The sad case of Niels Harrit

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth

They tested paints (youtube link).

Plus I've know a chemist for 19 years and I let her read the paper and she said it couldn't of been paint.

I would guess that a chemist has some level of education that would make them more likely to have said "couldn't have." Maybe you mis-heard the chemist.

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

Seems neither of us will convince each other then (my chemist vs. your chemist).

LOL

Originally Posted by ozeco41

A critical question is "Why are people interested in the thermXte at WTC issue?"

Thermite was the magic thingie that explained the lack of bangs from explosions. Explosives are the magic thingie that explains why onlookers weren't blinded by the white-hot glow of tons of thermite igniting. It's almost like circular logic.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I would guess that a chemist has some level of education that would make them more likely to have said "couldn't have." Maybe you mis-heard the chemist.

Er....what? Did you mean "could have"?

[carlitos]

No, even assuming that P4T's chemist exists and would disagree with your chemist, I just cannot imagine that a chemist would be unaware of the helping verb "have," and would have replaced it with "of." That sounds more like an uneducated person to me.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm getting jealous. All I have on my e-mail list are nuclear engineers and physicists.

[Telltale Tom]

What surprises me about the nano-thermite argument is how come there was so much of it. There must have been a helluva production run immediately before 9/11

Looking at the excellent paper by Harrit et al, they reported volumes on two of the four samples but the unexploded nano-thermite was 0.11% to 0.16%. i wonder why they didn't report it on the other samples, I expect they didn't like the answer.

Now the paper below estimates that there was about 100,000 tons of dust, which means that there was 110 to 160 tons of unexploded thermite.!

So considering that first the thermite survived the fires for an hour and then only a fraction of it exploded; it appears to have been a pretty useless demolition explosive. I expect that whoever came up with the idea got into trouble.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

Perhaps the real plan was to blow up the whole of downtown.!

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by carlitos

No, even assuming that P4T's chemist exists and would disagree with your chemist, I just cannot imagine that a chemist would be unaware of the helping verb "have," and would have replaced it with "of." That sounds more like an uneducated person to me.

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. Agree with the "of/have" issue, but P4T probably wasn't going for an exact quote, so I let that kind of stuff slide most of the time.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by carlitos

No, even assuming that P4T's chemist exists and would disagree with your chemist, I just cannot imagine that a chemist would be unaware of the helping verb "have," and would have replaced it with "of." That sounds more like an uneducated person to me.

I have watched the spread of the misuse of "of" for a few years. At first I thought it was only Australian teenagers who did not know better. However from evidence mostly derived from two internet forums it appears that is spreading in US and UK usage as well as AU. Not pronouncing correctly is one thing, but not even knowing what word is being mispronounced so that it goes into written form is an order of magnitude worse.

The derivation from the lazy contraction "...would've/could've..." seems obvious.

But surely "You would of thought that people would of known better."

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Telltale Tom

What surprises me about the nano-thermite argument is how come there was so much of it. There must have been a helluva production run immediately before 9/11

Looking at the excellent paper by Harrit et al, they reported volumes on two of the four samples but the unexploded nano-thermite was 0.11% to 0.16%. i wonder why they didn't report it on the other samples, I expect they didn't like the answer.

Now the paper below estimates that there was about 100,000 tons of dust, which means that there was 110 to 160 tons of unexploded thermite.!

You are making the error which many non-truthers make. You are thinking.

It's not allowed.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Originally Posted by ozeco41

A critical question is "Why are people interested in the thermXte at WTC issue?"

Thermite was the magic thingie that explained the lack of bangs from explosions. Explosives are the magic thingie that explains why onlookers weren't blinded by the white-hot glow of tons of thermite igniting. It's almost like circular logic.

Fortunately for truthers there is no need for bits of logic to fit together. So using thermite to do the cutting part without its bright glow is quite OK in "truther rationality". Compare with the alternate of silent explosives which are also acceptable in trutherdom - despite the base premise of how explosives work.

BUT neither of those claims have been published in a peer reviewed journal by someone with two doctorates and a string of published papers so they must be biased claims or.....now where was I heading

Clearly I am not cut out to be a truther.

