Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
Slarti: “even if the towers were packed to the ceilings with super-duper-ultra thermite (it explodes, it burns, it slices, it dices… 😉 ) there’s no scientific reason to think that it had something to do with the collapse – this is certainly relevant to our argument.”
Of course not; and I’m sure James Joule called you from the grave to personally confirm this as well.
Slarti: When the paper was published is only important insofar as there is new information available which affects its conclusions.
Aether doesn’t exist.
Slarti: The Harrit paper doesn’t provide any information which effects the analysis of what work was done by manufactured thermitic materials in the collapse
It also didn’t discuss the masturbatory habits of Spider Monkeys; your point?
Slarti: Peer review isn’t a magical imprimatur which puts a paper’s credibility beyond question – not all peer-review processes are equally stringent.
Let’s save us a bunch of time; if you’re going to attack the paper on the basis of something outside of the content of the paper, then DO SO WITH SPECIFICITY. Enough with the innuendo crap; it’s getting old.
Slarti: “The paper gives evidence that the samples might be super-thermite. It in no way addresses the question of whether or not it could be something else.”
The paper shows it is in fact the hoof of a zebra.
Slarti: They didn’t attempt to rule out (or even consider) any other possible source for the chips.
And here you go again; wishing you can find some ‘natural phenomena’ to hoist a cloud of bullshit and make people believe that this ultrafine-grain and intimately mixed material popped out of the ass of a leprechaun. Source indeed.
Slarti: They didn’t show (or even consider) a plausible method of producing the samples using super-thermite.
You are aware that the samples ACTED LIKE SUPER-THERMITE and were not the byproducts thereof; aren’t you?
Slarti: I guess we need a new classification: TOP SECRET: MYTHBUSTERS. Jamie speculated that the
Are you kidding me?
Slarti: I think the Mythbusters gave pretty convincing evidence that thermitic reactions played a role in the Hindenberg disaster, don’t you?
Gee, I don’t know; let’s ask that Hindenburg Announcer Guy!
Hindenburg Announcer Guy: “Oh my God, it’s burst into flames! Oh, the humanity! The burning airship is tumbling toward the crowd! The exploding hydrogen gas is engulfing the onlookers! The screams, oh Lord, the screams! Burning figures are falling from the twisted gondola! I can hear the shrieking of men trapped beneath the blazing metal! Please, sweet Christ, no!”
Slarti: What possible reason is there to believe the conclusions in Harrit’s paper when he fails to even consider the possibility that these samples came from sources known to be present in the collapse?
Hindenburg Announcer Guy: “Flames a thousand feet high are engulfing men, women, children—oh, Lord, no! No! Not the children! The sizzling, oh God, the sizzling… Flames have seared the entire crowd! The smell of burned and melting flesh, God, God! An abomination of science gone awry has brought Hell to our fairgrounds!”
Slarti: After reading that paper I think it is possible that those samples resulted from super-thermite, no more.
Do you hear yourself?
Slarti: I don’t know how likely it is because they didn’t show that the samples could have been produced from super-thermite (for instance, would super-thermite paint produce the chips? What would have to happen to it to produce similar chips?) nor did they rule out any ‘natural’ source although all of the ingredients are present and unintended thermitic reactions (and explosions) are at least possible.
Natural source for a substance that didn’t exist on earth until 1995….
Hindenburg Announcer Guy: “Charred bodies are raining down from the heavens! The burnt corpses are strewn about the fields like cordwood! Hot ashes that were once our neighbors fall from the air like a grisly snow! I can feel my gorge rising for the hundredth time! The shattered hellscape before me is an affront to Heaven itself! Oh, God! Oh, the humanity!”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ask-that-hindenburg-announcer-guy,12252/
By the way, Bob, if you’d care to explain how Harrit’s paper in any way impacts the conclusions in Bazant, et al., I’d appreciate it. Be sure to be specific – it’s the intellectually honest thing to do
Bob said:
A peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal which I am willing to defend on its merits says that allegations of controlled demolition have no scientific merit. In other words, even if the towers were packed to the ceilings with super-duper-ultra thermite (it explodes, it burns, it slices, it dices… ;-)) there’s no scientific reason to think that it had something to do with the collapse – this is certainly relevant to our argument. When the paper was published is only important insofar as there is new information available which affects its conclusions. The Harrit paper doesn’t provide any information which effects the analysis of what work was done by manufactured thermitic materials in the collapse (an analysis which concluded that the thermite didn’t do any work, by the way – lazy thermite!). Maybe in ‘Bob’s world’ you can assume all of your sources are true and ignore everyone else’s sources, but that doesn’t work so well in the reality based world. You can try to sell truthiness as truth, but I’m not buying it.
