• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

Christopher7 said:
A reasonable question. I have read about this process. The info is probably at their website. I'll check it out.

Unreasonable assumptions. The paper was very professional, your opinion is not surprising or relevant. :)
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I am a medical doctor, and have been in the past a clinical researcher. I have 3 degrees/diplomas in science/engineering, and I AM FULLY capable and qualified to assess a paper in terms of its methodology, and how it is structured. I have read the Harrit/Jones paper in full, and I found it full of errors in method, and its interpretation of the analysis findings to be flawed, both in terms of what they found, and what they did not rule out. Other people here, equally or superiorly qualified to me ( in terms of pure scientific education/background) have found it to be similarly flawed.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Interesting, Chris, that the same group, R.J. Lee group, also wrote this little article,

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Metals and Organics.Final.121503.pdf

Where in the 2nd last paragraph of page 2, they say,
Over 400,000 particles were classified using SEM techniques with approximately 80,000 images collected.
Click to expand...
Amazingly, after identifying and classifying over 400,000 particles, not a single one identified as THERMITE/MATE.
Click to expand...
Evidently, they did not look closely at the red/gray chips. They looked at the fibers and the iron spheres.

You can't find something if you don't look for it and they were not looking for thermite or nano-thermite.
 
Christopher7 said:
Evidently, they did not look closely at the red/gray chips. They looked at the fibers and the iron spheres.

You can't find something if you don't look for it and they were not looking for thermite or nano-thermite.
Click to expand...

seriously. Seriously. After the quote they gave, CLASSIFYING over 400,000 particles, your reply is essentially...

"They missed it."

ok, well for your so called lurkers, there is a classic quote.

As a final comment, they found 400,000 things they were not necessarily looking for...

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Incorrect. I am a medical doctor, and have been in the past a clinical researcher. I have 3 degrees/diplomas in science/engineering, and I AM FULLY capable and qualified to assess a paper in terms of its methodology, and how it is structured. I have read the Harrit/Jones paper in full, and I found it full of errors in method, and its interpretation of the analysis findings to be flawed, both in terms of what they found, and what they did not rule out. Other people here, equally or superiorly qualified to me ( in terms of pure scientific education/background) have found it to be similarly flawed.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
You are an anonymous poster on a website that attacks everyone who questions the OCT. :D
 
believe what you wish Christopher, but I am not lying to you. I am more then qualified to assess the merits of the paper based on methodology and scientific process/method. The paper fails on many levels. I have provided proof of who I am to the admins of this forum, who have verified the proof and stated as much in the past for another "non-believer", namely PDoh.

But I really don't care. I am just telling you you are wrong if you think I am not qualified to assess the scientific merit (or lack there of) of the harrit/jones paper.

TAM:)
 
Christopher7 said:
You are an anonymous poster on a website that attacks everyone who questions the OCT. :D
Click to expand...

oh and I don't attack EVERYONE who questions the "OCT" (which I prefer to call the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT). I myself question certain areas of the official account. However, I do attack those who without evidence (near 100% of truthers) accuse innocent members of the USG and other institutions of conspiring to murder thousands of their fellow Americans.

Where do you fit in Chris?

TAM:D
 
T.A.M. said:
seriously. Seriously. After the quote they gave, CLASSIFYING over 400,000 particles, your reply is essentially...

"They missed it."

ok, well for your so called lurkers, there is a classic quote.

As a final comment, they found 400,000 things they were not necessarily looking for...

TAM:)
Click to expand...
You have no idea what those things were. The only things they talked about were fibers and iron spheres.
Here's their list of what they documented:
Mineral Wool, Glass Fragments, Glass Fiber, Perlite, Vermiculite, Ca/Si, Fe Sphere, Vesicular Carbonaceous, Hi Temp Si/Al-rich, Vermiculite/Gypsum, Chrysotile, C fiber, C flake

You can't find something if you don't look for it.
 
Christopher7 said:
You have no idea what those things were. The only things they talked about were fibers and iron spheres.
Here's their list of what they documented:
Mineral Wool, Glass Fragments, Glass Fiber, Perlite, Vermiculite, Ca/Si, Fe Sphere, Vesicular Carbonaceous, Hi Temp Si/Al-rich, Vermiculite/Gypsum, Chrysotile, C fiber, C flake

You can't find something if you don't look for it.
Click to expand...

SO they simply missed the numerous (by Jones own words) red/grey chips? I do not see them mentioned in your list. Say, that list, is that a quote from them as to the full list of things they classified? So the 400,000 particles they classified ALL fell into one of the above categories you list??? really? source for this by chance?

