Truthers Say The Darnedest Things!

[DaveThomasNMSR]

(Hey, if it's on YouTube, it's got to be true, right?)

 

[cantonear1968]

(Hey, if it's on YouTube, it's got to be true, right?)

Amazing! Simply amazing! The disconnect is unbelievable! Between this response from Harrit and the one he had with Chris Mohr about the WTCs "not being encased in Argon", I think it's clear that he is NOT interested in a reasoned, scientific debate, but is simply preaching to the choir. That was the sort of response that will make for a nice 25 second you tube clip, which is about the attention span of your average truther.

As for Gage, I don't believe anything coming out of his mouth, therefore I don't listen.

However, good points Dave. Good job.

 

[cyclonic]

(Hey, if it's on YouTube, it's got to be true, right?)

Very good video dave. harrit is a typical truther turning a defeat into victory like when mark roberts shafted gage in the hardfire debate and truthers claimed it was a mass win for the twoof! all non-truthers know the real truth about twoofers.

 

[Greedo]

Wow, how pathetic! I don't know whether this lunacy should make me angry or amazed.

If they'll continue like this, the twoof movement will go on forever.

 

[Oystein]

That confirmation bias is pathological. Urgh!

 

[Oz1976]

Amazing, simply amazing. These people will just not concede their flawed science or beliefs what so ever. I suggest, that after 10 years, we simply ignore them. They are beyond being brought back to reality. No matter how wrong you prove them to be they freaking turn it around and say it's actually you endorsing them, ridiculous.

 

[bill smith]

(Hey, if it's on YouTube, it's got to be true, right?)

Sure Dave. Very impressive.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sure Dave. Very impressive.

Bill? Bill? You okay? You stopped in mid post. You left off....

"Now the word is going to spread even faster and the indpendent investigation can no longer be denied us."

 

[Foolmewunz]

But seriously, folks... Is Niels really "all there"? Either he's more willfully ignorant than even Alex Jones, or he has some serious issues. This was a qualified, and I believe published, scientist. Now it's not uncommon to see professionals from one discipline in over their heads in another, and that's what I attributed this to, originally. But this and a few other things he's been quoted as saying over the previous six months or so lead me to wonder if he's suffered a stroke or is experiencing some other form of dementia.

 

[leftysergeant]

But this and a few other things he's been quoted as saying over the previous six months or so lead me to wonder if he's suffered a stroke or is experiencing some other form of dementia.

He speaks his second language almost flawlessly, so I would rule out stroke.

His response to Dave's remarks can only be characterized as confabulations, which would be consistant with dementia, retardation, psychosis -especially paranoia- or substance abuse.I am ready to go with dotty old drunk.

 

[cyclonic]

or is experiencing some other form of dementia.

He has got a chronic case of 911truthmentia, his only treatment is years of electro-shock therapy.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Where is the Truther Defense?

Truthers, why aren't you stepping up to the plate to defend your heroes Richard and Niels from these scurrilous, baseless attacks?

Where are you people? Marokkan? Tmd2? Bill Smith? Ergo? (Sorry, but "Sure, Dave" doesn't cut it, Bill.)

I suspect you all will continue to ignore this inconvenient thread, just like Gage ignored my inconvenient article in Skeptical Inquirer.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

What Harrit Said

I sent the YouTube to Niels Harrit, and he replied thusly:

Dave,
Ha,ha.
I admit, that I made a mistake.
I assumed that you knew what you were saying.
Too much, sorry.

You are not the only one who did not get the point - unfortunately - so I
do regret that did not explain.

Please, give me another chance for more than 60 sec and I will take my time.

Like this:
When you claim, that our findings (the red/grey chips) are identical to a
commercial product, you acknowledge our data.
This simple logic implies, among other things, that the paint you
endorses, produces elemental iron in an exothermic process from iron oxide
and aluminum.
This is the thermite reaction.
That's it.
The trap snapped in that moment.
But you didn't even recognize.
You still haven’t?
No pain anywhere?

Please, do your home work:
First thing, I suggest that you do a simple calculation and tell me how
much of your paint is needed to account for the 5.87% iron spheres in the
dust reported by the RJ Lee group in their 2003 report.
Next, you tell me why and how this volume of paint (be prepared) is
applied UNDER THE FIRE PROOFING without anyone’s notice and without being
mentioned in the NIST report.
Then you get the certification for your paint and ascertain that a
material which ignites at 430 degr. centigrade, producing molten iron in a
reaction more excothermic than TNT, is certified for indoor use under fire
proofing.
Then - if you are still there – you apply your paint to account for the
following observations:
1) The primer paint officially applied in WTC does not match the red/grey
chips in chemical composition,
2) The primer paint officially applied in WTC is thermally stable at least
to 650 degr centigrade and starts charring beyond temperature.
3) Corrosion by the falling debris was observed on the roofs of the parked
cars,
4) The dust cloud was extremely hot.
5) Molten iron was observed before the collapses and for months afterwards,
6) The rubble in GZ continued to react into february (the fires were
officially put out on december 20th).
7) Other findings in the dust (USGS) implies the occurrence of extreme
temperatures during collapse
8) Etc etc etc

Again, I regret that I spent my last 60 seconds dancing. I thought the
preceeding 59 minutes were worth celebrating.

No, thinking about it, I don’t.

Niels

Certainly, Niels did make at least a couple of mistakes. Like mistaking paint for thermite. And then publishing it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Certainly, Niels did make at least a couple of mistakes. Like mistaking paint for thermite. And then publishing it.

He really stepped on his junk when he asked how the paint was applied under the spray-on foam, when all the photos show that the trusses arrived at the building site pre-painted.

As for the debris corroding the roofs of cars, the moron overlooks the fact that there were sometimes undamaged cars sitting next to cars that were all pitted and corroded exactly as they would be in a normal car fire.

This, of course, overlooks the fact that Lt Torrillo,, who was caught in somem serious debris flow right near the building recieved only blunt force trauma. No fire fighter was burned by the debris. Even Ondrovic, whom DEW fans say is proof that beam weapons were used, was set afire by gasoline from the cars cooking off around her.

 

[Oystein]

I sent the YouTube to Niels Harrit, and he replied thusly:


Certainly, Niels did make at least a couple of mistakes. Like mistaking paint for thermite. And then publishing it.

What an amazing - amazing! - heap of fail!

So easy to shoot it all down:

Dave,
Ha,ha.
I admit, that I made a mistake.
I assumed that you knew what you were saying.
Too much, sorry.

You are not the only one who did not get the point - unfortunately - so I
do regret that did not explain.

Please, give me another chance for more than 60 sec and I will take my time.

How adult. (Not.)

Like this:
When you claim, that our findings (the red/grey chips) are identical to a
commercial product, you acknowledge our data.

Yes, we do. Mostly.

This simple logic implies, among other things, that the paint you endorses, produces elemental iron in an exothermic process from iron oxide and aluminum.
This is the thermite reaction.
That's it.

That is the one part of the data that we don't admit.

The trap snapped in that moment.

That's why it didn't snap

But you didn't even recognize.
You still haven’t?
No pain anywhere?

Yes, beginning pain, Niels. Your arguments are too stupid already.

Please, do your home work:
First thing, I suggest that you do a simple calculation and tell me how
much of your paint is needed to account for the 5.87% iron spheres in the
dust reported by the RJ Lee group in their 2003 report.

Who on earth claims that any or all of the iron-rich spheres were produced from red-grey chips?? There is a total disconnect, Niels!

Next, you tell me why and how this volume of paint (be prepared) is applied UNDER THE FIRE PROOFING without anyone’s notice and without being mentioned in the NIST report.

What utter stupidity!
Everybody noticed the red paint under the fireproofing, and NIST talks about the paints (both Tnemec and LaClede) (it was already applied in the factory) and very extensively about the fireproofing (which was applied after construction).
Niels, that was a very obvious stupidity there!

Then you get the certification for your paint and ascertain that a material which ignites at 430 degr. centigrade, producing molten iron in a reaction more excothermic than TNT, is certified for indoor use under fire proofing.

Yes, Niels. Such is life. Ask anybody who knows anything about primers and paints what primers and paints are! Do you believe epoxies would not ignite and burn exothermically??
More exothermic than TNT - yes, paints are that way, but Niels, hello? Thermite is LESS exothermic than TNT!

Then - if you are still there – you apply your paint to account for the following observations:
1) The primer paint officially applied in WTC does not match the red/grey
chips in chemical composition,

Yes, Niels, there was more than one kind of primer, and you just looked at the wrong one. Dave told you which one to look at. You just proved your ignorance!

2) The primer paint officially applied in WTC is thermally stable at least to 650 degr centigrade and starts charring beyond temperature.

Yes, Niels, there was more than one kind of primer, and you just looked at the wrong one. Dave told you which one to look at. You just proved your ignorance!

3) Corrosion by the falling debris was observed on the roofs of the parked cars,

Why on earth should anyone attribute that to red-gray chips of all things? Obvious disconnect! The dust was not JUST red-gray chips, Niels!

4) The dust cloud was extremely hot.

Why on earth should anyone attribute that to red-gray chips of all things? Obvious disconnect! The dust was not JUST red-gray chips, Niels!

5) Molten iron was observed before the collapses and for months afterwards,

Why on earth should anyone attribute that to red-gray chips of all things? Obvious disconnect! The dust was not JUST red-gray chips, Niels!
And anyway, how would widely dispersed red-ray chips keep bulk amounts of molten steel liquid for months?

6) The rubble in GZ continued to react into february (the fires were officially put out on december 20th).

Why on earth should anyone attribute that to red-gray chips of all things? Obvious disconnect! The dust was not JUST red-gray chips, Niels!

7) Other findings in the dust (USGS) implies the occurrence of extreme temperatures during collapse

Why on earth should anyone attribute that to red-gray chips of all things? Obvious disconnect! The dust was not JUST red-gray chips, Niels!

8) Etc etc etc

Drop 8. if you have nothing else to show

Again, I regret that I spent my last 60 seconds dancing. I thought the preceeding 59 minutes were worth celebrating.

No, thinking about it, I don’t.

Niels

How adult. Is that the kind of academic debate style you taught at Copenhagen University, Niels?

 

[JamesB]

Dave, I probably missed this previously, but what is your source for the ignition temperature of the primer paint? I have tried to get the truthers to answer the whole low temperature thing on a couple of occasions, but they always avoid the point. Magic thermite can do anything.

 

[Oystein]

Dave, I probably missed this previously, but what is your source for the ignition temperature of the primer paint? I have tried to get the truthers to answer the whole low temperature thing on a couple of occasions, but they always avoid the point. Magic thermite can do anything.

I actually think Dave is somewhat out on a limb here.

LaClede standard primer is 71.5% epoxy vehicle - a common organic polymer. Such materials typically ignite anywhere between, say, 350 and 500°C. Ivan Kniemek mixed a self-made LaClede primer imitation with some epoxy he just happened to have handy (a multi-purpose glue actually, I think), heated it up, and found it ignited around 380°C. This is documented in one of the (currently) last posts of my "Origin of the paint" thread. One could speculate that the temeprature might be somewhat higher for aged epoxies, or paint that's attached to iron oxide, or a different epoxy.

However, no one has yet tested any actual LaClede primer samples from actual WTC floor joists. So Dave can't really know it ignites at 430°C. But it surely is much more likely to do so than nano-thermite.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I actually think Dave is somewhat out on a limb here.

...

However, no one has yet tested any actual LaClede primer samples from actual WTC floor joists. So Dave can't really know it ignites at 430°C. But it surely is much more likely to do so than nano-thermite.

Thanks, excellent point! Things can get jumbled a bit, especially in the heat of a live debate. I appreciate the correction.

Here's Harrit's rejoinder.

Still don't get it, eh?
It is YOU who are endorsing thermitic paint.
Some of us are endorsing painted-on thermite.
I can live with the difference and welcome you onboard.
N.

Yeah, right!

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

What I wrote Niels:

Still don't get it, eh?
It is YOU who are endorsing thermitic paint.
Some of us are endorsing painted-on thermite.
I can live with the difference and welcome you onboard.
N.

No, you're the one who still isn't "getting it." Like your "thermite
reaction trap." If you had really wanted to prove this reaction was
really "thermitic", why didn't you perform it in an inert atmosphere
like argon?

You're also confusing primer paint for the beams with primer paint for
the trusses. (They're different. LaClede? Tnemec? Different.)

Next, you tell me why and how this volume of paint (be prepared) is
applied UNDER THE FIRE PROOFING without anyone's notice and without
being mentioned in the NIST report.

This is just plain funny. Since you're the one saying it was "thermite",
I suppose that you think that it would have to applied after the
structure was built (and so would have to be "inserted" under the
fire-proofing). I'm the one saying it was floor-truss primer paint, not
thermite. Of course, they would paint the trusses before applying the
fire proofing (which was done after construction. As NIST said.).
This simple fact alone blows away your entire argument.

Of course, the paint is more exothermic than TNT. That's a
characteristic of paint that appliers of fireproofing know all about.
What's funny here is that thermite is less exothermic than TNT. What should that tell you? (I'll spell it out for you - "Oh, what we measured wasn't thermite.")

Thanks, Niels!
Dave

And the Answer:

Ahem....why should the generation of elemental iron be conditioned by the
presence of oxygen?
The DSC was performed in air because the only available DSC of
nanothermite was done in air (we called Tillotson).
Beyond, WTC was not demolished under argon.
If the polymer can burn (that is, if it is not a perfluoro alkane) it is
more than likely that it initiated the reaction.

If the paint you suggest can do work like throwing things around like a
propellant, it starts getting interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw
If it can, please inform me:
When was it applied, by which company?

NH

 

[twinstead]

Boy is that a typical truther non-answer if I've ever seen one