9-11-2011 Pacifica Radio-Griffin,Ryan,Kay,Stollznow,Gage,Harrit,Thomas, Mueller

DaveThomasNMSR

Muse
DaveThomasNMSR
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
877
Pacifica stations (NY, Washington DC, Houston, LA and Berkeley, and ~150 more nationwide) are hosting a three-hour special radio program on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Here is the lineup:
  • 3-4 PM PDT (4-5 PM MDT, 6-7 PM EDT)
David Ray Griffin Ph.D. author of "the New Pearl Harbor" , and Kevin Ryan for 9/11 Truth​
in Dialogue/debate with
​
Jonathan Kay Author of "Among the Truthers" and Karen Stollznow Ph.D. Editor Skeptical Inquirer,​
Peter Phillips - Host
Topic: Veracity of the 9/11 Commission Report and Related Issues
​
  • 4-5 PM PDT (5-6 PM MDT, 7-8 PM EDT)
Richard Gage, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Niels Harrit ( University of Copenhagen)​
in dialogue/ debate with​
Dave Thomas with New Mexicans for Science and Reason and Richard Mueller University of California Physics professor.​
Mickey Huff - host
Topic: The Science of the Collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. (Note: WPFW in Washington DC is doing an earlier segment on the Pentagon)
​
  • 5-6PM PDT (6-7 PM MDT, 8-9 PM EDT)
National Phone in: Paul Rea for 9/11 Truth and Karen Stollznow for the Skeptics​

I will have about 13 minutes of airtime during the hour with myself, Gage, Harrit, and Mueller (the latter is author of the splendid new book Physics for future Presidents).

Earlier that day I have a more laid-back interview on Strange Frequencies Radio at 1 PM PDT.

JREFers, if YOU had 13 minutes on the same stage with Gage and Harrit, what are the most important points you would make??
 
I would ask them why they repeatedly lie and refuse to accept the facts that has been presented to them time and time again.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Pacifica stations (NY, Washington DC, Houston, LA and Berkeley, and ~150 more nationwide) are hosting a three-hour special radio program on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Here is the lineup:
  • 3-4 PM PDT (4-5 PM MDT, 6-7 PM EDT)
David Ray Griffin Ph.D. author of "the New Pearl Harbor" , and Kevin Ryan for 9/11 Truth​
in Dialogue/debate with
​
Jonathan Kay Author of "Among the Truthers" and Karen Stollznow Ph.D. Editor Skeptical Inquirer,​
Peter Phillips - Host
Topic: Veracity of the 9/11 Commission Report and Related Issues
​
  • 4-5 PM PDT (5-6 PM MDT, 7-8 PM EDT)
Richard Gage, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Niels Harrit ( University of Copenhagen)​
in dialogue/ debate with​
Dave Thomas with New Mexicans for Science and Reason and Richard Mueller University of California Physics professor.​
Mickey Huff - host
Topic: The Science of the Collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. (Note: WPFW in Washington DC is doing an earlier segment on the Pentagon)
​
  • 5-6PM PDT (6-7 PM MDT, 8-9 PM EDT)
National Phone in: Paul Rea for 9/11 Truth and Karen Stollznow for the Skeptics​

I will have about 13 minutes of airtime during the hour with myself, Gage, Harrit, and Mueller (the latter is author of the splendid new book Physics for future Presidents).

Earlier that day I have a more laid-back interview on Strange Frequencies Radio at 1 PM PDT.

JREFers, if YOU had 13 minutes on the same stage with Gage and Harrit, what are the most important points you would make??
Click to expand...


To Gage -
1) your organization claims that building 7 fell 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition', but every explosive controlled demolition we see on youtube is accompanied by extremely loud explosions as it falls.

Why is it that not a single video of the WTC 7 collapse contains and explosion? Did all the camcorders simultaneously malfunction?

2) Truthers argue that 'all support was removed simultaneously' for WTC 7 to fall briefly at the acceleration of gravity.
But the building began to collapse internally for about 7 seconds, East to West, and the rest of the exterior did not begin to fall until just after the West Penthouse began to sink into it.

That isn't simultaneous, so why do truthers continue to use the term erroneously?

To Niels Harrit
1) If your inquiry was about exotic nanothermitic compounds, why is it that not one of the authors of your paper is an expert on such compounds, or explosives, or demolitions? Wouldn't it make sense to include someone who actually has experience?
Just being a PhD does not make you an expert in everything, does it?

