The sad case of Niels Harrit

[Oystein]

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.
...

According to Google Scholar:
Bazant and Zhou (2002) has been cited 99 times; compare that to 16 citations for Harrit e.al.
Several of the citations of Bazant and Zhou are in peer-reviewed journals, such as
- JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society
- Fire Safety Journal
- Automation in Construction
- Journal of Engineering Mechanics
It has also attracted attention at professional and academic congresses; I might mention
- International Symposium on Sea-Crossing Long-Span Bridges, Mokpo, Korea, Feb. 15-17, 2006
Compare this to absolutely ZERO citations from relevant peer reviewed journals, or scientists, or engineers, of Harrit e.al., who are ONLY ever cited by truther friends, or scholars and journalists in politics, sociology or media theory - sometimes as a prime example for BAD science or how people make up their own reality.

Bazant and Verdure (2007), itself published in a highly respected journal for civil and structural engineers, has been cited 31 times, according to Google Scholar. Again, some of the citations are in peer-reviewed journals by scientists and engineers hailing from relevant fields, such as
- International Journal of Fracture
- Journal of Engineering Mechanics
- Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
- Engineering Structures
And again, attention at professional and academic conferences, resulting in conference papers, for example
- The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
- IABSE Conference, Helsinki 2008


Please be aware that I picked only a few citations from the first couple of pages of Google results - there are more, though I didn't count.


So ergo, your statement "You can bet few structural engineers would agree with that model. In fact, I've seen no professional endorsements of it outside of NIST" reflects on your personal ignorance only and has nothing to do with the real world of science and structural engineering.

 

[ergo]

You might want to find out how that paper's being cited and what's being said first. Citations occur even when the paper isn't being used for a particular analysis, or is being rejected in a particular analysis.

But interesting that you're sticking up for ol' columnar crush down. Is that the model you see as best fitting the collapses?

 

[chrismohr]

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




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




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?




That's what they said about Bazant, too.

I ASKED THEM, and my requests have been ignored. So have at least a dozen 9/11 Truth activists on your side who have written to me and are upset that their requests have also been ignored.

 

[ergo]

And why is it that no one can answer my question? Sunstealer?

If you say Harrit and Jones "refused" to release their samples, that implies that they were approached to do so. Who approached them and what was the conversation?

 

[Oystein]

You might want to find out how that paper's being cited and what's being said first. Citations occur even when the paper isn't being used for a particular analysis, or is being rejected in a particular analysis.

I only picked citations that accept Bazant as precedence, and do not reject him.
You might want to try to open a few of the links I provided, okay? Have you tried that?

But interesting that you're sticking up for ol' columnar crush down. Is that the model you see as best fitting the collapses?

Don't pretend that you haven't noticed that you've been thoroughly schooled and owned today by pgimeno on the applicability and nature of Bazant and Zhou's model:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7557383&postcount=1624

It is, as every engineer easily understands, a lower bound, a best case for survival. Every engineer, including Bazant and Zhou themselves, of course understands that the model is not a realistic rendering of the collapse in all its chaotic detail. It never meant to be. Eben non-engineers like myself understand that in reality, total collapse was even more inevitable as of course there wouldn't be much columnar crush down to speak of. Instead, everyone but you understands that in the real world, there was mostly floor-led crush-down, as the floors provided much less resistance to gravitational collapse than columns would have.

Every time you write post like this, you signal to all the world "hey world, look at me, ergo: I am STILL stupid and the last person who doesn't understand this easy concept!". Why is showing your ignorance publicly such a high priority in your life? Do you dig embarrassment?

 

[ergo]

Thanks, Chris. Are you the only one from your side? What were you going to do with the samples? And do you think it's fair to characterize a non-reply to a non-scientist as a refusal?

 

[Oystein]

And why is it that no one can answer my question? Sunstealer?

If you say Harrit and Jones "refused" to release their samples, that implies that they were approached to do so. Who approached them and what was the conversation?