I prefer that the two ends of my sentences can co-exist.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth

This picture is taken from Sunstealer's analysis on the thread you linked and in his signature link. Sunstealer believes that Graph A (kaolinite with gypsum) = Graph B or C (the dual-layered chips from WTC dust)
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l2...il/spectra.jpg

What's wrong with Graph A? Well for starters:
-The iron peaks are missing (3 different oxidation states); also the Sodium and Potassium peaks are missing LOL
-The spike on the far left is cropped off at the top. It could be much taller..
-No evidence to suggest the same Y-scale

Oh the ignorance. It's wonderful. People who've never seen an EDS spectra commenting on it and getting it horribly wrong.

1. Of course there is going to be Fe in the Red Layer of the chip sample and none in the Kaolinite with Gypsum because the former contains rhombohedral Fe2O3, which is in close proximity to the platelets so you aren't going to get an exact spectra even from a spot beam

Quote:

"It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles" - Niels et All, Active Thermitic Material

and the latter contains very little or no Iron.

So truthers don't understand the significance of the spectra - quell surprise.

2. Na, K are often found in Kaolinite - it's a natural mineral and trace elements are often found. Kaolinite deposits have slightly different compositions depending on geography. See 3 for why this isn't important.

3. The main reason for posting the graphs is to look at peak hight ratios between O, Si and Al.

That's why truthers don't understand and just look for similarities in spectra shape and elements present - they don't know what they are looking at.

I'll respond to other parts when I have time. Lunch for me now.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth

"The chemical composition of these two materials is similar. Notice that "kaolinite" has quite a bit of carbon and very little oxygen. In thermite you see the REVERSE, very little carbon and quite a bit of oxygen. Abundances of aluminum, silicon and iron are also WAY OFF in the "kaolinite". That's one reason it's so energetic. You don't expect this sort of energetic material to form spontaneously in a building collapse, just as you don't expect a box of matches to be the result of a forest fire." (prisonplanet forums)

Sorry I just can't resist. So he's just debunked the Harrit et al paper hasn't he? P4T can you work out why he has debunked it? No you can't you'll just open the spoiler.

In thermite you see the REVERSE, very little carbon and quite a bit of oxygen. Now look at the spectra in the paper Fig 7 - wow!

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth

"The fact that the red/gray chips are magnetic is further evidence that it is not primer paint." - Stephen Jones

Go Stevy go!

Lets answer that one with P4T's very own words and quote from Niels shall we.

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth

Iron is part of the gray layer

"the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount
of carbon." - Niels et All, Active Thermitic Material

"It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich
grains and Al/Si plate-like particles" - Niels et All, Active Thermitic Material

So why are you quoting Jones' nonsense and then posting quotes from Niels with your own words that clearly show how stupid Jones' comment is??

I have already shown you twice that the gray layer is likely to be oxidised steel. Do you think this could be magnetic?

Stop just cross posting from other forums willy nilly and think for yourself.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth

I agree that the element spectrum is less damning than the electron microscope images that show nano-technology.

"What's absent in the "kaolinite" is the presence of tiny nano-scale granules mixed in with it. Those size particles are generally not spontaneous, they're made only in labs." link
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9...oparticles.jpg

Oh for the love of god please stop posting other people's nonsense. There are two distinct particles. Hexagonal thin platelets - that's the Kaolinite. Then rhombohedral Fe2O3 - the whiter particles. These particles have been mixed together before the binder is added. That's how paint is made - the whole point is to mix the two as much as possible!

You can buy all of the material found in the sem photos off the net. They are mined or produced in industrial quantities.

There is nothing special or magical about the word nano, it simply describes size. It's a shock to ignorant truthers who don't understand - go look at some minerology web sites and learn about crystal formation, crystallography and geometry. Mother nature is quite awesome.

[KDLarsen]

Kind of amusing, it seems that Harrit has now moved away from the conventional explosives claim.

At least it hasn't made it into this blurb.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Until Harrit specifically takes back the 440,000+ pounds of explosives claim, then we must treat it as an integral part of his theory when discussing his claims, lest we leave ourselves open to a charge of withholding information.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Kind of amusing, it seems that Harrit has now moved away from the conventional explosives claim.

At least it hasn't made it into this blurb.

'Fire, says Dr. Harrit, cannot do that to a building. “All of these columns had to be cut at the same time for this phenomenon to happen,” he says.'

Groan...
Suddenly Harrit is an expert on fire science, controlled demolition, and hushaboom silent cutter charges (aka magic substance which is invoked to support this silly theory).

Wow. No wonder he retired, he's got a new career as a leading expert on, well, everything 9/11!!

