Full article here.
This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.
[...]
But lets start our analysis of this "paper."
Shall we begin?
In the abstract they already start showing their Woo.
This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Did you notice that? The abstract is making a unsubstantiated claim. Here I'll highlite it. That isn't what an real abstract is for in any journal article. Not unsubstantiated claims that have nothing to do with the paper you are writing.
Lets continue.
First paragraph of the "paper"
Until 2009, doubts about the official 9/11 story were briefly entertained by the mainstream media on each anniversary of the event, allowing the independent research community only a fleeting moment once a year to publicly voice its findings.
Where is a single citation? Not one. Go figure. Making a claim w/out any citaitons. Tsk tsk tsk.
And it doesn't get any better. Massive claims follow in the next two sentences, but no citations are made. wow. I could tear apart each starting sentence in this "introduction" for failing to provide citations to support the claims... but that is too easy.
The introduction is all over the place, but we steadily get into the WOO.
Nano thermite rears its ugly head.
A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust.
so we have a lie that it is peer reviewed, a lie that it is an "explosive" and a lie that it was found "throughout" the wtc Dust. Wowsers. Massive claims from ignorance not supported (even by the paper they claim).
They then show how unorganized they are because they segue from nanothermite into 18 case studies... wow. I mean with this APA format and the "unreacted thermite" it should be a slam dunk for some peer reviewed journal to snatch them up. They should wait by the telephone. That call will be coming soon.
I won't even delve into all of the issues with her "case studies." This is a craptacular piece O fail.
But then again looking at who the author is
Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian
yet another truther talking about stuff outside of her education or expertise. It really is a shame.
Red, you might actually want to take an experimental design course, or a research methods class... It would keep you from falling for this crapola.
Lets get into the meat and potatoes of it though.