2) Why haven't you sent the dust samples to established, independent labs for testing?

3) Why haven't you identified the gray layer in the chips?

4) Why haven't you retested the chips in an inert gas like argon to rule out organic materials combusting, thus proving nanothermite?

5) Why is it that 3 out of 4 of your chips had energy densities that exceed the only known sample of nanothermite (Tillotson et al., LLNL)? And how is it possible to be any kind of thermite when it exceeds the theoretical ED?
Wouldn't that mean it's not thermite of any kind?

Those are the main things that come to mind. Good luck, I hope you tear them new excretory openings at the ends of their alimentary canals, figuratively speaking..
 
Quad4_72 said:
I would ask them why they repeatedly lie and refuse to accept the facts that has been presented to them time and time again.
Click to expand...

and they will just lie some more without missing a heartbeat.:(

Unless there is a very strict moderator they will just spout the same lies of "near freefall", into its own footprint, peer reviewed thermite paper etc etc, WTC7 in seven seconds and there is no way of stopping them.


Short of a court of law situation where they could be jailed for lying, debating them would be like mud wrestling a pig.
 
Well, good luck with this but as sheepleandshills says I don't hold out much hope of getting any straight answers. Be prepared for the usual, "And that's why we need a new investigation!" pat answers to all of your questions.

If you get to speak first or if you get to speak to the moderator beforehand please make them aware of what their usual diversions will be in the hope that they will at least be made to shoulder their own burden of proof. After all, they are the ones who claim to have found explosive nanothermite. They need to be able to explain what the mechanism was in bringing down the towers. How the nanothermite caused ultra mega loud explosions, as Kevin McPadden said it did, and yet also made no noise at all as all the video evidence showed.

Anyway, this is Pacifica radio. Isn't that the same as Democracy Now?

I find this type of bunfight being held on the tenth anniversary of 9-11 to be just a tad grotesque given that we know that most of the Truther leaders are just liars (or else highly delusional people with major cognitive dissonance) and I really do wonder about giving a platform to these people on this day.
 
angrysoba said:
I find this type of bunfight being held on the tenth anniversary of 9-11 to be just a tad grotesque given that we know that most of the Truther leaders are just liars (or else highly delusional people with major cognitive dissonance) and I really do wonder about giving a platform to these people on this day.
Click to expand...

This.
 
I don't think this kind of radio format lends itself to debate of technical and scientific details that most of the listener are not at all familiar with.


To Gage:
  • When will he submit his Petition to Congress? It has been sitting there for 4 years now
  • How much of the donations to AE911T have been spent on actual research and investigation, and how does that compare to the personal salary paid to Gage? Suggest that AE911T could pay a modest $ amount in the low 4 digits to have the Harrit-dust analysed by competent, independent labs
  • Gage thinks that violent ejections of very heavy pieces of steel are the direct result of explosives. Ask him if anyone has calculated how large an explosive charge would have had to be, at a minimum, to have that effect, and how loud such an explosion would have been. If no one has calculated that, ask him why he makes that claim when he hasn't checked it for basic plausibility.

To Harrit:
  • I, too, want to know when he will submit dust samples to competent, independent labs. Could be in Denmark or Switzerland, if truthers are worried about government influence in the USA
  • Is it true that neither he nor anyone else noticed that the iron oxide in the red layers was hematite, and discuss what light that sheds on the competence of Harrit himself and his 8 comrades
  • Ask him why neither the organic matrix has yet been explained or even quantified, nor what the silicium is doing in nano-thermite, except being dead load. Remember, there is as much silicium in the red layer as aluminium.


About what the red-gray chips really are: If you haven't done it yet, please read
Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?
Some interesting things we discovered that may help you put the questions in perspective:
- Chemical makeup of red layer is very similar to the primer paint used for floor trussed (the standard paint used by LaClede steel company)
- Silicium and aluminium are present in about equal amounts
- There was quite probably chromium ans strontium in Harrit's chips
 
what are the most important points you would make??
Click to expand...

I would demand that he discontinue his false claims, and list them in order.

You've only got 13 minutes though. Such an undertaking would surely take longer.

- Remind him that the collapse of WTC 7 took much longer than his 6.5 seconds, and ask him to put the entire collapse on his site.

- Remind him that "foreknowledge" equals people knowing what they're talking about, and not anything sinister.

and if you're in the same room, slap him upside the head.
 
To alienentity -
There are videos shot in the vicinity of WTC7 that contain the sound of explosions.

