Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after controversial article on 9/11

Now this is interesting. Dr Pileni claims that Nano technology is not her field of expertise and therefore she can’t judge whether the article which passed a peer review befor being published in the Bentham open Physics Journal about the unexploded flecks of nanothermite found in the dust of the Twin towers and WTC 7. In fact she claims to be very upset and is relinquishing her prestigious position as editor in chief of this acclaimed magazine because she is upset about not being told that this article would be published in the magazine. So how come her CV boasts her involvement with several projects and laboratories specialised in that self same science? these are some of her positions and activities as described in her CV:

1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in Chemistry

2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.

1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France    (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)

2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI.          (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)

The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was published, resigned, claiming she wasn’t informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”.

Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with (powdered) explosives and nanotechnology. It’s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former ‘powdered explosives consultant’ not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.

Original article with comment from the “screw loose change” debunking site for good laughs.


3 thoughts on “Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after controversial article on 9/11

  1. Yes Travellerev, the Harrit et als paper looks convincing. I was trying to point out that those who say it’s paint must do better that just say it. They should do the necessary experiment and then publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

    This paper is setting a new standard for the debate!

    Regardless what the truth is here, the so called debunkers do not seem to understand the scientific method. It is no longer about opinions: study the dust samples and that’s it!

  2. Here’s a few points:

    That Pileni claims that she was not aware of the publication seems odd to me. I have several publications in physics journals and when you submit a paper to a journal you send it directly to the editor. In fact, a paper submission always starts as “Dear Editor,…”.

    I do not know how things work at Bentham Open Chemical Journal since I’m not a practicing chemist but I would suppose that also there the submissions are sent directly to the editor.

    If that is the case then it is Pileni’s own fault that she was not aware of the publication.

    Secondly, as a practicing scientist (physicist) I know for a fact that bad publications slip through from time to time. But that never caused any editor to resign. It seems clear that her resignation is not necessary and seems to be an overreaction.

    Finally, anybody who is scientifically minded will support further studies of the dust samples. Any claim that the red chips is paint without having independently examined the samples betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method. This issue could and should be settled in the laboratory. Not in emotional debates in blogs!

    Cheers and take care!

    • I agree,

      I think however that the issue has been settled in the laboratory. Nano thermite was found in the dust of all three towers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s