Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Wow, red paint blew up the WTC that’s a new one.
Apparently the Truth to 911 is a threat to National Security and I wouldn’t be surprised that some of these same old wannabe debunkers are on a government payroll, (hired key board Ops) there certainly appears to be a familiar pattern of these same debunkers who show up in every 911 thread spouting that there is no conspiracy in 911 and the OS is absolutely true. The same old tired debunkers giving the same old tired nonsense that all Truthers believe in 911 holograms, lasers from out space, space aliens did 911, hush-a-boom explosives, and all websites against the OS proven lies are all disinformation websites. Looks to me that these few debunkers are only trying reach out to the most ignorant and newbie’s who’ve never research 911 on ATS.

The fact is any fifth grader can spend a few hours on Google search engine and see the mountains of evidence that the OS is all hogwash.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by budaruskie

Pointing out that someone is spreading lies isn't name calling. It's pointing out that someone is spreading lies. Propagating the claim that Harrit said the materials he found had something to do with the reason for why the towers collapsed is spreading lies, whether you with to acknowledge the fact or not.

If you don't appreciate that others are pointing out that you're spreading lies, then don't spread lies. It ain't a trick question.


Anyone reading the above nonsense that said scientist who’ve found scientific evidence of chemical compounds and particles of materials under electronic microscope and recorded their tests and results, and the discoveries that have gone through lengthy critical peer review, and the fact is Jones had to repeat some of his own tests to satisfy other scientists who had questions in order to satisfy the peer review process of Jones Journal.
However, the very few aggressive debunkers in this thread who have made claims that Jones peer review report is a lie and have called Jones and his team of scientist liars have never proven any of thier accusation against Jones or that his science is flawed.


If you don't appreciate that others are pointing out that you're spreading lies, then don't spread lies. It ain't a trick question.


The level of personal attacks and lies spun against anyone who supports Jones science is disgustingly alarming considering that none of you debunkers have ever proven your case against Jones or his Journal. Your “opinions” are not the facts.

A few of you debunkers have cooked up questions like:


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by zimishey


Many things can cut steel. There is just no evidence for any of them being used during the collapse of the towers.
In many threads and posts I have explained the errors in the Jones paper. I have explained the errors in interpretation of the results. The energetics alone show that there is too much energy present for thermite and any combination of thermite and high explosive. The photos show that the super-nano-thermite self extinguished and didn't completely burn even when held in an oven above its ignition point.
Jones may have convinced himself that red paint is thermite but he hasn't proposed how it was used, what its effects were, how it was placed, where it was placed, or why 10-100 tons of it were unburned.

Jones' claims are unsupported by evidence and he is unable to offer any theory on the use and effect of the paint


I have questioned this poster to back up his opinions with some science to his claims and the fact is he never has. I want to remind the casual ATS reader that anyone can make claims, but can we back up our claims?

The fact is there is a particular member who has spent over two years trying to debunk Steven Jones and I have yet to see him supply any “real science” to back his claims against Jones and his peer review journal, all I have seen are his opinions nothing more.

No one, not even a Scientist anywhere in the world has written a peer review paper discrediting Jones Journal.

The fact is we have a few bloggers on ATS who spend 24/7 discrediting every piece of evidence and science only by spewing “nonsensical opinions” straw man arguments, and making false allegation that they have debunked credible science ( by given their opinions only.)
Always remember to consider the source when information has been presented and the information is only as good as its source.

I will now await the personal attacks by the very opinionated posters who claims cannot be proven.
edit on 9-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Jones had to repeat some of his own tests to satisfy other scientists who had questions in order to satisfy the peer review process of Jones Journal




Jones and the peer review process at the Jones Journal.

Please. It hurts.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Jones' paper provides all the information needed. I have used his published "opinions" to show his errors and false conclusions. I do not have a sample of the chips to analyze or a charge number to analyze them. After seeing the evidence as presented in the Jones paper and Henryco's work, it would be a waste of instrument time and labor hours to analyze the chips even if a sample was available.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




Jones' paper provides all the information needed. I have used his published "opinions" to show his errors and false conclusions.


Hmmm, and your scientific evidence to prove Jones false conclusions are what again?



