“9/11 Truth” Conspiracies Debunked, Part Three

One claim to supposedly prove the views of 9/11 Truthers is that remains of nanothermite were found in the soil around Ground Zero. They support this claim by stating that a scientific paper on the subject, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is an Open Access online journal published by Bentham Science Publishers. It claims to be a “peer-reviewed journal” whose aim is to “provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in chemical physics”.

It is interesting to note that the chief editor of this publication, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni,  resigned following the publication of the article by Danish chemist Niels Harrit.

Among her reasons was that the paper was published without notifying her and that it deals on a topic unrelated to chemical physics or physical chemistry. Stating,

“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.

One thing that lends credibility to any scientific paper is when either it or the journal in which it appears is cited in other scientific journals and Open Chemical Physics Journal is never cited in other scientific journals. A journal’s reputation partly hinges on how often it is cited in other journals of the same venue.

Even on their webpage, listing their Endorsements, only one of the quotes provided even mentions Bentham by name. The rest only give their individual endorsements to Open Access Journals.

Now, what people seem to be misunderstanding about scientific journals is that they appear to believe that is something appears in a scientific journal, then it is an official endorsement by the scientific community that the conclusions of the published article. Actually, it is not.

What an article actually does is it puts the conclusions of the researcher out there for other members of the scientific community to read and attempt to either verify or disprove the conclusions presented in the article. If other researchers can replicate the experiments and come to the same conclusions, then the viewpoint of the original author can be considered accepted by the scientific community. If other researcher cannot replicate the results, then the paper and its conclusions are marginalized and eventually ignored.

That’s it. Just because something appears in a scientific journal does not mean that it it accepted as completely factual by scientists. It simply means that the article got through that particular journals peer-review panel. The fact that Open Chemical Physics Journal is never cited by other publications in the same field, does not appear on any list of scientific journals for chemistry and its own editor resigned after the article was published does not bode well for this journal.

If you want a better explanation of the Scientific Method and the role of peer review journals, watch this video by potholer54.

Okay, a few questions I have about the article, a complete copy of which I cannot find beyond the synopsis and I quote from it, specifically the portion detailing how the tested samples were collected

One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

I’m no scientist, but this paper was published eight years after the 9/11 Attacks and its sample were collected over a period of a week by three different people. The samples were not collected by the authors of the paper, so there is not accountability for how the samples were collected and how they were stored between the time they were collected and when they were tested, which are topics that would come up in peer review.

There is no archive from the website itself for me to study and I’m not a chemist.

But, I think all the hoopla over this paper in the 9/11 Truth movement shows one reason why some real scientific journals oppose Open Source. People also oppose Wikipedia because it is Open Source where anyone can access it, so they doubt Wikipedia’s credibility.

So, let another group of chemists collect samples and test them. This is the replication phase of peer review. If another group of researchers can collect samples and achieve the same results, then we could have something to talk about.

This is one problem I have with the 9/11 Truth movement: it doesn’t matter if a real scientific journal details how the towers fell, showing documentation as how their conclusions were reached and it doesn’t matter if

    thousands

of engineers disagree with what the 9/11 Truth movement thinks. If just one group, consisting on a total of nine people tells them what they want to hear and those nine people write an article that appears in a self-proclaimed “scientific journal”, then they will go with the minority and discount what thousands of other experts say on the subject.

This shows the basic dishonesty of the 9/11 Truth movement. They only believe what they want to believe and will discount any opposing viewpoints. You could show them all the proof there is and they still won’t be convinced. You could build a time machine and take them back to the event itself and it wouldn’t change their minds.

I understand that there will always be people out there who won’t trust official explanations and sometimes that a healthy thing for a democracy. But, in the case of the 9/11 Truthers, it’s just sad and pathetic.

signature

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to ““9/11 Truth” Conspiracies Debunked, Part Three”

  1. Chemistry Hub Says:

    physical chemistry

    […] …was that the paper was published without notifying her and that it deals on a topic unrelated to chemical physics or physical chemistry. […]…

  2. Terry Conspiracy Says:

    “what they want to hear”

    No one wants to hear that members of their own government are responsible for covering up the truth about 9/11, any more than they want to hear that members of their own government are responsible for covering up the truth about the assassination of JFK.

    Unfortunately, the science based facts & logic tells me that both are true.

    The “Magic Bullet” of the Warren Commission has been replaced with the “Magic Airplanes” & “Magic Cell Phones” of 9/11/01, & the MSM can be seen to be complicit in both cover ups.

    The FACT is, that there really was just a 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon wall
    where a plane hit it at 500 mph. Where is the damage from the 120 ft. wingspan ? Where is the damage from the 42 ft. tail section ? Why didn’t the tar & gravel roof melt, if the fire was so hot the plane did ?

    Why doesn’t the MSM investigate these discrepancies as it should ?

    The FACT is that cell phones, all cell phones, have a guaranteed reception to an altitude of 2,000 ft. & reception becomes technologically impossible above 8,000 ft. So claims of multiple calls from 20,000 & 30,000+ ft. are just not scientifically credible, even if they are made by the Attorney General of the United States himself !

    The FBI evidence in the Musawi trial said that Barbara Olsen did not call the White House from that plane, why hasn’t the Ted Olsen story contradictions been challenged in court yet ?

    The FACT that three steel frame towers fell at near free fall speed, & the FACT that molten metal & Nano Thermate was found in the debris of all three towers, can not be ignored any longer. Even if it is the President himself that tells you to “pay no attention to outrageous conspiracy theories”.

    2+2 dose not equal 5 in my World, even if that is the official conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report to Congress & the MSM.

  3. SOAS Says:

    “So claims of multiple calls from 20,000 & 30,000+ ft”

    thats normal cruising height. Who called at that height?

    The official conclusion is the only explanation offered for that horrid days events.. “truthers” just keep saying they don’t believe things. They are similar to creationists. They show no alternative evidence .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: