Comment: LOL

(See in situ)


I love the hyphens, that way you can say the word and not say the word right?

Lets go line by line. take on one of the primere chemists and nano-technology experts in the world, who have concluded to the contrary, with peer reviewed refutations?

This has never happened. Maybe in your mind it did, but every materials scientist (technically, you don't want a chemist for this) that has looked at the Harrt et al paper has declared is to be bunk. In fact, that's the point of going to an independent lab. After an independent lab replicated the tests, and did the tests which Harrit failed to do (Really? No FTIR? I'm a gas technologist and I would've done that), he was disproven. THAT IS WHAT PEER REVIEW IS. Bentham is a pay to play journal, not a real peer reviewed journal. The point of publishing in scientific journals is that crappy work is shown and disputed... exactly as happened. Obviously you failed to read the research summary.

Why don't you take this up with Niels Harret as opposed to referring to a government-paid "debunking" site like James Randi.

Why would I do this when his work has been publicly debunked and presented formally?

So are you going to ignore that about 150 firefighters and first responders and other individuals like William Rodriguez reported BIG explosions...some even BEFORE the first plane impact?

Sounds like you don't want to discuss that the "thermitic" material was actually paint primer. Reported explosions have nothing to do with the fact that the Harris et al paper is total bunk and that there is no physical evidence of nano-thermite.

Are you going to ignore the fact that NIST said they did not test for explosives or incendiary devices (although Federal law mandated that they should), even in the presence of molten metal reports, steel beams reported by FEMA to look like swiss cheese, and iron microspheres scattered ubiquitously throughout WTC dust?

Are you going to ignore the fact that there are a bajillion causes for iron microspheres and that they occur from things like friction and relatively low temperatures? Although humorously, this is totally irrelevant to the topic of whether or not Gage discovered thermite on site.

Are you going to ignore the legion vidoegraphic evidence that show the eyewitness account in explosions in real time right before your very eyes?

Were these the explosions that happened after impact or before, and do they all 100% agree? Because there's a few hundred thousand people that didn't hear them. Of course, it's still totally irrelevant to the point: Gage didn't discover any thermitic material.

Are you going to please explain as to how two 110 story towers which contained 200,000 tons of steel and concrete each, plus many more tons of FF&E & office cubicles, HVAC systems, elevator cars, electrical substations...are you going to please explain as to how that was all ground to dust in a matter of minutes??

You realize it wasn't at all ground to dust right? Like you do understand that? There was dust, but there were also HUGE steel beams, and plenty of photographic evidence of that fact?

I mean, if you're going to just ignore physical evidence and make things up, that's cool, but realize then we're outside the role of scientific inquiry and are now standing on, "I'M MAD AND WANT IT TO BE MY WAY" territory. I suggest a spanking from mother and to be quiet until the grown ups are done talking.

Still looking for the refutation of the paper which clearly shows no thermitic material as well as the mistakes in Harrit's method.

Eric Hoffer