Go Niels Go!

[Sunstealer]

I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below



with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

Quote:

Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice
the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red
layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination
with wallboard material.

The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=876

with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

# oysteinbookmark

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=876

with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

Good catch on this. I've often suggested that the material in question was the anti-corrosive coating applied to the steel structure during construction. NIST describes the anti corrosion coating applied to the steel beams (also used to do the infamous 600 C temperature test) in 1-3C appendix D (check around page 433). Not shockingly, the pigments listed have iron, zinc, silicon and a proprietary pigment known as Tnemec. What's further, if you compare figure D4 to the ones shown in Harrit et al, you can't even begin to think it's anything else.

[moorea34]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

...

Once again, an excellent job!

[Sunstealer]

This discovery that the chip soaked in MEK is WTC primer paint also describes why they claim to see a separation of Al and Si. What is happening is the MEK is dissolving or disrupting the "vehicle" or agents that the paint particulates are fixed in. This will allow particles of silica/quartz/talc to move away from particles of alumina or aluminates.

What they don't understand is they actually have two different red materials (red paints) and are applying the separation of individual Al/O and Si/O particulate in one material to the aluminosilicate (kaolinite) in the other!

It's lulz tastic. Just goes to show how important materials characterisation is - I've been banging on about how the MEK sample is not the same as the DSC samples a-d and this has proved me right.

How can they be so incompetent to claim that all the chips in their sample are the same and therefore thermite when they clearly analysed two distinct and different sets of sample?

They had red tnemec primer paint all along but didn't recognise it! Muppets.



And the truthers lap it up!

[ElMondoHummus]

Very well done, Sunstealer. This is an example of the best that this subforum can offer. And as has been said before, it's further proof that the Bentham paper's own data contradicts the authors' conclusions.

Thanks, Sunstealer.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

They had red tnemec primer paint all along but didn't recognise it! Muppets.

I once had a professor who told us that spending 2 months in the lab would save us 2 hours in the library. I guess to scale that back down to truther level, spending 2 minutes in the library would have saved them 3 years worth of silliness.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Very well done, Sunstealer. This is an example of the best that this subforum can offer. And as has been said before, it's further proof that the Bentham paper's own data contradicts the authors' conclusions.

Thanks, Sunstealer.

And that's the sweet beauty of it; the more data that the fool Jones produces the further he debunks his and Harrit's paper and his ludicrous claims.

It's particularly juicy because in his own presentation he quotes the EDX spectra from the WTC dust samples for kaolin with gypsum (obviously my analysis has gotten around!) yet singularly misses the point with regard to peak height ratios of Si, Al and O and why they are applicable to the platelets observed in samples a-d in his own paper - which is the whole point. He proves he cannot read EDX spectra! He only concentrates upon which elements are present, yet as he twitters on, he fails to realise that the spectra obtained from WTC primer paint collected from the "Clarkson University 911 memorial" is actually of the same composition as the chip soaked in MEK as evidenced by Fig 14 in the same paper that he is quoting data from!

It's hilarious.

His graphic says "Red material is NOT like primer paint!" Unfortunately he doesn't understand that the samples (a-d in the paper) he is comparing this to certainly aren't WTC primer paint. However, what he doesn't understand is that the chip subjected to MEK soaking IS WTC primer paint as evidenced by his new data! Yet in the paper he backs, he's fully convinced that the "MEK chip" is thermite! LOL.

It's made my day.

Thanks Anders I owe you one!

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

And that's the sweet beauty of it; the more data that the fool Jones produces the further he debunks his and Harrit's paper and his ludicrous claims.

It's particularly juicy because in his own presentation he quotes the EDX spectra from the WTC dust samples for kaolin with gypsum (obviously my analysis has gotten around!) yet singularly misses the point with regard to peak height ratios of Si, Al and O and why they are applicable to the platelets observed in samples a-d in his own paper - which is the whole point. He proves he cannot read EDX spectra! He only concentrates upon which elements are present, yet as he twitters on, he fails to realise that the spectra obtained from WTC primer paint collected from the "Clarkson University 911 memorial" is actually of the same composition as the chip soaked in MEK as evidenced by Fig 14 in the same paper that he is quoting data from!

It's hilarious.

His graphic says "Red material is NOT like primer paint!" Unfortunately he doesn't understand that the samples (a-d in the paper) he is comparing this to certainly aren't WTC primer paint. However, what he doesn't understand is that the chip subjected to MEK soaking IS WTC primer paint as evidenced by his new data! Yet in the paper he backs, he's fully convinced that the "MEK chip" is thermite! LOL.

It's made my day.

Thanks Anders I owe you one!

You should be congratulated for your yeoman efforts on this. I stand in awe of your ability to unwind the many, many, many layers of incompetence and stupidity in this paper. Bravo, sir!

[Fizzard]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

But at 4:36 Jones says that the primer paint soaked in MEK solvent became very limp, whereas his MEK-soaked red chip swelled up but remained hard. What's the deal with that?

[TSR]

.
Does anyone know the EDX spectra for Vialis?
.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Fizzard

But at 4:36 Jones says that the primer paint soaked in MEK solvent became very limp, whereas his MEK-soaked red chip swelled up but remained hard. What's the deal with that?

Unsure - the problem is Jones isn't converse with correct material's terminology so it's difficult to know exactly what he is inferring. He's also very sloppy so that doesn't help either and nor does he show this evidence, even in his lecture - he just states it.

An example of this is at 4.40 (yes you've forced me to listen to it again - it's painful). At 4.40 he shows a slide

Quote:

Soaking chip in strong paint solvent MEK, chip does NOT dissolve. No ZINC and now this.

Yet the very chip he is talking about does contain Zinc as evidenced by his own data - Fig 14!

I like that slide. On the left is Fig 13 from the paper on the right is??? The same thing? WTC primer paint??

Transcript

Quote:

Here's an example of one of these red chips, it swells up but it's still hard. When I soaked the primer paint in MEK, which is a solvent methyl ethyl ketone, the paint became very limp, you can do this experiment.......

From the paper (remember that the paint in the paper is from BYU stadium not WTC Primer paint.

Quote:

2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent

By employing some means to separate the different components of the material, the chemical compositions of the different particles in the red layer were more accurately determined. The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK. It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form.

The chip that was used for this experiment was extracted from dust sample 2 and is shown in the images below. Fig. (12a) shows an SE image of the chip prior to the MEK treatment. It is positioned with the interface between the red and gray layers nearly parallel to the plane of the image. Fig. (12b) shows a BSE image of the chip after the MEK soak.

Note that the chip fractured during the MEK treatment and handling. In this image the red layer and gray layer are side by side so that the interface between the layers is edge-on (perpendicular to the plane of the image) with the gray layer on the right. The red layer of the chip was found, by visual inspection, to have swelled out from the gray layer by a factor of roughly 5 times its original thickness. The photomicrograph shown in Fig. (13) also shows the chip after the MEK soak. The red layer can be seen extending out from the gray layer.

Quote:

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?

Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

Mmmm - silicon rich matrix, that's BS, however it does say "hard". The MEK chip swelled and fractured when handled which may indicate it was brittle thus inferring hardness but we just can't tell. The chip was dried for several days. Was it "limp" before drying? Did the sample break when limp or hard? What condition is Jones describing the limpness of the primer paint sample in, dry or wet?

Who knows - it's inconclusive. However, we can be sure that the hard data shows how limp their argument is.

I'm sure when they start publishing more data that data will further debunk their claims.

[alienentity]

Something tells me they won't be publishing much more data. I suspect any further testing has already shown them that they have nothing, and they're not in a rush to release this damaging info.

It's already been a good while since their first efforts, plenty of time to do follow-up reports. Why haven't they done this?

Harrit is going around peddling his 'expert' opinion based on version 1.0 of the research, published in a dubious journal. That's all he's got - but I think that's all these snake-oil salesmen need to keep the circus going.

[alienentity]

On a more positive note, the 9/11 Truth movement, circa 2011 has, as its leading 'scientific' propositions:

1) one inconclusive paper published by people who are not experts on the subject
2) various pulsating gifs of Femr2 and Achimspok signifying nothing
3) Can't think of anything else worth mentioning

Total impact on the scientific and engineering community (where it would actually amount to something) - ZERO

Politically the movement may be alive, mainly as a Zombie Doctrine, but scientifically it is dead. Just dead is all.

[Fizzard]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Something tells me they won't be publishing much more data. I suspect any further testing has already shown them that they have nothing, and they're not in a rush to release this damaging info.

Well, they're certainly in no rush to disclose their x-ray diffraction findings. At 5:36 in the above-linked YouTube video, Jones mentions that he's started "in earnest" an XRD study of the red chips. Finally, I thought, something that may show once and for all what these chips are really made of. Then I realized that the lecture was recorded back in November of 2009, as part of the "Hard Evidence Tour Down Under". A year and 4 months later, we haven't heard a further peep about the XRD analysis.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Fizzard

Well, they're certainly in no rush to disclose their x-ray diffraction findings. At 5:36 in the above-linked YouTube video, Jones mentions that he's started "in earnest" an XRD study of the red chips. Finally, I thought, something that may show once and for all what these chips are really made of. Then I realized that the lecture was recorded back in November of 2009, as part of the "Hard Evidence Tour Down Under". A year and 4 months later, we haven't heard a further peep about the XRD analysis.

Yep, I would expect XRD analysis to take days especially with modern computer methods. The slide shows Debye Scherrer method which produces rings on a strip of film which can then be indexed to determine lattice parameters.

Blimey - that has taken me back almost 20 years! That was the last time I indexed one of those. There's a method to it.

http://www.matter.org.uk/diffraction...er_pattern.htm

Shame there wasn't a graphical representation, we may have gleaned some info from it.

[ImANiceGuy]

Sunstealer, thanks for your detailed explanations easily understood by a layman.

I have done a fair bit of research into this paper, the 'great thermite debate' and Prof Jones from a Truther perspective. The more information you get(if you're willing to accept new information), the more you realize that Jones' work is self-debunking ,and that is the most polite description possible.

As Sunstealer has pointed out, many many times(enough to justify posting thread links, imo) Jones provides enough data within his paper to debunk the conclusions. It's like science irony.

I wholly reject this paper, and therefore refuse to debate the contents, for these two simple reasons:

A) Jones has had ample opportunity to share his samples and have his experiments replicated, duplicated, falsified, whatever. Jones' dishonest nature is easily revealed (to anyone still thinking that he is a earnest scientist) by asking themselves: Why would someone so invested in proving the CD theory not take action to have their evidence verified conclusively?

Jones has two hypothetical choices each day.

1)He could choose to independantly verify his results. This could blow the lid off the whole thing tomorrow(maybe...for arguments sake); the implications of such a conspiracy uncovered would have global consequences.

2)Alternatively, Jones could chose(as he does every day) to keep his samples to himself so no progress is ever made.

Jones make the latter choice each time because there is no real progress to be made; only further obfuscation which, imo, serves to extend the life of his lecture tour.

B) They published in Bentham, which almost serves as immediate invalidation of their paper. Fellow Truthers, please suspend, for a minute, everything you have read from both truthers and debunkers regarding the il/legitimacy of Bentham Journals. Just ask yourself; If Jones had actually made the most important discovery of our lifetimes, why would he pay to have a paper published in a little-known journal not fully recognized by the scientific community? I thought the main purpose of publishing findings was to validate and share new information. Why would Jones chose to publish the 'most important finding ever with the most far-reatching implications ever' in a journal that not many people read and that would forever cast doubt on their findings?

If he wanted validation, he would have absolutely published with a respectable journal. This is not an attack on Bentham, since they're not respected. Sure, you can find a few scientists who will tell you that the open-concept journal has its place. In my opinion, it is a place of business well before science.

Based on these two, easy-to-grasp reasons, I can avoid wasting anymore time on this subject and we haven't even opened the paper; it only gets worse. If this paper had been peer-reviewed, would chemists like Sunstealer be able to point out so many errors, so quickly?

Fellow Truthers; Please be careful and always question the source...many people sell the 'Truth', but the 'Truth', is just a widget, not necessarily the facts. A fool and their money are soon parted....

In conclusion, Jones is a success in his current field. However, he is no longer a professional scientist, he is a professional entertainer. I bet he makes more now than he did then: Has anyone looked at his tax filings? Thermite is a sexy CT to sell, and will draw bigger crowds then a lecture on foreknowledge and the cover-up.

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth

link

Good! You linked to Prison Planet forum! Where the next message in the thread that you linked says how debunkers are paid disinfo agents!

That and they love to criticize us "debunkers" and talk about how we're "scum" yet when someone like me comes along and tries to show a picture of plane parts scattered around the outside of the Pentagon, I'm thrown off the forum and told to never come back!!



I always thought it was interesting how everyone there agrees with each other. It's because those who disagree, or those who want to make an effort to provide constructiveness to the conversation, are immediately ejected from the forum.

Yes, Patriots, such wonderful facts they're providing!

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

Just ask yourself; If Jones had actually made the most important discovery of our lifetimes, why would he pay to have a paper published in a little-known journal not fully recognized by the scientific community? .

I've heard this somewhere before.




Anyway, where does this leave you in regards to CD?

BTW: Good post.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

Sunstealer, thanks for your detailed explanations easily understood by a layman.

I have done a fair bit of research into this paper, the 'great thermite debate' and Prof Jones from a Truther perspective. The more information you get(if you're willing to accept new information), the more you realize that Jones' work is self-debunking ,and that is the most polite description possible.

As Sunstealer has pointed out, many many times(enough to justify posting thread links, imo) Jones provides enough data within his paper to debunk the conclusions. It's like science irony.

I wholly reject this paper, and therefore refuse to debate the contents, for these two simple reasons:

A) Jones has had ample opportunity to share his samples and have his experiments replicated, duplicated, falsified, whatever. Jones' dishonest nature is easily revealed (to anyone still thinking that he is a earnest scientist) by asking themselves: Why would someone so invested in proving the CD theory not take action to have their evidence verified conclusively?

Jones has two hypothetical choices each day.

1)He could choose to independantly verify his results. This could blow the lid off the whole thing tomorrow(maybe...for arguments sake); the implications of such a conspiracy uncovered would have global consequences.

2)Alternatively, Jones could chose(as he does every day) to keep his samples to himself so no progress is ever made.

Jones make the latter choice each time because there is no real progress to be made; only further obfuscation which, imo, serves to extend the life of his lecture tour.

B) They published in Bentham, which almost serves as immediate invalidation of their paper. Fellow Truthers, please suspend, for a minute, everything you have read from both truthers and debunkers regarding the il/legitimacy of Bentham Journals. Just ask yourself; If Jones had actually made the most important discovery of our lifetimes, why would he pay to have a paper published in a little-known journal not fully recognized by the scientific community? I thought the main purpose of publishing findings was to validate and share new information. Why would Jones chose to publish the 'most important finding ever with the most far-reatching implications ever' in a journal that not many people read and that would forever cast doubt on their findings?

If he wanted validation, he would have absolutely published with a respectable journal. This is not an attack on Bentham, since they're not respected. Sure, you can find a few scientists who will tell you that the open-concept journal has its place. In my opinion, it is a place of business well before science.

Based on these two, easy-to-grasp reasons, I can avoid wasting anymore time on this subject and we haven't even opened the paper; it only gets worse. If this paper had been peer-reviewed, would chemists like Sunstealer be able to point out so many errors, so quickly?

Fellow Truthers; Please be careful and always question the source...many people sell the 'Truth', but the 'Truth', is just a widget, not necessarily the facts. A fool and their money are soon parted....

In conclusion, Jones is a success in his current field. However, he is no longer a professional scientist, he is a professional entertainer. I bet he makes more now than he did then: Has anyone looked at his tax filings? Thermite is a sexy CT to sell, and will draw bigger crowds then a lecture on foreknowledge and the cover-up.

Excellent post - I am pleasantly surprised. This deserves quoting in full, as you put a new twist on a good summary!

[LashL]

Several posts on the topic of "Fission in NYC on 9/11" have been split to a separate thread here.

Posted By:LashL

[TruthMakesPeace]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons![/i]
"Hundreds of tons", got that P4T?
This is less than a half ton going off.

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed ejection of steel girders and pulverization of concrete at the WTCs.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by cicorp

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed explosions of the WTCs.

This is correct.
In fact, 0 explosives are necessary for the observed explosions of the WTCs.

However, Niels Harrit concluded that hundreds of tons of thermitic materials would have to be present based on his research, which did not involve analysis of any supposed observed "explosions" at all.
Are you saying that Niels Harrit's research and science is flawed, and his results erroneous?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by cicorp

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed ejection of steel girders and pulverization of concrete at the WTCs.

Since the amount estimated is zero, that's not possible.

Dave

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by cicorp

Awesome videos of explosives, indicating that a smaller amount than estimated would have been necessary for the observed ejection of steel girders and pulverization of concrete at the WTCs.

Could you explain how steel cutting explosives could cause ejection of steel girders?