I don't think so, Sunstealer. Harrit has already explained to anyone who cares to read why the chips aren't paint. I know that JREF 9/11 "debunk"ery consists mainly of creating doubt and spreading rumours. In many instances, you folks outright lie. I know you didn't conduct your own test. You're drawing conclusions from those that Harrit presents. That's not science. I'm sure you have some knowledge on the subject, but I highly doubt your conclusions have anything to do with reality. The main reason you don't want to be more public with your assessment is that you really don't want to hear why you're wrong. Run your own tests, or at the very least engage in some discussion with Harrit himself instead of with amateurs who can't evaluate what you're saying.

Another clue that your theory is only half-baked is that you spend most of your time attacking Harrit. That is not science either. This is amateur hour by someone who is not fully certain that he's correct. If your argument really was sound, you would be much more confident in spreading the news. As it is, you seem to be hiding behind some junky, scattered postings on JREF.

Publish your argument somewhere where it can be read without having to wade through piles of intellectual detritus, or accept that you haven't debunked anyone. I'm sure your JREF buddies can come up with a lousy $500 to publish. If you don't like Bentham, choose a journal, or at least a reputable website, ffs that will present your arguments.

Until you do this, I suggest you stop presenting your conclusions as fact. You're misleading people.

It's a waste of money and time to publish something that a) no-one in mainstream science will ever read and b) truthers would read but instantly dismiss the findings because it does not conform to their fantasy. This forum is well known in truther circles and suits the purpose. Infact if you want a discussion, a tightly moderated thread can be set up to discuss purely the technical aspects and deficiencies of the paper. I'm more than up for handing out a drubbing.

There are already other experts who have dismissed Harrit's findings and have done so on television programmes. Prof Pistorius is a case in point but you, nor any other truther, takes him on his word. Why not? If you won't take an experts word for it then why would you take mine even if I published a paper? You take Harrit's side because it suits you and for no other reason. Even if the worlds top universities and independent laboratories came out and published 100 papers saying it was paint truthers would still claim it's thermite. You and they are beyond reason.

Harrit certainly hasn't explained why these chips are not paint because he used the wrong primer as the example and didn't read what I was saying. I've never claimed that chips a-d where tnemec red, that's Harrit's assumption. He doesn't seem to think that there are multiple sources for paint. Infact his own attempt to show it's not paint has given us more information showing us it is paint! Delicious irony. These chips show all of the hallmarks of paint and we've been through that ad nauseam.

No one needs to do any testing of their own. If you write a paper and in that paper you state that 1+1=75.6 then you would be wrong. No-one has to then publish anything to show that you are wrong just as in the BBC article I linked to on the climate change paper. I'm more than happy to be shown wrong, infact I welcome it because that is one way in which we learn. 2 1/2 years ago I stipulated that the material contained aluminosilicates in the form of kaolin, iron III oxide and a binder and backed it up with data. In the last few months it has been shown that Laclede standard red joist paint consists of exactly these materials. It's further corroboration. Occam's razor works rather well in our favour.

If Harrit et al were so sure of their work they would have submitted their paper to a proper peer reviewed journal (where it would have been ripped to pieces in peer review and subsequently never published) and they would allow independent testing of their material. The fact that they do not speaks volumes. No-one has confirmed their findings and everyone who has looked at the paper who has the relevant knowledge says it's paint.

There simply isn't anything more to discuss. It really is sad when you see someone, such as Harrit, who should know better, disappear down the cesspit that is 9/11 truth.

 

[Edx]

Ergo quit playing silly games. If you had to publish a rebuttle to every paper that was published then you have a lot of work to do since there are around a hundred papers published dealing with 911 in various aspects, from air quality, to fire prevention, to the steel performance etc. None of which support truthers and all of which work off the principle that fire destroyed the towers. You dont care about peer review with these papers, you dismiss them because you claim its a conspiracy. But you get one paper in a shoddy journal that spams scientists to become editors of journals in subjects they arent even qualified in, where they accept fake papers, where various editors have quit when they realised how bad the journal was and all of a sudden you claim unless someone publishes a rebuttal the paper stands as solid and unchallenged. What a load of bollocks. You truthers may want to believe that, but the industry doesnt care, no one does apart from a few incompetent nobodies on the internet.

I don't think so, Sunstealer. Harrit has already explained to anyone who cares to read why the chips aren't paint. I know that JREF 9/11 "debunk"ery consists mainly of creating doubt and spreading rumours. In many instances, you folks outright lie. I know you didn't conduct your own test. You're drawing conclusions from those that Harrit presents. That's not science. I'm sure you have some knowledge on the subject, but I highly doubt your conclusions have anything to do with reality. The main reason you don't want to be more public with your assessment is that you really don't want to hear why you're wrong. Run your own tests, or at the very least engage in some discussion with Harrit himself instead of with amateurs who can't evaluate what you're saying.

