This follows a previous post about the nanothermite paper of Harrit et al.: HERE.
Following my critical expert review of the Harrit et al. paper, Niels Harrit agreed to respond and we had several email exchanges about the matter.
These email exchanges included more than twenty prominent 911 Truth Movement proponents in cc (see posted exchanges).
The emails are quite instructive about how science operates, how some 911 truthers operate and about persistent uncertainties regarding the Harrit et al. paper.
Therefore, I have decided to make these email exchanges public: HERE-1, HERE-2, HERE-3, HERE-4.
As you can see from the main exchange (HERE-1), I was trying to treat one point at a time in order to go down the list, in the order of Harrit's first response.
The first point was: Is there conclusive measurement evidence for the presence of aluminum in the red layer?
After several back and forth contributions, Harrit simply quit without providing any of the extra data that he had mentioned and without answering the crux of the aluminum question. He ended with "Enough. It ends here." See last email in the main exchange.
Here, my point is not that there is no aluminum in the red layer. My point is that the Harrit paper does not provide conclusive evidence that there is aluminum in the red layer. More and better measurements (without the measurement design problems used by Harrit et al.) are needed yet it has been more than two years now since the original work was done and the needed measurements have not been reported, nor has any other research group confirmed the findings.
To be fair, Harrit is not an expert in electron microprobe analysis (EMPA/EDX/SEM) and this was the first time that he was co-author on a paper that used this measurement method whereas I have taught the technique at the graduate level and used it in my research for over a decade and had my own electron microprobe analysis instrument in my lab until 2008 at the University of Ottawa.
Then we were going to move on to all the other points (one at a time, see email exchange) but we never got past the first point.
For example, I would have been happy to correct Harrit's Newtonian physics errors (see email exchange) if he agreed to publicly exchange about these points.
Physicist David Griscom (who was a referee on the Harrit et al. paper) was even more vitriolic than Harrit (see exchanges, especially HERE-4).
None of the other more than twenty prominent 911 Truth Movement proponents said a peep on the email exchange, not even just to appeal to reason and calm.
In my opinion, the Harrit et al. paper has no merit as it stands and the exchange I proposed was aimed at helping the authors either correct the paper or correct their conclusions. Harrit's behaviour, reinforced by Griscom, gives the impression of a cover up rather than a dedication to truth seeking.
I think a movement based on truth should call for logic and reason in evaluating the scientific claims, not appeal-to-authority arguments, verbal intimidation, and a refusal to intellectually engage.