Niels Harrit on the resignation of Prof. Pileni...

"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?”"
...
"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.

Niels Harrit"
original :hi:

Hint: It was out of disgust with Bentham.

"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."

Why did she lie?

This is just more "truther" dishonesty.





It's hard to figure out whose spin is more hysterical, Bill, yours or Harrit's.

she doesn't refute the paper! :eyes:

world class scholarship she would have still resigned?

just exploring possibilities. It seems to me that if she thought the science was in error, she'd say so but she doesn't does she. She says the topic doesn't belong is her motivation to quit.

If she came out and said, Gee whiz I had no clue this organization was nothing more than a pay to publish business venture that has no problem being associated with 9/11 foolishness as long as the paper came in the mail with $800.00, she would look pretty stupid.

"So you're saying I have a CHANCE!"

because Pileni didn't criticize their work means she couldn't. I hope it is obvious why this is not necessarily true.

She resigned to avoid having to deal with the extremely controversial subject of 9/11.
In other words, she resigned for political reasons.


---------

'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.'

'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.'

than the truth". This is, of course, more "truther" bullshit. Do you have any proof of this claim whatsoever?

...let's say that you were a scientist working at the EPA under the Bush administration. if you dared to publicly criticize Bush's environmental policies, do you think you would have your job for very long? Or if you're a scientist working at NIST under the Obama administration. Do you think you would be working there very long if you were to publicly criticize the official version of 9/11, of which Obama supports? The answer is, of course not. Because most scientists depend on the government or the military for their livelihoods. If they work for a university, they depend on government grants.

Sorry but there ain't no such thing as free speech when you workin' for the man.
You seem to underestimate the influence of politics in science. Because it does play a huge role.

If you can't back it up because it's merely your opinion as opposed to established fact, then disclose the fact that it's your opinion rather than try to snow everyone.

Do you see the irony of your chronic imprecision and bullshit in something that calls itself a ''truth movement''?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

wouldn't it be easier to just admit rather than thrashing about so?

...that scientists have gone along with the liberal anti-industrial hoax because their livelihoods depend on it? Oh, wait.

In real life, EPA researchers generally didn't lose their jobs for crossing the Bush administration -- they just had their work disregarded. It was a pretty open secret. (For instance.) If something similar happened with 9/11, it's a small miracle that it hasn't been widely reported. As for government grants... well, see above. The Bush administration might have wanted to choke off grants to all professors who don't support its views, but that wouldn't be nearly as easy as you imagine.

55% of scientists state they are Democrats and 52% state they are liberals, I think it's pretty clear your "statement" (unless you have some hard data to back it up) is obviously just more of your bullshit conjecture, dude.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

what relevance does their political affiliation have to do with it?

that taken with the fact that most of them are Democrats doesn't quite comport with your claim that they would just go along with whatever the Bush administration wanted. I feel your pain, especially your inability to find any support for your bullshit conjecture.

the head of the EPA was a Bush lackey. They had no choice but to go along if they wanted to keep their jobs whether they liked it or not. They don't have any say in the matter.

Those scientists in the EPA were working for Bush, not the other way around.

Better yet, have you come up with any concrete proof for your goofy claim yet? You know, a study, a monograph, some investigative journalism...you know, something more substantive than your bullshit conjecture?

take a wild guess, genius.

but that may be just a rumor.

On a more serious note, maybe you should look up the definition of the word "anecdotal". If you trying to describe something you claim is happening en masse, citing the example of one guy isn't very impressive...genius.

P.S. I can tell you're getting a little flustered. Maybe you should hang this up for tonight and come back at it tomorrow when you're fresh.

take a wild guess, genius. that's right, politicians do.
it certainly isn't other scientists. scientists work for politicians,
not the other way around.

so if you don't think politics plays a major role in science, you are sadly mistaken.

so all scientists work for politicians? None work for, say, FOUNDATIONS? None work for, say, PRIVATE COMPANIES? None work for, say PUBLIC COMPANIES? None work for, say, NON-PROFITS?

Again, do you have proof of your goofy claim or is this just more of your bullshit conjecture? Please provide whatever proof you have...if you actually have proof.

P.S. As I suggested earlier, you might want to have a go at this tomorrow when you're fresh.

Do you know how to do fucking research? Do you need some hints? You might start with the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics).

The bad news is that, since I already know how to do research and since I offer proof of my claims rather than just demand people accept bullshit conjecture, I already started.

Are most geo-scientists "employed by politicians"? Umm, no:



http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm

I'm going to assume you're no better at math than you are anything else, so let me interpret for you. That means that 88% of geo-scientists DON'T "work for politicians". You're not looking too good here, RR.

I know! How about chemists? Nope, no help there.



http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm

Hey, what about physicists?




http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm

NOW, we're getting somewhere, except, we still have far to go to balance out the chemists and geo-scientists.

Hey, how about biologists?



http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm

Well, that set us back a little more.

See what I'm trying to do here, RR? I'm trying to help you quantify YOUR goofy claim. However, since it's not MY claim, I'm actually going to take my own advice and hit the sack. However, this SHOULD point you in the right direction.

Of course, the moral of the story here is, don't expect we'll take your word as proof of your goofy claims. If you're going to assert something as true, expect to back it up with concrete proof, otherwise, you just might want to keep your goofy claims to yourself. I'll try to help you where I can.

"Most of the rest worked in scientific research and testing laboratories, the pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing industry, or colleges and universities."

Hint: no. That's one of many categories. The bottom line is you made a goofy claim and you're trying to get off. the hook of proving it by making it sound like it's a commonsense thing. If your claim is so obviously true, then why can't you find concrete evidence of it.

Besides that, are you now claiming that scientific research and testing laboratories and the pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing industry somehow only do government-funded work?

Again, where is your proof of your goofy claim, dude?

rely on contracts from the state and federal governments, as well as the Pentagon and other governmental agencies, as a major source of their business? hmmm??

For example, there are thousands of scientists and engineers employed by private companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, McDonnell-Douglass, etc. Guess what? These companies and many others are all heavily dependent on government money and taxpayer dollars for their business. Duuhhh.

rather than flailing all about, RR. Where is your proof of your claim?

Do you have any evidence that academic scientists have to "go along" -- or that they do go along?

You don't seem very interested in the accuracy of your own claims.

Perhaps I should re-engage Harrit and see if I can get some comments out of him. Like what sort of hush-a-boom explosives they used at WTC. After all, he claims they used 100 tonnes of it...

I didn't get very far, but as I recall, he was asked how he thought thermite was used to bring down the towers, and his response was along these lines: 'The authors of the paper actually have diverging views about that question, and I don't think it's useful to speculate about it. The towers were demolished, there is no doubt about that.'

At that point my blood pressure spiked and I chose to turn off the interview. Someone can check the accuracy of my paraphrase -- I think it's quite close.

Herrit's JAQing off with the best of them.

your quote has zero credibility.

I'm not going to agree with someone simply for providing a link to the source, because it may be a bad one. that depends on the quality of the source, the context in which the alleged statement is made, etc.

Because to pout about no link and then pout about other things when a link is provided smacks of goalpost moving.

if what OTOH is saying can be verified, of course I would accept the point.

I was referring to the recent Russia Today interview (link). Here's my transcription -- could have some rough edges, as Harrit's accent is a bit difficult and his English a bit rough.

not only the question but also his response. the question asks what effect the thermite had on the collapse of the towers, not on how he thought the thermite was used. secondly, you left out the part where he was commenting on the scenario for demolition, or how the nanothermite was used or implemented. that scenario can only be speculated upon. he's a scientist, not a psychic or a demolition expert. he can't possibly know the manner in which the thermite was setup in the buildings to bring them down. as a scientist the only thing he can conclude after finding nanothermitic material in the dust samples is that it was used along with conventional explosives to bring them down.

It's true that I somewhat misremembered the question to more closely coincide with his response, although the distinction between 'its effect on the collapse' and 'how it was used to bring down' seems far, far short of "completely misinterpret."


Sorry, this is nonsense. If he has no clue how it was used, then how does he know that it was used at all?

does that make sense?

As far as I know, the purported evidence that the residue is nanothermite hasn't convinced any competent expert; I'm not sure what qualifies any of the coauthors of the paper as competent in forensic analysis. (As far as I know, we can't even be sure that the samples have any tie to the WTC -- but hey, let's not quibble.)

If Harrit isn't interested in causal inference, then he can take his "science" somewhere else. It's 2009.