And what peer-review process has any of the government's so-called 'investigations' been subjected to? None.
Incorrect. A draft was published for review by everyone. Critiques were sent in by many, and worked into the final report.
...
The Harrit paper (Active Thermitic Material Found...)is an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper.
Incorrect. It was reviewed by friends of Harrit and co. who are even ascknowledged as contributing to the paper. The Editor in Chief was not involved in the peer review process, didn't even know about it and that the paper was approved for publishing. She promptly stepped down, citring the very lack of proper peer review process as the reason.
You can attack the journal and the authors, or the peer-review process it underwent, all you want. (This is what is done in lieu of a real argument)
Incorrect. It is not in lieu of an argument but actally addressing the very argumentm, when YOUR (truthers') argument before ours is the FALSE claim that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It wasn't.
I haven't seen anything anywhere (in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that has refuted it findings,.
Have you?
We have seen the paper. It doesn't warrant a published refutation. Everybody with half a brain and 2 years of chemistry in school should easily find several errors and shortcomnings upon first reading.
[ETA]
Actually, Marc Basile's work contains a good refutation of the claim that the chips are thermitic in nature:
Look closely: The red layer contains only around 1.5% by weight aluminium and around 2.2% iron. If you throw in some oxygene for a hypothetical perfectly stochiastic thermite mix, you find that the red layer contains at most 5% thermite by weight. This means that the energy density provided by the thermite is at most 5% of 3.9kJ/g, or <=195J/g. If you crunch numbers on heat capacity etc., you will find that this isn't even enough to warm the red material enough to keep a reaction going, let alone melt anything.
Thus, Basile proves the chips are nit active thermitic material.
If you don't understand what I told you in the previous paragraph, you are intellecually inequipped to participate in a discussion of the scientifc merits of Harrit e.al.
[/ETA]
However, I have a question for you, atavism: What will you do, when one or two articled are published in actual and respected peer-reviewed journals of the proper and relevant scientific proveniences that clearly find Harrot e.al. in error? Will you then accept that maybve there is something wrong with their findings?
