WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Yeah I read that article in my search as well. I think the quote is somewhere on a JREF thread but I couldn't find it anywhere here either. Anyone know about the Harrit quote about how two years with no response is support for his thermite paper?

Maybe that wasn't Harrit at all, but instead, co-author Kevin Ryan?

Chris, here's one of your posts from the YouTube "Blueprint for Truth" debate thread:

Kevin Ryan et al’s 2009 Bentham paper was met with deafening silence by the mainstream scientific community, a fact which all 9/11 Truth researchers bemoan: “The simple fact that professional scientists could publish such evidence, and over a period of three years be met with no answer from government and academic leaders, is an astounding fact that speaks volumes about the mindlessness that pervades society today… Three years without a response is response enough.”

This is verbatim from Kevin Ryan's blog, here.

The paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in February 2009. Since that time, it has been personally delivered to many members of the U.S. Congress and to scientists at universities around the world. In response, the silence has been deafening. The simple fact that professional scientists could publish such evidence, and over a period of three years be met with no answer from government and academic leaders, is an astounding fact that speaks volumes about the mindlessness that pervades society today.

...

In the meantime, we can rest assured that the U.S. government and government-sponsored universities will not respond to the finding of energetic materials at the WTC, or to any of the peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. Three years without a response is response enough.

Is that the One?

Dave

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Dave,
No, these quotes from Kevin are easy to understand: he is complaining that the academic and government establishment is ignoring their paper. The Harrit quote actually says that two years of no response is somehow evidence of agreement!

 

[AsbjornAndersen]

Hi Dave,
No, these quotes from Kevin are easy to understand: he is complaining that the academic and government establishment is ignoring their paper. The Harrit quote actually says that two years of no response is somehow evidence of agreement!

Could it be the quote was from a Danish source and then translated here?

 

[Josarhus]

Could it be the quote was from a Danish source and then translated here?

I have tried every possible Danish version, with no result.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks for trying so hard gang! But I found the Niels Harrit quote, in a private email:
“Two years of silence makes me quite confident. The absence of review is the best review I've got… We must constantly remind ourselves and them, that it is not our duty to prove them wrong. It is their duty to prove them right.”

 

[thedopefishlives]

Thanks for trying so hard gang! But I found the Niels Harrit quote, in a private email:
“Two years of silence makes me quite confident. The absence of review is the best review I've got… We must constantly remind ourselves and them, that it is not our duty to prove them wrong. It is their duty to prove them right.”

That last sentence of his applies to himself as well. It is not our job to disprove the Harrit et al. study, it is his own job to ensure the conclusion follows from the data (i.e. proves himself right). It does not.

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks for trying so hard gang! But I found the Niels Harrit quote, in a private email:
“Two years of silence makes me quite confident. The absence of review is the best review I've got… We must constantly remind ourselves and them, that it is not our duty to prove them wrong. It is their duty to prove them right.”

Which must be the silliest misrepresentation of "burden of proof" we have seen.

The idiocy revealed if you complete his sentence to make explicit what he relies on by implication --- "It is their duty to prove them right that I am wrong.”
...the lie also in the earlier sentence which should read "We must constantly remind ourselves and them, that it is not our duty to prove them wrongthat we are right". Then, once we get the burden of proof round the right way, it is becomes the debunkers challenge to show that they have not satisfied their burden of proof - which multiple debunkers have done. They have not "made their case".



EDIT: Pipped at the post by dopefish....crossed in posting by one minute. Same point. His burden of proof to support his claim. It is not our burden to disprove his claim.

 

[Miragememories]

"I found the Niels Harrit quote, in a private email:

“Two years of silence makes me quite confident.

The absence of review is the best review I've got…

We must constantly remind ourselves and them, that it is not our duty to prove them wrong.

It is their duty to prove them right.”

That is a great message.

Thank you for that Chris.

MM

 

[DGM]

That is a great message.

Thank you for that Chris.

MM

If Millette publishes his paper, does this then mean the Harrit guys would then have to publish another paper before "nanothermite" could be considered again (by you)?

Is that all it would take?

 

[GlennB]

That is a great message.

Thank you for that Chris.

Meanwhile, elemental Al does not come in the form of thin hexagonal platelets, it comes as amorphous grains. If you get down to crystalline level it's cubic.

I once published that moonlight is generated by billions of lunar nano-unicorns furiously pedalling tiny generator bikes. Nobody commented though. I'll take that as overwhelming support for my theory.

 

[chrismohr]

That is a great message.

Thank you for that Chris.

MM

You're welcome. Harrit is saying, literally, that the publisher of a paper has no burden of proof to validate the assertion he makes in his own paper. Well, I was an English major, and if I had gone on to grad school, I would have had to write A Master's Thesis. Let's say that I asserted in my thesis that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him. Then, a panel of professors would get together and I would have to defend my thesis with evidence. I would have been denied my degree if I had said to the panel, "well the burden of proof is on you guys to prove my Thesis wrong!"

And that's for a friggin' English degree. Harrit asserts in a scientific paper that there's nanothermite in WTC dust; the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim. If Harrit can't even agree to that, he shouldn't have written the paper.

I'm not sure why you are grateful for me for putting out this Harrit quote. If I were you I'd be embarrassed.

 

[Josarhus]

You're welcome. Harrit is saying, literally, that the publisher of a paper has no burden of proof to validate the assertion he makes in his own paper. Well, I was an English major, and if I had gone on to grad school, I would have had to write A Master's Thesis. Let's say that I asserted in my thesis that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him. Then, a panel of professors would get together and I would have to defend my thesis with evidence. I would have been denied my degree if I had said to the panel, "well the burden of proof is on you guys to prove my Thesis wrong!"

And that's for a friggin' English degree. Harrit asserts in a scientific paper that there's nanothermite in WTC dust; the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim. If Harrit can't even agree to that, he shouldn't have written the paper.

I'm not sure why you are grateful for me for putting out this Harrit quote. If I were you I'd be embarrassed.

Russell's teapot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[DGM]

I'm not sure why you are grateful for me for putting out this Harrit quote. If I were you I'd be embarrassed.

I'm sure your familiar with the expression " any exposure is good exposure"?

They don't have to be right, as long as people notice. He's thanking you for continuing the exposure.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm sure your familiar with the expression "any exposure is good exposure"?

They don't have to be right, as long as people notice. He's thanking you for continuing the exposure.

Easy to understand if we recognise those posts where the goal is trolling - not truth seeking.

The "not truth seeking" can be objectively confirmed as fact by behavour which does not advance by reasoning based on evidence. We can even allow "benefit of doubt" on those rare occasions when the evidence is ambiguous or otherwise not conclusive. There aren't many of those anyway.

I rarely refer to the person as a "troll" - two reasons - (1) Forum MA considerations of address the topic not the person. And (2) Some of those who routinely post trolling material occasionally ask reasonable and reasoning questions. For examples ergo's posts which occasionally show examples of reasoned thinking. I tend to respond to those posts. They are in the minority but show greater comprehension than the usual nonsense posts.

...and it is very rare for me to respond to MM posts so members can "go figure" why.

 

[GlennB]

Easy to understand if we recognise those posts where the goal is trolling - not truth seeking.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't believe MM is 'trolling' in any recognised sense of the word. If he is then fool me, but I'm damn sure MM wants to believe that stuff so hard that he'll twist any argument and any evidence to suit that purpose.

Let's try this - "elemental Al (such as you'd need for a thermite compound) does not present as thin hexagonal platelets. Identifying the element Al within such platelets does not mean they contain elemental Al any more than table salt contains the corrosive and highly reactive green gas known as chlorine in its elemental form. Compounds <> a mix of the elements contained therein. Compounds are the result of a reaction between the elements contained therein and do not behave, chemically or physically, the same as a mixture of those elements." (I learned this stuff in chemistry classes aged 14 or so. So did Basile and Harrit).

Basile and Harrit choose to present their evidence in a way which will fool the ignorant ... "platelets contain aluminium" ... and similar guff. MM takes that as evidence for elemental aluminium. Whoops! MM is fooled by their credentials that support his desire to believe. This also explains his endless references to Prof. this and Dr. that and peer-reviewed whatever at every opportunity.

It amounts to no more than bowing to the prophets of the religion to which you already adhere.

 

[ozeco41]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't believe MM is 'trolling' in any recognised sense of the word.

I comprehend your position as you apply it to MM's posts. I don't share your belief about the delusional foundation. However I hold the same view about Tony Sz as you profess about MM. Who is to say that your are right on one OR I am wrong on the other? OR vice versa?

The behavioural distinction is useful for me when it comes to deciding whether to engage the person in debate. Simply put my personal choice is to not reward trolling behaviours by any response. And I do so when the actual posting behaviour has the characteristics of trolling which can be true independent of the intent/lack of intent and beliefs/motivations of the poster.

Trolling behaviour IMO is a waste of bandwidth and responding to trolling behaviour is (again IMO) a counter productive activity. So I choose not to respond. The distinction being that rarely if ever do I see MM post anything where response is possibly productive. The lack of factual basis or reasoned support for his circling behavioural comments is transparent. And that contrasts with Tony Sz material which on the surface for lay persons seems to have engineering support. Tony's false engineering claims do not fool me as an engineer but I think that they often could appear reasonable to non engineers. So responding by rebuttal has a legitimate purpose IMO.

So, whilst I respect your legitimate right to form an opinion about MM's intent I still would focus on the behaviour - the behaviour has the characteristics of trolling and responding to it is no more justified than responding to trolling. If I saw any sign of progression in reasoned understanding I would change my position and join in the explanatory process. On the other hand many people enjoy responding to trolling behaviours, even by baiting or "counter trolling". It is their right to do so. I prefer not to engage.

... If he is then fool me, but I'm damn sure MM wants to believe that stuff so hard that he'll twist any argument and any evidence to suit that purpose...

Agreed - we are on common ground there.

Let's try this - "elemental Al......[Detailed supporting material edited].........
It amounts to no more than bowing to the prophets of the religion to which you already adhere.

Yes. There is a wide range of problems in the "authority" we give to qualifications, peer review et simile...

You may have seen my oft posted comment that "Test of the truth of an issue is: "Is it true?" - not "was it peer reviewed" or "How big a degree does the claimant have"?

I wont diverge into that topic at this stage.

So, in summary, if the effect of the behaviour is to keep discussion going round in circles and ensuring that it does not progress I tend to define the behaviour as trolling. And I acknowledge that it can be hard to determine the intention of those who are strongly committed to delusory beliefs.

Muse on this one... A year or two back I formed the opinion that C7 was the cleverest and most effective troll I have seen on these pages. AFAIK no one ever agreed with me.

And that is another derail I won't pursue at this stage.

 

[Spanx]

Hey Ivan,
Is there any chance you can put your experiment in its own thread ?

I only ask because it has been swallowed up and we have yet to see a truther make a comment on it.

 

[Miragememories]

"I found the Niels Harrit quote, in a private email:

“Two years of silence makes me quite confident.

The absence of review is the best review I've got…

We must constantly remind ourselves and them, that it is not our duty to prove them wrong.

It is their duty to prove them right.”

"That is a great message.

Thank you for that Chris."

"You're welcome.

Harrit is saying, literally, that the publisher of a paper has no burden of proof to validate the assertion he makes in his own paper."

He does?

The 2009 Bentham paper was peer-reviewed.

Are you suggesting that peer-review is insufficient for published scientific papers, and that publishers must independently verify the findings of their published papers as well?

"Well, I was an English major, and if I had gone on to grad school, I would have had to write A Master's Thesis.

Let's say that I asserted in my thesis that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him.

Then, a panel of professors would get together and I would have to defend my thesis with evidence."

And, as you indicated, if you could not provide validation for such a claim, your conclusions would be rejected.

Dr. Harrit et al did provide scientific validation for their claims.

"Harrit asserts in a scientific paper that there's nanothermite in WTC dust; the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim.

If Harrit can't even agree to that, he shouldn't have written the paper.

I'm not sure why you are grateful for me for putting out this Harrit quote.

If I were you I'd be embarrassed."

If I were you, I would be ashamed for using a lame literary comparison.

Dr. Harrit is quite correct in that it is the duty of those charged with investigating 9/11 to provide a valid accounting of what happened.

When peer-reviewed and published scientific findings are presented that invalidate scientific findings made by those officially responsible for the 9/11 investigation, the original investigators have a moral and legal obligation to respond.

9/11 was a huge murder investigation and those responsible were supposedly determined by the official investigation.

Since when does a murder investigation remain closed when new, strong evidence comes to light that indicates that guilty participants remain at large?

MM

 

[DGM]

When peer-reviewed and published scientific findings are presented that invalidate scientific findings made by those officially responsible for the 9/11 investigation, the original investigators have a moral and legal obligation to respond.



MM

How does this apply to the Harret et al paper? What findings did it invalidate?

 

[Miragememories]

"How does this apply to the Harrit et al paper?

What findings did it invalidate?

"

Unlike the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Millette's study has never been peer-reviewed and published.

Dr. Harrit has already indicated that at such time that Dr. Millette is willing to publish his 2012 9/11 WTC dust red/gray chip study, Dr Harrit et al will fully respond.

MM