Support 911Blogger


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-4AD1-8BF7-F50BA5754FAC&link=ShowProfile

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

After the paper entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics 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 (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm). 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” (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).

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.

Reputation or the Truth

Most scientists, journalists and others in the public eye care more about their reputation than the truth. Obviously, if you have arrived at some place of prominence and respectability you don't want to do anything to upset the apple-cart. or rock-the-boat. If promoting 9/11 Truth does not help your career or reputation, why do it? As long as 9/11 is considered to be a crazy conspiracy theory, comparable to fake moon landings, Bigfoot etc, it will never gain traction among "sophisticated" people.

Sadly, only too true. This

Sadly, only too true.

This is why the scientific and engineering papers are so useful. They dispel the popular misconceptions, so that the reader has the opportunity to respond according to his/her own courage and concern.

I am well aware that facing the truth demands a lot of courage. It's horrifying. For me, the horror extends to what the future will bring, if the same high perps act again. So a mention of what inaction leaves to our children can motivate the unconcerned.

It's also worth remembering that non-professional folks, without professional reputations to guard, can be reached with scientific, but easily read, material. Jim Hoffman's summary http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html is a good example. This is available as a mailable A4 PDF with the external links and further reading suggestions added, plus many booklet PDFs for general distribution, from http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ac1039fd00817eecd2db6fb9a8902bda

Why do it? Because you have to--it's whats right.

Because it is the right thing to do. And thank God some experts have risked it all to come forward and do what is right & honorable. I understand the desire to not rock the boat and jeopardize your reputation but if asked and confronted with 911 Truth I can't see how you could walk away. This is an example of a difference in priorities. This also reminds us that some have the ability to shut off the moral code of conduct in their head. How unfortunate.
Thank God again for those experts that have risked it all, we cherish them emensly for their dedication.

We must endeavor to reach more people until all are crazy.

"As long as 9/11 is considered to be a crazy conspiracy theory, comparable to fake moon landings, Bigfoot etc, it will never gain traction among "sophisticated" people."

Niels Harrit

Niels Harrit has emerged as one of the 9/11 Truth Movements strongest proponents.

definitly

so nice to have him on our side!!!!!!!!

I'm curious

"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."

Is this really the case in France these days with professors? More than other countries? I'd always been under the impression that France was one of the countries which most strongly encouraged and promoted free thinking. Am I getting behind the times?

This applies

to the whole of Europe.

We don't have active civil rights movements comparable to those in the US.

Europeans are extremely willing to give up their freedom, and will beg for a police state in order to fight terrorism and crime. One notable exception used to be Germany, but after the power handover to Merkel, Germany has been on the slippery slope of tyranny constantly, forced through with the usual fear and mccarthyist spin.

In September it will be obliged in the Netherlands to hand over your fingerprints when you need a new passport. These fingerprints will then be stored in a centralized database, just like biometric information of your face.

All this centralized information will then of course be used by intelligence services to spy on and persecute activists, dissidents, whisteblowers, and others who resist this tyrannical totalitarian nightmare enveloping the globe.

I find this extremely upsetting.

Maybe I got too rosy an image of France...

...based on Michael Moore's portrayal of it in his healthcare movie "Sicko."

I was VERY alarmed at how the British government extradited the 7/7 Ripple Effect guy from Ireland, and it was very creepy to watch a BBC reporter hound him. As bad has some things have been the past decade in the US, I can't imagine a CBS reporter hounding Dylan Avery and saying, "What do you have to say to the victims' families, for distributing a film accusing innocent people in the government without a shred of evidence?"

No freedom of speech

I think, technically speaking, there is no freedom of speech guarantee in countries outside the US. I know that Canada does not have freedom of speech laws. Countries outside the US, might allow a great degree of latitude in what is permitted, however, you can still be fined or placed in jail for thought crimes. Witness the trials against Bridget Bardot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7434193.stm