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

(SnowCrash has updated this blog entry with some very interesting background information on Ms. Pileni... kicking it up to the front page for review. -rep.) (Another good update on this blog today, below the red "Update" text - kicking back up to the top. Originally posted 2009-04-29 - rep.)

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.".

Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I'll quote you an excerpt of her resume:

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)

Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with 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 consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.

(Credit goes to DHS for first bringing this resignation to my attention in a comment on 911blogger. It's being discussed at Randi** as well.)

The phrase "powders and explosives" and "powdered explosives" I used previously may have caused some confusion. I decided to investigate further. What I found with some simple googling was disconcerting to say the least. Let's clear up the confusion first. The French word "la poudre" may mean several things. Normally, it means "powder". However, it can also mean "gunpowder", or something along the lines of "solid propellant". I invite French readers of 911blogger to comment further, since my French isn't stellar. The SNPE appears to be a French corporation manufacturing propellants and explosives. This can involve, for example, the charges that set off to open and deploy air bags in a car accident. They were preceded by the "Service des poudres de l'Armée", which I would translate as "Army Gunpowder Service". Without going into the history of France' gunpowder supply too much, this should put it into context for you what is probably meant by "Poudres et Explosifs". Again, I invite French 911bloggers to elaborate.

I visited SNPE's website, and eventually found the English version. There, under the banner "Energetic Materials", I found the following explanation: "SNPE Matériaux Energétique manufactures propellant charges and energetic equipment, primarily for the defense and automotive industries, and also makes propellants and explosives for military applications"

Wow. Ok, well that leaves little room for interpretation. Clicking leads me to some other sites, explaining further the activities of the "Powders and Explosives" division:


This site's in French. The first paragraph reads:
"The only European company offering the full range of energy products for the civil and defense, EURENCO has strengthened its production capacity in Europe to better meet market needs. Increasingly involved in new programs, EURENCO has reorganized into two units, one for powder and another for explosives, to improve its flexibility and responsiveness and focus on its customers and programs"

The "Powders" division seems to be more involved with ammunition, while the "Explosives" division seems to be preoccupied with developing "insensitive munitions". That rings a bell. Insensitive munitions probably refer mostly to stability, in the sense that it's much safer to have munitions that are less prone to become instable due to e.g. heat, shock, damage or general degradation. I can't help but think about Jim Hoffman's FAQ entry: How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off? (I want to strongly emphasize I'm not implying any sort of connection between the two; I merely find mentioning Hoffman's theoretical scenario relevant to the subject at hand.)

I proceed to visit the site of EURENCO. Interesting. EURENCO is apparently involved in such joyous things as high explosives, explosives for oil and gas, cast PBX charges, and, get this: explosives for demolition purposes.

But...it gets better. Would you believe it if I told you EURENCO likes to toy around with new energetic molecules as well?

Then..it got a little strange. I stumbled upon the Dutch International Institute for Social History, which brought something back to light which I have long since forgotten:

"Documents regarding the explosion of the AZF factory at the chemical site of the Sociéteé Nationale de Poudre et d'Explosifs (SNPE) in Toulouse 21 September 2001 and the events afterwards 2001-2002."

Wikipedia documents it here, and I find the last paragraph especially interesting:

"On October 4, 2001, France's then Environment Minister Yves Cochet announced that the explosion "may have been a terrorist attack" and identified Hassan Jandoubi, a plant sub-contractor killed in the blast, as a person under investigation. French anti terrorist authorities were prohibited by the Toulouse prosecutor from searching Jandoubi's house for five days after the incident. Police declared that Jandoubi had "possible Islamic fundamentalist sympathies", yet by the time the search was finally conducted, Jandoubi's girlfriend had disposed of all traces of his clothes or photos. French authorities described the delay as damaging to the investigation."

Contrary to Ms. Pileni's remarkably insincere comments, the nano-thermite paper fits exactly in her area of expertise. I have this strange feeling I might have opened Pandora's box, and I encourage contributors to 911blogger to follow up on this interesting story.

