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 13th September 2010, 04:53 AM   #201
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s
Interesting stuff, thanks for your contribution. Regarding your comments about Open Access, however, I think that OA journals have already become synonymous with crap publishing. Bentham in particular runs a well established scam. For almost no cost to them (aside from web hosting and some labor in converting documents to the appropriate format), they charge people to have their papers attached to the OA journal website. $600 is an exorbitant fee for a company with very little operating costs and absolutely no printing costs. That's it; real journals charge for printing color pages and for the labor of the editorship. But Bentham's "peer review" and editorship of the journals is largely fluff, and they have no printing costs. Then, they send out mass marketing emails asking anyone with a PhD to become an editor of the journal. The unsuspecting academic happily agrees, puts the editorship on her resume, and proceeds to never hear from the journal again. Meanwhile, anyone with a valid bank account can publish anything they want, to the detriment of the reputation of said editorship.

I don't doubt that most academics are honest, hard working researchers who are only interested in fast, convenient publication. Ultimately, though, the problem is the turd in the fruit basket. Because moronic papers can get through just as easily as real ones, it's not worthwhile to publish in a journal which is so willing to sacrifice its reputation for money.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 13th September 2010, 06:22 AM   #202
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s
When you say you are an ' Anthropologist studying Truthers' are you doing that in a dispassionate way or could you fairly be described as a 'Debunker-Anthropogist' with regard to your study of Truthers ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 13th September 2010 at 06:40 AM.
bill smith 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 13th September 2010, 07:09 AM   #203
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s
Apparently Harrit knows the two peers who reviewed his paper, have you any idea who they are?!
Josarhus 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 13th September 2010, 07:54 AM   #204
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s
As an anthropologist, are you studying 9/11 truthers as a formal project, with the possibility of a published paper in the end? Or are you simply applying your anthropological training to the hobby of studying them?

I ask, because I'd be interested to read your work if you are doing this as a formal study. If, however, you're simply like us, then I of course shouldn't expect any sort of published work.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 13th September 2010, 09:02 AM   #205
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
Apparently Harrit knows the two peers who reviewed his paper, have you any idea who they are?!
That's interesting, because as I understand it, peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.
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 13th September 2010, 09:27 AM   #206
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
That's interesting, because as I understand it, peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.
Different journals have different standards. In my relatively small cement/concrete research community, it's hard not to know, or at least have met, your reviewers. I tend to suggest reviewers based on whether or not they'll be able to provide meaningful comments, and then the editor will usually select an additional reviewer who may not be familiar with the work. What's more important is the potential conflict of interest. For instance, you can't review someone's paper if you're also reviewing a paper from that person.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 13th September 2010, 11:14 AM   #207
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
That's interesting, because as I understand it, peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.
It is interesting, because the review process on Harrits paper didn't even reach the, at the time, low standards at Bentham.

Usually the editor in chief would be involved, but the review on this specific paper seems to be limited to Harrit and two, for now, unknown persons, without the editor in chief or anyone else with a scientific background, ever being involved.
Josarhus 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 13th September 2010, 12:19 PM   #208
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257


Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
For instance, you can't review someone's paper if you're also reviewing a paper from that person.
Rather, you can't review someone's paper if they're also reviewing yours. Right?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 13th September 2010, 12:38 PM   #209
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
When you say you are an ' Anthropologist studying Truthers' are you doing that in a dispassionate way or could you fairly be described as a 'Debunker-Anthropogist' with regard to your study of Truthers ?
I've done a study on Truthers & find them to be as paranoid & delusional as ever:

http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.c...s-exposed.html

Not a single Truther has ever debunked my blog, because they're too scard to look at it. Cowards!
9/11 Chewy Defense 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 14th September 2010, 08:14 PM   #210
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post




Rather, you can't review someone's paper if they're also reviewing yours. Right?
Err...yes. -10 points for Almond for failing to proof-read before he hits the "post" button.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 14th September 2010, 08:40 PM   #211
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
It is interesting, because the review process on Harrits paper didn't even reach the, at the time, low standards at Bentham.