Peer review isn’t a magical imprimatur which puts a paper’s credibility beyond question – not all peer-review processes are equally stringent. Considering the reputation of this journal, I would tend to assume lower than average peer review standards and after reading the paper I believe that I am correct to do so. If Harrit, et al. had a stronger scientific case for their conclusions, they should have presented it – they didn’t and all your pouting isn’t going to change that.
The paper gives evidence that the samples might be super-thermite. It in no way addresses the question of whether or not it could be something else. They didn’t attempt to rule out (or even consider) any other possible source for the chips. They didn’t show (or even consider) a plausible method of producing the samples using super-thermite. In another post, you’ve quoted a long section about the ‘unique properties’ of super-thermite (which you seem to be misrepresenting as evidence that the red chips are super-thermite, by the way – that would be the part where they show that the chips have some of the same (or similar) properties as the super-thermite) implying that explosive thermitic materials only exist in top secret military labs. Well, just to show that a thermitic explosion is not quite as unique as you think it is, why don’t you fill a metal pail with commercial thermite set it on a block of ice and light it? If you did it right, you should see something like this. That’s right, an actual thermitic explosion using normal thermite (and remember the components for thermitic reactions were plentiful in the collapse) and ice (water was also present in the collapse and aftermath). I guess we need a new classification: TOP SECRET: MYTHBUSTERS. Jamie speculated that the reason for the explosion was the steam causing the intimate mixing of the thermite. And just in case you want to argue that thermitic reactions don’t take place during disasters, check this out. I think the Mythbusters gave pretty convincing evidence that thermitic reactions played a role in the Hindenberg disaster, don’t you? What possible reason is there to believe the conclusions in Harrit’s paper when he fails to even consider the possibility that these samples came from sources known to be present in the collapse? After reading that paper I think it is possible that those samples resulted from super-thermite, no more. I don’t know how likely it is because they didn’t show that the samples could have been produced from super-thermite (for instance, would super-thermite paint produce the chips? What would have to happen to it to produce similar chips?) nor did they rule out any ‘natural’ source although all of the ingredients are present and unintended thermitic reactions (and explosions) are at least possible. Addressing these questions are part of the burden of proof that goes with the conclusions in the paper. If they didn’t want to address them, then they should have scaled back their conclusions appropriately.
Byron,
Which is why it’s a good idea to consider what kind of residue could have come from those (and other) sources… Dr. Jones always talks about the iron microspheres found in his dust samples without addressing any of the other sources known to produce them.
Slarti:
Iron in the dust, what are you talking about? Of course there was iron in the dust as it is a constituent of cement and there was probably some pulverizing of the steel frame (steel has iron in it).
Slarti: More of your typical passive-aggressive spin.
Oh the way you repeat words and phrases as soon as you hear them…you really do remind me of a magpie.
Slarti: I pointed out that the paper made conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence.
Yet it passed muster under peer review? Tell me Slarti, how could a solipsist like you let something as crazy as that happen in your universe?
Slarti: Do you think it’s okay to make statements you can’t support in a scientific paper?
Do you think it’s okay to make unsubstantiated allegations; wait, apparently you do.
Slarti: As an aside,
As an aside, after months of hearing you belittle the paper without having read it, only to find you limping up to the surface with this crap is INCREDIBLY disappointing.
Slarti: “I’m not out on a limb – I accepted without question their experimental results (I’m not qualified to evaluate them anyway) and raised the point that they failed to make a scientific case for their conclusions.
Without science or sound argument of course.
Slarti: I have no idea what a court of law would make of this paper, but in science this is
Thoroughly peer reviewed.
Slarti: Real evidence that the chips found could only have come from super-thermite would have been compelling,
Predicate problems once again. The paper does not say the chips come “from” anything. The paper discusses the essence of the chips themselves; so unique as
“Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred
to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].”
We have noted that ordinary thermite acts as an incendiary
when ignited. However,
when the ingredients are ultrafine-grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly, even explosively [20]. Thus, there is a highly energetic form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite or “super-thermite,” composed of aluminum and iron oxide with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or less, often along with silicon and carbon [19-28].
“Reaction rates between nanosize aluminum and metal oxides can be significantly greater than those observed with traditional micron-size thermite powders. Reactions occurring between metal and metal oxide powders are accompanied by the generation of high temperatures (>3000 K). Super-thermites, formed by mixing of aluminum and metal oxide nanopowders result in energy release rate by two orders of magnitude higher than similar mixtures consisting of micron size reactants” [22].