From Screw Loose Change*, translated from videnskab.dk:

Editor in chief resigns after controversial article on 9/11
28 April 2009
From videnskab.dk ( Danish science news service)

An article on explosives in the World Trace Center was published in a scientific journal without the editor in chief knowing about it. Now she is resigning, she tells Videnskab.dk ([science.denmark])
By Thomas Hoffman (th@videnskab.dk).

It created a great attention, surprise and suspicion when the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on remains of nanothermite which were found in great amounts in the dust from the WTC.

One those most surprised is apparently the editor in chief of the journal. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about he article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content. The e-mail got her to immediately close the door to the journal.

“I resign as the editor in chief”, was the abrupt answer in an email to videnskab.dk

A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.

“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

“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.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but 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.

Nevertheless, the publication gets her to give the Open Chemical Physics Journal failing grades.

“I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”, says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

“There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it”, is the harsh verdict.

The professor informs us that a few years ago she was invited to be editor in chief of a journal which would open new possibilities for new researchers and because she supports the idea of open access journals where the articles are accessible to everyone, she said, “Yes” thank you.

“It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing,” concludes Marie-Paule Pileni.

The editor-in-chief’s decision is viewed as regrettable by the Danish chemist Niels Harrit, who is one of the authors to the controversial article on nanothermite in the dust from the WTC.

“It surprises me, of course, and it is regrettable, if it discredits our work. But her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about. I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,” says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.

It is Niels Harrit’s coauthor Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with.

However, he does know the names of the two researchers –so-called referees—who have reviewed he article, but he will not give their names because they ‘are in principle anonymous’.

Niels Harrit’s superior at the University of Copenhagen, Nils O. Andersen has himself participated in the pool of researchers who could be selected as editor, on an article which should be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He has recently chosen to resign from the journals Editorial Advisory Board.

He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit’s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates.

“Open access is an exciting development, and as a principle the idea should be tried out for there is no reason for the commercial publishers to earn money from our work. But professionally, the journal lay at the margin of my expertise, and as I had said No to be editor of two articles, I decided that I would not use my time on anything else.”, explains Nils O. Andersen, dean of the faculty of Natural Sciences and editor of the European Physical Journal D.

It has not yet been possible to get any comment from Bentham Science Publishers.

* hxxp://screwloosechange.blogspot.com
** hxxp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353

Science or Inquisition?

And the sun orbits the Earth, Ms. Pileni? Read the work, and comment on the science behind it- not the hurt feelings.


Don't be so stuck on that 'Earth Orbits The Sun' conspiracy theory. NIST's finite element simulator shows the sun is actually circling the earth due to a new phenomenon called 'thermal rotation'.


Not bad.

My first thought when seeing that paper's publication was

"What kind of heat would the journal take as a consequence?"

Now we have the (former) editor-in-chief calling her journal a 'bad journal'. Maybe she is worried for her own safety.

All these comments have NOTHING to do with the scientific issues in the paper. NOTHING!!!

She says the paper has: "nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics." With chemists and physicists as authors, and the subject being the physical study of chemical content and reactions in a sample, what the hell is the article about?

Yeah, I suspect she was

Yeah, I suspect she was threatened in some way.

"....What the hell is the article about?"

$cientific Propoganda.

The New $$$$$$$$cience.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it


Snowcrash, in the future, just list the Screw Loose Change and JREF crap at the bottom of your article as inactive links. We don't need to give them extra 'hits'. (i.e. hxxp://www.whatever.com - - or something like that.)

More good stuff;


"Professor Pileni’s research has been highly interdisciplinary in over all of her scientific career. Her accomplishments have impacted the broad areas of photochemistry, photobiology, solar energy conversion, nanomaterials, colloidal assembly and self-assembly. Most significantly, she has demonstrated an unprecedented control of chemical reactivity in colloidal systems and established novel physical principles, which govern the assembly of nanocrystals into supramolecular structures of great potential applicability. Professor Pileni’s accomplishments have been recognized by the increasing frequency of invitations to be a plenary lecturer at American, Japanese and other international scientific meetings, symposia and congresses."

Oh my.


I'll do that. If you want, change it in this article; that'd go faster than if I did it, I think.

Thanks for the additional info. I hope SLC puts some active links back to this page though, their readers are missing out on some interesting background information ;-)



Studies in explosives, French and European Defense!

I found this particularly interesting in her background:

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

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”. [Institute for Advanced Studies for European Defense]


Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.

This experience in explosives combined with her expertise in nano-materials -- good research, SnowCrash -- raises an eyebrow, then, when she claims t "the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."


Looks like she should have been doing peer reviewing instead of theatrical hand waving. She's certainly qualified to comment on the paper, it seems. Well, on a positive note, you and Richard Gage will be exposing this paper to many people in California. Good luck. People commenting about Marie-Paule Pileni should now have some context to think about.

Please clarify "National Society of Powders and Explosives"

Professor Jones:

Is there a necessary link between "powders AND explosives" in the work of the "National Society of Powders and Explosives?" It's best to be prepared for this question.

When politics gets personal

Given that she seems to have the scientific/academic credential to evaluate the paper with authority, and given that she was editor in chief, at some point she would have been forced to evaluate the veracity of the findings or risk a loss in professional credibility as a scientist and as an editor. I think she read the paper, couldn’t find any obviously flaws and decided the best thing to do was quit her position rather than risk siding with “conspiracy theorists.” IMO her public reaction was just window dressing. She’s not alone.

No doubt in my mind that she "knows something she is not saying"

There is no doubt in my mind that she knows something that she is not saying.
When an individual responds in a drama-style, raving tirade to a calm appropriate mention of a subject, it is an indication that she is withholding some 'bad' secret or a hidden crime. Something grave got triggered mentally. I compare her reaction to the cheating husband who suddenly flares into a raging temper when the wife asks a simple question...the response is way out of line with the circumstance.

Lack of sophistication

Her denial of her own area of expertise cited as an excuse for leaving is absurd and humorous. When staging a hissy fit it's better to have a solid reason behind it so that the drama has congruency. Now who will hire this raving mad scientist?

These sorts of situations

...remind me how emotional and irrational people respond to inconvenient facts. Wishful thinking, fearful thinking, peer pressure, conformism, groupthink. Highly educated people are evidently no exception. Before you break all the barriers, you'll have to take a whole lot of abuse. In Steven Jones' case, I believe even subtle threats. ("You'll get grants if you stop, it would be better if you just stop this research, I have the power to stop it", etc.). But, if the movement grows, and credible people join, irrational hatred spreads out over more and more people, lessening the burden somewhat. At least, that's what I hope.

She's certainly remained loyal to her past connections. I'd like to know what her motivations are. Are they just emotional and instinctive ("I don't want anything to do with this 9/11 conspiracy crap") and/or are they calculated and strategic ("This article is detrimental to my image in the defense industry, I must distance myself from it")?

I wonder about something else, too. Is she expected as editor-in-chief to read all papers approved for publishing? Does this mean she was caught red-handed not doing her job, considering she would have rejected the paper for political reasons had she read it? This oversight amounts to loss of face, and in that case I find it hardly surprising she's looking for someone to blame. In a panic reaction, she's blaming everything on the journal instead. Certainly her statements are indicative of political bias unbecoming of such a prominent scientist. She says nobody reads the journal. Guess again, the paper she quit over is a blockbuster.

Reed Elsevier needs to be exposed.

Reed Elsevier needs to be exposed. Having been a big player in arms dealing, they have monopolized the scientific journal communities and many educational publications. Public & university libraries are now hard pressed to offer many scientific journals, because the cost of access exceeds budgets.

The updated info

is quite relevant. It's the usual way in which (some) academic scientists are compromised in their objectivity. It's their societies, their contracts (usually gov't), and their consulting (often gov't).

Otherwise, a lot more scientists would be screaming about 9/11. By now, the case for what we call 'Truth' is just too obvious, from a scientific point of view.

And from a Common Sense point of view....

Yes, the case is just too obvious from a scientific point of view--- but it's also obvious from plain ole common sense. Either a building is collapsing or exploding and people know the difference. However many people just haven't seen CLOSE-UP footage of the SOUTH TOWER EXPLODING. They need to. I just won over MANY people on my paper's online message board by posting this youtube clip from Xenomorph911WTC. Thanks man. This is a winner! The first seconds does it and then it's reinforced over and over.


Political reasons-but who's political reasons?

"Why would a nanotechnology expert and former 'powdered explosives consultant' not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives?"

Better yet, why would they resign, from a journal publishing a paper claiming discovery of nano-thermitic explosive material at the WTC?

She claims she wasn't aware the journal published the paper until it was already done. Guess what? I believe her. Nice work Snowcrash.

precision precision precision

"Powders AND explosives" Not "powdered explosives" --- at least not until we get confirmation from Professor Jones or Kevin Ryan or Neils Harrit .
Hold your fire on this one. Wait for clarification.

RE: Precision

I think your objections are justified. I will improve the article. However, after it is corrected with additional research, you'll notice that does not improve things for Ms. Pileni.

Is this to put a stop to publishing Jones and others work

that relates to 9/11 Science and Physics in the Open Chemical Physics Journal??

North Texans for 911 Truth
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

Peer review is political.

It is obvious that the peer review process is not immune to political pressure.

I have no doubt that this person was leaned on heavily by entities who want to perpetuate the OCT and to squelch the emerging truth about 911.

If we could find out who put the pressure on this person, we would be closer to knowing who the the real terrorists are.

The real perps are working overtime in the shadows. Thanks to the 911 Truth Movement, they will never be allowed to rest peacefully. Keep'em hopping!

"Nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics"

Marie-Paule Pileni: “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."

Probably she is not saying all she knows, or what her real motifs for resigning are. But is it possible, for the sake of public's view, to respond on Pelini's remark that the article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics? It's also important to know for my readers, among them journalists and politicians, who follow my news feed on this issue.

One possible explanation on my behalf: we know that the article is very controversial. That's a fact, apart from the question if the outcome is right. Is it possible that Pelini was passed (on this issue) deliberately (due to expectations on how she would respond) to prevent her blocking the article?

Can anyone, perhaps professor Jones, give some additional information to place this resignation in a broader perspective, knowing that in time more information will be published from opposite site? I think we need something balanced. Honest information (even if not graceful) to prevent greater damage on the short term.

When the substance of the study in itself is not involved (!), many people will understand that tactics are sometimes inevitable to get such highly controversial material published, because there are always people who do not want to put there privileged positions in risk.

Frank Ho

If this isnt too far off topic..

2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.

Professor Jones,

Is Bentham the only publication the paper was submitted too?
Would it ever be considered in a publication such as this one or would the political pressure be too much?

Would there be any other publication we can consider? I say this only because I see great things coming out of
Richard Gage's work at the AIA Convention, a 2nd publication would make 2009 a great year for truth.. maybe the
same publication KR published his 1.3 diethyl propane paper? The Environmentalist was it? Are there any others you would consider?

If the problem was money.. i'll set-up a "chip-in" tomorrow.. thanks kindly for input..

"Those who can make you believe aburdities can also make you committ attrocities." - Voltairre

Does anyone who if Marie-Paule Pileni is professor at Jussieu

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

Does anyone who if Marie-Paule Pileni is an actual professor at Jussieu. If so we could go and do an internet reporting interview with her ?

Professor Marie-Paule PILENI
University Pierre & Marie Curie
Laboratoire des Matériaux Mésoscopiques et Nanométriques
BP 52, 4 Place Jussieu 75005 Paris- France
Ph. 33 1 44 27 25 16. Fax. 33 1 44 27 25 15.
e-mail: pileni@sri.jussieu.fr




If you're French

I encourage you to follow up on the additional (wrather disconcerting) findings in the latest update of this article. What exactly were (and possibly are) Ms. Pileni's activities at SNPE? Was she a consultant for EURENCO? Considering SNPE, What is the background of the "explosion of the AZF factory at the chemical site of the Sociéteé Nationale de Poudre et d'Explosifs (SNPE) in Toulouse 21 September 2001"?

Furthermore, most of this post revolves around this question:

Why didn't Ms. Pileni tell the truth about her expertise on the subject, and why did she assert that "The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics"?

Considering these problems, I expect Ms. Pileni to either peer review the publication and publish her scientific objections, or to publicly retract her misleading statements.

Additionally, we should contact videnskab.dk and present them with these findings, pointing out the errors in their report. I think it is without question that "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" has something to do with physical chemistry and chemical physics.

Should videnskap.dk fail to mention these new developments, it should be obvious that they've knowingly published a hit piece.

Additional information about Ms. Pileni - websites, contact

(1) Georgia Tech >> College of Sciences >> Chemistry & Biochemistry >> Faculty >> Marie-Paule Pileni
(2) Prof. Dr. Marie Paule Pileni's website - Staff

(Needless to say, should you contact Ms. Pileni, please be civil and constructive)

Marie Paule PILENI
33 (0)1 44 27 25 16

Pileni's new resume

So, an article can get published without the “editor in chief” knowing about it? Who made the editorial decision then?

Even though her background is in “chemical research”, “experimental nanosciences”, “physical chemistry”, “nanometrics” and “structure and reactivity of interfacial systems”, she claims the paper’s subject, which is the chemical and physical properties of red-gray chips found in four (6, really) WTC dust samples, "lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

I would agree with the critics that Bentham needs to tighten its standards on who they allow to be editors- she's discredited herself as an editor, a scientist and an honest person based on the above. And to top those off, she has consulting connections to defense research dating to 1987; potentially a major financial conflict of interest when rendering a judgment on the paper’s subject- the implications of which, if the science is solid, are definitely political. However, she did not debunk anything about the paper's science, so how can she claim there's politics involved or not? Is it political to let the facts decide and tell the truth?

And what “list of international journals” is Pileni talking about?

The Open Chemical Physics Journal and 154 other Bentham journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals operated by Lund University Libraries:

I did a Google search for "open chemical physics journal" – the first 5 pages contain this many listings of it in scholarly databases:

Georgetown University Library

Intute: Science, Engineering and Technology


Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne- Scientific Information and Libraries

Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche- Department of Materials and Devices

University of Saskatchewan Library

ABC Chemistry- Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus

Portico.org – “support for Portico is provided by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Ithaka, The Library of Congress, and JSTOR.”


逢甲大學圖書館 Feng Chia University Library

Wageningen UR Library Catalogue

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research

Brigham Young University- Harold B. Lee Library

Journal Search - Sutherland Shire Libraries


Professional journals bow to pressure all the time

Just look at the medical literature, contaminated by efforts of pharmaceutical companies to get studies favorable to their products published or those which "undermine" their products rejected. The medical community is going through agonies over this phenomenon right now. Economic pressure - the same as political - is rampant. I have seen articles published in noted journals that have been flagrant in their science, written to advance economic interests. So this development is hardly shocking.

On the matter of editors-in-chief of peer-reviewed papers not seeing them before they are published, well, that just trash talk. She obviously was not doing her job or she saw it and did not anticipate the downstream implications, including pressure on her to either denounce the article or resign.

This is a transparent set-up and does not detract from the work of these accomplished researchers. Indeed, any controversy than can be churned from this turn of events will only raise interest levels. Certainly in medicine any paper than caused an editor to resign would be HOT STUFF!

"She obviously was not doing

"She obviously was not doing her job or she saw it and did not anticipate the downstream implications, including pressure on her to either denounce the article or resign."

I was wondering that today; was she just embracing the title and collecting a paycheck and not actually doing any work- perhaps just delegating everything, rubberstamping stuff without examining it? What would prompt her to discredit herself as an editor like that? Obviously, her lengthy and extensive experience with the war machine may be her incentive. Her logic seems to be, like most anti-truthers, that the implications have negative consequences for the reality she's invested herself in, so it's preferable to deny reality rather than deal with it. Realizing the implications on her own when the paper called may have caused her to drop a load in her drawers, but I also wouldn't be surprised if she got contacted by "friends" at some point- even since the interview- who "counseled" her about her "future career prospects".



It is quite clear she resigned without ever reading the paper. Notice that after the Danish publication contacted her about the paper's contents, she immediately resigned. It appears she got all of the information from the Danish publication and not from the paper itself. The paper probably let her know about the 'dust' and she turned off her critical thinking cap. It appears that after she hears about the dust, then the actual science part of the paper is ignored which substantiates her mindless claims because she didn't even read the paper! Its not about physical chemistry, its about dust! LOL.

Has anyone around these parts confirmed the translation of the article?

What kind of editor has doubts about an open journal and then decides to be the editor in chief anyway?

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

professional journals and politics

"Professional journals bow to pressure all the time..."

I'm afraid this is true. It's just one of the failings of the peer review process as it exists in the real world. What has been surprising to me is not the resignation of the editor but the fact that the article made it into the journal in the first place. I say this not because of any lack of faith in the article but because of much experience with peer-reviewed journals. Why are there not more articles in social science and humanities journals about the falsity of the official narrative? After all, this isn't just a question of physical science: it's a question of history; it's a question of the use of evidence and logic; it's a question of the manipulation of populations and political processes through fraud and deception. (etc.) The problem is that most of the relevant journals are still too timid, conservative, intimidated and hoodwinked to publish this material, regardless of how good it is.

I don't say this in despair, but just to remind people of the challenges. Not only work with big political implications, but also creative and innovative work in general, will often be given a very hard time in the peer review process. I once had an article rejected in a humanities journal by a peer reviewer who, I was able to show, was one hundred years out of date in her research (only in the humanities could this happen...).

In summary: congratulations to this team of researchers for getting the article published. Without being surprised, intimidated or slowed down, let's start storming all the other journals as well. The quality of our work must be very high and I think articles co-authored by several researchers stand a better chance than articles with single authors.


Thanks for these wise words.

Also, your Sanskrit (or perhaps HIndi?) moniker works well.

Now if we can confirm

that the ones who were reported dead in the AZF explosion have ties to nano-thermite, that surely would be a huge smoking gun.

I've never heard of this before. Is there any french truther around to provide and search further infos about that?

I found no further connections

the only one of SNPE who died in the explosion was a security agent named Jacques Zeyen


But to me it's highly suspicious, the time frame of the explosion, the alleged islamic connections, and with the strength of the explosion someone surely could get rif of incriminating evidence.

great work Snowcrash!

Looks like you have tapped into a vein of "very interesting" information.

"the explosion of the AZF factory at the chemical site of the Sociéteé Nationale de Poudre et d'Explosifs (SNPE) in Toulouse 21 September 2001"
This was soon after 911. They suspected it was a "terrorist attack". Could it have been a way to bury important evidence? I think it would be worth turning over a few more stones.

Later that day....

After reading the Wiki entry you posted, I see that AZF was a fertilizer company next to the explosives company. Apparently it was big explosion heard 50 kilometers away. It killed 29 and seriously injured 2500. The official inquiry concludes that it was a mix up with mislabeled chemicals which caused the explosion. As we know, the official story is not necessarily the true story.


Since I don't know much about the AZF incident, I decided to only mention it, and the strange context it fits in. It's speculation, but very interesting indeed. The mainstream dispute seems to be about wether it was a terrorist attack or an accident. Elsewhere on the web, I read that Jandoubi had been hired only five days before. That he wore multiple layers of clothes when he was found, which is linked to kamikaze terrorist rituals. His girlfriend said he only wore that many layers of clothes because he had a complex about being skinny. Then, I read he had had an altercation with some colleagues sporting an American flag in support of the victims of 9/11. Some sources say Jandoubi was fundamentalist, others say he wasn't interested in islam at all. French Intelligence reportedly had been interested in him even before the catastrophe. Many contradictions.

Also, that the SNPE had been conducting secret experiments on the site. Wether this is true or not, I do not know. There are some possible similarities to 9/11, in that an accidental explosion required some physical/chemical impossibilities to occur, which in turn makes the official explanation of that event hotly contested.

However, this time, the people who believe it was a islamic terrorist attack are labeled conspiracy theorists. Fate is not without a sense of irony, it seems.

The real statement?

She is the editor in chief, which usually means a person putting her reputation behind the publication - she did.
We should expect the editor in chief to know what she puts her reputation behind - she just might have.
She is obviously not just an expert on the subject, but apparently even very specifically an expert. Despite this being obvious she denies.
What if her real statement was "As an ultimate expert on the subject and as an editor in chief of a scientific publication, I endorse this important 911truth article".
And just maybe all along it was the plan to retract the statement afterwards, because she would be in an unsustainable position, but the real statement would still be out there for those with eyes and knowledge to see.
By not using her explicit expertise on the subject, she is effectively giving her implicit consent.

Pure speculation just to broaden the field.

Good point!

Now if I was really smart......what would I do?

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

great work, SnowCrash

keep on kickin this dirt out the rabbit hole


Already her quitting is being used by "deniers"

In the comment section of the alternative media site, Alternet, I made references to this study, and already Pileni's quitting has been used to discredit the paper by "deniers". In this case, the deniers are almost certainly trolls who spend enormous amounts of time looking for any references to 9/11 truth in the comment section and insult and refute anything written in support of a new investigation of 9/11.
This particular commenter, "GuitarBill", wrote that Pileni quit because the paper was not reviewed and very poor in quality.
Thanks to 911blogger I was able to present another view.
To check it out, go to http://www.alternet.org/rights/139439/prosecute_this:_torture_was_used_t...

Indeed, it would be good to find out who gives the "warnings"

All this stuff is disturbing and, in serious sense, eerie. Pure speculative mode here, but this makes me wonder how many scientists (among others) the Powers That Be have "reached." I wonder how many people have received threats/bribes in a manner similar to those received by Professor Jones?

Of course, often the "reaching" may be less direct and more subtle, in a trickle-down sort of way. But even as we sit here, how many people have already been "preemptively" warned or admonished by the PTB? Indeed, as has been commented on already, it would be nice to find out who some of the people are who have given the warnings and admonishments and bribes. It doesn't seem like it would take a lot of whistle-blowers here to accomplish something. I'm assuming that in many cases, the exact person(s) issuing such warnings might not be known to the recipient. Also, some of the recipients have valid, self-preserving (in the good sense) reasons for keeping the senders anonymous at present.

But if there is a way to get some people to "leak" the names of those who issued warnings to them, that could prove a powerful tool.

"I wonder how many people have received threats"

Well, Satyakaama, take this example from Naomi Wolf:

"Almost everyone I work with on projects related to this campaign for liberty has been experiencing computer harassment: emails are stripped, messages disappear. That's not all: people's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand. When I show the postman, he says "That's impossible." Horrifyingly to me is the impact on my family. My childrens' report cards are returned again and again though perfectly addressed; their invitations are turned back; and my daughters many letters from camp? Vanished. All of them. Not one arrived. Try explaining that to a smart thirteen year old. Try explaining it in a way that still makes her feel secure and comfortable."