9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

[NOTE: I don't know what to make of this. I read it and thought it was legitimate as an important scientific study.]

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/911-NanoTech-Thermite-Publ-by-John-R-Moffett-090616-456.html

June 16, 2009

911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

By John R Moffett

The 911 Truth Movement has been highly vocal about the publication of an article entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” that was published in “The Open Chemical Physics Journal”, which is part of the Bentham Open Science Publishers group of journals.

Researchers from Denmark, the United States and Australia reported that dust samples collected near the collapsed World Trade Center complex contained iron oxide and aluminum flakes whose chemical composition was consistent with unburned nanotechnology-enhanced thermite. Not just a little bit of this super thermite, but enough unburned thermite to account for a full 0.1% of the dust collected after the WTC buildings collapsed. This finding alone should have raised many questions about what the red and grey chips in the dust actually were.

The subgroup of 911 Truthers who are advocating this particular theory of the WTC collapse have declared victory over those advocating the controlled demolition theory, or the missiles disguised as planes theory, or the directed energy weapons theory, or even the secret nuclear reactors in the WTC basements theory, because they now have a “scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal” to buttress their claims.

It is not surprising that the public is not aware of the fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a “peer reviewed scientific journal article” which is not actually peer reviewed.

This embarrassing fact became all too clear recently when another Bentham “peer reviewed” journal was caught publishing a fake paper submitted by Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University.

Davis used a well known computer program that was designed specifically to generate nonsense science articles which would be spotted as such by any legitimate peer review process. The fake article entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” contained wonderfully nonsensical statements such as “Note that vacuum tubes have less jagged effective
floppy disk throughput curves than do autogenerated robots”.

Despite making no sense whatsoever, the paper was accepted at the Bentham Publishing Groups journal “The Open Information Science Journal” as though it was peer reviewed, despite the fact that the author, Davis, never received any reviewer comments, which is a universal part of the peer review process. Instead, Davis simply received a bill for an $800 fee which was to be sent to a post office box in the United Arab Emirates.

Following the disclosure of the fake nature of the article (and withdrawal of the manuscript) by Davis, the chief editor at the journal, Bambang Parmanto, resigned. "I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told reporters for The Scientist Magazine. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Following this, Marc Williams, an immunologist and stem cell researcher at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry who served on the editorial advisory board of The Open Stem Cell Journal also resigned his position with the Bentham Group.

Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.

The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe the official story of the 911 commission report, and in fact, neither do many members of the 911 commission. But just because that story isn’t correct, it doesn’t mean that missiles disguised as planes, or directed energy weapons, destroyed the towers. It just means that the official story is inaccurate.

The only way to find out what really happened is to have a large panel of independent researchers reopen the case, with access to the classified documents that would be needed to make a valid assessment of all the data. In order to facilitate that happening, the 911 Truth Movement should stop squabbling over pet theories, and concentrate on getting a new investigation with subpoena power and the authorization to view classified documents started. This will take some serious Congressional lobbying by those interested parties. So leave your favorite theories at home, and press Congress for a new investigation.

Views: 56

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 26, 2009 at 1:47pm
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

7TOCPJ.pdf
Comment by Curtis Sherwood on June 17, 2009 at 2:23pm
I can now confirm that Erik's diary on OEN was indeed removed, hidden or simply deleted. No wonder ! Dr. John Moffett, the one Erik was openly criticizing is (a) senior editor for OEN and I personally can confirm his specialty is to combat any and all 9/11 discussions he does not approve of.

Jim, still posting on OEN? Michael is - despite my warnings. You may as well run naked through the next train station. That site is no friend of ours. This case should serve to prove my point. Erik and I didn't always get along and we don't always see eye to eye, but we parted on good terms and he has the balls to stand up to Moffett, and Moffett censures. Or perhaps Klown Kall. It's really nothing new. OEN never did like to be host to the truther scene.
Comment by Curtis Sherwood on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm
Update + addendum

"New World Order"'s diary on OEN has bee hidden or perhaps deleted. Mind you, OEN is not a truther-friendly site.

Moffett's article has been hidden or removed as well!

It is still accesable at http://www.opednews.com/articles/911-NanoTech-Thermite-Publ-by-John...

In case you haven't noticed, OEN is not a friendly place. I'm saving a copy of Eric's comment here in case it too is deleted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Moffett Smears 'Active Thermitic' Paper by Association



OpEdNews.com Sr. Editor Dr. Moffett has again smeared the peer-reviewed paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org.

In another headlined article at OpEdNews.com, Sr. Editor Dr. Moffett has again smeared the peer-reviewed paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Tr... published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org. A different Bentham.org journal, The Open Information Science Journal, recently published a hoax paper, and 2 editors resigned: Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars. See Dr. Moffett’s previous smear job rebutted by Dr. Michael Green, here: Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters. See Dr. Moffett’s current smear job here: 911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

I find some areas of agreement with Dr. Moffet; for instance, he says: "The only way to find out what really happened [on 9/11] is to have a large panel of independent researchers reopen the case, with access to the classified documents that would be needed to make a valid assessment of all the data."

However, Dr. Moffet's article is mainly devoted to attacking the Active Thermitic paper, in ways that are unjustified. For instance, Dr. Moffett says: "The subgroup of 911 Truthers who are advocating this particular [nanothermite] theory of the WTC collapse have declared victory over those advocating the controlled demolition theory, or the missiles disguised as planes theory, or the directed energy weapons theory, or even the secret nuclear reactors in the WTC basements theory, because they now have a “scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal” to buttress their claims."

The Active Thermitic paper simply documents nanothermite in the WTC dust; it doesn't present a theory of how the towers were demolished (although the findings obviously support theories), and the presence of the red-gray thermitic chips doesn't preclude the use of other types of explosives as well.

Regarding the holograms, mini-nukes and energy beams Moffett mentions; these are ideas for which no, or extremely flimsy evidence exists, and hardly any real people claim to believe them. It may be these ideas were invented in order to discredit the Truth Movement by association- in addition to pushing these bogus claims, some of their main proponents have also engaged in disruptive, divisive behavior and have subsequently been shunned by a large number of truth movement activists and orgs. Similarly, Dr. Moffett has tried to discredit the Active Thermitic paper by associating it with the now-discredited Open Information Science Journal.

Dr. Moffet also says: "It is not surprising that the public is not aware of the fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a “peer reviewed scientific journal article” which is not actually peer reviewed."

Actually, as Dr. Moffet knows, if he's looked into the hoax paper incident at all- the authors of the hoax paper also acknowledged; "From this one case, we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied. Earlier this year, I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review [1]." Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars

If Dr. Moffet were objective, he would have acknowledged that himself. And contrary to Dr. Moffet's claim that it’s a “fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a “peer reviewed scientific journal article” which is not actually peer reviewed."

The Open Chemical Physics Journal and 154 other Bentham journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals operated by Lund University Libra.... Open Access is a fast growing model for peer-reviewed publication. Open Access generally means there are no fees to subscribe to the journals and papers are published online, so the entire world can read the papers. This vastly increases access, public knowledge and scrutiny of published findings. As there are no fees to subscribe, the financial support for journals’ existence comes from subsidies, the paper’s authors, or the Universities they’re associated with- as was the case with the Active Thermitic paper. Those responsible at these universities- Copenhagen U and BYU- also reviewed the paper.

There have been complaints about Bentham spamming people to submit papers and join Bentham journal editorial boards, but so far there have been no other claims that Bentham journals didn’t perform adequate peer-review of published papers. However, as a result of the hoax incident, there will be increased scrutiny on Bentham, and more examples may come to light.

The 2 editors at The Open Information Science Journal who accepted the hoax paper were right to resign, as the hoax paper was published on their watch. How can an “editor” have no control over what’s being published? Did they not even know they didn’t know what was going on at their own journal?

It seems likely this is the case with Marie-Paule Pileni, who resigned after she discovered the Active Thermitic paper had been p..., of which she was Editor-in-Chief. She discredits herself in the statement that Dr. Moffet quoted; “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

As Dr. Moffet says, “Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.”

Pileni says “if anyone had asked me” - how can the “editor-in-chief” be unaware? Was she simply trading her name for a title and a paycheck, and paying no attention to what was being published at her journal?

In addition, she discredits herself with the claim that “the article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics”; nanothermite has everything to do with physical chemistry and chemical physics, and the Active Thermitic paper documented various experiments with the physical and chemical properties of the red-gray chips.

And as Dr. Moffet should know, Pileni is reported by videnskab.dk to have said, “because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

However, as documented at the above link, Pileni has an extensive background in chemical physics and physical chemistry- as well as with explosives- and she also has extensive connections to the defense industry. This may have more to do with her resignation- in any case, despite her insinuation, the quality of the paper has nothing to do with her resignation, as Pileni did not point out ANY flaws in it; and if Videnskab is correct, she claimed she “cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

Likewise, Dr. Moffet has not legitimately debunked the Active Thermitic paper- he has only attempted an appearance of doing so; smearing it by association with the other discredited journal. Again, see this rebuttal of his previous smear job, by Dr. Michael Green: Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters

This hoax incident will no doubt bring even greater scrutiny on the Active Thermitic paper. If there are flaws, let them be pointed out. If there are none, let that be known as well. In any case, independent scientists should be confirming the presence of the red-gray chips in World Trade Center dust, and performing their own experiments on them. If the findings are confirmed, full criminal, congressional and international investigations, with public oversight, are called for- as people have been calling for, in increasing numbers, since the crimes of 9/11 happened.

Dr. Moffett supports a new 9/11 investigation, saying, “I don’t believe the official story of the 911 commission report, and in fact, neither do many members of the 911 commission” and “The only way to find out what really happened is to have a large panel of independent researchers reopen the case, with access to the classified documents that would be needed to make a valid assessment of all the data. In order to facilitate that happening, the 911 Truth Movement should stop squabbling over pet theories, and concentrate on getting a new investigation with subpoena power and the authorization to view classified documents started. This will take some serious Congressional lobbying by those interested parties. So leave your favorite theories at home, and press Congress for a new investigation.”

I agree with Dr. Moffett on the need for independent review of still classified documents- and Congressional authorization of a Citizen’s commission with subpoena power and public oversight would be a good way to have this review. There may well be hard evidence of criminal foreknowledge, negligence and complicity hidden in classified files. The official version of events is already contradicted by thousands of pieces of evidence already in the public record, in the form of government documents and reports, statements by principals, and reporting done by the MSM: see The Complete 9/11 Timeline hosted by HistoryCommons.org. However, the way WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed is indicative of controlled demolition. The findings of NIST and FEMA actually support the controlled demolition hypothesis, as documented in a still not debunked or discredited letter published April 2008 in Bentham’s Open Civil Engineering Journal: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on th.... Furthermore, the EPA’s own data supports the theory that energetic materials were involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers; the paper Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for ene... was published August 2008 in The Environmentalist, a journal not associated with Bentham. And also see James Gourley’s October 2008 response to the paper of Dr. Bazant (one of the few vocal proponents of NIST’s collapse theory) published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics; Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from Wor... (915). Evidence of mass murder on 9/11 by controlled demolition demands investigation.

by Better World Order

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment by Curtis Sherwood on June 17, 2009 at 1:39pm
I sent this e-mail to Jim today;

Hi Jim,

the Moffett article on OEN has been shot down by commenters + this diary by "Better World Order"; http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13504

I know Moffett's method of operation and have interacted with the man on OEN a number of times, less though in regard to 9/11. The man never was in support of the truth movement. That he now supports a new investigation is almost unbelievable. His article has two messages which support my theory that a new whitewash investigation will soon be called for by Obama: 1) investigate, yes but for God's sake 2) stop looking any further.

I checked his last few OEN comments on 9/11 related articles only to find he has supported this very same position for a longer period of time. Most interesting though how he gets it all wrong with his new article. See http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13504 for details.

I wonder when Obama is going to be told to call for a new investigation. It's an ace in their pockets. Has been since the first whitewash. All a matter of timing.

Michael deleted and recreated 911aletheia btw. I've received an invitation to (re)join.

curt
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 16, 2009 at 11:01pm
Rolf Lindgren has called to say that two papers are involved here and two editors. There was an earlier, FAKED paper, but that is not the same as the THERMITE paper. Two editors have apparently resigned over the THERMITE paper, but it is not the one described here as the FAKED paper. This therefore appears to me to be a very clever piece of disinformation.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 16, 2009 at 4:44pm
Ace Baker has posted the following?

John Moffet gives a list of the supposed competing theories of 9/11 truth. Note that he does not list video compositing, nor does he list micro nukes throughout the towers. There are a lot of people who know the truth, and the protect it jealously.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service