Slarti: but in the absence of any scientific argument that the observed chips could only have come from a manufactured explosive
Are you aware that this material didn’t even exist on earth until 1995?
Slarti: Nor did it address any of the points that Dr. Greening made about Dr. Jones’ 2008 paper in Bentham.
My reply: And the reason it had to is what?
Slarti reply: To make a scientific case for the conclusions that the paper is drawing. But I guess you don’t care about whether or not the conclusions made in the paper are scientifically justified, you just believe the conclusions because they fit with your confirmation bias.
I see, and the reason Greening is the gatekeeper for making valid scientific conclusions is what? You are accusing me of confirmation bias here, so the irony and suspense is killing me.
Slarti: Are you referring to this exchage?
gulli.com: If you gross it up, how much Nano Thermite was laying around in Lower Manhattan after the collapse?
Dr. Niels Harrit: Very, very difficult to put an absolute number on that. Let us say 10 tons.
Slarti: What an awesome example of a scientific calculation! Although it might be nice to see some evidence supporting it…
Once again, the purpose of the paper was to analyze the chips; which it did. And once again I said that Harrit ‘commented’ on it elsewhere. Accordingly your whining about the lack of math so to speak to back up his comment once again bears no relevance to the paper itself.
Slarti: “I don’t expect them to be able to get a sample of super-thermite, but not having a sample for comparison makes it harder to prove their case.”
This is why we have things called warrants and other legal processes; you know, those things that you think Obama can dispense of because of a bad economy?
Slarti: “You’re doing the equivalent of suggesting that they should get to use the lane in the bowling alley with inflatable cushions in the gutters – not being able to get samples doesn’t lower their burden of proof.”
You’re right, when it comes to evidence, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Slarti: “You continually try to paint me with your own sins. What are you, Karl Rove’s biggest fan?”
The same Karl Rove that keeps redefining history to show that Bush had ‘NO CHOICE’ but to implement all those controversial policies? The one that sounds like you as you excuse Obama for embracing and employing the same transgressions? My hands are clean; pity you’re so mired in your lame-ass concerns for Obama and the economy to say the same.
Slarti: “If you think that it does more than make a case that the samples might have contained some sort of thermitic material, then point out where in the text this is done.”
Did you happen to read the title?
Slarti: “And yet you resort to innuendo instead of argument. What are you trying to imply about Professor Pileni? (who I assume is the Bentham editor who quit when Dr. Jones’ paper was published).”
No innuendo at all; since you brought up Pileni and you used her departure as innuendo against Jones — who didn’t author the paper that apparently hastened her departure.
Slarti: I’ve given many reasons why I don’t think that this paper met its scientific burden of proof to justify its claims,
No, you didn’t; you merely explained how your personal expectations were not met. You didn’t even make a sound argument as to why your expectations should have been met; you just whined about them.
Slarti: you’ve given no reasons why those claims are justified. How come you aren’t doing any reason giving?”
Charta ipsa loquitor. The paper itself speaks.
Slarti: “I don’t think you want to take this tack, unless you’re ready to attack the conclusions of the Bazant, et al. paper on their merits… ”
Aether you find me a paper that addresses the aforesaid Michaelson-Morely event, or you don’t.
Get it? Aether/or?
Slarti: I’m comfortable quoting papers that haven’t been peer-reviewed because I’ve read them and believe that the science in them is sound.
Good for you.
Slarti: “I linked a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Greening (Bazant et al.) that was published in an ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) journal.”
2008; discussing the the properties of aether.
Slarti: “And why would anyone write a paper just to point out that Harrit, et al. didn’t do their due diligence?”
They wouldn’t; since it’s peer reviewed.
Slarti: “That paper shouldn’t have gotten through the peer-review process without being strengthened (by the way, the typical reason not to make your paper stronger is because you can’t).”
Yet you can’t even point out where specifically without sounding like you’re simply whining without reason.
Bob said:
More of your typical passive-aggressive spin. I pointed out that the paper made conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence. Do you think it’s okay to make statements you can’t support in a scientific paper? As an aside, you might want to look at our recent exchanges and see which one of us is getting emotional…
Bob posted:
I’m not out on a limb – I accepted without question their experimental results (I’m not qualified to evaluate them anyway) and raised the point that they failed to make a scientific case for their conclusions.
I have no idea what a court of law would make of this paper, but in science this is ‘case dismissed due to lack of evidence’. Don’t worry, though – in science you can always reopen the case if you find more evidence – it’s never dismissed with prejudice. 😉
Real evidence that the chips found could only have come from super-thermite would have been compelling, but in the absence of any scientific argument that the observed chips could only have come from a manufactured explosive this paper doesn’t even begin to address its burden of proof, let alone shift it anywhere else.