I do not have a sample of the chips to analyze or a charge number to analyze them.


Then you are not qualified to be givien a professional opinion until you have done the proper scientific testing to show your test results and show what your professional background and credentials to why everyone should believe you and your opinions.
We would like to see a paper describing every test you have done against Jones science and explain in detail each test and their final results. If you cannot do any such test then, you have proved nothing and only given a “bias opinions” against Jones test results.
When I say “bias opinions” I am talking about you showing a genuine dislike against Jones personally, as it has been demonstrated repeatedly.


After seeing the evidence as presented in the Jones paper and Henryco's work, it would be a waste of instrument time and labor hours to analyze the chips even if a sample was available


Why, because reanalyzing the tests might prove your opinions are wrong.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme
 



Jones had to repeat some of his own tests to satisfy other scientists who had questions in order to satisfy the peer review process of Jones Journal




Jones and the peer review process at the Jones Journal.

Please. It hurts.


Way to step up to the plate there, hooper. You really put impressme in his place.

Not sure how anyone could argue against a comment like yours.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by zimishey
I did share with you about my Chemistry knowledge experience, but you haven't answered my question regarding your experience? Any reason?


Yes, mainly because you didn't ask me about my chemistry background. I have zero background, but I don't see how this matters one way or the other as I don't object to Harrit discovering aluminum and runt particles in the debris field because the towers were gigantic natural sources of aluminum and rust. I can also guarantee that Harrit likewise found a gigantic volume of glass particles and sheet rock residue, but he doesn't mention this because he can't make broken glass and sheet rock sound like something sinister.

Since you're a chemist, let me ask you- according to the conspiracy people, there's a law in chemistry that says that when a building made out of steel collapses, all the rust within the building needs to evaporate like water, leaving only the rust left behind by sinister conspiracies intact. Please explain that one to me.

You conspiracy people are simply milking this drivel to advance your own paranoia mongoring agenda. You know that and so do I.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Anyone reading the above nonsense that said scientist who’ve found scientific evidence of chemical compounds and particles of materials under electronic microscope and recorded their tests and results, and the discoveries that have gone through lengthy critical peer review, and the fact is Jones had to repeat some of his own tests to satisfy other scientists who had questions in order to satisfy the peer review process of Jones Journal.
However, the very few aggressive debunkers in this thread who have made claims that Jones peer review report is a lie and have called Jones and his team of scientist liars have never proven any of thier accusation against Jones or that his science is flawed.


Anyone reading the above nonsense that said I'm griping about Harrit's findings will recognize the rationale of a mindless religious zealot who only sees what he himself wants to see. I have mentioned repeatedly that I don't object to Harrit's/Jones' report because all it says is that they found aluminum and rust particles in the debris field, both of which were found in the buildings in huge quantities and both of which are thermitic. What I object to is the outright dishonest claim that what they found was actually thermite and that it was responsible for the collapse of the towers. The report says nothing about this and this is your own reinventive interpretation. If you attempt to refute any of this, you will be lying.


The level of personal attacks and lies spun against anyone who supports Jones science is disgustingly alarming considering that none of you debunkers have ever proven your case against Jones or his Journal. Your “opinions” are not the facts.


It is not an opinion that the towers were gigantic sources of aluminum and rust and it is not an opinion that said alimunum and rust would be found in the debris field. It is fact. You just don't want to acknowledge the fact because you know there's no way you can continue to milk this whole "thermitic material" for your perverse conspiracy mongoring any longer. If you attempt to refuse any of THAT, you will be lying.

Your own fellow conspiracy proponents here (I.E. Bonez) have already renounced you for your mindless devotion to every fringe conspriacy claim however absurd it sounds, as it's making them look like crackpots by association. Who should any of us take you seriously when they don't? We see right away how little credibility you have when you're even resorting to bickering over the towers being built out of steel and aluminum.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You keep missing the point. I use the information Jones provided in his paper to review it for content. If that is not science, then what Jones did is not science. I don't need to waste time and money acquiring samples and analyzing them. Based on Jones work, I will only find paint. If he shows me something unusual, I would consider doing the analyses off the books and after hours. Jones failed to make his case and hasn't answered his critics for two years after saying that he was doing more experiments. I wonder what he discovered when he did more experiments. Harrit's comment about CD is unsupported by any evidence, including the discovery of red paint chips on gray iron oxide.
I regularly review submitted papers for several primary chemistry and chemical engineering journals and that is why I can tell you that this would have never been published, as written, in a quality journal. There are too many errors, assumptions, inconsistencies and unjustified conclusions. The claim that this was peer reviewed by analytcal chemists is a bad joke. Jones set out to prove something he wanted to be true and that biased his entire paper from the start. Any good editor would have sent him a "thank you, please rewrite and resubmit" letter after a quick read.
Jones theory, whatever it is, that implies that thermite was somehow involved in the collapse of the towers is unfounded. Thermite effects cannot be timed to milliseconds. All that could have been done would have been to initiate collapse with a single charge or set of charges. Who would have placed it/them and where is problematic. Visual evidence of that mass of material igniting would have been apparent, super-nano or regular, and none was seen.
There is no evidence for thermite of any sort being used in the collapse of the WTC.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Jones' paper provides all the information needed. I have used his published "opinions" to show his errors and false conclusions.

Hmmm, and your scientific evidence to prove Jones false conclusions are what again?


No answer, no scientific report, nothing. All we get from you is I have solved the WTC dust sample testing report without testing the dust samples, and I know what Steven Jones thinks, I read all scientist minds, I know if they want to be famous and want public attention, I know why Jones science came out the way it did because Jones wished it to come out that way. I don’t have to prove anything and my opinions are above science.
This is how you come across.


I know anyone reading the nonsense you spew against Jones and his Journal, one has to wander why you do not answer given questions. This little debate has been a one way conversation with me and a brick wall.


You keep missing the point. I use the information Jones provided in his paper to review it for content. If that is not science, then what Jones did is not science. I don't need to waste time and money acquiring samples and analyzing them.


Opinions, assumptions, speculations are not science. You cannot even do a paper on the science and have other scientist critique your work, which speaks volumes about you and your opinions. Yet you want everyone to take you serious on a conspiracy website without any real scientific evidence, just your “unproven opinions” and nothing more.


edit on 10-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Anyone reading the above nonsense that said I'm griping about Harrit's findings will recognize the rationale of a mindless religious zealot who only sees what he himself wants to see. I have mentioned repeatedly that I don't object to Harrit's/Jones' report because all it says is that they found aluminum and rust particles in the debris field, both of which were found in the buildings in huge quantities and both of which are thermitic. What I object to is the outright dishonest claim that what they found was actually thermite and that it was responsible for the collapse of the towers. The report says nothing about this and this is your own reinventive interpretation. If you attempt to refute any of this, you will be lying.


If anyone is making “dishonest claims” it is you, and to prove you are making up garbage is easy, because you are making accusation against science without showing any scientific evidence to back your ridiculous claims, it is that simple.
We don’t need to talk down and insult people intelligent to prove a point now, do we?

Apparently you do not even understand the science; you are only cheerleading and manipulating pteridine questions and answers.

edit on 10-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Possibly you didn't understand my previous post or just don't like the conclusions I arrive at. With your tradition of denial and rejection of logic, you are the poster child for the truther movement.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

...It's an open admission he wants to believe there's a connection but not even he can back the claim up with anything. From here on in, everything else is speculation and/or outright make believe.


Perhaps the reason for this is because like 90% of the debris was shipped out of the country almost immediately. Imagine what they would have found if we followed the law and kept the debris, and how you Dave's would be grasping at even smaller straws.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


??????

Where did you pull this little nugget from?


You mean the debris that was being cleared for months after 9/11, sent to Fresh Kills Landfill and then sorted and picked to be saved for later investigation? Where did you get this nonsense that it was shipped out lightning fast? Lemmie guess, a TM site.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


well then why didnt they look for explosives? Imagine if the "truther" drs. Had the steel and debris... Since the gov didnt look for explosives... Do u get me now?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Possibly you didn't understand my previous post or just don't like the conclusions I arrive at. With your tradition of denial and rejection of logic, you are the poster child for the truther movement.


Your conclusions? How about your opinions.

My tradition of denial and rejection of logic? Of what, your unproven absurd opinions? Yeah, and you’re the poster child for the OS believers.

Possibly you didn't understand my previous post, I asked you to show your science. Don’t be angry at me or Jones because you don’t like his scientific findings.

Your persistence of trying to fool everyone with meaningless questions that you cannot even answer by showing scientific evidence, only shows how desperate and lame your debunking skills really are. Waiting for your next insult, because that is all you can do at this point. You cannot prove your allegations against Jones, or his science. All you can do is spam the same regurgitated nonsense that “I have proved Jones is wrong.”



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

If anyone is making “dishonest claims” it is you, and to prove you are making up garbage is easy, because you are making accusation against science without showing any scientific evidence to back your ridiculous claims, it is that simple.



Good grief, it's like you're living in your own hallucinated world. all right, please point out for me exactly what "accusations against science" I'm making. If it's that easy then it should take you but a moment to show the whole world how I'm making dishonest claims. Just one. Any one will do. For your sake I hope you can, becuase I'm archiving this post and I'll be asking you to back the accusation up for infinity until you do.

Do you even actually read my posts, dude?



Apparently you do not even understand the science; you are only cheerleading and manipulating pteridine questions and answers.


No I'm not. I'm pointing out that steel rusts, and you know full well why I'm pointing it out- it means that the rust Harrit found was certainly from the building itself and you won't be able to use this bit to peddle your conspiracy stories anymore. It's just that you have such outer space blind devotion to these ridiculous conspiracy stories that you're have to resort to argue over idiotic things out of desperation like whether steel rusts. So, go ahead and show how I'm arguing against science by stating that steel rusts.

Incredible. Just incredible.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


They did check for explosives. They never saw or discovered any evidence of blasted steel, or any blast marks. NIST mentions this as well. No evidence of explosives.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
Perhaps the reason for this is because like 90% of the debris was shipped out of the country almost immediately. Imagine what they would have found if we followed the law and kept the debris, and how you Dave's would be grasping at even smaller straws.


Incorrect. Every scrap of steel recovered from the WTC complex was brought out to a site at Fresh Kills on Staten Island, where they sorted out everything larger than the size of a dime. A quick Google search brought this web site up:

Images from the Fresh Kills processing center

Those damned fool conspiracy web sites you frequent never told you that, did they?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElBraapo
I'm not trying to be insulting, but this 911 stuff drives me a little bit crazy. You don't have to be a wizard to know what brought down the buildings.. Dude, it was a couple of huge jets, loaded to the gills with jet fuel. Sometimes, there is no conspiracy. The truth is right there, like it or not. Some crazed extremists carried out their very well thought out plot and destruction ensued. IMO.
edit on 8-3-2011 by ElBraapo because: content


10,000 gallons is LOADED TO THE GILLS when in actuality it was only 40% of the fuel capacity.

The 10,000 gallons was 34 tons but then people don't want to know how many tons of steel were on each level of the towers within 10 stories of the impact. We can't figure out how much steel had to weaken in less then TWO HOURS if we don't even know how much steel was there.

Belief in the Official Story depends on people being STUPID!

Duh, the planes did it so that is all that matters. DUH!

psik



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

10,000 gallons is LOADED TO THE GILLS when in actuality it was only 40% of the fuel capacity.

The 10,000 gallons was 34 tons but then people don't want to know how many tons of steel were on each level of the towers within 10 stories of the impact. We can't figure out how much steel had to weaken in less then TWO HOURS if we don't even know how much steel was there.

Belief in the Official Story depends on people being STUPID!

Duh, the planes did it so that is all that matters. DUH!



I see you are still complaining about no one telling you the the amount of steel on each floor. If you were to know the amount of steel, what would that do for you? You don't know the amount of combustible office materials present nor the quantity other heat sinks that would dissipate thermal energy, such as the gypsum to anhydrite conversion of drywall components. You don't know how many interior columns were damaged or the location and intensity of the fire with time. How will your calculations take these unknowns into account? You could do a sensitivity study with various amounts of fuel and steel to see what might be in the range you are interested in as a start.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join