Usually the editor in chief would be involved, but the review on this specific paper seems to be limited to Harrit and two, for now, unknown persons, without the editor in chief or anyone else with a scientific background, ever being involved.
Indeed... it's like the defendant and his attorney in a criminal case going into the jury room and intimida... errr... I mean "addressing" the jury directly without the judge present.
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 18th September 2010, 04:12 PM   #212
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
Apparently Harrit knows the two peers who reviewed his paper, have you any idea who they are?!
Do you have a source on this?
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek 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 19th September 2010, 12:09 PM   #213
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Do you have a source on this?
It is mentioned in this article from the Danish science site Videnskab.dk:

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/natur...artikel_om_911

Quote:
Det er Niels Harrits medforfatter Steven Jones, som har stået for kontakten til Bentham, og derfor er den danske forsker ikke på stående fod klar over, hvilken ansvarlig underredaktør gruppen har kommunikeret med.

Han kender til gengæld navnene på de to forskere - såkaldt referees - der har bedømt artiklen, men han vil ikke oplyse deres navne, fordi de 'i princippet er anonyme'.
Google translated:

Quote:
It’s Niels Harrits coauthor Steven Jones, who was in charge of contacts with Bentham, and therefore, the Danish scientist not offhand know the responsible editor the group have communicated with.

He knows however the names of the two researchers - called referees - who has rated the article, but he would not disclose their names because they're “in principle anonymous”.
Josarhus 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 20th September 2010, 12:36 AM   #214
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Peer review - Reviewers must be anonymous during review only

>peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.

The analogy of a jury to peer review is good. There is a time frame involved in the anonymity. It does not need to be forever after.

After the decision to publish is over (guilty =don't publish, innocent=publish) then the need for anonymity is moot. There is nothing to hide when everyone is happy. For example, after a trial is over, a jury member is free even to socialize with a former defendant. Some jurors have congratulated defendants for standing up for their rights against false arrests. Of course, it is best if contact is at the initiative of the juror/reviewer.

If the verdict is against, and the defendant is in jail, (or the scientist did not get his article published) he is not happy. Then of course they should not communicate. The purpose of anonymity is to protect the juror or reviewer, so he feels free to make a decision as he or she sees fit, without inappropriate influence and without losing friends.

As long as Dr. Harrit did not know the reviewers while they were reviewing, that is the main thing. If he knows them after the article is published and their job is done, that is fine. The publisher should never name the reviewers. It means the reviewers contacted Dr. Harrit to let him know on their own initiative.

Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 20th September 2010 at 12:50 AM. Reason: clarify
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 20th September 2010, 12:42 AM   #215
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,087
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.

The analogy of a jury to peer review is good. There is a time frame involved in the anonymity. It does not need to be forever after.

After the decision to publish is over (guilty =don't publish, innocent=publish) then the need for anonymity is moot. There is nothing to hide when everyone is happy. For example, after a trial is over, a jury member is free to socialize with a former defendant, and may if the verdict was in the defendant's favor.

If not, then the defendant is in jail, (or the scientist did not get his article published) and is not happy. Then of course they should not communicate. The purpose of anonymity is to protect the juror or reviewer, so he feels free to make a decision as he or she sees fit, without inappropriate influence and without losing friends.

As long as Dr. Harrit did not know the reviewers while they were reviewing, that is the main thing. If he knows them after the article is published and their job is done, that is fine.
That's it? The referee doesn't have to know the author. Cool. I'm going to send my paper on the perpetual motion machine to my lawyer for peer-review.
Baylor 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 20th September 2010, 01:49 AM   #216
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,632
The problems are:
a) The editor of the journal did not know the paper was published. She is the judge. If the judge never gets to make the verdict, if the defendant is realeased without court order, then the jury obviously is not cleared.
b) If the authors know the reviewers, then there is no reason why WE should not know.
c) The paper contains so many obvious flaws that it is all but incredible that any competent peer review at all has taken place
Oystein 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 20th September 2010, 01:49 AM   #217
steveDK
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5
Harrit and his referees

In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s
steveDK 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 20th September 2010, 02:16 AM   #218
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,632
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s
This is silly.
In the last few days I have read a few twoofies saying they have a source for some info but can't say which.
Smells fishy.