Thanks, Chris. Are you the only one? What were you going to do with the samples? And do you think it's fair to characterize a non-reply to a non-scientist as a refusal?

This coming immediately after this:

I ASKED THEM, and my requests have been ignored. So have at least a dozen 9/11 Truth activists on your side who have written to me and are upset that their requests have also been ignored.

shows you can't even read two sentences in a row without missing the statements of fact therein.

Chris Mohr asked!

ergo, can you please repeat in your own words, and with a little bit of context, the above 3-word-sentence? Just so we know you have read it and the information has entered your brain. So that next time you feign ignorance about this matter everyone in the world can verify you are a liar.

ETA: And then, please try to repeat, in your own words, the second sentence of the Chris Mohr quote. Thanks!

 

[ergo]

Actually, Oystein, my wi-fi's a bit sketchy this morning, so I wasn't able to reply to Chris right away. I would prefer Chris answer my question. Thanks.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Actually, Oystein, my wi-fi's a bit sketchy this morning, so I wasn't able to reply to Chris right away. I would prefer Chris answer my question. Thanks.

Well, I'd prefer Harrit answers Chris. Seems we're at a deadlock, eh? I prefer one thing and you prefer another and we're equals - two guys posting on the cesspit that is the JREFF.

Now, how could we solve this dilemma? Well, simple,.... Have Harrit and Jones release some of their samples to independent testing labs. That's what Chris is proposing, if I'm not mistaken.

They did sketchy research, as identified already by several scientists in the field, and come to conclusions that those same scientists say are "dubious" based on the exclusions and the details of their study, and given a chance to silence all those pesky scientists by handing over the samples to an independent lab to test, they just ignore the requests.

So who's shucking and jiving here? Your heroes are con men. They know they elided a number of tests and they know they erroneously yet conveniently excluded paint from the possible conclusions, and they will be nailed if they hand some of their samples over to a neutral surveyor.

 

[Animal]

You might want to find out how that paper's being cited and what's being said first. Citations occur even when the paper isn't being used for a particular analysis, or is being rejected in a particular analysis.

But interesting that you're sticking up for ol' columnar crush down. Is that the model you see as best fitting the collapses?

Argument from willful ignorance noted.

The analysis was a "best case" study, not what actually happened.

Demanding a modeling of the entire collapse is no different than demanding an explanation of why every one of 30,000 toothpicks ended up in their exact position on the floor after the case fell off the shelf. Sane people want to know why the box fell in the first place and how to prevent it from happening again. The end position of the toothpicks is of little / no value.

 

[ergo]

Well, I'd prefer Harrit answers Chris. Seems we're at a deadlock, eh? I prefer one thing and you prefer another and we're equals - two guys posting on the cesspit that is the JREFF.

No, it's important for Chris to answer. We need to know what he would realistically do with the samples. If he was asking them to submit them to independent labs, we need to know why he thinks Harrit and Jones would heed a request from someone they don't know, who's not a scientist and who may not have communicated his objections to their results convincingly.

 

[triforcharity]

Strange to see such a serious man turn into a clown dancing for debunkers.

THIS

is not dancing. It's signaling. Just FYI.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No, it's important for Chris to answer. We need to know what he would realistically do with the samples.

Who's we? Are you speaking for Harrit and Jones? Or is "we" some dude on the cesspit of the JREFF? This "we" (me) doesn't need to know exactly to whom Chris is going to give the samples, because he's not asking for them for himself - he's asking them to submit to an independent lab. They don't answer, and as he mentioned some fellow-truthers have noted this and are disturbed about it. It just seems something less than an actual search for Truth^TM, doesn't it?

If he was asking them to submit them to independent labs, we need to know why he thinks Harrit and Jones would heed a request from someone they don't know, who's not a scientist and who may not have communicated his objections to their results convincingly.

Again "we"? And, again,... Are you speaking for Harrit & Jones? And why is Mohr "someone they don't know"? I believe they know of Chris. I'd be real certain that Gage (Artist and Engineers and a Whole Lot of Marginally Related Pseudo Technical Types For 911 Truth) knows who he is and seeing as to how Jones has his fingers on the rapidly diminshing pulse of the TM, I'm going to guess he does, too.

