Discussion regarding Harrit's Bentham thermite paper...

Discussion in '9/11' started by Gamolon, Sep 30, 2016.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    First question.

    This is a link to a Steven Jones presention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQchK4X8r0

    In that presentation, Steven Jones presents a screenshot comparing the thermite spectrum to the paint spectrum that he scrapped off of some WTC steel. Below is a screenshot from the video showing that comparison:
    [​IMG]

    This is an enlarged screenshot of the paint spectrum:
    [​IMG]

    Now here is a spectrum from Harrit's Bentham paper from a chip that is supposed to be thermite:
    [​IMG]

    Why does Harrit see his chip as thermite with CA and S contamination AND no explanation for the presence of Zn and Cr, but Jones' matching spectrum was of primer paint he got off WTC steel?

    This all originated from Oystein whose blog discussing this in detail can be found here:
    http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure why you're asking posters in this forum to answer a question only Harrit and/or Jones can answer. They are the co-authors of the paper. Did you ever try e-mailing either or both with your question?
     
  3. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,035
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Hah, gamo only bounces the misinformation ball to make the public think nano thermite is a viable explanation.

    HAH! Then it turns out it only exists in very controlled laboratory conditions, if at all.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't dismiss it without forensic testing.

    Do you have anything that supports that claim?
     
  5. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    "Discussion regarding Harrit's Bentham thermite paper."

    Calling it "Harrit's" paper is misleading. He may be listed first, but it is widely known as Steven Jone's paper, implying Jones is the real driving force behind it:
    (from the web)
    "Bentham Editor Resigns over Steven Jones' Paper "
    "We should carefully elaborate the reasons why Dr. Jones et al chose Bentham, again."

    Jones possibly wants to take a back seat for a variety of reasons, including his "research" into overunity. There are actually nine scammers/fools involved:

    http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7

    Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

    As for discussion, there is no point. The Bentham paper is a fraud. It was published by a vanity press with a pay per publishing model. The only question is who of the paper's authors paid for the "review".

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

    Bentham Science Publishers straddles the fine line between "open access journal publisher" and "vanity press scam."
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vanity_publishing

    In April 2009, the Open Chemical Physics Journal published an article advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories without anyone bothering to inform the journal's editor, who promptly resigned.
    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

    This aroused the interest of the curious, and Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

    Bentham's questionable behaviour, and the extensive documentation of it, led directly to the formation of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association,which endeavours to serve as a mark of respectability in OA publishers. Not only is Bentham not a member, OASPA has blogged specifically concerning it.

    Publishing ethics, open access, and OASPA

    The recent case of a computer-generated prank paper reportedly accepted by a new open access journal, The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham Science, calls attention to the vital importance of sound and ethical editorial practice for all scholarly publishers.

    Another question: is it against forum rules to promote a known fraud/hoax?
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where does it say he "wants to take a back seat"? Last I checked he seems quite proud of his collaborative paper and I've never heard that he wants to walk away from it.

    And they are "scammers/fools" because:

    a. You decided?
    b. Because of questions concerning Bentham that has nothing to do with any of them (other than the choice of publication) or because of the subject matter of their paper?
    c. Because you don't like or disagree with the content of the paper?
    d. Other? (please state if you don't mind since you're making the "scammer/fool" claim)

    If that were true all OCT defenders would be violating that hypothetical rule. You have yet to show how or why the subject matter of the paper is a fraud/hoax, if that's your purpose. Killing the messenger (Bentham and the authors) is not it.
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey Chris.

    Since when have I EVER thought thermite was a viable explanation!?

    :roflol:

    Reading comprehension for the win. If you would have read my post THOROUGHLY you would have noticed that I am showing that Harrit and his cronies analyzed PAINT chips per the spectrum Jones posted in his presentation where he analyzed actual primer paint from off the steel. Both spectrums MATCH.

    Harrit's paper is a joke.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers



    Who's promoting a fraud?

    I am asking for those that believe in the Harrit paper to comment on the matching spectrums I presented in my first post. Proof that Harrit and his group declared paint chips as thermite.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you publish your "proof" or if you're not qualified, do you have a link to any legitimate scientific (preferably peer reviewed) paper that proves these were indeed "paint chips" and not "thermite/ate" particles?

    I found this article for you which might help in your silly fanatical quest to "debunk" every single thing that might contradict the OCT:

    How to Debunk WTC Thermite

    https://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

    Let me know if it helps.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's easy to say **** like that:

    "The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:

    Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article."


    https://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

    But proving it's a "joke" is a whole other animal. Is that your best desperation shot at "proof" via the scientific method?
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You mean you can't tell that the two spectrums in my oroginal post almost match exactly? Jones tested actual primer paint from WTC steel. That's what HIS spectrum shows. Harrit presents almost the same exact spectrum in his paper, but instead of saying it was paint like Jones did, he calls it thermite with Ca/S contamination and has no explanation for the Zn and Cr!

    What a joke!
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob,

    Does Jones primer paint spectrum:
    [​IMG]

    Almost exactly match Harrit's thermite chip that he declares is contaminated with Ca and S and is unsure why that thermite chips contains Zn and Cr:
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah yet more "proof" from an anonymous internet jockey who has no qualifications and no paper that means anything but writes a whole lotta posts desperately trying to defend the OCT and never questions any of it. Very convincing, I'm so impressed.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the link to your well researched fully supported published peer reviewed paper is? And did you send it to the Jones/Harrit team for their examination/comments? Sorry I can honestly say I'm not qualified to either support or refute their findings. You on the other hand haven't posted anything that I could reasonably call "honest".
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thanks.

    I thought so too.
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Excellent!

    You usually don't have anything to add to the discussions anyways.

    I guess we won't be seeing you in this thread anymore...
     
  17. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,035
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    And you bring it out to exercise it hoping someone will support it increasing confusion and taking up space.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too late, I already did, much more than you want to hear.

    Wishful thinking son. So no paper? I didn't think so, just a lot of worthless hot air.

    When one does not have the proper qualifications/standing, one has to rely on two extremely important factors, credibility and common sense. You lose all credibility when all you ever do is defend the OCT and question none of it, despite the overwhelming evidence that the OCT is impossible or even at the least, very, very questionable. You also lose all credibility when you attack reliable experts who contradict the OCT with NO scientifically legitimate supporting evidence. As to REAL qualified and verifiable experts who mostly corroborate and agree with each other, I may not agree with everything they have on 9/11 but I do agree with well over 95% of their research/findings. Common sense tells me the OCT is a massive fraud and anyone who has done the research (as I see you did) and spends an awful lot of time defending every minute aspect of the OCT and questions none of it is not for real. Sorry but you fall into that category.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you think the spectrum of Jones' paint chip scraped from WTC steel is a lot of hot air? It's not me debunking Harrit' claim, it's Jones!

    :roflol:

    Just look at the two spectrums presented. They match!
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never even addressed it, why are you making **** up? I was talking about you.

    Cool, so again, where is any legitimate, detailed technical scientific paper that supports your claims that the Jones/Harrit/etc. team paper is not valid? Did you email the team concerning your findings?
     
  21. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Jones, Harrit, etc and anyone here who gives the paper credence.

    I think I see what you're trying to do, but IMO is misguided. The remaining "twoofers" are not simply misinformed. They are persons with such a deep emotional investment in trutherism it is now part of their identity, rationality be damned.

    Simply presenting logical rebuttals to woo will not snap them out of it unless they're already questioning the years they've wasted pursuing conspiracy theories. OTOH highlighting the fraudulent and dishonest behaviour of the "leaders"pushing the conspiracies and how they were invented has worked in the past. No one likes a liar.

    Proceed with your social experiment if you will.
     
  22. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Well, that makes one thing we agree on. FYI, I have read truthers like "Ace Acme" vociferously denying Jones is part of the "truth" movement at this time.

    You clearly did not read one of the links. The "peer review" scam dates all the way back to the Scholars group in 2006. You can follow the trail of woo as they tried to massage the message to sell it to more science minded "twoofers".

    https://web.archive.org/web/20061123170605/http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

    Peer-Reviewed Papers
    Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
    by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. (reader comments) (EspaƱol)

    Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11
    by Joe Firmage

    Journal Of 9/11 Studies

    The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
    by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.

    Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job
    Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

    Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
    by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.


    [Note: these papers are in no way peer-reviewed as understood by scientists. Jones was lying even then.]

    The roots of Jones ideas go back to 2002 and Jone's buddy Christopher Bollyn:
    https://web.archive.org/web/2002090...s.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

    Jones started working the "theory" in 2005
    https://web.archive.org/web/20051201015606/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

    When things didn't go smoothly his buddy Fetzer had a tantrum at Wikipedia:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20061005192752/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth
    https://web.archive.org/web/20060407005920/http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scholars_for_9/11_Truth

    They were trying to sell their woo at Daily Kos, but no one was buying:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/27/182060/-

    Now all the original websites are gone and the old "peer reviewed" papers are hardly ever heard from. They can pretend the Bentham paper is the holy grail, but it's not. It's just the latest in a series of scams. And the reason no reputable scientist is going to waste time "reproducing" Jones et al "results" is because the paper was published by a fraudulent out fit. Sorry, in science the reputation fo the "messenger" does matter.

    But what you should really be asking yourself, "Bob" is why Jones a trained scientist didn't have these dust samples testing in 2005? Why did he wait so long, and then chose a shady outfit that would publish anything?

    I'll leave you with those thoughts while you attempt to answer Gams questions. Who knows maybe something positive may come of it.
     
  23. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You don't have to support or refute anything. Are the images identical or not? That's all he's asking.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You clearly didn't understand my point. I said "You have yet to show how or why the subject matter of the paper is a fraud/hoax". I am not interested in your killing the messenger tactics as you apparently are.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That goes without saying.

    He can ask any loaded question he wants. I'm not interested in **** taken out of context. If he or you have a legitimate case and he or you have the proper standing, write a legitimate and well researched scientifically valid paper explaining in detail why and how the findings in Harrit/Jones/etc. collaboration paper are not valid. Then if you are confident in your case I would expect you to present it to the authors for their review. Otherwise you have no case, just an opinion and their paper stands scientifically unchallenged.
     

Share This Page