The apparent lack of numerous audio recordings revealing explosions is rather meaningless.

The sound of the 47 story building (WTC7) collapsing, which one would expect to be horrifically loud, was not well recorded either, yet we know the sound had to be there.

"Truthers argue that 'all support was removed simultaneously' for WTC 7 to fall briefly at the acceleration of gravity."

No. Science makes this argument. An 8 story, externally viewable freefall (acceleration of gravity), requires zero resistance over those 8 storys. How else can you explain such an occurrence if not through the argument; "all support was removed simultaneously"?

The biggest question alienentity, is, why do you exhibit a lack of interest in better answers than the ones provided by the NIST?

I've yet to read anywhere that the observed characteristics of the WTC dust samples, were a finding found in any civilian building demolition.
Iron spheres cannot be created at the temperatures reported in the NIST observations and conclusions.

Why does greater energy output than previously observed in examples of thermitic material, suggest something more commonplace, or of less concern?

And yes, I to would like to see much more research into the dust samples that might provide us all with answers to this unsolved mystery.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
To alienentity -
There are videos shot in the vicinity of WTC7 that contain the sound of explosions.

The apparent lack of numerous audio recordings revealing explosions is rather meaningless.

The sound of the 47 story building (WTC7) collapsing, which one would expect to be horrifically loud, was not well recorded either, yet we know the sound had to be there.

"Truthers argue that 'all support was removed simultaneously' for WTC 7 to fall briefly at the acceleration of gravity."

No. Science makes this argument. An 8 story, externally viewable freefall (acceleration of gravity), requires zero resistance over those 8 storys. How else can you explain such an occurrence if not through the argument; "all support was removed simultaneously"?

The biggest question alienentity, is, why do you exhibit a lack of interest in better answers than the ones provided by the NIST?

I've yet to read anywhere that the observed characteristics of the WTC dust samples, were a finding found in any civilian building demolition.
Iron spheres cannot be created at the temperatures reported in the NIST observations and conclusions.

Why does greater energy output than previously observed in examples of thermitic material, suggest something more commonplace, or of less concern?

And yes, I to would like to see much more research into the dust samples that might provide us all with answers to this unsolved mystery.

MM
Click to expand...


See what I mean....twoofers are absolutely oblivious to reailty:rolleyes:

Mirage must have read credible explanations for all that 100 times yet his confirmation bias just handwaves it all away. Reality to truthers is what they believe it to be not what it actually is.

How can you have a debate if the two parties are not even in the same reality?:confused:
 
13 minutes is not a long time. My humble advice is to see if you can avoid the Gish Gallop. Ask up front what their ONE best piece of smoking gun evidence is and try to laser focus on it. (I predict that the answer will take several minutes and include half a dozen unrelated topics.) Ignore their attempts to shift the conversation, and keep reminding everyone why their first piece of evidence failed, is dishonest, has been disproven and remains top center at their website. It's the only thing I can think of. All faith-based believers debate using the Gish Gallop.

For a casual listening radio audience, perhaps the easiest thing to communicate would be the lack of explosive sounds, but then you'll hear misleading responses from Gage like MirageMemories' above, and you'll have to explain yourself clearly. I thought that Ron Craig handled it as well as he could in "9/11 Truth Debate - Richard Gage vs. Ron Craig" on the conspiracy radio show with Richard Syrett. I can't find a link just now. Gage was Gish-Galloping like a champ on that show.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
To alienentity -
There are videos shot in the vicinity of WTC7 that contain the sound of explosions.

The apparent lack of numerous audio recordings revealing explosions is rather meaningless.

The sound of the 47 story building (WTC7) collapsing, which one would expect to be horrifically loud, was not well recorded either, yet we know the sound had to be there.

"Truthers argue that 'all support was removed simultaneously' for WTC 7 to fall briefly at the acceleration of gravity."

No. Science makes this argument. An 8 story, externally viewable freefall (acceleration of gravity), requires zero resistance over those 8 storys. How else can you explain such an occurrence if not through the argument; "all support was removed simultaneously"?

The biggest question alienentity, is, why do you exhibit a lack of interest in better answers than the ones provided by the NIST?

I've yet to read anywhere that the observed characteristics of the WTC dust samples, were a finding found in any civilian building demolition.
Iron spheres cannot be created at the temperatures reported in the NIST observations and conclusions.

Why does greater energy output than previously observed in examples of thermitic material, suggest something more commonplace, or of less concern?

And yes, I to would like to see much more research into the dust samples that might provide us all with answers to this unsolved mystery.

MM
Click to expand...

Do you even read what you wrote?? Oh explosions were heard, but anyway the explosions were not important anyway. lulz. The fact is, you can CLEARLY here the demolition charges in any video of a controlled demolition, despite the fact that those collpases were "horrifically" loud too.

"Why does greater energy output than previously observed in examples of thermitic material, suggest something more commonplace, or of less concern?" Because it proves it was NOT THERMITE, and this proves that your truther heroes who claimed that it is are frauds or idiots. By the way, a cookie has more potential energy than thermite.

The only mystery is why truthers refuse to use critical thinking skills.
 
What he said.


alienentity said:
To Gage -
1) your organization claims that building 7 fell 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition', but every explosive controlled demolition we see on youtube is accompanied by extremely loud explosions as it falls.

Why is it that not a single video of the WTC 7 collapse contains and explosion? Did all the camcorders simultaneously malfunction?

2) Truthers argue that 'all support was removed simultaneously' for WTC 7 to fall briefly at the acceleration of gravity.
But the building began to collapse internally for about 7 seconds, East to West, and the rest of the exterior did not begin to fall until just after the West Penthouse began to sink into it.

That isn't simultaneous, so why do truthers continue to use the term erroneously?

To Niels Harrit
1) If your inquiry was about exotic nanothermitic compounds, why is it that not one of the authors of your paper is an expert on such compounds, or explosives, or demolitions? Wouldn't it make sense to include someone who actually has experience?
Just being a PhD does not make you an expert in everything, does it?

2) Why haven't you sent the dust samples to established, independent labs for testing?

3) Why haven't you identified the gray layer in the chips?

4) Why haven't you retested the chips in an inert gas like argon to rule out organic materials combusting, thus proving nanothermite?

5) Why is it that 3 out of 4 of your chips had energy densities that exceed the only known sample of nanothermite (Tillotson et al., LLNL)? And how is it possible to be any kind of thermite when it exceeds the theoretical ED?
Wouldn't that mean it's not thermite of any kind?

Those are the main things that come to mind. Good luck, I hope you tear them new excretory openings at the ends of their alimentary canals, figuratively speaking..
Click to expand...
 
16.5 said:
The only mystery is why truthers refuse to use critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...


No mystery at all. They simply do not possess them. On JREF we don't change the minds of many, if any, twoofers minds on the subject. The best we can hope for if to divert those not already too deep in the woo, away this intellectual blank hole.
 
carlitos said:
13 minutes is not a long time. My humble advice is to see if you can avoid the Gish Gallop. As up front what their ONE best piece of smoking gun evidence is and try to laser focus on it.
Click to expand...


That might work. I've tried it on Balsammo on another forum and he does not even reply because he knows its a trap he cannot escape from. Gage et al can't use that tactic in a debate. Problem happens when they get to start their woo first because they get to start JAQing off and you are always playing catch up.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
That might work. I've tried it on Balsammo on another forum and he does not even reply because he knows its a trap he cannot escape from. Gage et al can't use that tactic in a debate. Problem happens when they get to start their woo first because they get to start JAQing off and you are always playing catch up.
Click to expand...

That's right and I think that is exactly what will happen.

I hate to be a wet blanket but, as I said before, this is a platform for the Truthers given that most of their true believers aren't going to change their minds because of someone's 13 minute rebuttal.

If he has thirteen minutes he's going to spout the same old nonsense he always does and make a zillion and one claims that would be easy enough to debunk if you had the time to do so and if the Truthers were listening at all. Even once you've finished your 13 minutes there'll still be lots left over to debunk allowing Gage to finish with one of his platitudes about how the remaining doubts require a new, independent investigation and how he's not a conspiracy theorist and how the laws of physics couldn't have been suspended on the day and he has 1500 professrional architects and engineers who agree with him blah, blah, blah.

I don't think 13 minutes is anywhere near enough time to hold his feet to the fire and make him actually answer some questions.

Will you get any direct debate time? Or will both of you be asked to give a monologue with some phone-in questions?
 
angrysoba said:
...

I don't think 13 minutes is anywhere near enough time to hold his feet to the fire and make him actually answer some questions.

Will you get any direct debate time? Or will both of you be asked to give a monologue with some phone-in questions?
Click to expand...

