List of Research Papers

I know a lot of math and don't feel too lost, but I'm not an engineer. But maybe because of that, after a while, they all seem to be like one big blur of ... fire and airplanes

Yes, we've heard about the One Big Blur theory of bedunker cognitive assimilation. Fascinating.

For those of you sad, uneducated proles, this is psyientifick talk. You probably won't understand it. Don't feel bad. We can't all be psyientists.
 
Last edited:
I notice the moderators really don't like me mentioning ESL teachers. I think they think I'm insulting them when, in fact, I think it's a very worthy occupation and probably an interesting one.
How does this relate to the research papers 911 truth and your http://patriotsquestion911.com/ experts can't comprehend?

These people you talked about, http://patriotsquestion911.com/ can't comprehend reality on 911. Why have they failed to do reality based research papers on 911 to explain their moronic claims, and delusions? Are you going to do a research paper on your failed claims?
 
Last edited:
How does this relate to the research papers 911 truth and your http://patriotsquestion911.com/ experts can't comprehend?

These people you talked about, http://patriotsquestion911.com/ can't comprehend reality on 911. Why have they failed to do reality based research papers on 911 to explain their moronic claims, and delusions? Are you going to do a research paper on your failed claims?
I'm still trying to figure out his weird edit. My (last) post quotes the post that comes next, Do I get the million for predicting the future?


:D
 
I'm still trying to figure out his weird edit. My (last) post quotes the post that comes next, Do I get the million for predicting the future?


:D
He wanted to be at the top of the page. He lurks for it. Shotgun. (it took ero 14 minutes to count to 40, and do the math)

To him, we are proles, not expect to understand his great insight into 911. Here to work and breed. He must be into 1984 as he fails to comprehend 911 truth is big brother. He is one of the proles, but with a telescreen spewing 911 truth delusions, regurgitating on cue.

Proles would be uneducated by definition, so "uneducated proles" is not needed. The trouble labeling JREF as proles is most of JREF can read and comprehend research papers on 911 and make rational conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we've heard about the One Big Blur theory of bedunker cognitive assimilation. Fascinating.

For those of you sad, uneducated proles, this is psyientifick talk. You probably won't understand it. Don't feel bad. We can't all be psyientists.

particularly when you can't figure out things like basic prepositions (into vs onto), basic physics (like center of mass vs a debris field the "size of the moon"), basic math (the twoof movement is growing at an "exponential rate.") or even things like a basic rule 12 violation (did you have a nice three day break?)

Of course when you can't look at a picture of a building that is made from concrete and figure out that is why it didn't collapse (the caracas tower debacle) and show complete ignorance of the proper terminology (like a building footprint) it isn't surprising that you won't ever be a scientist or taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
Student receives grant to study 9/11 for Masters degree

Originally Posted by ergo
How does this relate to the research papers 911 truth...
Why have they failed to do reality based research papers on 911 to explain their moronic claims, and delusions?
Are you going to do a research paper on your failed claims?

Research papers, published in respected journals, are important. Maybe Ergo can apply for a grant.

Joshua Blakeney received a $7700 Queen Elizabeth II scholarship to study 9/11 for his Masters degree at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. Professors Anthony Hall, Niels Harrit, and Graeme MacQueen speak...
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-08/responsibility-academy-illuminate-truths-and-lies-911
 
Research papers, published in respected journals, are important. Maybe Ergo can apply for a grant.

Joshua Blakeney received a $7700 Queen Elizabeth II scholarship to study 9/11 for his Masters degree at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. Professors Anthony Hall, Niels Harrit, and Graeme MacQueen speak...
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-08/responsibility-academy-illuminate-truths-and-lies-911

Let's spot which person is best qualified to discuss high-rise buildings:

911blogger said:
Anthony J. Hall is a Professor at the University of Lethbridge (Alberta) where he is the Coordinator/Instructor of the interdisciplinary program of Globalization Studies. He received an Alberta Book Award in 2004 for "The American Empire and the Fourth World."

Joshua Blakeney is Dr. Hall's graduate student (MSc) and Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge. He is the recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship to study the origins of the Global War on Terror.