 

[ozeco41]

THIS

is not dancing. It's signaling. Just FYI.

Yes. It's a "Get Well...." message.

 

[ergo]

Chris, do you think it's fair to characterize a non-reply to a non-scientist as a "refusal"?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

...

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris, do you think it's fair to characterize a non-reply to a non-scientist as a "refusal"?

OK, Ergo, as a scientist (polymer chemist) with the necessary equipment at hand, I can write some request (polite enough) for the WTC dust sample addressed to S. Jones, N. Harrit and K. Ryan (their e-mail addresses seem to be available). Or we can write some collective request with Oystein, Sunstealer, Almond and Leftysergeant (with some necessary details about their qualifications in this matter). What do you think, Oystein, Sunstealer and others? I think we can try it, there is basically nothing to loose.

 

[Oystein]

I am not a scientist, and I don't have the equipment, expertise or anything to do that analysis. So no need to have me included here, Ivan.

No need, more importantly, to reply to ergo and fulfill his wishes or whatever.

Let Harrit do the legwork and pay the cost. Let them send some specimen to an independent and competent lab.

In the meantime, I think they have done enough and credible research on samples a-d to warrant the conclusion they are paint.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

OK, Oystein, no problem.

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.

Bill, how is it with this Harrit's announcement you promised in September 9? I have not found anything by googling.

 

[The Almond]

OK, Ergo, as a scientist (polymer chemist) with the necessary equipment at hand, I can write some request (polite enough) for the WTC dust sample addressed to S. Jones, N. Harrit and K. Ryan (their e-mail addresses seem to be available). Or we can write some collective request with Oystein, Sunstealer, Almond and Leftysergeant (with some necessary details about their qualifications in this matter). What do you think, Oystein, Sunstealer and others? I think we can try it, there is basically nothing to loose.

Hi Ivan, I hate to rain on the parade, but you'd have to count me out. While I have access to XRF, LA-ICPMS, SIMS, XRD and a variety of other instruments, including electron microscopes capable of doing SEM-EDX, I would be forced to decline any offer to work on WTC dust samples. For us, the questions are time, money, novelty, and merit, and this project satisfies none of those requirements. For the benefit of non-scientists (i.e. Truthers), this is a conversation that I had with my supervisor in 2009, shortly after the Harrit paper was published.

Me: I would like to run an analysis of the WTC dust

Boss (PhD Physicist with 20+ years of research in thermodynamics, heat transfer, DSC, etc): Why? RJ Lee already did that.

Me: Because an obscure group of researchers practicing far outside of their field of expertise managed to publish a paper in an non peer-reviewed, open access journal that says nano-thermite was found in the paint chips found in the WTC dust. [Hands boss the paper]

Boss: This is idiotic (an actual quote). How long were you planning on spending on this?

Me: 3 days automated SEM-EDX, 3 days XRF/XRD, 4 days of dissolution and mass quantification experiments. 10 days total, about 80 hours of combined instrument time.

Boss: I presume these researchers will be paying you.

Me: No, I was hoping we could do the work for free. Although I'm still expecting to draw my regular salary and have you pay for the power, supplies and maintenance of the equipment.

Boss: Let me get this straight: You want to repeat an experiment that we both agree was done poorly in order to prove false an assertion by an obscure group of non-researchers, which in itself is so patently absurd that they published it in an even more obscure journal. When done correctly, the experiment will prove the superior, carefully controlled RJ Lee study correct, and reaffirm to approximately no one that the twin towers were not demolished by thermite.

Me: Yep.

Boss: And you want me to eat about $50,000 in overhead and operating costs?

Me: Yep.

Boss: [Bad words]

It's paraphrased, but that's about what happens. There is not legitimate scientific reason to do the work. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to shut Jones, Harrit et al up for good, but even a perfectly executed, carefully controlled study won't do that. They're too deep into the woo.