The actual format is still pretty much up in the air. The Pacifica folks have been slow to inform me of details; I learned of Gage's participation from one of Gage's staffers, not from Pacifica.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Pacifica stations (NY, Washington DC, Houston, LA and Berkeley, and ~150 more nationwide) are hosting a three-hour special radio program on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Here is the lineup:
  • 3-4 PM PDT (4-5 PM MDT, 6-7 PM EDT)
David Ray Griffin Ph.D. author of "the New Pearl Harbor" , and Kevin Ryan for 9/11 Truth​
in Dialogue/debate with
​
Jonathan Kay Author of "Among the Truthers" and Karen Stollznow Ph.D. Editor Skeptical Inquirer,​
Peter Phillips - Host
Topic: Veracity of the 9/11 Commission Report and Related Issues
​
  • 4-5 PM PDT (5-6 PM MDT, 7-8 PM EDT)
Richard Gage, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Niels Harrit ( University of Copenhagen)​
in dialogue/ debate with​
Dave Thomas with New Mexicans for Science and Reason and Richard Mueller University of California Physics professor.​
Mickey Huff - host
Topic: The Science of the Collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. (Note: WPFW in Washington DC is doing an earlier segment on the Pentagon)
​
  • 5-6PM PDT (6-7 PM MDT, 8-9 PM EDT)
National Phone in: Paul Rea for 9/11 Truth and Karen Stollznow for the Skeptics​

I will have about 13 minutes of airtime during the hour with myself, Gage, Harrit, and Mueller (the latter is author of the splendid new book Physics for future Presidents).

Earlier that day I have a more laid-back interview on Strange Frequencies Radio at 1 PM PDT.

JREFers, if YOU had 13 minutes on the same stage with Gage and Harrit, what are the most important points you would make??
Click to expand...

'Mr Gage,some people say that the collapse of the WTC7 Penthouse is simply an example of isolated local damage within a much larger system. Do you agree with this view ? '

' Mr Gage, is it true that the vast majority of scientists in the US and indeed the rest of the world support the view that WTC7 collapsed as a result of fires in the building ? '

' Mr Gage, Who will take your place at the helm of ae911truth.org if for some reason you should become indisposed ? '
 
bill smith said:
'Mr Gage,some people say that the collapse of the WTC7 Penthouse is simply an example of isolated local damage within a much larger system. Do you agree with this view ? '

' Mr Gage, is it true that the vast majority of scientists in the US and indeed the rest of the world support the view that WTC7 collapsed as a result of fires in the building ? '

' Mr Gage, Who will take your place at the helm of ae911truth.org if for some reason you should become indisposed ? '
Click to expand...
Why not "when will you submit you're petition to congress"? You have been pressuring him to do this, right?
 
DGM said:
Why not "when will you submit you're petition to congress"? You have been pressuring him to do this, right?
Click to expand...

I guess he is waiting for events to come together in an auspicious configuration before he drops the hammer. You have to pick your moment you know .
 
DGM said:
Maybe in a hundred years he'll (well you know what I mean) have a million engineers (signed).


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When Congress becomes less corrupt or when we have a million signatories whichever comes first.
 
I wouldn't bother with any of the standard skeptical questions addressing their claims, which they will ignore by glibly answering a different question that was not asked, using up your time.

Instead, I would ask them what they want to be done, by whom. But not accept evasive vague descriptions for what they want to happen, like "a new investigation" or "the American people to take action" or "to get the word out" or "indictments of whoever the real culprits turn out to be." Demand specific and feasible actions by specific people or definable groups of people. This would take some back and forth, to either get past the vague noncommittal answers or show that only vague noncommittal answers, useless for the purpose of prompting any action or for solving any problem, are forthcoming.

In the unlikely event of getting usable answers to the first question, person(s) X should do Y, I would ask them what they are doing to make those results happen, and when they expect those results to occur as a result of their actions.

(Note that if the only answer is X = "program listeners" and Y = "donate money," that doesn't address the original question of what they want to achieve using that money; nor does X = "Truthers" or "themselves" and Y = "get the word out" address the original question of what they want the end result of getting the word out to be.

"So, all you want is to get your message out? So, supposing your message does get out or turns out to already be out, and nothing else happens, that's okay with you?"

Sum up as appropriate. This should take less than 13 minutes.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
angrysoba said:
I find this type of bunfight being held on the tenth anniversary of 9-11 to be just a tad grotesque given that we know that most of the Truther leaders are just liars (or else highly delusional people with major cognitive dissonance) and I really do wonder about giving a platform to these people on this day.
Click to expand...