To make a scientific case for the conclusions that the paper is drawing. But I guess you don’t care about whether or not the conclusions made in the paper are scientifically justified, you just believe the conclusions because they fit with your confirmation bias.
It doesn’t ‘burn hotter’ it releases more energy per unit mass (actually two of the samples release more energy than thermite and two release less). As for me raising and eliminating other possible sources, they failed to meet their burden of proof – I’m not obligated to argue against something until they can meet that burden by providing scientific evidence.
Are you referring to this exchage?
What an awesome example of a scientific calculation! Although it might be nice to see some evidence supporting it… In the context of the paper, a good scientific paper would have looked at the concentration of iron in the sample and compared that and other elements (for a control) found in the dust to the levels that would have been expected from various sources – the fact that it ‘wasn’t the purpose of the paper’ is one of the reasons that it’s not a very good paper.
I don’t expect them to be able to get a sample of super-thermite, but not having a sample for comparison makes it harder to prove their case. You’re doing the equivalent of suggesting that they should get to use the lane in the bowling alley with inflatable cushions in the gutters – not being able to get samples doesn’t lower their burden of proof.
You continually try to paint me with your own sins. What are you, Karl Rove’s biggest fan?
Why would I write a paper that says that the conclusions in Harrit’s paper are unjustified? I don’t think that any scientists in the field would think otherwise after reading it. If you think that it does more than make a case that the samples might have contained some sort of thermitic material, then point out where in the text this is done.
And yet you resort to innuendo instead of argument. What are you trying to imply about Professor Pileni? (who I assume is the Bentham editor who quit when Dr. Jones’ paper was published). I’ve given many reasons why I don’t think that this paper met its scientific burden of proof to justify its claims, you’ve given no reasons why those claims are justified. How come you aren’t doing any reason giving?
I don’t think you want to take this tack, unless you’re ready to attack the conclusions of the Bazant, et al. paper on their merits… or are you willing to accept this? (from the abstract):
Scientific arguments stand or fall on their own merits – while things like the author’s reputation or the journal’s reputation or peer review are important indicators, ultimately the question comes down to the quality of the scientific argument. I’m comfortable quoting papers that haven’t been peer-reviewed because I’ve read them and believe that the science in them is sound. You’re free to raise issues if you think the science is flawed, in which case I would certainly respond to your argument. I’ve raised criticisms of the Harrit paper, you can either accept them, rebut them or show that they aren’t valid criticisms, but I don’t think having a fit and ignoring them will impress anyone.
Bob said:
“And I also take it from your silence that you simply admit to doing what I said you did in my previous post of a few days ago; the one you didn’t reply to in your hasty attempt to save face for Lincoln.”
Sigh. No Bob, I just haven’t finished my reply yet – I thought I would respond to Lincoln first since he is apparently a new poster and then you were nearly wetting your pants about the Harrit paper so I read and commented on that. Don’t worry, you’ll get what’s coming to you… 😉
Note: I linked a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Greening (Bazant et al.) that was published in an ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) journal. And why would anyone write a paper just to point out that Harrit, et al. didn’t do their due diligence? That paper shouldn’t have gotten through the peer-review process without being strengthened (by the way, the typical reason not to make your paper stronger is because you can’t).
And I also take it from your silence that you simply admit to doing what I said you did in my previous post of a few days ago; the one you didn’t reply to in your hasty attempt to save face for Lincoln.
Where’s Greening’s peer reviewed paper regarding these findings?
For that matter, where’s Greening been since April of 2009?
Slarti,
I expected so much more from someone with a PhD Mathematics.
You did not address a single particular point of the paper; instead you simply painted it with the broad brush of mere unsubstantiated opinion.
You and your silly emotions not only let yourself down, but you let Duke down as well.
Slarti
I knew you’d make some attempt to disparage the paper. However, I had no idea you’d go so far out on a limb to do it.
Slarti: “I just finished reading the paper and I was wondering if you would care to explain how it ‘shifts the burdens of production and persuasion in an unprecedented manner’”
See my comments regarding real evidence generally.
Slarti: because I certainly didn’t see anything in it to justify such a grandiose claim.
Hint; real evidence is different from your mere opinion how?
Slarti: Nor did it address any of the points that Dr. Greening made about Dr. Jones’ 2008 paper in Bentham.
And the reason it had to is what?
Slarti: I find it especially disappointing that absolutely no effort was made to rule out other possible sources for the chips,
Seeing it burns hotter than pure thermite, why don’t you express your ‘disappointment’ more clearly by showing just what ‘other sources’ you’re talking about.
Slarti: to determine the amount of super-thermite necessary in order to produce the given samples,
Wasn’t the purpose of the paper; but Harrit has commented about it elsewhere.
Slarti: and, of course, nothing to use for controls not to mention the fact that they don’t have a sample of the compound they’re alleging they have evidence of.
How Joseph Heller of you; the findings that demand an investigation into labs hitherto inaccessible to the public are no good because there’s no access to samples within the labs for comparison? YOU ARE SHAMELESS.
Slarti: I find that I have no reason to doubt the observations they reported and no reason to believe the conclusions they made. The paper seems to say: ‘We found this stuff in the dust that we think has to be some stuff that we read about in some papers from Lawrence Livermoore and Los Alamos even though we haven’t done any experiments or even really considered ruling out any other possible sources (which is even more important than normal in this case given the lack of control samples)’.
Not quite the tour de force that you promised.
Is that all it does? Write a paper and have it peer reviewed.
Slarti: I’d say that this paper failed utterly to fulfill its burden of persuasion.
Don’t forget, arguing is reason giving. And not for nothing, but Professor Pileni left in a hurry; persuaded perhaps?
Slarti: If this was the best you’ve got then I have to say that it’s kind of pathetic…
Find me a peer reviewed paper that agrees with you; otherwise write your own.
Bob said:
“I know that Harrit’s paper shifts the burdens of production and persuasion in an unprecedented manner onto those who still claim the collapse was as ‘natural’ as an act of God after the discovery of clear and convincing evidence of arson.”
I just finished reading the paper and I was wondering if you would care to explain how it ‘shifts the burdens of production and persuasion in an unprecedented manner’ because I certainly didn’t see anything in it to justify such a grandiose claim. Nor did it address any of the points that Dr. Greening made about Dr. Jones’ 2008 paper in Bentham. I find it especially disappointing that absolutely no effort was made to rule out other possible sources for the chips, to determine the amount of super-thermite necessary in order to produce the given samples, and, of course, nothing to use for controls not to mention the fact that they don’t have a sample of the compound they’re alleging they have evidence of. I find that I have no reason to doubt the observations they reported and no reason to believe the conclusions they made. The paper seems to say: ‘We found this stuff in the dust that we think has to be some stuff that we read about in some papers from Lawrence Livermoore and Los Alamos even though we haven’t done any experiments or even really considered ruling out any other possible sources (which is even more important than normal in this case given the lack of control samples)’. Not quite the tour de force that you promised 🙁 In fact, I’d say that this paper failed utterly to fulfill its burden of persuasion. If this was the best you’ve got then I have to say that it’s kind of pathetic…
Bob,
Oooh, I can’t wait until I finish reading it! 😉 Here’s a quote I just found:
“There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that’s about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies.” –Noam Chomsky
Slarti: “So you think that Dr. Harrit’s paper…”
I know that Harrit’s paper shifts the burdens of production and persuasion in an unprecedented manner onto those who still claim the collapse was as ‘natural’ as an act of God after the discovery of clear and convincing evidence of arson.
Slarti: “Don’t you know that DNA is more fungible than nano-thermite?”
Want to switch one sample of DNA with another, apply a cotton swab to the inside of your cheek.
Want to switch out a sample of nano-thermite?
Go find some.
Byron: “how can you come to a conclusion if you don’t compare to the primer or in Slarti’s post a number of other possibilities?”
It can be safely said that the prevailing rational thinking in the world holds Paint does not exhibit these characteristics:
“Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron-rich spheres (see photomicrographs in Fig. (20) above). Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite.”
Since paint, as we know it, does not burn anywhere near as hot as pure thermite, the burden is on you to produce such a magical paint and prove it could have been in the WTC. The burden is on you simply because the notion is so fucking unlikely.
Thus the reason for this paragraph: ““If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.”
Byron: “Isn’t it the same as me taking a DNA swab of a defendant and saying oh yes it’s the guy because he has CF and the DNA sample taken shows the same pair of CF genes.”
As I said before: “is DNA fungible? Can DNA be replaced or altered? Absolutely, just switch it with another sample of DNA. Proving something like that is the reason you hire someone like Barry Scheck as part of your “Dream Team.”
Can the nano-thermite found in the dust be replaced or altered? Answer: NO, because it’s created by just a handful of labs world wide; labs that are not accessible to the public.
Or as Niels Harrit has said: “This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research. … It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.“