Professor Marie-Paule Pileni has resigned as editor-in-chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal over the publication of the Niels Harrit et al paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, which she says she was unaware of. In an interview with videnskab.dk (Danish science news service) she said she believes the publication was “political”, although she did not provide any evidence of that, or find any fault with the science behind the paper. According to the Videnskab article, “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.” However, it has been uncovered by SnowCrash at 911Blogger.com that her background is in “chemical research”, “experimental nanosciences”, “physical chemistry”, “nanometrics” and “structure and reactivity of interfacial systems”. It’s strange that Pileni 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.”
SnowCrash also discovered Pileni has extensive 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?
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
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)