This x 2

These money hungry charlatans do not deserve any attention on this day.
 
Any and all of the questions posed already.

All I would add is to Gage:
Why have you not read nor offered any response to Ryan Mackey's white paper on DRG's Debunking 9/11 Debunking?
Or (to my knowledge) Gregory Urich's An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth?
 
Quad4_72 said:
I would ask them why they repeatedly lie and refuse to accept the facts that has been presented to them time and time again.
Click to expand...
I don't think Gage'd notice.



It still stuns me that the Truthers literally don't even notice that Gage was wrong, and doesn't even seem to care. He just blows right by it.
 
Miragememories said:
To alienentity -
There are videos shot in the vicinity of WTC7 that contain the sound of explosions.

The apparent lack of numerous audio recordings revealing explosions is rather meaningless.

The sound of the 47 story building (WTC7) collapsing, which one would expect to be horrifically loud, was not well recorded either, yet we know the sound had to be there.
Click to expand...
Explosives, not explosions. Explosives that bring down buildings would be clearly audible, causing hearing damage even far away from the scene. You'd hear it clear across Manhattan.

"Truthers argue that 'all support was removed simultaneously' for WTC 7 to fall briefly at the acceleration of gravity."

No. Science makes this argument. An 8 story, externally viewable freefall (acceleration of gravity), requires zero resistance over those 8 storys. How else can you explain such an occurrence if not through the argument; "all support was removed simultaneously"?
Click to expand...
Actually, plain old leverage can explain it. Lookit this board falling faster than gravity.



Also, the facade was observed moving at freefall acceleration, not the building itself, and not freefall speed. The distinctions are important.

Say, if all support was removed at the same time, how is it that the free fall acceleration period was the second period? If it was falling before, it had obviously lost some support, yet it was falling at slower than FFA. If FFA means it lost all support, yet it was falling before, then obviously it had already lost some support. All - some = the rest.

And so on, and so forth.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Pacifica stations (NY, Washington DC, Houston, LA and Berkeley, and ~150 more nationwide) are hosting a three-hour special radio program on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

I'm really interested in this program. Is it available via internet?

JREFers, if YOU had 13 minutes on the same stage with Gage and Harrit, what are the most important points you would make??
Click to expand...

I have some easy questions for Harrit:

1. In his Bentham paper Harrit claimed that he was able to seperate the red/gray chips by a magnet. I'd like to know which part of the chip was responsible for the magnetic behaviour of the chips. Is it possible to rule out elemental iron definitely?

2. Harrit shows two EDX spectra of post DSC residues in his paper (Fig. 21 and Fig. 25). Why are the spectra so different? Harrit claimed that the chips were very similar in their chemical composition, but the spectrum depicted in Fig. 25 is more similar to the spectrum in Fig. 26 (flame test) than to the spectrum in Fig. 21.

3. Harrit refers to an article written by Gash (ref. 19). I'd like to know why the Ironoxide of his "nanothermite" has a different morphology (crystalline) than Gash's nanothermite (clusters).

4. Does Dr. Harrit know the difference between a composite and a chemical compound?
 
alienentity said:
To Niels Harrit
1) If your inquiry was about exotic nanothermitic compounds, why is it that not one of the authors of your paper is an expert on such compounds, or explosives, or demolitions? Wouldn't it make sense to include someone who actually has experience?
Just being a PhD does not make you an expert in everything, does it?
Click to expand...

This is a very good point! I think the focus should be on Gregg Roberts, who owes a bachelor degree in psychology. It would be very interesting to know what he contributed to the Bentham paper.

Oystein said:
To Harrit:
  • Ask him why neither the organic matrix has yet been explained or even quantified, nor what the silicium is doing in nano-thermite, except being dead load. Remember, there is as much silicium in the red layer as aluminium.
Click to expand...

It is even worse for Harrit et. al. as Silicon oxides may undergo an alumothermic reaction, too!
 
Last edited:
Africanus said:
This is a very good point! I think the focus should be on Gregg Roberts, who owes a bachelor degree in psychology. It would be very interesting to know what he contributed to the Bentham paper.
Click to expand...

It might be worth asking just what those other names contributed, Jones did most of the "work", Farrer (?) was gopher in the lab, Harrit added some techy sounding words.....but what did the others do....and if they did nothing, why are they on the paper? Did they think it would lend weight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom