ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories , Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 28th February 2011, 08:58 PM   #281
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
ok minor mistake - in that particular quote I left off "active". "Active thermitic materials" is used by Neil et al to describe the materials to makes thermite while in a stage where it's still charged and has explosive potential.
Stop
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:14 PM   #282
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
ok minor mistake - in that particular quote I left off "active". "Active thermitic materials" is used by Neil et al to describe the materials to makes thermite while in a stage where it's still charged and has explosive potential.
If he did, he would have submitted his findings for peer-review.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:25 PM   #283
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper.
His own data doesn't prove any such thing. In fact, as we've pointed out ad nauseam, his own data specifically refutes the claim that the reaction they observed was a thermite reaction. The title of the paper is either a mistake or a lie.
The paper has been undisputed - perhaps because the conclusions are correct. If you strongly disagree with the science in the paper then write a rebuttal or get an e-mail exchange going with one of the several writers. Maybe they can help address your "no it didn't" concerns.
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:28 PM   #284
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
The paper has been undisputed - perhaps because the conclusions are correct. If you strongly disagree with the science in the paper then write a rebuttal or get an e-mail exchange going with one of the several writers. Maybe they can help address your "no it didn't" concerns.
You did, at some point, notice the "search" button at the top of the page? Just curious. There's also a nifty and sometimes more user friendly JREF/Google search function too.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:35 PM   #285
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
You did, at some point, notice the "search" button at the top of the page? Just curious. There's also a nifty and sometimes more user friendly JREF/Google search function too.
You do realize that what I meant by "undisputed" is that in the academic realm there has been no rebuttal. I don't consider jref threads to be viable works cited sources.
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:38 PM   #286
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
You do realize that what I meant by "undisputed" is that in the academic realm there has been no rebuttal.
Harrit never submitted his paper to the academic community for review.

One can't dispute a paper that effectively doesn't exist.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:42 PM   #287
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
You do realize that what I meant by "undisputed" is that in the academic realm there has been no rebuttal.
Why would there be? If you see a turd lying in the street you don't stoop to pick it up. No academic worth his/her salt is going to respond formally to garbage like Harrit's paper.
AZCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:45 PM   #288
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
No academic worth his/her salt is going to respond formally to garbage like Harrit's paper.
Since it was never published in a peer reviewed journal, very few academics are even aware of Harrits paper.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 10:17 PM   #289
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Depends on the time of day.

Last I heard, Harrit had joined the Jones camp in thinking that therm*te was used as fuse to set off actual explosives. I think he said something along the lines of "many, many tonnes" of explosives.
Quote:
But beyond that there is very solid evidence that some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams. We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. Its very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.

RT: When you say in abundance, how much do you mean?
Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!
http://rt.com/usa/news/did-nano-ther...-down-the-wtc/
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 10:58 PM   #290
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Why would there be? If you see a turd lying in the street you don't stoop to pick it up. No academic worth his/her salt is going to respond formally to garbage like Harrit's paper.
Why respond to Niels et al.'s paper? Perhaps:

1.) To shoot down truthers. God knows that there is a lot of debunkers on the internet that like to at least try to shoot down truthers.
2.) Resume material. I shouldn't have to ask why someone would want resume material.
3.) Politics. I've seen some jref debunkers admit that they have political reasons for posting here. If people are posting on jref for political reasons then what's to stop them from stepping up their game by publishing a scientific paper. And I might as well mention that people are commissioned or straight up told to investigate "random junk" all the time.
4.) Passion of a debunker. If a debunker is really passionate about their argument then they might be passionate in a way that encourages themself to debunk Niels et al.'s paper.
5.) A retired or bored scholar who is aware of the 'Active Thermitic Materials' paper might have nothing better to do - some writers/scholars just need to be kept active.
6.) I know of at least one person that had strong objections during the peer review/e-mail exchange process for this paper (that person is Dr. Greening). People that participated in that particular process might wish to do their own dust analysis.
7.) Someone that is a colleague/student/friend/competitor of Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley or Bradley R. Larsen may have personal reasoning behind wanting to conduct a dust analysis.
8.) A truther or undecided person might have an interest in recreating Niels et al.'s tests. The truther might be looking for further "truth support". Independent might be looking for answers by doing things for themselves.
9.) Students, teachers and/or scientists who are familiar with the paper, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) and/or differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) might enjoy making a project out of WTC dust analysis.
10.) Original conspirators of 9/11 might want to silence "truth support"/propaganda

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 1st March 2011 at 12:05 AM. Reason: correcting spelling of Niels
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:06 PM   #291
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
If people are posting on jref for political reasons then what's to stop them from stepping up their game by publishing a scientific paper.
Why doesn't Neils Harrit et al publish a paper first?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:09 PM   #292
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?
You should know, if anyone, there was one major commission, the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Of course there were additional studies around that time. The point is there are were no movements or hundreds of web sites (or JREF forums) calling for a new Challenger investigation 10 years after the event. It was done right, and the public accepted the results. The 9/11 Commission did not answer enough of the public's questions.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:27 PM   #293
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?
You should know, if anyone, there was one major commission, the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Of course there were additional studies around that time. The point is there are were no movements or hundreds of web sites (or JREF forums) calling for a new Challenger investigation 10 years after the event. It was done right, and the public accepted the results. The 9/11 Commission did not answer enough of the public's questions.
The public has accepted the 9/11 Commission Report. The people clamoring for a do-over have come up with no coherent objections, and are numbered in a tiny, tiny minority, comparable to the percentage of citizens with diagnosed mental disorders. And even were this not the case, it still wouldn't matter -- there is no dispute in scientific circles. Not a single published paper, not a single conference paper conflicts with the major conclusions of the Report. That's as iron-clad as consensus gets.

Anyway, you missed my point -- because, as you suggest, I should know. I do. You do not.

The Rogers Commission (Challenger investigation) was not, as you suggested above, superior to the 9/11 Commission due to the inclusion of scientists or the way everybody played nice together. There were plenty of scientists, and darn good ones, contributing to the 9/11 Commission, notably fellows like Dr. Astaneh-Asl of Cal. Now, on the Rogers commission, Richard Feynman in particular was extremely unhappy with the way the investigation was run, and nearly got himself thrown off the team on several occasions. There is essentially no difference between his complaints and those of Cleland regarding the 9/11 Commission.

Not only that, his Nobel was in quantum physics. Hardly relevant to the phenomenology of the Challenger accident. I can imagine -- heck, I don't have to imagine, I've seen it -- the Challenger deniers attacking Dr. Feynman over his "improper credentials." Yes, there were conspiracy theorists back then, too. Some of them are the same people that we see today in the Truth Movement.

Another lesson from the Rogers Commission is this: As Dr. Feynman later understood, he did not so much "discover" the O-ring problem as find himself led to it, by conscientious scientists and engineers within NASA and its contractors -- the very "whistleblowers" that inevitably appear when there's real deception afoot. But there aren't any for 9/11. Curious, that.

Please do attempt to understand the above. It exposes quite clearly how your previous post was completely backwards. Thanks.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 1st March 2011 at 12:04 AM. Reason: run-on
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:35 PM   #294
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
The equipment used to study the WTC dust is objective. It gives the same results regardless of the opinions of the person running the equipment, such as what chemicals are present, and in what proportions.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:39 PM   #295
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>There is essentially no difference between his complaints and those of Cleland regarding the 9/11 Commission.
A major complaint of Senator Cleland was that the Commission would ask for information, and was denied. Did Dr. Feynman have a similar complaint? Did NASA withhold information from him? If so, then there would be "no difference". Did Dr. Feynman quit, calling the Commission a farce? Show me a reference to his doing so, since there is "no difference."
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:44 PM   #296
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>There is essentially no difference between his complaints and those of Cleland regarding the 9/11 Commission.
A major complaint of Senator Cleland was that the Commission would ask for information, and was denied. Did Dr. Feynman have a similar complaint? Did NASA withhold information from him? If so, then there would be "no difference".
Yes and yes. Read What do You Care What Other People Think? and learn something.

The famous O-ring and icewater experiment was his way to publicly embarrass those who were withholding information.

Quote:
Did Dr. Feynman quit, calling the Commission a farce? Show me a reference to his doing so, since there is "no difference."
He didn't quit. But he had to work outside the system in his own way.

Seriously, kid, learn something about how government works. There's nothing at all unusual about vested interests with respect to the 9/11 Commission. What matters is whether they got it right, and since there is no hint of a challenge to its conclusions, the answer is undeniably "yes."

ETA: Just to further reinforce this point, let me direct your attention to an article called "The Rogers Commission Failed -- Questions it Never Asked, Answers it Didn't Listen To" by Richard Cook, Washington Monthly, November 1986. You're welcome.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 1st March 2011 at 12:12 AM. Reason: As marked
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:51 PM   #297
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?
You should know, if anyone, there was one major commission, the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Of course there were additional studies around that time. The point is there are were no movements or hundreds of web sites (or JREF forums) calling for a new Challenger investigation 10 years after the event. It was done right, and the public accepted the results. The 9/11 Commission did not answer enough of the public's questions.
The 9/11 Commission's job wasn't to endlessly answer ridiculous questions from small minority of mostly crazy and ignorant people who can't understand and won't listen to the answers anyway because they have been brainwashed into an agenda.

Most of the public is satisfied. Just the lunatic fringe isn't.
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.

Last edited by The Platypus; 28th February 2011 at 11:55 PM.
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:54 PM   #298
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Why doesn't Neils Harrit et al publish a paper first?
I realize that the paper unexpectedly disappeared from Betham's website a few days ago. This does not mean that the paper hasn't been on their site for nearly 2 years. Claiming that Niels et al.'s paper wasn't peer reviewed is absolute nonsense.

I also know how notorious jref debunkers are at depicting the journal giant that is Bentham Science Publishers. Anyone listening to the debunker spins and lies oughta do themselves a favor and research Bentham Science Publishers on their own. I will not reply to debunker lies and spins on this subject matter. I do not want to waste my time when there is a giant thread full of lies and spins already.
____________

I'll share a few quotes from one particular user that I just found on google

nornnxx65:
link

"The more people that vet the paper the better, and if there are flaws in it, let them be exposed- I've said so since it was published."

"As for why it hasn't been published in other journals- why would it; do non-copyrighted open access papers normally get republished in other journals? I haven't looked into it, but it doesn't seem likely, since they were already published and made available free to the entire world online."

"I don't think it's fair to characterize Bentham or the open access model 'pay to play'; open access is an increasingly popular model as it facilitates research and the sharing of info. And in the case of the Harrit et al paper, those involved have said BYU and Copenhagen U paid the fees- and that the paper was reviewed by those responsible at the Universities..."
____________

And here is one more link which describes the jref reaction to Niels Harrit, Bentham, the whole works

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 1st March 2011 at 12:15 AM. Reason: correcting spelling of Niels
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 11:58 PM   #299
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Why respond to Neil et al.'s paper?
Niels. Not "Neil". This is Neil:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...nts_203152.gif
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:03 AM   #300
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Claiming that Neil et al.'s paper wasn't peer reviewed is absolute nonsense.
It wasn't peer reviewed. The E-in-C of the Bentham chemical physics journal said so. It is the E-in-C who gives final approval on whether to publish and she said she never saw the paper.

Harrit's paper was... not... peer... reviewed.

What's most telling is that after this debacle blew up in Harrit and Joneses faces, they never again submitted it either to Bentham or any other journal.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:06 AM   #301
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
I realize that the paper unexpectedly disappeared from Betham's website a few days ago. This does not mean that the paper hasn't been on their site for nearly 2 years. Claiming that Neil et al.'s paper wasn't peer reviewed is absolute nonsense.

I also know how notorious jref debunkers are at depicting the journal giant that is Bentham Science Publishers. Anyone listening to the debunker spins and lies oughta do themselves a favor and research Bentham Science Publishers on their own. I will not reply to debunker lies and spins on this subject matter. I do not want to waste my time when there is a giant thread full of lies and spins already.
You're really going to defend a journal that accepted a paper that the author admitted was phony? And the only reason they didn't publish it was because they didn't fork over the money? Does that sound like a legitimate publication to you? Really? Wow.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-journal.html

Last edited by TexasJack; 1st March 2011 at 12:14 AM.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:12 AM   #302
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
It wasn't peer reviewed. The E-in-C of the Bentham chemical physics journal said so. It is the E-in-C who gives final approval on whether to publish and she said she never saw the paper.

Harrit's paper was... not... peer... reviewed.

What's most telling is that after this debacle blew up in Harrit and Joneses faces, they never again submitted it either to Bentham or any other journal.
ug. I promised myself that I wouldn't reply to this sort of nonsense.
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:25 AM   #303
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
ug. I promised myself that I wouldn't reply to this sort of nonsense.
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
And the peer reviewer just happens to be a truther too... gee what a coincidence...
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:26 AM   #304
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Learn to recognize your "formal fallacy" and then we'll talk
Just for the record when you can explain why it isn't a formal fallacy....

(Hint: It is about context. Given that your main "trick" is switching contexts [or redefining limiting contexts] you should be able to work it out. )
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:29 AM   #305
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
And the peer reviewer just happens to be a truther too... gee what a coincidence...
Yup.

"Peer review" is a formal process to recognised standards ---- not your "best mate" claiming to do a peer review.


....but this is still the diversion from the real point which P4T is avoiding.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:30 AM   #306
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
And the peer reviewer just happens to be a truther too... gee what a coincidence...
... and acknowledged by name in the paper itself.

Only Truthers could engineer a paper so bad, that it took down the frauds who they paid to promote it.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:41 AM   #307
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>The burden of proof is never reversed in academic research. If Jones and Harrit make an argument that the cr*p they found is nano-thermite, it's up to them to prove it.

You are trying to reverse the burden yourself. Journals are a means to inform the scientific community of an experiment that has been done, and is an invitation to refute or replicate it with another experiment. Before the Internet, journals were the only way to get the word out. An open journal maximizes awareness since it does not cost anyone a penny to read the study. Jones and Harrit have done their study and written their paper. Now it is the debunkers' turn. Jones and Harrit have publicly stated they are waiting, as we all are, for some scientists to take WTC dust and write a paper proving it is something else than thermitic material.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:44 AM   #308
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>The burden of proof is never reversed in academic research. If Jones and Harrit make an argument that the cr*p they found is nano-thermite, it's up to them to prove it.

You are trying to reverse the burden yourself. Journals are a means to inform the scientific community of an experiment that has been done, and is an invitation to refute or replicate it with another experiment. Before the Internet, journals were the only way to get the word out. An open journal maximizes awareness since it does not cost anyone a penny to read the study. Jones and Harrit have done their study and written their paper. Now it is the debunkers' turn. Jones and Harrit have publicly stated they are waiting, as we all are, for some scientists to take WTC dust and write a paper proving it is something else than thermitic material.
Reading the paper shows they did not find thermite. Try reading the paper.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:02 AM   #309
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
You do realize that what I meant by "undisputed" is that in the academic realm there has been no rebuttal. I don't consider jref threads to be viable works cited sources.
It's never been disputed because it's never been published in a peer reviewed journal. It's worthless.

P.S. I've already debunked the SEM data and others have debunked the DSC data. I suggest you use the search function.

Now I know you won't, so read this and my sig. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ight=thermitic
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:12 AM   #310
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
I'm going to repeat what I said because you obviously weren't reading my post. The editor-in-chief of the Bentham journal did not see the Harrit/Jones paper or authorize it for publication.

This is what a peer review procedure looks like:

Author --> Editor-in-Chief --> Peer Reviewers --> Editor-in-Chief -- Publication

This is what Harrit and Jones did:

Author --> Reviewer --> Publication

What Jones and Harrit did was similar to trying to hold a criminal trial without the approval of a judge and/or behind the judges back. If Jones and Harrit were lawyers, they would have been disbarred.

The Harrit/Jones paper was never, ever peer reviewed. Get it?

The most damning indictment of Jones and Harrit comes from Jones and Harrit themselves. They will not submit their paper for proper review. Their only attempt came from attempts to unethically game the system in their favor. They refuse to resubmit the paper for real.

There is no need for us to rebut or refute Jones and Harrits pile of crap because Jones and Harrit themselves believe it's a pile of crap.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:14 AM   #311
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
And the peer reviewer just happens to be a truther too... gee what a coincidence...
... and acknowledged by name in the paper itself.
That's not a peer reviewer, that's called a "co-author".
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:15 AM   #312
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Just for the record when you can explain why it isn't a formal fallacy....

(Hint: It is about context. Given that your main "trick" is switching contexts [or redefining limiting contexts] you should be able to work it out. )
The claim that "active thermitic materials" were not discovered is your formal fallacy. Saying that they were not discovered is equivalent to saying "I'm 100% sure they were not discovered". You cannot know for sure whether or not Niels, Farrer, Jones, Ryan and all discovered "active* thermitic materials". To claim that they 100% couldn't have discovered these materials is malarkey (and sounding desperate).

*as defined by them in the paper (just in case you are very semantic with your next response)
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:15 AM   #313
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). -Niels et al

You do realize that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get a hold of these instruments and that many scientists use these instruments quite regularly?
Yep, it also helps when you know what you are doing rather than just operating the instruments willy nilly which is what they did.

Why did they perform the DSC experiments in air when a thermite reaction requires no external Oxygen present? Why do they not give any semi-quantitative results with the XEDS when they are readily available without standards by using mathematical corrections based on the analysis parameters and the sample composition?

Lastly, if these instruments are sooo easy to come by then why didn't they use the correct ones that would give definitive, absolute answers for material characterisation? Namely FTIR and XRD.

You see when you are a layman you are impressed with acronyms and funny looking machines that sound all sciency. In your mind it gives credibility because when it comes down to it you don't know your rear-end from your elbow. Those of us that do can see through the BS.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:32 AM   #314
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
You do realize that what I meant by "undisputed" is that in the academic realm there has been no rebuttal. I don't consider jref threads to be viable works cited sources.
And no one in the scientific community considers Bentham to be a peer review journal publishing "viable works".

By your own standards the work is not viable and therefore it cannot be rebutted.

Truther: Can you rebut the paper?
Scientist: What paper?
Truther: The one in Bentham.
Scientist: That's not been peer reviewed, Bentham is a vanity publisher.
Truther: So you can't rebut it?
Scientist: No, it hasn't been published properly, but I could have a quick look and write something online for you.
Truther: I don't consider threads/email to be viable works.
Scientist: Err, Ok then I can't help you.
Truther: Active thermitic material found at ground zero!!!
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:34 AM   #315
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
The claim that "active thermitic materials" were not discovered is your formal fallacy. Saying that they were not discovered is equivalent to saying "I'm 100% sure they were not discovered". You cannot know for sure whether or not Niels, Farrer, Jones, Ryan and all discovered "active* thermitic materials". To claim that they 100% couldn't have discovered these materials is malarkey (and sounding desperate).

*as defined by them in the paper (just in case you are very semantic with your next response)
Well that is strike one.

Try reading what I actually said - not what you want to think I said.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:38 AM   #316
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
And no one in the scientific community considers Bentham to be a peer review journal publishing "viable works".

By your own standards the work is not viable and therefore it cannot be rebutted.

Truther: Can you rebut the paper?
Scientist: What paper?
Truther: The one in Bentham.
Scientist: That's not been peer reviewed, Bentham is a vanity publisher.
Truther: So you can't rebut it?
Scientist: No, it hasn't been published properly, but I could have a quick look and write something online for you.
Truther: I don't consider threads/email to be viable works.
Scientist: Err, Ok then I can't help you.
Truther: Active thermitic material found at ground zero!!!
And the killer which P4T is fully aware of is that it matters not if tonnes of thermate were found at ground zero. It wasn't used. The whole discussion of "was it thermXte?" is a truther diversion - it is irrelevant. ThermXte was not used.

(Hence recent identification of a false analogy by P4T)
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:43 AM   #317
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
The equipment used to study the WTC dust is objective. It gives the same results regardless of the opinions of the person running the equipment, such as what chemicals are present, and in what proportions.
Now you are showing your ignorance. You don't understand what a compound is. You certainly are not going to understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative in respect to EDS/XEDS and you certainly won't be aware of the limitations of this technique.

Lets have some fun. Answer me this:

The binding material that the "thermite particles" are embedded in shows up as mainly Carbon and some Oxygen. This is therefore an organic compound. However, we would certainly expect Hydrogen to be present because organic materials usually have Hydrogen in their compounds. Why do we not see any Hydrogen in the EDS spectra when we know it is there?

Cruel I know, but it would be good for him to exercise his brain/google skills, he'll learn something and it will show why the bolded part of his text isn't right.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:49 AM   #318
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
... and acknowledged by name in the paper itself.

Only Truthers could engineer a paper so bad, that it took down the frauds who they paid to promote it.
Seriously? Was he in the paper as well?
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:50 AM   #319
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
ug. I promised myself that I wouldn't reply to this sort of nonsense.
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
from that link

Quote:
it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty (sic)."
Yet he didn't question why Harrit et al didn't identify the organic binder material that is clearly evident in the paper. Nor the gray layer (which I've shown as ASTM A36. Wow. The truth makes one blind.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 1st March 2011 at 01:58 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:57 AM   #320
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
Seriously? Was he in the paper as well?
Quote:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio,
Jody Intermont, Janette MacKinlay, and Steve White
for dust samples acquired soon after the WTC 9/11 catastrophe.
We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile, David Allan,
Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe, David
Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage,
Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis,
Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for elucidating
discussions and encouragement.
Thanks to John Parulis
for gathering samples of residues from reacted commercial
thermite.
So yes. Unbelievable isn't it? Yet P4T keeps on spouting. Yo! P4T you might want to check your links and truther sites before shouting here.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.