The paper is bad. The judge never passed a verdict.
All we have is Harrit "just saying so".
We have no reason to believe him.
Oystein 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 20th September 2010, 03:34 AM   #219
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s
To know if the article has really been reviewed, Harrit could reveal these 14 pages (without the name of reviewer of course).
Thereby we will see if the reviewer was competent in the field of explosive or nanothermite!
Of course he can do it, and he will stop the polemic. Definitively...
moorea34 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 20th September 2010, 04:05 AM   #220
Leviath
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 119
14 pages of comments to improve an article with 25 pages? Looking at the weak published version I wonder how bad the draft was.
Leviath 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 20th September 2010, 10:39 AM   #221
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
To know if the article has really been reviewed, Harrit could reveal these 14 pages (without the name of reviewer of course).
Thereby we will see if the reviewer was competent in the field of explosive or nanothermite!
Of course he can do it, and he will stop the polemic. Definitively...
If the reviewer wrote anything other than "This is the biggest pile of unsubstantiated, conspiracy-mongering crap I've ever read" then we know he or she isn't competent as a reviewer...

Seriously, griping about peer reviewers is usually an excuse for why papers aren't published. You never see it in the context of a paper that is. In this case, we know the paper is garbage, because we've all read it, and it is garbage. No need for further comment.
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 25th February 2011, 10:49 AM   #222
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
I was rehearsing at UBC last night, and to my surprise came across this flyer:

'Dr. Niels Harrit
Explosive Evidence
Science and the collapse of the three towers on 9/11

Danish Scientist, Dr. Niels Harrit, analyzed dust samples collected after the 9/11 attacks in New York.
D. Harrit's explosive findings are shocking and contradict the official explanation given to the world about how or what made the towers collapse.

Listen to Dr. Harrit speak about his findings and decide for yourself.

Thursday, Feb 24
@7pm
The Geography Building
Room 100
1984 West Mall, UBC

The event will be streaming live at
www.ustream.tv/channel/voices-for-truth

I would've gone to it and heckled him if I hadn't been otherwise occupied. But I note how the flyer downplays the connection with the 9/11 Truth movement, controlled demolition etc... and also presents the findings as Dr. Harrit's.
It doesn't even mention what his field of expertise is.....

Nice propaganda
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 25th February 2011, 12:32 PM   #223
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
I was rehearsing at UBC last night, and to my surprise came across this flyer:

'Dr. Niels Harrit
Explosive Evidence
Science and the collapse of the three towers on 9/11

Danish Scientist, Dr. Niels Harrit, analyzed dust samples collected after the 9/11 attacks in New York.
D. Harrit's explosive findings are shocking and contradict the official explanation given to the world about how or what made the towers collapse.

Listen to Dr. Harrit speak about his findings and decide for yourself.

Thursday, Feb 24
@7pm
The Geography Building
Room 100
1984 West Mall, UBC

The event will be streaming live at
www.ustream.tv/channel/voices-for-truth

I would've gone to it and heckled him if I hadn't been otherwise occupied. But I note how the flyer downplays the connection with the 9/11 Truth movement, controlled demolition etc... and also presents the findings as Dr. Harrit's.
It doesn't even mention what his field of expertise is.....

Nice propaganda
It must be this flyer you are talking about:

http://www.i11time.dk/photo/niels-ha...ource=activity

Link to the Danish truth movement.
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus 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 25th February 2011, 07:47 PM   #224
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by steveDK View Post
In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments...
IIRC...didn't Jones say they got x number of pages of notes & Griscom said he had no criticisms? Also, wasn't Griscom acknowledged in the paper which was later followed by Jones welcoming Griscom to the TM even though Jones knew full well he was a truther? Yeah...we can definitely say whatever peer review took place it wasn't anything near free of bias.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek 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 26th February 2011, 10:11 AM   #225
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Also, Dennis Rancourt (The Activist Teacher) had a back and forth with Harrit via email. I haven't gone through the emails yet, but it sounds like arguing with the "scholars" is just as fruitless as arguing with the message board rift-raft.

Quote:
After several back and forth contributions, Harrit simply quit without providing any of the extra data that he had mentioned and without answering the crux of the aluminum question. He ended with "Enough. It ends here." See last email in the main exchange.
My personal note is that Richard Gage is not included. Wonder why?
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

Last edited by grandmastershek; 26th February 2011 at 10:19 AM.
grandmastershek 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 26th February 2011, 11:03 AM   #226
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
IIRC...didn't Jones say they got x number of pages of notes & Griscom said he had no criticisms?
Here we go:

Quote:
But then Griscoms says here:

Quote:
And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions...And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! .
WTF? Well duh...wouldn't you find no fault after you gave and they succumbed to your criticisms?
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

Last edited by grandmastershek; 26th February 2011 at 11:12 AM.
grandmastershek 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 26th February 2011, 10:07 PM   #227
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
It must be this flyer you are talking about:

http://www.i11time.dk/photo/niels-ha...ource=activity

Link to the Danish truth movement.
There is a flyer on that page apparently sponsored by a canadian university, McMaster. Why on earth would a university sponsor one of the numerous truther "tours"? It seems to be a baptist university, wasn't Jones baptist?
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 27th February 2011, 08:00 AM   #228
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
There is a flyer on that page apparently sponsored by a canadian university, McMaster. Why on earth would a university sponsor one of the numerous truther "tours"? It seems to be a baptist university, wasn't Jones baptist?
I was actually having a back and forth with a certain university representative which was to host Richard Gage. What took me aback most was that they were offering CE credits for attending his presentation. I expressed my concern that no counter position was being offered.

The person was a very reliable source and confided that Gage was recommended by some reliable sources. But upon learning the nature of his presentation decided to not offer CE credits, they were making it known the university did not agree with his "opinion", and nor were they going to promote it as they would normally. He said no to the counter point presentation as they didn't want a debate and had already had people present the collapse mechanisms. Unfortunately, this person did not give me permission to reproduce the emails. I got the feeling he didn't want truthers seeing this and having the school get harassed with the usual nonsense they are known for.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek 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 27th February 2011, 10:29 AM   #229
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
I swear...I never get over the moron parade going on with "the scholars for truth". 2 planes & 3 buildings! OMG!!!!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek 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 27th February 2011, 02:59 PM   #230
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt until anyone analyzes the dust for the red chips and publishes their results in a scientific journal (because there is no way people at home can check the lab results like we can check the assumptions and math in Bazant's paper). But It has been almost two years since Harrit's paper was published and I would think that someone would try to replicate his experiments by now.
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 27th February 2011, 03:02 PM   #231
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt...
Of course...someone wrote it on the internet, must be true.

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
But It has been almost two years since Harrit's paper was published and I would think that someone would try to replicate his experiments by now.
Mark Basile allegedly confirmed it was nanothermite, not that he necessarily replicated the results. They have yet to say when, and if, he is submitting his findings to a journal. A real one would be nice.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

Last edited by grandmastershek; 27th February 2011 at 03:04 PM.
grandmastershek 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 27th February 2011, 03:07 PM   #232
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt until anyone analyzes the dust for the red chips and publishes their results in a scientific journal (because there is no way people at home can check the lab results like we can check the assumptions and math in Bazant's paper). But It has been almost two years since Harrit's paper was published and I would think that someone would try to replicate his experiments by now.
That dust was professionally analyzed by Dr. Paul Lioy, professor of occupational medicine at UMDNJ, and his results published in 2002. This work was further corroborated by the DELTA group at UC Davis. There are no suspicious materials in the dust, anywhere. Those results are unchallenged, and came out years before Harrit's paper.

If, on the other hand, you want us to challenge the specific dust samples that Harrit and Jones and the rest of those jackals have, we'd need access to those samples. Dr. Jones promised to make them available, but he has not done so, breaking his promise.

Let us also not overlook that the paper's own results prove it isn't nanothermite... or that their own hypothesis makes no sense at all.

Give these charlatans and frauds the benefit of the doubt? What doubt?

Last edited by R.Mackey; 27th February 2011 at 03:09 PM. Reason: typo
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 27th February 2011, 03:43 PM   #233
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
That dust was professionally analyzed by Dr. Paul Lioy, professor of occupational medicine at UMDNJ, and his results published in 2002. This work was further corroborated by the DELTA group at UC Davis. There are no suspicious materials in the dust, anywhere. Those results are unchallenged, and came out years before Harrit's paper.

If, on the other hand, you want us to challenge the specific dust samples that Harrit and Jones and the rest of those jackals have, we'd need access to those samples. Dr. Jones promised to make them available, but he has not done so, breaking his promise.

Let us also not overlook that the paper's own results prove it isn't nanothermite... or that their own hypothesis makes no sense at all.

Give these charlatans and frauds the benefit of the doubt? What doubt?
B.S.

Dr. Jones has made available the identity of the sources for his samples.

If they refuse to share with disingenuous people such as yourself, Mackey, it does not prove non-compliance.

If anything it reveals the integrity of their concerns.

MM
Miragememories 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 27th February 2011, 04:01 PM   #234
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If anything it reveals the integrity of their concerns.

MM
Sure it does. It appears that the good Dr. will only share his samples with people who already agree with his conclusions. Wonder why?

Quote:
Steven Jones:

Here is my recommendation: request that Mr. Corley acquire several ‘official’ WTC dust samples directly from the USGS, and scrutinize these for red/gray chips as defined in our paper. Based on our scientific team's experience, those samplings taken nearer to ‘ground zero’ will be more likely to contain larger numbers of these red/gray particles, so the ‘nearest samples’ should be sought.”
Someone rev-up the Rationalizer 6000!
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek 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 27th February 2011, 04:52 PM   #235
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Sure it does. It appears that the good Dr. will only share his samples with people who already agree with his conclusions. Wonder why?



Someone rev-up the Rationalizer 6000!
They are not his samples.

He shared his sources.

What more could you ask of him.

MM
Miragememories 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 27th February 2011, 05:23 PM   #236
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,764
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
B.S.

Dr. Jones has made available the identity of the sources for his samples.

If they refuse to share with disingenuous people such as yourself, Mackey, it does not prove non-compliance.

If anything it reveals the integrity of their concerns.

MM
There was no thermite used at the WTC, Jones made it up. If you don't comprehend the fact Jones made it up due to some political bias or insanity, you may not be a skeptic, you may not be critical thinker, you may of made a mistake coming to a skeptic forum with no evidence based support for the failed thermite lies made up by Jones and some crazy paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Jones made it up, the paper is a fraud. The dust is not thermite, the paper proved it; all you have to do is look up what thermite is, and look at the paper. The dust was not themite. Simple chemistry, but you failed to look up thermite, and use critical thinking skills to compare the woo in the paper to reality. Are you too busy to do the easy work?

If you think the paper is right, take it to a chemical engineering school, the professors will tell you it is nonsense. Are you too afraid to take it to a real chem engineer? My roommate in college is a chemical engineer, I took chemical engineering courses, but all that is need to debunk the failed paper is a grade school education, do you have that?

It is not hard, go to a school with chem engineering and get the paper authenticated. Good luck.

Last edited by beachnut; 27th February 2011 at 05:25 PM.
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 27th February 2011, 10:06 PM   #237
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What more could you ask of him.
Hahahahaha, Oh lots. Hhahahaaha, if only I could stop myself from, Hahahhahaha, laughing my tits off, I'd ask him to conduct some proper, umm, definitive, Oh Hahahahaha, tests like, umm, you know, what are they called, umm, Heehee, oh yeah, haha um, FTIR analysis or, um, XRD or something on his samples of paint adhered to steel.

Go MM! Go!
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 28th February 2011, 02:18 AM   #238
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,417
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What more could you ask of him.
That he draw conclusions that are not flatly contradicted by his data.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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, 02:19 AM   #239
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,762
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What more could you ask of him.
Have samples analysed for their constituent compounds rather than elements? By an independent lab? Have that lab send the results to a professional journal or some other agreed source for the results, to be published without the lab or the journal even knowing what the samples are supposed to be? Something along those lines.

i.e. act like a proper scientist rather than someone with an axe to grind.
GlennB is online now   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, 02:59 PM   #240
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
My opinion about Niels Harrit is that we should give him the benefit of doubt until anyone analyzes the dust for the red chips and publishes their results in a scientific journal (because there is no way people at home can check the lab results like we can check the assumptions and math in Bazant's paper).
Of course...someone wrote it on the internet, must be true.
There is actually a difference between publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal and posting something anywhere on the internet (besides the fact that Mackey might respond to your questions if you publish a peer-reviewed paper).


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
That dust was professionally analyzed by Dr. Paul Lioy, professor of occupational medicine at UMDNJ, and his results published in 2002. This work was further corroborated by the DELTA group at UC Davis. There are no suspicious materials in the dust, anywhere. Those results are unchallenged, and came out years before Harrit's paper.
"Finally, the scientists did not broach the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues. Their report does not appear to have sufficient detail to use it as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives. All their disclosures of the dust composition are partial, addressing questions about the levels of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons, but failing to provide even complete compositional analysis of elements." -911research link

Here's a link to Lioy's paper. I reached the same conclusions as 911research this time around. Furthermore when Nist admits to not searching for explosives it's easy to imagine Lioy et al not performing a full (or any) search for explosives.
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
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 11:49 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.