Direct link to smear job- leave a comment: http://www.opednews.com/articles/911-NanoTech-Thermite-Publ-by-John-R-Moffett-090616-456.html

See this link for hyperlinks in my post:

Dr. Moffett Smears ‘Active Thermitic’ Paper by Association- Again
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13504

In another headlined article at OpEdNews.com, Sr. Editor Dr. Moffett has again smeared the peer-reviewed paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org. A different Bentham.org journal, The Open Information Science Journal, recently published a hoax paper, and 2 editors resigned: Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars. See Dr. Moffett’s previous smear job rebutted by Dr. Michael Green, here: Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters. See Dr. Moffett’s current smear job here: 911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

I find some areas of agreement with Dr. Moffet; for instance, he says: "The only way to find out what really happened [on 9/11] 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."

Dr. John R Moffett fires a salvo at the Dr. Niels Harrit paper on active thermitic material, using the fake paper that was recently published as his talking point. This was as we predicted yesterday.

We really need the heavy hitters to go over there and rebut his arguments. I won't try, since I don't consider my argumentation skills up to the task, but we need sane, well informed, articulate voices to go on the counter-attack. It helps a lot if they are credentialed experts in relevant fields.

Here is my list of points from yesterday that might be used to craft a response. There are other great point on the thread:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20378#comment-210019

What will happen over and over now, I suspect, is the following:

- A hit piece will be published
- A letter or comment using the Niels Harrit et al paper will be published
- Another comment using this information on Bentham will be posted to discredit the nanothermite research.

We really need to have a very clear, concise, convincing rebuttal ready to post for this situation.
We need someone with a deep understanding of the situation to prepare the talking points regarding: