Niels Harrit: Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal - Resignation is no reflection of countering the Correct Validity of the nano-Thermite paper.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Niels Harrit: Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal

Original:

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/debat?personguid=8C55E167-347B-4AD1-......

Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal

By Niels Harrit

After the paper entitled

Catastrophe,"

Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this

resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.

However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she

did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies

outside the areas of her expertise.

But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (

Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience

and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her ”major

advanced research” points out that, already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on

nanotechnology” (

Since the late 1980s, moreover, she has served as a consultant for the French Army and other military

institutions. From 1990 to 1994, for example, she served as a consultant for the Société Nationale des Poudres et

Explosifs (National Society for Powders and Explosives).

She could, therefore, have easily read our paper, and she surely did. But by denying that she had read it, she

avoided the question that would have inevitably been put to her: ”What do you think of it?”

Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized it, but that would have been

difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely

would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to acknowledge the soundness of our work

and its conclusions. But this would have threatened her career.

Professor Pileni’s resignation from the journal provides an insight into the conditions for free speech at our

universities and other academic institutions in the aftermath of 9/11. This situation is a mirror of western society

as a whole---even though our academic institutions should be havens in which research is evaluated by its

intrinsic excellence, not its political correctness.

In Professor Pileni’s country, France, the drive to curb the civil rights of professors at the universities is especially

strong, and the fight is fierce.

I will conclude with two points. First, the cause of 9/11 truth is not one that she has taken up, and the course of

action she chose was what she had to do to save her career. I harbor no ill feelings toward Professor Pileni for

the choice she made.

Second, her resignation from the journal because of the publication of our paper implied nothing negative about

the paper.

Indeed, the very fact that she offered no criticisms of it provided, implicitly, a positive evaluation---an

acknowledgment that its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged.

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Centerwhich I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physicshttp://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).

Source: http://www.911blogger.com/node/20614

[Thoth II]

This is a good article because it underscores a big problem with 911 truth:  the science and engineering profession is running scared, and I am sure the SOBs who planned 911 thought something like this:  "the very people who have credibility and could expose us, are middle class working people, working for our govt. contracts, and thus we own them, they'll keep quiet".  And indeed, this is likely a case of running scared, Neils Harrit is correct.

 

But he draws I think a faulty choice here, he says she had only two options, I don't agree with either.  I think she indeed resigned over this paper, but not because it was sound science, or at least it is science of thermite hypothesis that is incidental to the main destruction mechanism.  I like many have contended, and will continue to contend that mini nukes or some type of demolition sequence other than thermite destroyed the towers.  Time will tell which hypothesis will win of course, but I seems like most of the evidence is in that direction.