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
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
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.