EDP Sciences Releases A Statement On Publishing 9/11 Conspiracies @EDPSciences
I recently wrote in utter disgust that Europhysics News magazine would publish ‘controlled demolition’ 9/11 conspiracy theories to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the terror attacks. These unfounded claims are not uncommon of course, but you’d expect them to be beneath a reputable ‘scientific’ publication produced by EDP Sciences.
In an attempt to hold someone accountable for creating a semblance of credibility for debunked conspiracy theories, I reached out to EDP Sciences:
After initially getting the brush off, they then released the below statement:
I find this lacking. This is a self-described scientific publication. A publication whose editorial team decided it was a good idea to mark the anniversary of 9/11 by publishing 4 separate author’s claims of a ‘controlled demolition’ – completely unchallenged.
Four authors who have direct links to 9/11 ‘Truther’ movements. This was then spread far and wide as conclusive proof that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ and why wouldn’t it be? It’s in a scientific publication after all!
If, as EDP Sciences say, they are committed to ‘open discussion’, then why was the discussion on this completely closed to opposing arguments in the September issue? In fact, it now seems we must wait months for the counter argument to arrive in the next issue of EuroPhysics News. How is this objective and open in any meaningful sense?
This offer to publish a ‘counter article’ feels like a hastily made decision to save face in light of criticism. Surely the place for an article debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories would have been in this September issue, and not the next (November) edition. Again, keep in mind EuroPhysics News didn’t publish this article in September by coincidence – they purposely decided to mark the anniversary of 9/11 by propagating conspiracy theories. The editors reveal they are fully aware of what they are doing by openly referencing ‘the timing and importance of the issue’.
The damage is done. The original, unbalanced claims will exist as a standalone example for those wishing to validate these claims. Nothing less than a full statement from EDP Sciences rejecting (and apologising for) ‘controlled demolition’ claims is good enough here.
I’d also like to know, in the interest of ‘open discussion’ whether EDP Sciences would be keen to produce articles from professional ghost hunters, faith healers, creationists and psychic mediums?
If not, how has EuroPhysics News and EDP Sciences decided that those things are not worthy of feature treatment, yet 9/11 conspiracy theories are?
I eagerly await the counter article to this whole debacle, but one thing remains crystal clear: EDP Sciences, whether directly responsible or not, have bolstered a deeply unscientific (and disrespectful) narrative at great cost to their own credibility, reputation and the memory of nearly 3,000 people.