The sad case of Niels Harrit

[000063]

Says an anonymous poster from the cesspit known as the JREF 9/11 forum. Yeah. We believe you.

Says the anonymous poster from the cesspit known as the JREF forum.

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.

Are we talking about the same chips they won't let anyone else see?

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.

Not everyone is wants attention like you seem to, Ergo.

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.

Again, chips, IIRC, Jones refuses to submit to independent corroboration.

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.

Okay, at this point, you're just into blatant ad hominem. You haven't made a single factual point about the evidence, just attacked debunkers via insinuation and generalizations. You do this often, I note, when you have no way to contradict debunkers on the actual facts under discussion.

Also, you scoffed at a guy who used the sun's position to determine the approximate time of day, and never admitted you were wrong. You pretty much lost all credibility you might've had there.

 

[Sunstealer]

How do you know he was even responding to you?

Because I was the only person to show that kaolin is the source of the hexagonal platelets in the material. Jones in one of his talks tries to show that it isn't - see at 4:00 in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#!

He uses exactly the same slide I did, but all he does is compare that EDX with the red chip's (a-d) EDX spectra, which is wrong because that isn't the argument. He says, "oh look there's no Fe", but of course you are not going to see as tall an Fe peak in Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄ even if Fe has accumulated in the natural formation of the material. In effect he built a straw man. The argument is the relationship between the heights of the Al and Si peaks which are characteristic of aluminosilicates, specifically kaolinite. This has been verified by other EDX spectra and "The Almond" performing a Monte Carlo simulation using data calculated from Laclede Standard Steel Joist paint information. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214739&page=4

If you think this material is thermite then why is it only 1.68% Al and 2.63% Fe (max by weight)??

See fig from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7482363&postcount=175 That's truthers own data!!

Why the hell is there more Silicon by weight than Aluminium? That should tell you there is an issue straight away.

I wish I had the stomach to view more of Jones' talks because I'd expect to glean more data from them that would support the paint conclusion, but it's nauseous to listen to his drawling smugness.

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.

How can anyone do the tests independently if Jones won't release his samples or refuses to have them independently confirmed as thermite?

The simple fact is they refuse to get independent testing done. Why do they refuse to do this? It's not expensive and there are hundreds of labs around the world that can do the rudimentary analysis needed. Just send a sample to a random lab via a courier, doesn't have to be in the US or even Europe.

Similarly, and I've said this before, if the data in the paper showed evidence of thermite, I'd back the paper fully and I'd be on this very forum doing that with links and corroborating evidence. I couldn't do anything else because the data would lead to that conclusion.

And whoever "Professor Pistorius" is, he needs to change his name. Good lord. Is he your only expert??

You didn't read the link did you? Typical truther. Here it is again. http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/people/pistorius.html

Biography

Dr. Pistorius received his bachelor's degree in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Pretoria in 1987, his master's degree in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Pretoria in 1988, and completed his Ph.D. in corrosion at the University of Cambridge in 1991. He was an Associate Professor and then Professor in the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa, from 1991 to 2008; he served as Head of that department from May 2002 to June 2008. He is a Member of the Academy of Science of South Africa, and a Fellow of the South African Academy of Engineering.

So I'd expect you to have the courtesy to at least write his name without the quotes. I think this bloke will know a little more than Harrit, Farrer, Jones, you and me when it comes to materials science. There's another very famous Pistorius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius. Are you going to take the piss out of his name too? Shows your immaturity. Why don't you send him a quick email saying you saw him on the BBC documentary and would like a little more information as to why he thinks it's paint? His email is on that page.

And no he's not "our" only expert as others have pointed out above.

 

[Bitsko]

I couldn't care less what a nobody like Niels Harrit has to say about anything, but I do find it appalling that a television channel would abet him in spewing his inane blather over the airwaves for the sole purpose of accumulating more krones.

 

[ergo]

Because I was the only person to show that kaolin is the source of the hexagonal platelets in the material. Jones in one of his talks tries to show that it isn't - see at 4:00 in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#!

He uses exactly the same slide I did, but all he does is compare that EDX with the red chip's (a-d) EDX spectra, which is wrong because that isn't the argument. He says, "oh look there's no Fe", but of course you are not going to see as tall an Fe peak in Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄ even if Fe has accumulated in the natural formation of the material. In effect he built a straw man. The argument is the relationship between the heights of the Al and Si peaks which are characteristic of aluminosilicates, specifically kaolinite. This has been verified by other EDX spectra and "The Almond" performing a Monte Carlo simulation using data calculated from Laclede Standard Steel Joist paint information. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214739&page=4

Sounds like you really might have an argument with Harrit's results. Too bad this is your only venue for communicating it.

If you think this material is thermite then why is it only 1.68% Al and 2.63% Fe (max by weight)??

As I suggested to you in another thread, why don't you simply ask Harrit himself?

How can anyone do the tests independently if Jones won't release his samples or refuses to have them independently confirmed as thermite?

The simple fact is they refuse to get independent testing done. Why do they refuse to do this? It's not expensive and there are hundreds of labs around the world that can do the rudimentary analysis needed. Just send a sample to a random lab via a courier, doesn't have to be in the US or even Europe.

I'm curious. Who asked them? If anyone actually asked them, what else did they say when they "refused"? What's stopping anyone from testing their own samples of dust?

So I'd expect you to have the courtesy to at least write his name without the quotes. I think this bloke will know a little more than Harrit, Farrer, Jones, you and me when it comes to materials science.

That's what they said about Bazant, too.

 

[ergo]

I couldn't care less what a nobody like Niels Harrit has to say about anything,

As opposed to a somebody like Sunstealer...

 

[newton3376]

As opposed to a somebody like Sunstealer...




You think he gets paid to appear on television?

Ergo...

Let us know when you guys hit 1%

 

[ergo]

(Hmm, "1%" must be some cryptic bedunker benchmark that they believe they themselves have already achieved....I wonder what it could be....? )

 

[Bitsko]

"You think he gets paid to appear on television?"

Beats me. All I know is the television network is the one making the money.

 

[newton3376]

(Hmm, "1%" must be some cryptic bedunker benchmark that they believe they themselves have already achieved....I wonder what it could be....? )

ROFL...no.....40% might be a benchmark.....50% would be a better one...

For truthers...the benchmark has to be "0.5%" or "1%".....thats how pathetic the truth movement is...

I'm being NICE by using 1% instead of the even MORE laughable "0.5%"...

1% =

 

[ergo]

I believe Newton3376 must be referring to the official number of engineers who support the OCT.

 

[The Platypus]

I believe Newton3376 must be referring to the official number of engineers who support the OCT.

There's no such thing as an OCT, that's just a silly acronym that cult kooks are trained to recite thinking they can defeat reality by taunting it.

That alone is enough to explain why the vast majority of engineers and other experts completely ignore such cults.

 

[alienentity]

There's also an 'official story' that the earth is not flat. I guess that must've been issued by a single government agency, and never confirmed independently....

 

[bill smith]

they said at the Toronto hearing today that thermitic material has been identified in the lung tissue of first resounders. Harrit is to make an announcement tomorrow.

 

[DGM]

they said at the Toronto hearing today that thermitic material has been identified in the lung tissue of first resounders. Harrit is to make an announcement tomorrow.

Why tomorrow? Is he hoping you can generate enough attention by spamming every thread with this?

Bill: I got a good one, How do you keep a moron in suspense? I'll tell you tomorrow

.

 

[bill smith]

Why tomorrow? Is he hoping you can generate enough attention by spamming every thread with this?

Bill: I got a good one, How do you keep a moron in suspense? I'll tell you tomorrow

.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/170744bfaf49c16490.gif[/qimg]

Lol. Harrit must be saying the same thing.

PS. No spam by the way. This is breaking news that all people with an interest in Harrit will want to know.

 

[alienentity]

The evidence is that the dust caused a burning sensation in people's lungs - only thermite can do that.

Sorry to scoop Mr Harrit a day early, but I can't keep a secret! That's why I was kicked out of the Bilderberg group and the NWO.

 

[000063]

I believe Newton3376 must be referring to the official number of engineers who support the OCT.

Well, there are upwards of a hundred thousand in the ASCE, and they endorsed the NIST report, and about a million or so in the US, so it's substantially more than 1%. Unless you're claiming over 90% of the ASCE disagreed with NIST but never said anything.

 

[ergo]

Well, there are upwards of a hundred thousand in the ASCE, and they endorsed the NIST report, and about a million or so in the US, so it's substantially more than 1%. Unless you're claiming over 90% of the ASCE disagreed with NIST but never said anything.

Problem with that is, the ASCE publishes JEM, which published Bazant's one-way crushing silliness. You can bet few structural engineers would agree with that model. In fact, I've seen no professional endorsements of it outside of NIST, who apparently couldn't come up with their own collapse propagation explanation. I'm guessing very few paid much attention to that article.

So, no, I don't think you can claim that anyone who doesn't stick their neck out for 9/11 truth must be an OCT supporter. That's a variation of the argument ad populum logical fallacy, except that it's even worse because it assumes a majority where none can be determined. (But, of course, this has already been pointed out to you folks several times. )

 

[ergo]

But I wonder why my question here goes unanswered.

I'm curious. Who asked them? If anyone actually asked them, what else did they say when they "refused"? What's stopping anyone from testing their own samples of dust?

Several people here have claimed that Jones and Harrit refused to share their samples. Who approached them about it, and what was the conversation?

 

[beachnut]

But I wonder why my question here goes unanswered.



Several people here have claimed that Jones and Harrit refused to share their samples. Who approached them about it, and what was the conversation?

ergo, the Jones/Harrit paper proves the dust was not thermite. Those guys posted a video of their dust burning, it was not thermite. Case closed, but go ahead, make this as bad as your moon sized debris pile failed physics. Answer you own questions, that is what people do who have knowledge; why can't you answer your own questions? Lack of knowledge?