911 Truth and Nanothermite: I Tried...

This follows a previous post about the nanothermite paper of Harrit et al.: HERE. 

Following my critical expert review of the Harrit et al. paper, Niels Harrit agreed to respond and we had several email exchanges about the matter. These email exchanges included more than twenty prominent 911 Truth Movement proponents in cc (see posted exchanges).

The emails are quite instructive about how science operates, how some 911 truthers operate and about persistent uncertainties regarding the Harrit et al. paper.

Therefore, I have decided to make these email exchanges public: HERE-1, HERE-2, HERE-3, HERE-4. (fresh link to the email exchanges: https://archive.org/download/harritrancourt)

As you can see from the main exchange (HERE-1), I was trying to treat one point at a time in order to go down the list, in the order of Harrit's first response. 

The first point was: Is there conclusive measurement evidence for the presence of aluminum in the red layer? 

After several back and forth contributions, Harrit simply quit without providing any of the extra data that he had mentioned and without answering the crux of the aluminum question. He ended with "Enough. It ends here." 

See last email in the main exchange. Here, my point is not that there is no aluminum in the red layer. My point is that the Harrit paper does not provide conclusive evidence that there is aluminum in the red layer. More and better measurements (without the measurement design problems used by Harrit et al.) are needed yet it has been more than two years now since the original work was done and the needed measurements have not been reported, nor has any other research group confirmed the findings. 

To be fair, Harrit is not an expert in electron microprobe analysis (EMPA/EDX/SEM) and this was the first time that he was co-author on a paper that used this measurement method whereas I have taught the technique at the graduate level and used it in my research for over a decade and had my own electron microprobe analysis instrument in my lab until 2008 at the University of Ottawa. 

Then we were going to move on to all the other points (one at a time, see email exchange) but we never got past the first point. For example, I would have been happy to correct Harrit's Newtonian physics errors (see email exchange) if he agreed to publicly exchange about these points. Physicist David Griscom (who was a referee on the Harrit et al. paper) was even more vitriolic than Harrit (see exchanges, especially HERE-4). 

None of the other more than twenty prominent 911 Truth Movement proponents said a peep on the email exchange, not even just to appeal to reason and calm.

In my opinion, the Harrit et al. paper has no merit as it stands and the exchange I proposed was aimed at helping the authors either correct the paper or correct their conclusions. Harrit's behaviour, reinforced by Griscom, gives the impression of a cover up rather than a dedication to truth seeking.

I think a movement based on truth should call for logic and reason in evaluating the scientific claims, not appeal-to-authority arguments, verbal intimidation, and a refusal to intellectually engage.

 

POSSIBLY RELATED POSTS: Some big lies of science False science of a fundamental basis for progress

Editor in Chief resigned over the Harrit et al. nanothermite paper

[See latest (January 10, 2011) on Harrit et al. paper HERE.]

A Second Editor in Chief Resigned: "in no way do I agree with its conclusions"

by Denis G. Rancourt

I was asked by 911 Truth movement researcher and radio host Kevin Barrett to debate Niels Harrit about nanothermite in WTC dust. I agreed and a two-hour live debate was held on November 9th, HERE.

In preparation I read the 2009 paper of Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31). I found many scientific errors and concluded that the editorial and/or peer review had been done very poorly. I tried to address some of my concerns with Harrit during the radio interview. Those concerns which I had time to express were mostly confirmed rather than alleviated.

Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed" and Harrit himself as a scientific authority with relevant expertise. Anyone using "appeal to authority" arguments must expect that the authority in question can be questioned.

Even more boldly, some 911 Truthers, including Kevin Barrett, advance that since the Harrit paper has not formally been contested in any peer reviewed scientific article then its methods and conclusions must be valid. I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested. This relates more to the social careerism of science than anything else.

I accept that the 911 Truth movement is an important societal movement and for that reason I decided to help clean up some of this crap.

I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper HERE.

Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.

There are a lot of very bad peer reviewed articles out there but it is so unusual for an editor of a peer review scientific journal to allow tenuous and extreme claims and elaborate suggestions that do not follow from the data that I decide next to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal.

Here is what I sent the Editor in Chief on November 10th:

Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences

Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal

Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"

Dear Editor Frydman,

As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.

I have posted my report publicly on the web here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html

My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.

On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.

Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?

Please indicate when you will be able to respond.

Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada

This was the former editor's immediate response:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Subject: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt <>
Cc: The Open Chemical Physics Journal , Shehzad , Editorial

Dear Prof. Rancourt

What you describe is indeed very worrisome indeed. To be frank, however, I should clarify to you two points that will probably derive this discussion through alternative channels

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me

2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship...

I am hereby using the opportunity to copy the journal managers and publishers both of your concerns, as well as my renewed request that they officially and finally relieve me from any duties and/or relationship in connection to this journal

I hope this clarifies your concerns - at least in what they relate to my role in this sad story

Sincerely
Lucio Frydman

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Dr. Frydman,

Thank you for your email. Your resignation will be forwarded to the higher management for consideration.

Respectfully,
Maryam L. Shaikh
------------------------------------------
Ms. Maryam Legasto Shaikh
Asst. Manager Publication
The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Bentham OPEN
Email: maryamshaikh@benthamscience.org

SEE FORMER EDITOR'S RESPONSE TO THIS POST BELOW...

RELATED POSTS:
911 Movement Needs Clean Up and Focus on Activism
All posts labeled 911
Some big lies of science

Vlog series on anti-hierarchy activism

FORMER EDITOR'S REACTION TO THIS POST:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt

I appreciate the copying of the correspondence.
While i sympathize with your arguments, I have noticed with worry, however, that you have posted in an open web site my email response of yesterday to you and to the journal. While i stand behind what i wrote, i sent that email under the reasonable assumption that i was corresponding with you in privacy. A privacy that i see violated by your posting of my message in a blog without asking for my prior consent. Please remove it from your blog site -together with any comments you have associated with that message
Thanks in advance and please confirm these actions have been taken
LF
>
> Dear Prof. Frydman,
>
> Thank you for this prompt and informative reply.
> I have followed up with the Publisher and put you in cc.
>
> Denis Rancourt
>

My Reply:

Dear Prof. Frydman,

I wrote to you in your official capacity as a university scientist and as an editor on a matter that I explicitly stated was of "vital public and political interest".

Your response therefore is also of public interest.

I deny your request to remove your email message "together with any comments you have associated with that message".

I am also surprised by your request and I will make it public on the same blog post.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt