Tag(s): ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Interesting 2   Valuable 2   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 6/16/09:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (89 comments)

911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Get Embed HTML Code
By John R Moffett  Posted by John Moffett (about the submitter)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (4 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

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.

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Editor

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
89 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

No such thing as a "9/11 Truth Movement" by Josh Mitteldorf on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:58:38 PM
Bentham is benthic - as in bottom dwelling by Tom Murphy on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:03:35 PM
Guilt by association by Josh Mitteldorf on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:07:26 PM
Not so fast... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:11:47 PM
Nano-thermite > thermite by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:37:11 AM
You exemplify Mr. Kall's call for scrutiny... by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:14:30 PM
Pot to the Kettle by Michael Fullerton on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:56:35 AM
Reserach don't regurgitate by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:49:42 AM
Conversations with a wall by Michael Fullerton on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:33:04 PM
Review all the available data - not just the "good" stuff by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:17:16 PM
What were they doing there? by jesse robinson on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:07:34 PM
Thermite and 9/11 by John S. Hatch on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:40:41 PM
John by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:24:05 AM
To Not the Be by Hal on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:14:20 AM
Science not fallacy by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:42:46 AM
Archie Debunkers Commit Scientific Fraud by Rolf Lindgren on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:23:13 PM
Does This Mean... by Dennis Kaiser on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58:51 AM
Bush and Cheney are Criminals by Rolf Lindgren on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:59:59 PM
Dr. Moffett Smears 'Active Thermitic' Paper by Association by Better World Order on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:35:24 PM
Erik by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:16:57 AM
Publish one yourself on the merits by Hal on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:32:31 PM
Evidence? by Rolf Lindgren on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:04:20 PM
Questions Erik by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:46:50 AM
Hello? by Better World Order on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:53:38 PM
Deceptive Cadence. by Nemo on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:05:29 AM
Dr. Moffet makes the equivalent of an ad hominem attack by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:17:47 AM
Scummy David? by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:13:46 AM
I was criticising your method and not you personnally. by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:37:51 PM
Dr. Moffit seems a little unclear on "Controlled Demolition" by MikeZimmer on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:37:32 AM
Thermite by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:25:17 AM
Nanocomposites can easily be designed to be explosive. by Tom T on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:21:26 AM
non credible sources by Rob Kall on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:28:07 AM
Not so fast by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:22:18 PM
hmm by Rob Kall on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:08:38 AM
No. What you are saying is another logical fallacy. by David Mills on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:13:20 AM
Rob Is Correct by Richard Volaar on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:00:26 AM
Drama queen by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:23:35 PM
hmm by Rob Kall on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:07:44 AM
Remove the beam from thine own eye first by Michael Fullerton on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:19:35 AM
References on the Explosive Nature of Nano-thermites by MikeZimmer on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:32:04 PM
JREF debunking forum by Perry Logan on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:58:56 AM
How about the science? by John Bursill on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:22:42 AM
Explain how my article on Bentham Journals is... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:19:46 AM
What you did was the equivalent of an ad hominem attack by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:44:04 AM
Galileo was into teenage robots by J. Edward Tremlett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:01:04 AM
Interesting... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:18:09 PM
Wrong and hypocritical Mr. Mills by Rob Kall on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:08:55 AM
See my response to your non credible souces post by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:29:54 PM
Physician heal thyself by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:19:15 PM
Clearly you don't know what ad hominem means by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:02:18 AM
Actually, Bentham is a very well respected publisher... by Tom T on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:43:10 AM
Tom by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:03:29 AM
Ha! Ha! Moffett, go tell that to the 10,000 + scientists... by Tom T on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:05:00 AM
sure by J. Edward Tremlett on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:47:48 AM
PubMed is BioMed not Chem by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:12:29 AM
Curious, John by Nick van Nes on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:30:45 AM
Hi Nick by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:09:01 AM
I do not share your optimism about a new investigation by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:41:26 PM
wtf? by Kelly Mitchell on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:06:21 PM
See my post below as to why there are not likey to be any by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:14:26 PM
We need to see who set the explosives by Rolf Lindgren on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:00:15 PM
"I don't see any evidence of controlled demolition" by Bob Gormley on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:42:40 AM
John, let's stop beating around the bush by Nick van Nes on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:40:01 AM
Moffett article by Bill Willers on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:50:31 PM
All this petty bickering over the validity of a supposedly by Paul Magill Smith on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:10:25 PM
Regardless, We All Have A Problem Here by Richard Volaar on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:21:21 PM
Destruction of Evidence by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:08:46 PM
A narrowed focus by using the "best" data by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:53:16 PM
Dishonest and Untrue by Richard Volaar on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:09:26 AM
The senses can easily be deceived by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:37:59 PM
So What's Your Point? by Richard Volaar on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:40:31 AM
You have been (and continue to be) fooled by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:44:25 PM
Families of murdered 9/11 victims want a new investigation by Hal on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:57:07 PM
Agreed. by richard on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:55:46 PM
My Diary was deleted by Better World Order on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:19:13 AM
thought i was replying to a Moffett comment by Better World Order on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:22:20 AM
you should try googling & trying -tiny url- by bucketslogg on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:10:50 AM
i see there's no response from John by Better World Order on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:34:38 PM
John, Are you OK? by Better World Order on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:17:28 AM
This Article Has Been Dishonest by Richard Volaar on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:29:36 AM
OEN List for Banning? by Hal on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:02:47 AM
oh noes! by J. Edward Tremlett on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:09:57 PM
Active Thermitic Evidence - can it be test in court please? by Andrew Johnson on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:47:27 PM
Will Your Erector Set Fall Into Its Own Footprint? by boomerang on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:57:13 PM
Well... of course. by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:45:33 PM
Hi Tom! Bye Tom! by boomerang on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:29:52 PM
See This. by boomerang on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:53:58 AM
There's that subjective sense again - "see" by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:59:47 AM
Fat Chance, Cowboy by boomerang on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:19:34 AM