Another clue that your theory is only half-baked is that you spend most of your time attacking Harrit. That is not science either. This is amateur hour by someone who is not fully certain that he's correct. If your argument really was sound, you would be much more confident in spreading the news. As it is, you seem to be hiding behind some junky, scattered postings on JREF.

Publish your argument somewhere where it can be read without having to wade through piles of intellectual detritus, or accept that you haven't debunked anyone. I'm sure your JREF buddies can come up with a lousy $500 to publish. If you don't like Bentham, choose a journal, or at least a reputable website, ffs that will present your arguments.

Until you do this, I suggest you stop presenting your conclusions as fact. You're misleading people.

 

[bill smith]

After 2.5 years, no scientist at all has used Harrit e.al. for a citation in any proper journal article, except as an example for a sociological phenomenon.

There is no chemist in the world who cares
There is no physicist in the world^* who cares
There is no engineer in the world^* who cares
There is no material scientist in the world^* who cares
There is no forensic scientist in the world who cares
There is no military researcher in the world who cares
There is no fire scientist in the world who cares




^*) Outside a very closed circle of die-hard truthers

I think you will find that there are not all that many scientific articles being written on the subject of nanothermite being used in demolition Oystein. That might expplain the lack of citations in papers on related subjects.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What don't your guys try to publish a peer reviewed paper at Bentham

Three reasons:

There's no need. The official version of 9/11 is still official. Ten years on and you haven't made so much as a scratch.

Too much effort for zero gain. Why waste 600 bucks to post on a glorified internet forum in Pakistan the same things that you don't read or understand when they are posted here?

Bentham isn't peer-reviewed.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Whoa there Sarge. You realise that you are defaming and slandering a real and existing institution that survives on it's reputation for integrity ? I wonder how much of this Bentham will take before they call in the lawyers.

Bentham is a piece of @#$% internet forum that's only slightly more intelligent than 4chan.

Go tell on us, Bill. Tell Bentham we said "Bring it, @#$%&es".

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

There's been numerous mentions of Prof.Pistorius, but I can't seem to find exactly how he as responded to the nanotermite-in-dust-claim. Could someone give me a link?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

There's been numerous mentions of Prof.Pistorius, but I can't seem to find exactly how he as responded to the nanotermite-in-dust-claim. Could someone give me a link?

The recent BBC show Conspiracy Files. If you live in the UK you can see it on the BBC. For the rest of us we have to either rely on you tube or Bit Torrent (I saw it through the latter).

If you Google :

the.conspiracy.files.9.11.ten.years.on.webrip.xvid-w4f.avi, torrent

and use bit torrent you will get it in about an hour or so right now.

 

[bill smith]

There's been numerous mentions of Prof.Pistorius, but I can't seem to find exactly how he as responded to the nanotermite-in-dust-claim. Could someone give me a link?

When asked why no scientist has debunked Harrit's peer reviewed paper Pistorius replied:-

'' 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. ''

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7529215&postcount=80 hyperlink

 

[Edx]

When asked why no scientist has debunked Harrit's peer reviewed paper Pistorius replied:-

'' 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. ''

Apparently you see this as a plus for your side, when really it shows that your little group is entirely irrelevant and no one relevant gives a crap about you.

 

[BStrong]

I think you will find that there are not all that many scientific articles being written on the subject of nanothermite being used in demolition Oystein. That might expplain the lack of citations in papers on related subjects.

Because the premise is pure nonsense.

 

[The Platypus]

Whining on an internet forum about it is not worth a row of beans..

Yet this is all 911 kooks do, constantly whine on internet forums... And here you are even, where, on an internet forum, doing what, whining and acting as if your constant whining is somehow changing reality and the world... Weird...

 

[Leviath]

There are already other experts who have dismissed Harrit's findings and have done so on television programmes. Prof Pistorius is a case in point but you, nor any other truther, takes him on his word. Why not?

Not to mention the three norwegians:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5103520&postcount=127

But you or they could publish all you want, truthers will never listen. Just look at all the peer-reviewed articles on how the towers came down. None thinks explosives were needed, but somehow peer-review is not important in that case.

 

[Oystein]

Not to mention the three norwegians:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5103520&postcount=127

But you or they could publish all you want, truthers will never listen. Just look at all the peer-reviewed articles on how the towers came down. None thinks explosives were needed, but somehow peer-review is not important in that case.

Hehe good find.
Here is a video, and a link that has some transcripts of what these norwegian scientists said in that video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZHGUd82wc
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php?t-7562.html
(all published by truthers)

In particular, Ola Nilsen, descibed by 911oz as "Nano-scientist at University of Oslo", said

My first impression here, a thing that they try to exclude, that is paint. It looks like paint. It – I’m tempted to say – almost smells like paint to. And what they describe of pigments, that is to say things you can actually find inside this here, that is also things you can actually find in paint. You can find all the components that constitutes here in a paint, so I wouldn’t say they’ve excluded that well enough.

Spot on. He saw the obvious.