Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (3 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   89 comments

Sci Tech

911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

By John R Moffett  Posted by John Moffett (about the submitter)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

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

opednews.com Headlined to H3 6/16/09

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.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Are Dogs Carnivores?

Was it Nanotech-Thermite or Phasers that took down the WTC?

President Obama's Complete Dismissal of the Progressive Agenda

Is Your Computer Ready for the Confiker Virus on April 1st?

The Real Swine Flu Conspiracy

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  
28 people are discussing this page, with 89 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
There are only millions (yes, millions) of individ... by Josh Mitteldorf on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:58:38 PM
The publisher has been questionable (at best) sinc... by Tom Murphy on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:03:35 PM
 -> Just because a fraudulent article was ... by Josh Mitteldorf on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:07:26 PM
"Just because a fraudulent article was publis... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:11:47 PM
Nano-thermite is not the same as thermite or therm... by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:37:11 AM
"Nano-thermite is not the same as thermite or... by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:14:30 PM
Glad to see you finally understand that nano-therm... by Michael Fullerton on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:56:35 AM
"That's from the other link I previously ... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:49:42 AM
Good grief. That report is from Lawrence Livermore... by Michael Fullerton on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:33:04 PM
"The fact that this is not good enough for yo... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:17:16 PM
What were the unexploded nano-thermite chips doing... by jesse robinson on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:07:34 PM
In response to an article I wrote about the thermi... by John S. Hatch on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:40:41 PM
In science, you can't prove the non-existance of s... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:24:05 AM
I'm reminded of the Michealson-Morley interferomet... by Hal on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:14:20 AM
The scientific method can be used to say no eviden... by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:42:46 AM
Those who submitted fake data are either committin... by Rolf Lindgren on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:23:13 PM
Following your premise that those who submit fake ... by Dennis Kaiser on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58:51 AM
I am in agreement that Bush and Cheney are crimina... by Rolf Lindgren on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:59:59 PM
 OpEdNews.com Sr. Editor Dr. Moffett has agai... by Better World Order on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:35:24 PM
Do you know anything about scientific publishing? ... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:16:57 AM
John, We are waiting for your PhD caliber work ... by Hal on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:32:31 PM
Do you have any evidence that the people who revie... by Rolf Lindgren on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:04:20 PM
I merely pointed out that the Bentham Group does n... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:46:50 AM
4th reply; my first got posted much further down b... by Better World Order on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:53:38 PM
And if Congress does not have a panel of independe... by Nemo on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:05:29 AM
The ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy,... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:17:47 AM
Isn't that an ad hominem attack? How is pointing ... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:13:46 AM
However. I have now seen your article, which was ... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:37:51 PM
Dr. Moffitt writes: "The subgroup of 911 Trut... by MikeZimmer on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:37:32 AM
is not an explosive. It just burns at a high tempe... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:25:17 AM
It is common knowledge with Universities that nano... by Tom T on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:21:26 AM
hydrocut.com is certainly not a credible source. C... by Rob Kall on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:28:07 AM
By your way of thinking: If Einstein published ... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:22:18 PM
not very persuasive. I don't think a jury would bu... by Rob Kall on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:08:38 AM
Instead of an ad hominem attack, you are making it... by David Mills on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:13:20 AM
The only thing Science has left is the authority o... by Richard Volaar on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:00:26 AM
"The only other option is to... cut their fri... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:23:35 PM
not very persuasive. I don't think a jury would bu... by Rob Kall on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:07:44 AM
The only sloppy, weak, bad, and misleading stateme... by Michael Fullerton on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:19:35 AM
There seems to be some dispute about the explo... by MikeZimmer on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:32:04 PM
The vanity nature of The Open Chemical Physics Jou... by Perry Logan on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:58:56 AM
I can see where OEN is heading and it's not pr... by John Bursill on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:22:42 AM
yellow journalism. I wrote a piece on how Bentham ... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:19:46 AM
Nobody would care one iota about the Bentham Journ... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:44:04 AM
I have tapes. I have proof. As for your claim t... by J. Edward Tremlett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:01:04 AM
I'd be interested in seeing those tapes. I he... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:18:09 PM
Dr. Moffett attacks the widely circulated claims t... by Rob Kall on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:08:55 AM
no text... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:29:54 PM
Moffett has provided no evidence whatsoever to sup... by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:19:15 PM
Based on your insulting comments to me, you obviou... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:02:18 AM
"The Open Chemical Physics Journal" is o... by Tom T on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:43:10 AM
Did you check any of the links in my article? Is ... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:03:29 AM
Ha! I can not help but to laugh! There are proba... by Tom T on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:05:00 AM
"There are probably more than 10,000 scientists an... by J. Edward Tremlett on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:47:48 AM
Umm why would a paper on nano-thermite appear in a... by Michael Fullerton on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:12:29 AM
"Don’t get me wrong. I don’t beli... by Nick van Nes on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:30:45 AM
You say that it is obvious what happened to the bu... by John R Moffett on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:09:01 AM
Most of the evidence was destroyed. It is hard to... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:41:26 PM
No need of an investigation? Well, I for one woul... by Kelly Mitchell on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:06:21 PM
successful criminal or civil prosecutions at this ... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:14:26 PM
We need to see who set the explosives. Those invo... by Rolf Lindgren on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:00:15 PM
Are you kidding me? All three buildings fell dow... by Bob Gormley on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:42:40 AM
I understand your article and happen to agree with... by Nick van Nes on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:40:01 AM
One cannot know the motivation of an author, but I... by Bill Willers on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:50:31 PM
'peer' reviewed article completely misses ... by Paul Magill Smith on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:10:25 PM
The problem is that corporate money controls the f... by Richard Volaar on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:21:21 PM
Since hundreds of tons of evidence was destroyed b... by David Mills on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:08:46 PM
Please, oh please, review the scientific method. ... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:53:16 PM
The Scientific Method cannot, nor could it, requir... by Richard Volaar on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:09:26 AM
"There is no way to know anything for certain... by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:37:59 PM
That dozens of cameras filming a generally accepte... by Richard Volaar on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:40:31 AM
"So What's Your Point?... That the senses... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:44:25 PM
John, As a scientist, you might readily adm... by Hal on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:57:07 PM
I came across this thread during a day in which I ... by richard on Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:55:46 PM
and it appears access to my diaries and artic... by Better World Order on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:19:13 AM
anyway, I'll be back around the same time tomorrow... by Better World Order on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:22:20 AM
Because I had fits every time I tried to... non-Ma... by bucketslogg on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:10:50 AM
to my responses to the points he addressed to me, ... by Better World Order on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:34:38 PM
Still no reply from John. While waiting for an... by Better World Order on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:17:28 AM
I suspect the real purpose of this article has bee... by Richard Volaar on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:29:36 AM
Editors of this "Vanity" OP-ED journal turned down... by Hal on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:02:47 AM
"I suspect the real purpose of this article has be... by J. Edward Tremlett on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:09:57 PM
While there is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing above, ... by Andrew Johnson on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:47:27 PM
A non-Scientist  might consider the WTC colla... by boomerang on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:57:13 PM
"This is a mind-control project...not a scien... by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:45:33 PM
Knew you'd be along soon. I have some points for ... by boomerang on Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:29:52 PM
Another point TM -- you didn't address with "scien... by boomerang on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:53:58 AM
"...[Y]ou didn't address with 'scienc... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:59:47 AM
You're missing what I meant. I've read many of yo... by boomerang on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:19:34 AM