I find the door in front of me every morning before I leave the house, and I have never once had to go looking for it, so just stop with that silly little expression...it is nonsense.

I'll read your reply tomorrow. I am off to bed.

TAM:)
 
Christopher7 said:
I doubt the editor-in-chief reads every article and OK's it. ;-)
Click to expand...

In the peer review process, the editor in chief assumes a role similar to a judge in a court trial. What Jones and Harritt did by doing an end run around the E-in-C was akin to a lawyer infiltrating the deliberation chambers and addressing the jury directly.

If Jones and Harritt were lawyers, they'd have been disbarred and would be facing felony charges.
 
 
Christopher7 said:
I doubt the editor-in-chief reads every article and OK's it. ;-)
Click to expand...
Sword_Of_Truth said:
In the peer review process, the editor in chief assumes a role similar to a judge in a court trial. What Jones and Harritt did by doing an end run around the E-in-C was akin to a lawyer infiltrating the deliberation chambers and addressing the jury directly.

If Jones and Harritt were lawyers, they'd have been disbarred and would be facing felony charges.
Click to expand...

Christopher7, I have you on ignore and it's posts like this that confirm the wisdom of my choice. In a sense, you are right. There are journals where the editor-in-chief does not read every article that gets published. They are trash and no one cares what gets published in them. In fact, the idea that this could happen never even dawned on me until I started reading about 911 conspiracy ideas. That there are 911 Truthers who don't know how devestating this is for a journal's reputation speaks for what exactly 911 Truth is from a scholarly perspective.

Not knowing such facts while at the same time pretending to do research puts one at about high school level. It's like playing Cowboys & Indians - let's get together with our 911 Truther friends and play The Professor Game. Maybe we can play the version where he gets trapped on an island while chartering a boat.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Unreasonable assumptions. The paper was very professional, your opinion is not surprising or relevant. :)
Click to expand...

And what exactly are YOUR qualifications to tell us that ARE qualified, that, in fact, our opinions are irrelevant??

Let me guess, you're a draftsman........
 
T.A.M. said:
believe what you wish Christopher, but I am not lying to you. I am more then qualified to assess the merits of the paper based on methodology and scientific process/method. The paper fails on many levels. I have provided proof of who I am to the admins of this forum, who have verified the proof and stated as much in the past for another "non-believer", namely PDoh.

But I really don't care. I am just telling you you are wrong if you think I am not qualified to assess the scientific merit (or lack there of) of the harrit/jones paper.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Even if you are qualified to assess the merits of the paper, it's still just your opinion. This is a very biased forum and you consistently defame anyone presenting evidence that disproves the OCT and deny any evidence that disproves the OCT.

ETA: I note that you have not "defamed" me to any great extent. [Aside from the first rate sarcasm ;-)]
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
SO they simply missed the numerous (by Jones own words) red/grey chips? I do not see them mentioned in your list. Say, that list, is that a quote from them as to the full list of things they classified? So the 400,000 particles they classified ALL fell into one of the above categories you list??? really? source for this by chance?
Click to expand...
We do not know what they looked at, only what they reported. Their primary concern was MMVF [man-made vitreous fibers].
 
triforcharity said:
And what exactly are YOUR qualifications to tell us that ARE qualified, that, in fact, our opinions are irrelevant??
Click to expand...
Indeed, our opinions are irrelevant. Only the facts matter.

Fact: Iron microspheres made up nearly 6% of the dust in and on top of the Bankers Trust building. The dust was deposited there on 9/11 when the huge clouds of dust from the collapses of the Trade Towers enveloped lower Manhattan.
 
Christopher7 said:
The dust was deposited there on 9/11 when the huge clouds of dust from the collapses of the Trade Towers enveloped lower Manhattan.
Click to expand...
.
And since, according to that idiot paper the samples where not in Jones' possession until mid-November, how can you possibly know when they were collected?
.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
In the peer review process, the editor in chief assumes a role similar to a judge in a court trial. [False accusation deleted.]
Click to expand...
Please show your source that the Editor-in-Chief of the Bentham family of Journals reads and approves all the articles.
 
Christopher7 said:
Please show your source that the Editor-in-Chief of the Bentham family of Journals reads and approves all the articles.
Click to expand...

This is hardly relevant.

If Benthams editors approve each article for publication, then Jones and Harrit cheated and their paper was never peer reviewed.

If Benthams editors do not approve each article, then they do not have a proper peer review process, and Jones and Harrits paper was never peer reviewed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom