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!
How do you know he was even responding to you? Why would he read JREF? If you could engage him like a grown-up does, you might be able to clear up some of these misunderstandings, undoubtedly all on your end.
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.
Says an anonymous poster from the cesspit known as the JREF 9/11 forum. Yeah. We believe you.
If two or more other scientists conducted independent tests verifying that the chips were paint and nothing but paint, not only would Harrit and Jones (and all the other authors of that paper) acknowledge their error, but 9/11 truth would accept the new results. No one has done the former. That's the simple fact.
You believe yourself to be so undeniably correct, it's awfully strange that you don't want to confront Harrit more publicly, and really embarrass him big time. Instead you seem content merely to spread rumours anonymously from the sidelines. The only reason this can be is because you really don't want to engage this issue in a way where your analysis might be exposed as falsely premised.
We know that 9/11 "debunking" is mainly about creating doubt and spreading rumour; discrediting, with whatever means available, independent 9/11 research and researchers. Your approach here fits exactly that model. Whatever argument you think you have is going to continue to be ignored. Until you can come out of your little hidy place and engage the matter like someone who actually knows something about it, nothing's been debunked.
And whoever "Professor Pistorius" is, he needs to change his name. Good lord.
Is he your only expert??