Niels Harrit is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen (Denmark) where he has conducted research on metal complexes and taught for over forty years. He is the lead scientist of the nine-author European, Australian and American peer reviewed study based on the discovery of millions of microscopic red gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. These chips were found to be unburned nanothermite, an ultra high tech incendiary explosive produced by the military which is capable of slicing through steel beams. He has delivered over 90 lectures across the world, including Sweden, Norway, England, Holland, Australia, Spain and the US. He is currently lecturing on evidence for controlled demolition of WTC Building 7 across Canada at five major institutions - University of British Columbia, University of Victoria, McMaster University, University of Western Ontario, and University of Toronto.

Graeme MacQueen is Professor Emeritus of the Religious Studies Department at McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario). He was one of the founders and directors of McMaster's Centre for Peace Studies, a founder and co-director of the Centre's War and Health programme committee, and was co-director of the three year Health of Children in War Zones project funded by Health Canada. The project was active in three war zones. With colleagues, he has expressed some of the principles utilized in the war and health work of the Centre for Peace Studies in Peace and Change (1997), British Medical Journal (1998), Medical Crossfire (2000) and The Lancet (2001).

Laurie Manwell is PhD candidate in behavioral neuroscience and toxicology at the University of Guelph and a BEd candidate in education at Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo). She has published research on the effects of drugs on learning, memory, and behaviour (Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behaviour), on information processing (Psychonomic Bulletin and Review), self-esteem, emotion, and motivation (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology), and cellular and molecular biology (Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology). She recently published an article on the social psychological implications of 9/11 for a special issue of American Behavioral Scientist (2010) including five other articles on State Crimes Against
Democracy (SCADs) with colleagues from the US (Lance deHaven-Smith, Matthew Witt, Christopher Hinson) and Australia (Alexander Kouzmin, Kyme Thorne).

Michael Truscello is Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Mount Royal University (Calgary, Alberta). His research interests include digital media (software theory; free and open source software; rhetoric and science and technology; social media), post anarchism and alternative media.

Colin Salter is an Assistant Professor at McMaster University in Canada (Hamilton, Ontario). He has a broad interest in the dynamics of disputes including scientific and technological controversies, though he is more directly interested in those surrounding animal, environmental and/or social justice issues.

Did I miss something, or are all of these folks out of their respective areas of expertise? :confused:
 
Let's spot which person is best qualified to discuss high-rise buildings:



Did I miss something, or are all of these folks out of their respective areas of expertise? :confused:
I don't know, "Professor Emeritus of the Religious Studies" fits with 9/11 "truth" fairly well.

;)
 
Research papers, published in respected journals, are important. Maybe Ergo can apply for a grant.

Joshua Blakeney received a $7700 Queen Elizabeth II scholarship to study 9/11 for his Masters degree at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. Professors Anthony Hall, Niels Harrit, and Graeme MacQueen speak...
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-08/responsibility-academy-illuminate-truths-and-lies-911

It is an amazing opportunity... he can be the first truther to manage to put together an article that may be published in a peer reviewed journal which supports the truth movement....

Good luck. I can't wait to read anything he gets published in a REAL journal.
 
Research papers, published in respected journals, are important. Maybe Ergo can apply for a grant.

Joshua Blakeney received a $7700 Queen Elizabeth II scholarship to study 9/11 for his Masters degree at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. Professors Anthony Hall, Niels Harrit, and Graeme MacQueen speak...
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-08/responsibility-academy-illuminate-truths-and-lies-911

Morons on 911, misleading morons. Those morons have to pay to be published when they spew 911 lies. Good find of how stupid 911 truth experts are.

Social science, why is a social scientist a moron on 911 issues? Is he insane?
Notes; watching the video quickly... skipping as much as I could...
Condemn Globalization Studies as a place of Conspiracy Theories. Yes you are a moron on 911 issues. All talk, no evidence, no facts.

19 terrorists did it. He talks BS, he is an idiot. He can't prove a single thing he says.

You can't hash out if 77 hit the Pentagon or not; The fact is 77 hit the Pentagon.

There was no Thermite, you can't back in thermite when it was not used.

The summary, we have to agree what happen! LOL, they can't figure out the WTC did not have explosives. Now they are going to debate it and vote? Morons...

They all need to move into politics, and try not to have delusions on 911.
 
Last edited:
Let's spot which person is best qualified to discuss high-rise buildings:



Did I miss something, or are all of these folks out of their respective areas of expertise? :confused:

I've been pointing out to youtube truthers that Harrit's CV lacks any mention of expertise in nanothermite or military nanotechnology.

I don't even think truthers have come up with a list of Harrit's published papers. Never seen it....
 
I haven't visited this subforum for a while, and I just saw that the list of articles I made over two years ago has been receiving some discussion. I feel compelled to offer some context.

I'll illiterate (wink wink).

If you look at the post above mine, Josh111485 asked for a list of peer-reviewed papers discussing the WTC collapses. Neither he nor I mentioned anything about a "concensus." He said he wanted to "gather all the credible information..." on 9/11. I was at the UNLV library and had access to the peer-reviewed journals he was requesting, so I made a list for him. Neither I nor he mentioned a thing about corroborating NIST or Bazant. I haven't--and to my knowledge no one here has--ever read every article on the list. To claim that you've had would be a stundie. ;)
 
If you look at the post above mine, Josh111485 asked for a list of peer-reviewed papers discussing the WTC collapses. Neither he nor I mentioned anything about a "concensus." He said he wanted to "gather all the credible information..." on 9/11. I was at the UNLV library and had access to the peer-reviewed journals he was requesting, so I made a list for him. Neither I nor he mentioned a thing about corroborating NIST or Bazant. I haven't--and to my knowledge no one here has--ever read every article on the list. To claim that you've had would be a stundie. ;)

Ha. That's what you think. Not only have I read every article on the list, but I have translated them into Esperanto and recorded their translation into Sandawe, a Tanzanian "click" language, onto MP3s.
 
I've been pointing out to youtube truthers that Harrit's CV lacks any mention of expertise in nanothermite or military nanotechnology.
True, but his most cited paper (according to Google Scholar) is "Expanding the optical trapping range of gold nanoparticles". It might be fair to say he has nano expertise.
:duck:

I don't even think truthers have come up with a list of Harrit's published papers. Never seen it....
If you're interested, a search on N Harrit at Google Scholar will give you a list. His Google Scholar h-index appears to be 11 or so.
 
Ha. That's what you think. Not only have I read every article on the list, but I have translated them into Esperanto and recorded their translation into Sandawe, a Tanzanian "click" language, onto MP3s.
.
Yeah? Well I had them read to me by my wife, Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that's the ticket.

In Phoenician, so... In fact, I created the Phoenician language, so... < twirls hair >
.
 
If you look at the post above mine, Josh111485 asked for a list of peer-reviewed papers discussing the WTC collapses. Neither he nor I mentioned anything about a "concensus." He said he wanted to "gather all the credible information..." on 9/11. I was at the UNLV library and had access to the peer-reviewed journals he was requesting, so I made a list for him. Neither I nor he mentioned a thing about corroborating NIST or Bazant. I haven't--and to my knowledge no one here has--ever read every article on the list.


Actually what he was asking for was:
... says that every peer-reviewed sceintific paper proves the "official version" to be the way 9/11 happened.... Where can I find these peer-reviewed scientific papers...?


You provided a list of papers, few of which attempt to "prove the official story to be the way 9/11 happened," and many of which in fact have nothing to do with a discussion of the WTC collapses. You didn't even bother checking your own list, nor did the legions of 9/11 JREF bedunkers who then went on to cite this list.

This shows that:

1) You and the other JREF bedunkers didn't do your research.

2) You DO NOT HAVE any list of published papers indicating scientific consensus on the WTC collapses.
 
Last edited:
Actually what he was asking for was:



You provided a list of papers, few of which attempt to "prove the official story to be the way 9/11 happened," and many of which in fact have nothing to do with a discussion of the WTC collapses. You didn't even bother checking your own list, nor did the legions of 9/11 JREF bedunkers who then went on to cite this list.

This shows that:

1) You and the other JREF bedunkers didn't do your research.

2) You DO NOT HAVE any list of published papers indicating scientific consensus on the WTC collapses.

You're trolling is getting worse.
 
Think again. Try Google. :)
Here is a list of Dr. Niels Harrit's 55 papers published in respected scientific journals,
not counting #56 in the Bentham journal.
http://NielsHarrit.org


Excellent!

Can you cite one paper in which he used DSC test?
Can you cite one paper in which he studied energetic or explosive material?

As there is engineers in electricity, computers, mechanics, or civil engineering, there is chimists in cholesterol, minerals or explosives....

What do you say about engineers in computers saying they are experts in structural engineering? They are stupids? yes.... of course.
 

Back
Top Bottom